Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Security Firm Predicts "Murder By Internet-Connected Devices"

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the click-and-kill dept.

Crime 135

Curseyoukhan writes "Infosec vendor IID (Internet Identity) probably hopes that by the time 2014 rolls around no one will remember the prediction it just made. That is the year it says we will see the first murder via internet connected device. The ability to do this has been around for quite some time but the company won't say why it hasn't happened yet. Probably because that would have screwed up their fear marketing. CIO blogger challenges them to a $10K bet over their claim."

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So we are to believe (-1, Offtopic)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42459145)

that no one has used a car as a murder weapon in the past few years?

Re:So we are to believe (3, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42459165)

And how many drone strikes have been carried out over the past 10 years?

Re:So we are to believe (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#42459329)

And how many drone strikes have been carried out over the past 10 years?

The drones aren't connected to the internet, only military networks. Any peripheral traffic that happens to route anywhere out into the internet is on a secured VPN... and at that, it's only sensitive material, nothing that'll say, start world war three. The same cannot be said for, say, nuclear reactors and related industrial equipment (like centrifuges)... which apparently are. All that out of the way, who really cares what a couple of rich dudes do with their gambling money? But in the larger sense, yes, it will happen eventually as if there's one thing you can bet on long-term is that we'll find more creative ways to kill each other...

All this boils down to is one person betting on "sooner" and the other on "later".

Re:So we are to believe (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#42460761)

The same cannot be said for, say, nuclear reactors and related industrial equipment (like centrifuges)... which apparently are.

In which country? Iranian equipment was not internet connected, its enemies had to infect it via USB flash drives. Which countries have worse security at nuclear facilities than Iran?

The Columbine Coefficient (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#42461001)

We can be certain of one thing: The proliferation of this idea increases the probability of it's implementation an order of magnitude.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

Ranguvar (1924024) | about 2 years ago | (#42459613)

The point murder in a legal sense, something someone could be tried for murder over.
And yes, legal meaning whatever bullshit happens to be in law as what murder is.
IANAL, but drones are being treated as legal, at least for now.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

dynamo (6127) | about 2 years ago | (#42459653)

Just because it is "treated as legal" for now by the same government that is doing the strikes does not make it actually legal.
Someone should be tried for murder in many of these cases.

Re:So we are to believe (2)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#42459729)

I agree, in principle. However, it's reality that counts, and in reality, the murderers will get away with it because of who they are. Just like abusive cops will get away with their abuses. It sucks, but double-standards always do.

Re:So we are to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459207)

> With nearly every device, from healthcare to transportation, being controlled or communicated with in some way via the Internet, IID predicts that criminals will leverage this to carry out murders.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

khasim (1285) | about 2 years ago | (#42459357)

Even worse than that!!!

Examples include a pacemaker that can be tuned remotely, ...

Fear your pacemaker!!! People with heart problems will now have an increased risk of death!!!

Uh. Well you know what I mean. Fear!!!

... an Internet-connected car that can have its control systems altered, ...

Why would my car need a two-way comm channel on the Internet? I can possibly see reporting but accepting input? Why?

... or an IV drip that can be shut off with a click of a mouse.

See the comments about the pacemaker above.

So what they're really "predicting" is that some engineer at some medical supply company will get REALLY stupid and build in some back-door-thing that will open the company up to all kinds of lawsuits.

Yeah, I can see that happening. Eventually. Once. And when that company is sued out of existence then, hopefully, we'll all learn that not everything needs access to Facebook.

Re:So we are to believe (3, Insightful)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 2 years ago | (#42459433)

Why would my car need a two-way comm channel on the Internet? I can possibly see reporting but accepting input? Why?

For providing entertainment and map, weather and traffic updates. That shouldn't be able to spill into the controls, but you never know.

Re:So we are to believe (2)

deoxyribonucleose (993319) | about 2 years ago | (#42459553)

Why would my car need a two-way comm channel on the Internet? I can possibly see reporting but accepting input? Why?

For providing entertainment and map, weather and traffic updates. That shouldn't be able to spill into the controls, but you never know.

Not to mention enabling higher power profiles for the ECM's on a rental basis: selling such value added services directly to consumers has been something of a holy Grail for the car industry. If they could only lock out those pesky chip trimming shops.... The possibility for remote sabotage is one reason such services haven't taken off yet.

