Scientist 'Infected' With Computer Virus

[hah]

A British scientist has become the first human to be infected with a computer virus.


Dr Mark Gasson, a cybernetics expert at the University of Reading, has had a computer chip implanted in his hand.

The chip is programmed to open security doors to his lab - and ensure only he is able to switch on and use his mobile phone.

But Dr Gasson deliberately infected the chip with a computer virus, which was then automatically transmitted to affect to the lab security system.

"Once the system is infected, anybody accessing the building with their passcard would be infected too," he told Sky News.

The virus on his chip is benign. But malicious computer code could give criminals access to a building.
Dr Gasson says his experiment also exposes the vulnerability of chips now routinely implanted in patients.

Heart pacemakers contain mini-computers that control the heartbeat, and communicate with doctors via a special reader held against the skin.

But if a virus was transmitted to the device which stopped it working properly, the consequences for the patient could be fatal.

"The devices will have to start to use security encryption," said Dr Gasson.

"Medical devices should have some kind of password protection as well. They're basic security precautions. It's surprising these devices don't have them already."

Ok now ive heard it all i think lol

[Richie]

He'll need to download avg, maybe its a keylogger.


OT: hardly possible lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is very scary how far these things go and is just another extension of the disasterous ID card and database schemes that Labour imposed on the country - I will never ever ever wear one of these chips, nor will I give my fingerprints, DNA or anything else.

My body, my business.

[xxMATTGxx]

It is very scary how far these things go and is just another extension of the disasterous ID card and database schemes that Labour imposed on the country - I will never ever ever wear one of these chips, nor will I give my fingerprints, DNA or anything else.

My body, my business.

So I'm assuming you will never travel to the states then? I can't believe you mentioned Labour on this thread to be honest. I'm sure no one even said they wanted everyone to have this chip inside them. :P

----

It's interesting what we will see in the future if any of these things will have viruses. He mentioned about pacemakers and such but I think we will be safe for some years to come yet!

[-:Undertaker:-]

So I'm assuming you will never travel to the states then? I can't believe you mentioned Labour on this thread to be honest. I'm sure no one even said they wanted everyone to have this chip inside them. :P

----

It's interesting what we will see in the future if any of these things will have viruses. He mentioned about pacemakers and such but I think we will be safe for some years to come yet!

I guess not then - Labour and the government have a lot to do with these schemes and i'm suprised you think otherwise to be honest. Who'd have thought a few years ago that ID cards were going to be introduced. There is a line and microchips, ID cards and so forth cross that line.

I am not a criminal so therefore I dont expect to be treated like a criminal.
A case such as this goes way too far.

[Catzsy]

I saw this featured on Sky News the other day. It was weird seeing him press his arm and turn the lights and the tv on. He will go down in history. An interesting thread!

[danzooo]

This is absolutely bonkers. It really is.

[Wig44.]

I too well never let my personal information (including my DNA) be collected and stored on a chip. That gives the government too much control. If this means I can't visit the USA then I will never visit the USA - what a loss that is..

[hah]

whats everyone talking about going to the usa and giving dna lol....... dont understand

[xxMATTGxx]

whats everyone talking about going to the usa and giving dna lol....... dont understand

Undertaker first posted that he will not give his fingerprints to anyone. Meaning he will never travel to the USA then as normally when you land and go through security, you have to have your fingerprints taken.

Which to most people it isn't a big issue as we want to go to the country and have a great time or visit family or work etc etc.

[W00TZEH]

*** i cant find the article, but basicallly everyone in the science world is laughing at him and his cheap publicity stunt.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Undertaker first posted that he will not give his fingerprints to anyone. Meaning he will never travel to the USA then as normally when you land and go through security, you have to have your fingerprints taken.

Which to most people it isn't a big issue as we want to go to the country and have a great time or visit family or work etc etc.

I place my civil liberties above that of a holiday - they are not worth sacrificing to the state, ever.

[Recursion]

I place my civil liberties above that of a holiday - they are not worth sacrificing to the state, ever.

