|

Can We Trust the Future?

NO RATINGS
View comments: newest first | oldest first | threaded
Page 1 of 4   Next >   Last >>
Susan Fourtané
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Don't blame machines for what humans do
Susan Fourtané   5/3/2013 4:50:41 AM
NO RATINGS

Thanks, Eric. 

"This is a human problem and the word Trust orginates more with human to human interaction than machine based."

Exactly. I especially liked your mentioning the word Trust in your article. I would also consider Trust in all what it refers to roboethics. When designing, building, programming a robot one has to be conscious of the trust and ethics that will be put in such creations. There is responsibility involved, and it always falls on the shoulders of the human, not on the machines'. 

"My argument centers around the ease at which machines enable bad human behavoir."

What would be the solution to this? Maybe machines with more individual characteristics instead of cloned? Something that would make machines more difficult to manipulate? It would be great. I only wonder if the ones on the design process would argue that the final product would become more expensive then. And again the ball falls on the side of responsibility. :/ What is the right thing to do? 

Bad human behavior will exist as long as time and humankind exist. Unless someone in the future would find an effective way of detecting and correcting the deffective behavior, and consequently humankind would finally advance in the evolutionary ladder.

"My goal is to get a discussion started with regards to this "design flaw" in current systems.  I want to see more dialogue with regards to Machine Level Trust, by addressing this design flaw to make it more difficult for bad actors to easily manipulate machines to do their ill."

How interesting. I agree, and appreaciate your initiative. I am interested in roboethics, and believe there is nothing bad in the Singularity when and if those bad actors you have mentioned were put out of the play. 

-Susan

Eric Sivertson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Don't blame machines for what humans do
Eric Sivertson   4/28/2013 2:46:51 PM
NO RATINGS

Susan,

I completely agree with your analysis, especially the "Machines should not be blamed for what humans do."  This is a human problem and the word Trust orginates more with human to human interaction than machine based. But, humans are now becoming more dependent on machines for critical functions.  

My argument centers around the ease at which machines enable bad human behavoir.  The way machines are designed today, whereby at a fundatmental hardware level they are all clones, enables humans to rapidly spread (e.g. "computer virus") ill if so inclined.  

My goal is to get a discussion started with regards to this "design flaw" in current systems.  I want to see more dialogue with regards to Machine Level Trust, by addressing this design flaw to make it more difficult for bad actors to easily manipulate machines to do their ill.

Thanks for your feedback.

Best,

Eric 

 

pocharle
User Rank
Supply Network Guru
Re: Don't blame machines for what humans do
pocharle   4/28/2013 10:46:01 AM
NO RATINGS

The old syaing goes "Garbage in, garbage out"

Susan Fourtané
User Rank
Blogger
Don't blame machines for what humans do
Susan Fourtané   4/27/2013 11:06:09 PM
NO RATINGS

Eric, 

"Given today's world of malware, viruses, trojans, botnets, cyberattacks, piracy, and counterfeiting, imagine a future where the devices can self-replicate and improve on all these maligned capabilities."

Malware, viruses, trojans, botnets, cyberattacks, piracy, and counterfeiting are all human inventions, not machines'.

Machines should not be blamed for what humans do.

Humans created machines and now it seems machines are treated like the worst enemy. What did it happen? Machines resulted to be more capable and intelligent than humans and humans' ego feels thretened? 

-Susan

Susan Fourtané
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Trust
Susan Fourtané   4/27/2013 10:45:32 PM
NO RATINGS

Mr.R, 

Let me put it this way: you can rely on machines knowing what to expect. You can't do the same with humans. In general, humans are too emotionally unstable, and that affects any logical process. 

-Susan

Mr. Roques
User Rank
Supply Network Guru
Re: Trust
Mr. Roques   4/27/2013 12:46:48 PM
NO RATINGS

Which is harder? Trusting a machine or a human? With machines you normally know what you are getting, and plan accordingly. With humans, the factors that could change their minds are far too many.

mfbertozzi
User Rank
Supply Network Guru
Re: Trust
mfbertozzi   4/26/2013 8:39:24 AM
NO RATINGS

@Jacob: maybe is exactly like your vision, there aren't parameters valid everywhere to set up and it depends from person to person.

syedzunair
User Rank
Supply Network Guru
Re: The Reality of today: Untrusted devices
syedzunair   4/26/2013 1:02:38 AM
NO RATINGS

I always like to say that security without trust is very ineffective.

That is absolutely true, Eric. With security there is an inherent belief that one should be able to trust the provider or the system. If you cannot trust the system you may never get the optimal level of security. It is not only true for machines but also for the general day to day affairs in life. 

syedzunair
User Rank
Supply Network Guru
Re: The Reality of today: Untrusted devices
syedzunair   4/26/2013 12:58:47 AM
NO RATINGS

Eric: 

Thanks for another informative post. 

The idea of PUF hardware-software binding that will enable software to be bound to a device that cannot be cloned appeals to me greatly. I remember watching a TV show called 'Person of Interest' where these 2 guys use force cloning to pair up with people they are tracking. They just get hooked onto another smartphone through WiFi or Bluetooth which ever is accesible at the time of pairing. Later, they are able to access everything the smartphone owner has on it or any calls made from that phone. 

Coming back to the serious discussion. I would say that it does pose a good use case for the future. The next generation security has to incorporate something on similar lines to provide the much needed prevention from threats. 

syedzunair
User Rank
Supply Network Guru
Re: The Reality of today: Untrusted devices
syedzunair   4/26/2013 12:52:14 AM
NO RATINGS

Hospice_Houngbo: 

I would go with your analysis on the intention of the vendors but will have to disagree with the later part where you say that it is difficult to achieve... 

Even if hardware level authentication is difficult it is possible. What Eric said earlier about PUF seems to be an effective solution. 

Page 1 of 4   Next >   Last >>


More Blogs from Eric Sivertson
Our societal evolution will rely heavily upon devices that will inevitably need to trust each other, just as we have done as humans.
Twitter Feed
EBN Online Twitter Feed
EBN Dialogue / LIVE CHAT
EBN Dialogue enables you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Open to the entire EBN community of electronics supply chain experts, these conversations see ideas shared, comments made, and questions asked and answered in real time. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats. Stay tuned and join in!
Archived Dialogues
Live Chat 01/15: CPOs Re-Shape Their Business Roles
Increasingly chief procurement officers (CPOs) are re-shaping their organizational role to focus on creating results far beyond cost controls. A new IBM survey explores how.
Live Chat 11/12: Examining the Cyberthreat to Supply Chains
The number of cyberattacks is on the rise and hackers are targeting the supply chain. Drew Smith, founder and CEO of InfoArmor, will be on hand to discuss the reality of today's threat landscape and what to do about it.