Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday February 03 2018, @02:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the while-(will):live dept.

Karen Sandler of the Software Freedom Conservancy delivered a keynote presentation last week at linux.conf.au 2018 (LCA) in Sydney, Australia. Specifically she spoke about her multi-year odyssey to try to gain access to the source code for the pacemaker attached to her heart and upon which her life currently depends. Non-free software is having an increasingly (negative) impact on society as people entrust more of their lives to it. That software is found in an increasing number of places, both high and low, as all kinds of devices start to run fully networked microcomputers.

In her first LCA keynote 6 years ago, Karen first told the people of LCA about her heart condition and the defibrillator that she needed to have implanted. This year she described her continued quest to receive the source code for the software running in her defibrillator, and how far she has been able to get in obtaining the source code that she's been requesting for over a decade now.

Source : Karen Sandler Delivered Keynote at Linux.conf.au


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 03 2018, @10:06PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 03 2018, @10:06PM (#632688)

    You WANT that.
    Devices haven't been put-it-in-and-forget-it for ages.
    At my last device check, they found 11 irregular events recorded (none of any consequence[1]).
    Wireless also allows them to check the condition of the device (e.g. ability to react to demand; battery condition) and to tweak the device to changes in your physiology.

    [1] Probably just me reacting to one of our Libertarian's idiocy.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @04:27AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @04:27AM (#632789)

    Wireless is a good idea, but what's the security like?

    Those who rely on security through obscurity often use questionable security practices, stuff like attempting to roll their own crypto algorithms. I'm not talking implementation (which is a bad enough idea), I'm talking about algorithm. I've seen enough vendors who think they're hot shit and too good for algorithms like AES and RSA that have been publicly vetted and are widely used to make me queasy.

    That's why they don't want anybody to look at the source. They don't want anybody to know how negligent (and sometimes downright incompetent) they've been with security best practices.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @07:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @07:24PM (#632996)

      That's assuming they have any security at all.

      I work with some devices regulated as medical devices. The first generation of wireless has no actual security whatsoever. The only thing protecting the devices is that you have to know the propriety protocol to communicate with them. And you have to know the correct frequency to talk to them and a proper radio to do so. Basically security by obscurity. At least the need for the right kind of radio prevents a stock cell phone or laptop from talking to them, though radios are widely available if you know what you need.

      Second generation uses Bluetooth, which has some security built-in. Though on the downside Bluetooth is documented and well understood, so someone who wanted to try to attack them would know the protocol to talk to them and Bluetooth radios are everywhere. Security still isn't perfect, in the sense that the devices will pair and communicate with any device that tries to communicate with it withing a couple minutes of power-up, though (in theory) the devices should reject any communications from unpaired devices after that. On the other hand, first generation devices will talk to anything that knew how to speak to it at any time.

      By the way, the first generation devices are still considered current and are sold alongside the next generation. Though there's also non-wireless versions too.