Im with this guy.

The UK government already want whatever information they can get off me, I'm not gunna let another country too.

[xxMATTGxx]

I don't see the big issue of a country to take my fingerprints. Even the US themeparks had it so I could access them though the gates. Obviously it was some other country, I probably wouldn't of liked it. But you can't really say "no" to them once you have landed. If someone could point out why you don't like it, then I may agree. But at the moment I really don't think its an issue.

[wiktoria]

Seen it on BBC news. That's just weird

[Wig44.]

Undertaker first posted that he will not give his fingerprints to anyone. Meaning he will never travel to the USA then as normally when you land and go through security, you have to have your fingerprints taken.

Which to most people it isn't a big issue as we want to go to the country and have a great time or visit family or work etc etc.

I'm not talking about fingerprints alone, I mean I would never allow them to have all of personal information on a chip including DNA, fingerprints, all financial assets etc. If you were to 'step out of line' what if such a chip could be turned off (as has been suggested) meaning you lose your identity?

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm not talking about fingerprints alone, I mean I would never allow them to have all of personal information on a chip including DNA, fingerprints, all financial assets etc. If you were to 'step out of line' what if such a chip could be turned off (as has been suggested) meaning you lose your identity?

I don't agree that we should be made to have chips put inside us with all of our information. I just find it odd that people won't give their fingerprints when needed. Such places like the USA. :P

[triston220]

It is very scary how far these things go and is just another extension of the disasterous ID card and database schemes that Labour imposed on the country - I will never ever ever wear one of these chips, nor will I give my fingerprints, DNA or anything else.

My body, my business.


You won't have a choice if you're arrested. :P

[hah]

What if your mum and dad said you're going to america with them for a hoilday with them...? what would you do then?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't agree that we should be made to have chips put inside us with all of our information. I just find it odd that people won't give their fingerprints when needed. Such places like the USA. :P

The United States or any other country for that matter does not need my fingerprints - I am not a criminal or a threat.


You won't have a choice if you're arrested. :P

Then they'd have to take it via force although arresting is different, I support a criminal database but not one for innocent people.


What if your mum and dad said you're going to america with them for a hoilday with them...? what would you do then?

Not go.

[ecstasy]

The United States or any other country for that matter does not need my fingerprints - I am not a criminal or a threat.

They dont know that :rolleyes:

[Sharon]

Woah thats weird - how strange

[-:Undertaker:-]

They dont know that :rolleyes:

Well i'm sorry but the idea of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld - isnt that what the western and free world is supposed to believe in?

It is well documented that the Bush administration and the Blair government used 9/11 to introduce legislation such as the US Patriot Bill designed to protect us, but in reality they do not protect us from anything much because the threat remains small/insignifigant as ever. The idea that you sacrifice liberty for protection is totally wrong - we (60 million odd people) have more cameras than Communist China (1.2 billion people) and I think that speaks great volumes about how our civil liberties are being eroded and trampled on. ID cards, chips, databases - all erode your freedoms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Black_Apalachi]

I.D. cards today, microchips tomorrow. Imagine the day when we're all chipped just like our pets...

[HotelUser]

Well i'm sorry but the idea of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld - isnt that what the western and free world is supposed to believe in?

It is well documented that the Bush administration and the Blair government used 9/11 to introduce legislation such as the US Patriot Bill designed to protect us, but in reality they do not protect us from anything much because the threat remains small/insignifigant as ever. The idea that you sacrifice liberty for protection is totally wrong - we (60 million odd people) have more cameras than Communist China (1.2 billion people) and I think that speaks great volumes about how our civil liberties are being eroded and trampled on. ID cards, chips, databases - all erode your freedoms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

For the disadvantage put upon you to get your fingerprint taken compared to that of the advantage gained from being able to use it to help solve a crime, I see no quarrels to be had with taking something as harmless as a fingerprint.