Re:So we are to believe (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42459611)

One major vector that would be ripe for abuse would be a combination of "self driving car", + "malicious GPS map update".

Eg, the self driving car would have sensors to determine it is on an actual road, of course. But that doesn't stop the car from autodriving off an unfinished bypass rampway, when its map software says the road is finished.

This wouldn't necessarily be able to target a specific vehicle without a pretty sophisticated man in the middle attack, (how you would do that is questionable in and of itself, perhaps if you put the middleman directly ON the car? Malicious android device, or a raspberry pi? But if you do that, why not just put a pipebomb like normal terrorists would?) But would work with a remote DNS injection attack against an entire vehicle product line, with disasterous effects all over. The attacker just needs to know when vehicles contact the map server, poison the DNS for the server, and then serve the malicious maps to updating vehicles when they connect.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459923)

malicious GPS map update

Wasn't there a news story about some people who got lost and starved to death because of the iPhone maps?

Re:So we are to believe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459957)

I would hope that self driving cars would be able to see if they are about to drive off an unfinished bypass whether or not the map says it is finished.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42461347)

I hear about this one GPS that failed to say wait for ferry and showed the road as going though

Re:So we are to believe (2)

aneroid (856995) | about 2 years ago | (#42459469)

Examples include a pacemaker that can be tuned remotely, ...

Fear your pacemaker!!! People with heart problems will now have an increased risk of death!!!

Uh. Well you know what I mean. Fear!!!

I think "death by wifi enabled pacemaker" is most likely. It was covered [wired.com] previously [edn.com] , so now it's just a matter of time and effort for someone actually do it. Well, it's also required that someone with a pacemaker is hated enough by someone else who has access to get the serial number, etc. and then go through with murdering him/her or find someone else with the skills and inclination. That reduces your population of potential perpetrators.

Is it possible this will happen? Yes.
In the next 24 months? Yes.
Will it be found or proved? Probably not.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

aneroid (856995) | about 2 years ago | (#42459489)

I think "death by wifi enabled pacemaker" is most likely.

s/death/murder

Re:So we are to believe (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42459791)

Covered here too [imdb.com]

Re:So we are to believe (3, Informative)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 2 years ago | (#42459595)

You should keep in mind that a lot of those are already possible. Lots of medical equipment runs on windows despite the EULA saying "don't use this for life-saving devices". A few years ago a few researchers demonstrated that it was possible to access a car with wifi, disable the brakes, and engage the accelerator.

The idiot engineers that design these things don't bother implementing 1-way data transfer (e.g. allow car to report engine statistics but don't allow reprogramming remotely), encryption, or any security measures at all. They rely entirely on obscurity to prevent these devices being used maliciously.

Until someone dies, it's not a problem. When someone does die, they have enough lawyers to prevent the family that just lost someone from suing them.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42459805)

EULA's are different for different licenses. How do you know the one for the medical equipment says that?

Re:So we are to believe (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 2 years ago | (#42460463)

When someone does die, they have enough lawyers to prevent the family that just lost someone from suing them.

They'll get sued, the lawyers are to ensure that the settlement will be inadequate, e.g., the company will remain in business.

Re:So we are to believe (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 2 years ago | (#42460201)

Even worse than that!!!

Examples include a pacemaker that can be tuned remotely, ...

Fear your pacemaker!!! People with heart problems will now have an increased risk of death!!!

I take it you haven't watched Homeland?

Re:So we are to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460955)

No, proof of concept is out there in the real world, MIT published it several years ago. You can bet it's been done by now. It's in the hackerspace now, already proven.
And i would bet, with the new near field communicatons, using bluetooth protocals, or such, you could call a target from the internet, and easily stop the medical device, or reprogram the device as the article says. Just as real bad guys would do. The doctors that wrote the article were not predicting, And were probably late to the party, but showed a concept that governments, may have been exploiting, Remember about 2000, when two way communicatins was blamed for car stalling on the freeway in LA, causing accidents. Remember how the last week or so you are now hearing of the "improvements" to new cars will include the ability of the car to send and recieve information, and for the car to react to it, and you do not believe in black hats? Or tinfoil?

Re:So we are to believe (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 2 years ago | (#42461291)

And when that company is sued out of existence then, hopefully, we'll all learn that not everything needs access to Facebook.

But what better way to monitor vial signs than through tweets?

