RAIN computer interface technology is developing fast, complementing artificial intelligence (AI) advances. But just because we can read data from others’ minds, should we?
Since the dawn of humanity, the only way for us to share our thoughts has been to take some kind of physical action: to speak, to move, to type out an ill-considered text, post or tweet online.
Brain computer interfaces (BCIs), while still in their infancy, could offer a new way to share our thoughts and feelings directly from our minds through (and maybe with) computers.
But before we go any further with this new generation of mind-reading technology, do we understand the impact it will have? And should we be worried? I certainly think so.
Depending on who you listen to, the ethical challenges of BCIs are unprecedented, or they’re just a repeat of the risks brought about by each previous generation of technology.
Because of the so-far limited use of BCIs in the real world, there’s little practical experience to actually base decisions on but some though must be given to this before we are swept up in its adoption, until there is no longer a choice because the decision’s been made for us by big tech!
It’s clear that some ethical challenges that affect earlier technologies will carry across to BCIs, with privacy being strikingly obvious.
We already know it’s annoying to have a user name and password hacked, and worrying when it’s your bank account details that are stolen.
But BCIs could mean that it’s your most private emotional responses and experiences that would be stolen and shared by hackers, with all the embarrassments and horrors that go with that.
Many emotional responses and even memories are hidden in subconscious – you may not be even aware of their existence!
BCIs offer access to the most personal of personal data: inevitably they’ll be targeted by hackers and would-be blackmailers; equally clearly, security systems will attempt to keep data from BCIs as locked down as possible. And we already know the defenders rarely win.
By the time BCIs reach the consumer world, something like privacy settings might be deployed around BCIs.
Do you even know your current privacy settings? I certainly have trouble keeping up with the changes made every few months.
Another big issue; like generations of new technology from the Internet to GPS, a lot of the funding behind BCI projects has come from the military.
As well as helping soldiers paralysed by injuries in battle artificially recover the abilities they’ve lost, it seems likely that military’s interest in BCIs will lead to the development of systems designed to augment humans’ capabilities. We’ll see development of cyborg super-soldiers with an AI core directing battles.
There are also concerns that military involvement in BCIs could lead to brain computer interfaces being used as interrogation devices, potentially being used to intrude on the thoughts of enemy combatants captured in battle.
If the use of BCIs in the military is controversial, the use of the technology in the civilian world is similarly problematic.
Is it fair for a BCI-equipped person with access to external computing power and memory to compete for a new job against a ‘standard-issue’ person? And given the steep cost of BCIs, will they just create a new way for the privileged few to beat down the 99 per cent?
These technologies are likely to throw up a whole new set of social justice issues around who gets access to devices that can allow them to learn faster or have better memories. You have a new set of problems in terms of haves and have-nots.
Historically, the bounds of a person were marked by their body; where does ‘me’ start with a brain that’s linked up to an AI, where do ‘I’ end when my thoughts are linked to vast swathes of processing power?
It’s not just a philosophical question; it’s a legal one too. In a world where our brains may be directly connected to an AI, what happens if I break the law, or just make a bad decision that leaves me in hospital or in debt?
There are already legal protections built up around how physical and intellectual property is handled when an employee works for and leaves a company. It’s common for the company to ask for its laptop or mobile phone back when you leave a job. But what if you had an implant in your brain that recorded data?
Privacy may be the most obvious ethical concern around BCIs, but it’s for good reason: we want our thoughts to remain private, not just for our own benefit, but for others’ as well! If we were all able to see each other’s thoughts, it could be really bad – I can see some interesting scenarios unfolding.
If BCIs are to spread, perhaps the most important part of using ‘mind-reading’ systems is to know when to leave others’ thoughts well alone.
The SolarWinds hack blamed Russian spies and the “grave threat” it posed to U.S. national security is widely known. A very different – and no less alarming – coordinated series of intrusions also detected in December 2020 has gotten considerably less public attention.
Nimble, highly skilled criminal hackers believed to operate out of Eastern Europe hacked dozens of companies and government agencies on at least four continents by breaking into a single product they all used.
The victims include New Zealand’s Reserve Bank, Australia’s Securities regulator, and other regional Fortune 500 companies.
The two-stage mega-hack in December 2020 and January 2021 of a popular file-transfer program from the Silicon Valley company Accellion, highlights a threat that security experts fear may be getting out of hand: intrusions by top-flight criminal and state-backed hackers into software supply chains and third-party services.
Operating system companies such as Microsoft have long been bull’s-eyes – with untold hundreds of thousands of installations of its Exchange email server being violated globally in the past few weeks, mostly after the company issued a patch and disclosed that Chinese state hackers had penetrated the program.
The Accellion casualties have kept piling up, meanwhile, with many being extorted by the Russian-speaking Clop cybercriminal gang, which threat researchers believe may have bought stolen data from the hackers. Their threat: Pay up or we leak your sensitive data online, be it proprietary documents from Canadian aircraft maker Bombardier or private communications from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand with clients.
The hack of up to 100 global Accellion customers, who were easily identified by the hackers with an online scan, puts in painful relief a digital age core mission at which both governments and the private sector have been falling short.
Cyber attackers are finding it harder to gain access via traditional methods, as vendors like Microsoft and Apple have hardened the security of the operating systems considerably over the last years. So, the attackers find easier ways in. This often means going around via the supply chain.
Just quietly, France suffered a similar hack recently, blamed by its cybersecurity agency on Russian military operatives that also gamed the supply chain.
They slipped malware into an update of network management software from a firm called Centreon, letting them quietly root around victim networks from 2017 to 2020!
The Accellion hack was different in one key area: Its file-transfer program resided on victims’ networks either as a stand-alone appliance or cloud-based app. Its job is to securely move around files too large to be attached to email.
Cybersecurity experts hope the snowballing of supply-chain hacks stuns the software industry into prioritising security. Otherwise, vendors risk the fate that has befallen SolarWinds.
As Isaac Asimov, renowned scientist and sci-fi author observed – “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom”.
You all have a blessed weekend, stay safe and well in both digital and physical worlds.
- Ilaitia B. Tuisawau is a private cybersecurity consultant. The views expressed in this article are his and not necessarily shared by this newspaper. Mr Tuisawau can be contacted on ilaitia@cyberbati.com