Innocent until proven guilty is true, in the right context. Certainly not in the context by which you've implied. Based on what you've said, should Americans also let absolutely everyone into their country, entrusting that absolutely every stranger shall abide by the law, and should only be suspected of murder or theft after committing such a crime? Certainly not. We inspect and verify every person and every bag on every plane flying just about everywhere. It's not because we're accusing anyone of being a terrorist. It's because it's within our best judgement not to take the chance.

Your body your business. Their country, their well being, their lives, is their business.

[Josh]

Lol. Pretty stupid but also smart.

If they know it is possible, they will be able to stop it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I.D. cards today, microchips tomorrow. Imagine the day when we're all chipped just like our pets...

Well exactly, the reasons used now are the same reasons that Stalin and Hitler would have used provided the technology was there. They would not have said 'hey guys lets take all your fingerprints/chip you to put more control of the state over you' they would have said exactly the same garbage that people spout regarding this issue now which usually takes the line of 'security, keeping you safe, stopping crime'. The same line goes for Guantamino Bay - we lowered ourselves to their level to achieve 'security' - but is it [sacrificing our ideas/morals] worth it?

For example if ID cards were found to have flaws in/somebody slipped through the system in the future, I could bet you the world that they'd start using the same argument of security/safety to argue the case of microchipping everybody from birth. It is sickening in my mind.


For the disadvantage put upon you to get your fingerprint taken compared to that of the advantage gained from being able to use it to help solve a crime, I see no quarrels to be had with taking something as harmless as a fingerprint.

Innocent until proven guilty is true, in the right context. Certainly not in the context by which you've implied. Based on what you've said, should Americans also let absolutely everyone into their country, entrusting that absolutely every stranger shall abide by the law, and should only be suspected of murder or theft after committing such a crime? Certainly not. We inspect and verify every person and every bag on every plane flying just about everywhere. It's not because we're accusing anyone of being a terrorist. It's because it's within our best judgement not to take the chance.

Your body your business. Their country, their well being, their lives, is their business.

In that example we may aswell use the logic that 'put everyone in prison and they cant do anything wrong' or 'halt elections because they cant vote the wrong way then' - it is a very arrogant position to take in my mind and is one of the ruling elite whom think they are above the law whilst everyone else should be under the thumb of the state. The legislation Bush introduced after 9/11 had been sitting on the shelf for many decades and 9/11 was used to cram it through because if the terrorist threat hadn't have been magnified to the degree that it was then the administration would never have been able to have got the US patriot bill through without widespread protests, possibly even riots and this is not to mention the scaremongering that was used to get people behind the Iraq war. Civil rights are very precious and the idea that you think its perfectly fine to sacrifice them to me is really mindboggling. If I had to define a police state I would define it as; ID cards, microchipping, government databases and so forth - exactly what is happening now so the question you need to ask yourself is 'am I happy giving away my civil liberties to the state and a police state being established?'.

While I would agree that people coming into the country should be checked, I dont accept the notion that America or any other country treat people as criminals before entering the borders. If you have a criminal record (which could be found on your records) then you should be barred entry but the fingerprinting issue is just another example to build another database which governments then share with one another.

It is their business you are right at the end of the day but at the same time it is also my business regarding my civil liberties - and thats why i've said clearly in this thread that I would not go to the United States because of this policy. I will not be treated like a criminal.

[triston220]

The United States or any other country for that matter does not need my fingerprints - I am not a criminal or a threat.



Then they'd have to take it via force although arresting is different, I support a criminal database but not one for innocent people.



Not go.

I agree with you there.

[HotelUser]

I can basically just reference my last post, because in your post you've referenced almost nothing with a relation to what I've said. Again: we inspect everyone for possible terrorist threats when they board planes. They do this in England too. Does this mean you refuse to fly anywhere?


Well exactly, the reasons used now are the same reasons that Stalin and Hitler would have used provided the technology was there. They would not have said 'hey guys lets take all your fingerprints/chip you to put more control of the state over you' they would have said exactly the same garbage that people spout regarding this issue now which usually takes the line of 'security, keeping you safe, stopping crime'. The same line goes for Guantamino Bay - we lowered ourselves to their level to achieve 'security' - but is it [sacrificing our ideas/morals] worth it?