Re:So we are to believe (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42460041)

Unless someone logged into their car remotely, and used it drive into someone with the intent to murder someone, I don't think that's what they're talking about. Or maybe you think that killing someone by smashing my smartphone into their head counts too.

My brother put me in hospital twice... (3, Funny)

rHBa (976986) | about 2 years ago | (#42460773)

...with the TV remote control, that's when we were 8-9 years old. I'm pretty sure he could kill me these days with some blunt piece of electronics

My prediction (1, Troll)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#42459153)

By 2014 this bullshit of connecting your toaster to the cloud will be a fad, and not many people will actually care to sign in to see how many farts they tweeted

Re:My prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459247)

By 2014 this bullshit of connecting your toaster to the cloud will be a fad, and not many people will actually care to sign in to see how many farts they tweeted

The former prediction, yes, most likely

The latter factoid? You sad, naive person, vastly underestimating the desire of some people to be recognized but not have much to say.

I thought 2014 (2)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42459377)

was for sure going to be the year of Desktop Linux. Instead it's going to be the year of internet murders? Don't tell me we have to wait until Enlightenment 0.18 is fully baked?

First post people!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459159)

I've got the first post!!! How do you feel about it?!?

Re:First post people!!! (3, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 years ago | (#42459181)

Like maybe 2013 might be the year of murder by internet-connected device.

Re:First post people!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459639)

At least, thankfully, it's not the year of the Linux Desktop.

It's been a few years since this was on QDB... (4, Funny)

tangent3 (449222) | about 2 years ago | (#42459187)

...but it looks like [SA]HatfulOfHollow has finally completed his killer device.... http://www.bash.org/?4281 [bash.org]

Not a problem (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#42459209)

Don't worry, my run-away killer AI drone will stop it in time.

I gotta say: (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#42459215)

Goatse certainly came close

Re:I gotta say: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459455)

Killing your innocence doesn't count.

Re:I gotta say: (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42459739)

Never mind 2 Girls 1 Cup worked :)

Not the first... just the first real one. (1)

NeoStrider69 (2777567) | about 2 years ago | (#42459225)

I could be wrong, but didn't someone already write a TV show episode where something like this did happen? I think it was NCIS.

Re:Not the first... just the first real one. (1)

Dins (2538550) | about 2 years ago | (#42460425)

Homeland

Re:Not the first... just the first real one. (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#42460469)

Oh my god, confusing Homeland with a shitty generic show like NCIS.
You don't deserve to own a TV.

Re:Not the first... just the first real one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42461003)

I don't see how you could watch that crap. FEAR, FEAR, Bigger Gun God FEAR

Gotta have balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459231)

To place bets on the predicting of the outcome of a future murder.

I've seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459241)

Their prediction sounds awfully familiar, I wonder if they might have been watching old Tom Selleck movies while drunk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_(1984_film) [wikipedia.org]

Re:I've seen this before (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#42459541)

The American detective series did something neat in "Columbo Goes to College" (1990) too.
A remote control gun in a car truck is used, while sitting in class listening a guest lecture.

Re:I've seen this before (2)

mangu (126918) | about 2 years ago | (#42459767)

Bad luck film producer. Plans to make the major science fiction film of the year, releases it in the same year as The Terminator.

Re:I've seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459795)

WTF? Tom Selleck, Gene Simmons, Kirstie Alley, in a Michael Crichton film. Why the fuck have I never seen this?

Re:I've seen this before (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about 2 years ago | (#42460147)

"Runaway" is a free video on Amazon Prime--for good reasons.

Viral Markerting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459251)

for Sword Art Online

I see a new patent in your future (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459275)

Device and apparatus to deliver internet inside a person's neck or skull.

Mode of application: (1) Take one internet connected smartphone or tablet (iPad mini works good) (2) Apply sharp end to target face or neck (3) Apply sufficient force at other end of device (4) Observe penetration of organic carbon-based bag of meat (5) Ensure said organic carbon-based bag of meat contents are being expunged near the area of contact with said internet connected apparatus (6) Borrow valuables indefinitely (also recover said internet connected apparatus, those things are expensive as heck) (7) ??? (8) Profit bitches!!!

That's too much work. (4, Funny)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42459511)

Hasn't Apple already murdered tons of people people in the Australian desert simply by sticking "Mildura" in the wrong spot? I'm sure of it. Either that or those Maps "victims" were awfully inconvenienced, probably missing their favorite reality TV shows, which is nearly as bad.