For example if ID cards were found to have flaws in/somebody slipped through the system in the future, I could bet you the world that they'd start using the same argument of security/safety to argue the case of microchipping everybody from birth. It is sickening in my mind.



In that example we may aswell use the logic that 'put everyone in prison and they cant do anything wrong' or 'halt elections because they cant vote the wrong way then' - it is a very arrogant position to take in my mind and is one of the ruling elite whom think they are above the law whilst everyone else should be under the thumb of the state. The legislation Bush introduced after 9/11 had been sitting on the shelf for many decades and 9/11 was used to cram it through because if the terrorist threat hadn't have been magnified to the degree that it was then the administration would never have been able to have got the US patriot bill through without widespread protests, possibly even riots and this is not to mention the scaremongering that was used to get people behind the Iraq war. Civil rights are very precious and the idea that you think its perfectly fine to sacrifice them to me is really mindboggling. If I had to define a police state I would define it as; ID cards, microchipping, government databases and so forth - exactly what is happening now so the question you need to ask yourself is 'am I happy giving away my civil liberties to the state and a police state being established?'.

While I would agree that people coming into the country should be checked, I dont accept the notion that America or any other country treat people as criminals before entering the borders. If you have a criminal record (which could be found on your records) then you should be barred entry but the fingerprinting issue is just another example to build another database which governments then share with one another.

It is their business you are right at the end of the day but at the same time it is also my business regarding my civil liberties - and thats why i've said clearly in this thread that I would not go to the United States because of this policy. I will not be treated like a criminal.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can basically just reference my last post, because in your post you've referenced almost nothing with a relation to what I've said. Again: we inspect everyone for possible terrorist threats when they board planes. They do this in England too. Does this mean you refuse to fly anywhere?

I have quite clearly replied to as why fingerprints are not needed at any airport and have shown how civil liberties do not need to be sacrified in the face of a terrorist threat which is nearly non-existant. Therefore I have replied. I have fly usually once a year and have never been asked to give my fingerprints and the fact is that I am not a criminal so why should I be treated like a criminal? (see below the reply to fingerprinting)

Reply to fingerprinting issue at airports;


If you have a criminal record (which could be found on your records) then you should be barred entry but the fingerprinting issue is just another example to build another database which governments then share with one another.

If you want to sacrifice civil liberties in the face of a 'threat' then whats the point in fighting that threat in the first place because you've already sacrified everything you set out to defend against that threat. Yourself like so many others sadly believes we face some massive threat in which we should sign away our civil liberties for security against a minimal threat - makes me wonder why we even bothered fighting World War II because once civil liberties and freedoms are lost - it is very unlikely they ever come back. A generation grows up thinking it is the norm and is perfectly fine for the state to fingerprint us all, chip us all and generally treat us all like suspected criminals/terrorists and you've just shown its perfectly true.

[LoveToStack]

The implication that a pointless, door-opening chip could infect chipped pacemakers with computer viruses and kill people is absolutely ridiculous. I feel sorry for idiots who buy into such scaremongering.

[HotelUser]

I have quite clearly replied to as why fingerprints are not needed at any airport and have shown how civil liberties do not need to be sacrified in the face of a terrorist threat which is nearly non-existant. Therefore I have replied. I have fly usually once a year and have never been asked to give my fingerprints and the fact is that I am not a criminal so why should I be treated like a criminal? (see below the reply to fingerprinting)

Reply to fingerprinting issue at airports;



If you want to sacrifice civil liberties in the face of a 'threat' then whats the point in fighting that threat in the first place because you've already sacrified everything you set out to defend against that threat. Yourself like so many others sadly believes we face some massive threat in which we should sign away our civil liberties for security against a minimal threat - makes me wonder why we even bothered fighting World War II because once civil liberties and freedoms are lost - it is very unlikely they ever come back. A generation grows up thinking it is the norm and is perfectly fine for the state to fingerprint us all, chip us all and generally treat us all like suspected criminals/terrorists and you've just shown its perfectly true.