Re:That's too much work. (1, Funny)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#42460757)

Hasn't Apple already murdered tons of people people in the Australian desert simply by sticking "Mildura" in the wrong spot? I'm sure of it. Either that or those Maps "victims" were awfully inconvenienced, probably missing their favorite reality TV shows, which is nearly as bad.

In my village, two people were killed because they followed Google's instructions to get to the pub, which was in the middle of the cricket field. During a game. They annoyed the players so much they were clubbed to death. (The deaths are not true, the pub in the middle of the cricket field on Google maps is).

Re:That's too much work. (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42461331)

They will die eventually. So, someday, your story will be true: "They followed Google Maps ... and later (years, decades - who cares?) they died". Good enough for a news headline?

Already been a novel about this... (5, Interesting)

APL bigot (606126) | about 2 years ago | (#42459341)

Murder via internet (and a lot more), committed by someone who is dead. "Daemon" by Daniel Suarez. Interesting read. There is also a sequel, "Freedom".

Re:Already been a novel about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459371)

This. Beat me to it. Great novel.

Re:Already been a novel about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459701)

I suspect they've just watched the last series of Homeland and lightbulb went off in their head going 'kerching".

Hasn't it happened numerous times already? (4, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 years ago | (#42459347)

Most remotely-triggered bombs made by extremists of various kinds are triggered by cellphones - so true in fact that some countries shut down their cell networks preventively [www.geo.tv] . Cellphones use some kind of radio network and proprietary protocol for the last mile, but essentially, beyond that, telephony is entirely IP-based these days. You can even call a cellphone from a PC now with programs like Skype.

So I think essentially all recent bombing attacks can be called "murder by internet-connected devices".

Re:Hasn't it happened numerous times already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459835)

It's pretty obvious that the people making this prediction are talking about products which are not designed to kill people while the murderer has reasonable expectation of getting away with it, all because the internet gave said product functionality only the murderer thought of.

Take medical equipment used in the home, for instance. Sure, authorities would probably figure out what is happening pretty quickly, but at least a few people might still get away with it.

Re:Hasn't it happened numerous times already? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42459883)

Most remotely-triggered bombs made by extremists of various kinds are triggered by cellphones

A remotely-triggered bomb maker extremist had his head blown off . . . by a cellphone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_Ayyash [wikipedia.org]

With a wee bit of dramatic irony, as well . . .

No Internets were harmed in the process.

Re:Hasn't it happened numerous times already? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#42460643)

Nice story.... I love how the Isrealis don't bother with arrest and trial, they just stoop right to assasination.... its nice having a conflict where this is no moral authority on any side. Makes it easy to just sit back and enjoy it as they kill eachother.

But its true, no internet connection on phones in 1995.

Re:Hasn't it happened numerous times already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460583)

Telephony may be IP based in the backbones, but for the users, that is still the exception. It's still mostly POTS for landlines, and more or less the same protocols ISDN used over various air interfaces (with some additional overhead for roaming etc.). 4G cellphones would be IP based, but aren't for now, since nobody has picked a suitable standard - they switch to 3G for voice communication.

Re:Hasn't it happened numerous times already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460717)

It's not murder when coercive authority does it.

where the fuck did my internet hammer go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459415)

gosh darn
guess ill just have to type letters at ya

Already happened (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#42459465)

Depending on your definition of "via internet device" all someone has to do is beat someone to death with a cell phone, or a laptop, or even run them down with a reasonably modern car. There's a good chance this has already happened.

If the definition is that the act of murder is committed remotely via the internet (a more reasonable definition), then I'm sure some bright spark will arm a civilian drone and do their deed that way. Already been done by the military, obviously, but I don't think that falls under the formal definition of "murder" if it was done during wartime, FWIW to the victim.

Another possibility is an industrial targeted virus (eg stuxnet-like) causing equipment to blow up and causing death to anyone nearby.

Re:Already happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459927)

I think the definition is: "remotely, by breaking into a device that is not normally under the control of the murderer".

Re:Already happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459945)

Internet enabled toasters, death by toaster!

Internet enabled furnace, burned alive by evil hacker!

Internet enabled door, choked when he peeked in!

So many possibilities!

Re:Already happened (2)

Platinumrat (1166135) | about 2 years ago | (#42460039)

Someone just needs to slap a patent on this Murder "with a internet connected device" and wait for the royalties to come in.

It's been done already. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459543)

Alot of pacemakers have wireless with none or simple security... (why i have no fucking clue why we did that...)

100% undetectable too. Heart problems in a person with a pacemaker is not suspicious at all.

Re:It's been done already. (1)

anagama (611277) | about 2 years ago | (#42459977)

Chain mail body suit as farady cage?

Re:It's been done already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42461069)

How do you know if it's not the signal coming in that is keeping you alive?

Re:It's been done already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460855)

A brand new pacemaker that fails, however, IS suspicious.

10,000 Dollars? (0)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 2 years ago | (#42459607)

For a bet? on murder?
*blinks*
Sounds like a contract to me.

RTFA (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 2 years ago | (#42461045)

The author offered $1000 at 10:1 to the FUDsters that put this nonsense out in the first place.
Yeah, I had to look.

Technical definition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459623)

What about telepresence medicine? I can see remote-operated machinery adding a layer of legal misdirection to doctor-assisted suicide attempts.

By AI? (1)

nicknamesarefunny (1810810) | about 2 years ago | (#42459667)

Unlikely, but I think quite a few deaths (not murders) may be caused because of bugs in the code controlling these machines.

Nice bet (1)

famebait (450028) | about 2 years ago | (#42459671)

I'm sure they can't wait to put them selves in a position to very publically benefit financially from the first such murder...

No online murder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459731)

Who says no one ever did it? The only thing we can be reasonably sure about is no one was ever caught doing it... and lived to tell the story...

whahahahaha

Fools and the fools that fool them (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about 2 years ago | (#42459737)

Virtual nobody posts sensationalistic headline to grow mindshare, news at 11.

Re:Fools and the fools that fool them (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | about 2 years ago | (#42459891)

has been laments loss of mindshare, news at 12

Online Remote Operated Surgery (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42459753)

Given that more & more surgery is being done remotely over the internet surely Windows Automatic Update has already achieved this!

Could have already happened. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42459827)

There are already numerous reports of virus infections of hospital systems.

The only remaining question is whether or not an improper drug dispensing activity occurred at the same time time, with the same system.

Re:Could have already happened. (1)

famebait (450028) | about 2 years ago | (#42460377)

That would be manslaughter.

Quelle Suprise (2)

TractorBarry (788340) | about 2 years ago | (#42459871)

Firm with vested interest in selling you "stuff" is *very* concerned that "stuff" might happen. Buy now whilst stocks last !

Facebook (2)

darkfeline (1890882) | about 2 years ago | (#42459877)

I predict that someone will come up with the bright idea of hooking up some medical device to Facebook. It will seem like a "good idea at the time" to someone for some reason only god knows. One of the guy's friends will submit a score challenge for a Facebook game, and trip some godforsaken undocumented bug in the API, causing the device to malfunction. All of a sudden, it will become a lot more important to have a high score in <insert game here>.

Probably already happened (5, Interesting)

mseeger (40923) | about 2 years ago | (#42459949)

IID predicts for 2013 that criminals will leverage networked healthcare devices to carry out murders. My counter-theory is, that the first murder probably has already occurred; we and the police just didn't notice it. So 2013 may be the year the first murder via Internet device is proven.

During a BKA (German version of the FBI) conference, i made a remark that got me nationwide media attention in 2000: "In the Internet you'll find anything but murder." I wish i could say this with the same conviction today as i did back then (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/BKA-hat-Muehe-mit-der-Internet-Kriminalitaet-16354.html [heise.de] ).

I think those happy days Daniel Suarez [thedaemon.com] envisioned have already arrived.

You're all doomed! You'll be killed by your PC! (5, Insightful)

euyis (1521257) | about 2 years ago | (#42459961)

An "Infosec" vendor that no one knows and cares makes big prediction about how future hackers would kill you with compromised Internet devices. You need protection! We offer it! Remember our name so we stay relevant!

I would probably consider this news (that is in no way interesting and informative) if this prediction is made by Symantec, McAfee or Kaspersky. Put some obscure "IID" here and it just smells so slash-PR.

Sounds like something from the 90s (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460125)

In particular "Killer Net" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0127383/

Everything took longer though as they were all on dial up.

What kind of devices are they thinking off? (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | about 2 years ago | (#42460189)

Knives wielding USB gadgets?

http://achewood.com/index.php?date=01122007 [achewood.com]

Besides cartoon characters who on earth would be dense enough to.... ...
Oh GOD!...Thinkgeek will destroy us all!

Re:What kind of devices are they thinking off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460889)

Oh GOD!...Thinkgeek will destroy us all!

Mod [thinkgeek.com] Parent [thinkgeek.com] Up [thinkgeek.com]

Doh! (2)

Zedrick (764028) | about 2 years ago | (#42460205)

I came up with this idea about 3 years ago, when working with network cameras. Should have patented something right away.

Too late. (1)

neoshroom (324937) | about 2 years ago | (#42460321)

Too late.

In 2012 Pakistan shut down their cell phone networks for a period of time [theworld.org] . The reason they did this was to prevent bombings, which often use a cell phone as their trigger.

Almost all cell phones now are connected to the internet, even the very cheap ones.

Thus, the year it says we will see the first murder via an internet connected device likely has already happened.

What they mean to say is the first murder via an internet connected device that uses the internet itself to commit the murder.

But really, some of those cell phones go off when sent a text. It really is barely different for them to go off when receiving an email and more modern phones like the iPhone's texts go over the internet anyway. Even though these people are using much cheaper models, it could easily have already happened.

There's no doubt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460481)

While most scenarios they described are technically silly, there is at least no doubt that our cars will be computer controlled and connected to the Internet (and each other) in the not-so-distant future.

So what.... (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#42460711)

In the USA, millions and millions of people have guns that could easily be used to murder anybody. In Western countries in general, almost everybody has kitchen knifes that could easily be used to murder someone. I have a spade and a pitchfork that could be used for murder. Why would I worry that about "Murder by Internet-Connected Devices"?

Re:So what.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42460829)

Why would I worry that about "Murder by Internet-Connected Devices"?

Because this could be the first step in an awesome cyberpunk world, where our firewalls fry the brains of script kiddies on a regular basis.

Re:So what.... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 years ago | (#42460835)

In the USA, millions and millions of people have guns that could easily be used to murder anybody. In Western countries in general, almost everybody has kitchen knifes that could easily be used to murder someone. I have a spade and a pitchfork that could be used for murder. Why would I worry that about "Murder by Internet-Connected Devices"?

You're naming a bunch of ways of physically attacking someone. That requires physical access.

With an Internet-enabled method this isn't required. All the locks on the door and guards in the world wont stop the perpetrator in this scenario unless you stop your Facebook addiction. Hey, you could murder them from outside the legal jurisdiction. Even from a country with internet access and no extradition agreements with the place where the murder took place. Assuming the authorities are able to figure out who the culprit is they've preemptively escaped.

I call meh (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#42460923)

Yes and? It hasn't happened because...well... there isn't a high demand for murder. Not many people want to engage in it (really, I mean, everyone says it when blowing off steam but, very few would actually do it, even if handed means and opportunity).

Planned murders like you see in movies are, by far, the exception. Not just the exception but the exceptional case of an already rare occurance. In a major city, 100-200 murders a year seems on the mid range to high side from a casual perusal of the numbers.... in populations of a million or more?

I don't doubt that it WILL happen, and I don't doubt that someone WILL get caught doing it. However, thats almost like rule 34.... of course its going to happen.... eventually. Someone is going to murder some people with a home built drone too.... ill put that prediction right out there too. It is going to happen, theres just too many people for it not to happen eventually.

However, its going to be a long time before its easier to kill someone with your internet connection than it is to grab a sharp object and shove it into their chest....or to accelerate lead slugs at them at high velocities... and it will continue to be easier to do these manually than with robots.... so I expect these to remain the extreme rare exception.

So....meh.

Mrs Apple, in the Man Cave with the iPad (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#42460941)

What are we talking about here? When my wife beats me to death with her iPad because I've been too busy playing Far Cry 3 for the past 2 weeks to take out the garbage or bathe?

It won't happen often (1)

lc_overlord (563906) | about 2 years ago | (#42461073)

Thankfully the group of people who commit premeditated murder and people with the geeky skills to kill over the Internet rarely overlap.
It's the same with terrorism, people who commit those acts aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the room, just imagine what a bunch of brilliant, well funded engineers could do.
Think invisible flying death bots.

O, we already got those, never mind then. :)

Old! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42461099)

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/computer_bomb.jpg

Damn you USB Turkey Carver! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42461361)

Now I know why you needed access through my firewall...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?