You saying you'll allow security to open and look in your bags and scan you and your bags but you wont give them your fingerprint? Border police also do random, more intense inspections too. While crossing the border once, they disassembled the front of my uncles Ford Ranger as he was driving into Maine, which took an hour. Also I think you need to better understand what civil liberties are. The only one taking a fingerprint could possibly undermine is the right to privacy (though looking through your body and bags in an airport undermines this in a worse way). Plus, by getting your fingerprint you're helping to give everyone else the civil liberty to the right to security.

If you're seriously not willing to trust a superpower who fought along side Britain in the past, trades with Britain and has good relations with Britain with your fingerprint, then don't come here, because that's incredibly ridiculous. Once again, this is our country and our lives, and if you're the one who wants to come here you shouldn't be complaining.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You saying you'll allow security to open and look in your bags and scan you and your bags but you wont give them your fingerprint? Border police also do random, more intense inspections too. While crossing the border once, they disassembled the front of my uncles Ford Ranger as he was driving into Maine, which took an hour. Also I think you need to better understand what civil liberties are. The only one taking a fingerprint could possibly undermine is the right to privacy (though looking through your body and bags in an airport undermines this in a worse way). Plus, by getting your fingerprint you're helping to give everyone else the civil liberty to the right to security.

If you're seriously not willing to trust a superpower who fought along side Britain in the past, trades with Britain and has good relations with Britain with your fingerprint, then don't come here, because that's incredibly ridiculous. Once again, this is our country and our lives, and if you're the one who wants to come here you shouldn't be complaining.

Oh what a load of old cobblers seriously - the right to security?, oh yes so lets just get ourselves all chipped to give eachother the 'right' to security despite the fact it tramples over nearly every other line and right between the state and the individiual. The difference between baggage and fingerprints is that baggage is just that, materialistic - I could throw it all away tommorow but I cannot change my fingerprint and once the government has hold of it it is unwilling to let go. I also stated that the 'threat' we face is virtually non-existent which is totally and uttersly true, in the words of Peter Hitchens - its far more likely that a eagle will drop a tortoise on my head whilst im walking down the street than it is of me being involved in a terrorist attack.

Trust the United States at present? - you have to be joking. I dont trust my own government (database losses, costly ID cards + numerous other issues) let alone the administration of the United States which took us into an illegal war, blindly supports Israel through thick and thin, has abandoned the ideals of freedom and has pushed Britain onto a sideline despite the fact our men are fighting with their men in Afghanistan.

[GommeInc]

They dont know that :rolleyes:
And they never will unless you commit a crime. It's pointless taking someone's finger prints in the hopes of finding out 'IF', which is a big 'IF' :P If you commit a crime, then have your finger prints taken... But there is no point having them taken when you arrive as you're innocent. You;d think America would follow their constitution - innocent until proven guilty.

[Swastika]

I don't see why the whole debate over American airports taking your fingerprints was necessary.
I'm sure American's also know your criminal record too at the airport, as sometimes they deny access depending on which crime you have committed.
Giving your fingerprints isn't a big of issue as you lot are making it out to be, and to say you wouldn't go the United States because they take your fingerprints is extremely over the top.

[xxMATTGxx]

I don't see why the whole debate over American airports taking your fingerprints was necessary.
I'm sure American's also know your criminal record too at the airport, as sometimes they deny access depending on which crime you have committed.
Giving your fingerprints isn't a big of issue as you lot are making it out to be, and to say you wouldn't go the United States because they take your fingerprints is extremely over the top.

I don't think they do you know, unless that person was on some sort of international terrorist list. Everything else is unknown? I think that is the case, I might be wrong though.

[HotelUser]

Oh what a load of old cobblers seriously - the right to security?, oh yes so lets just get ourselves all chipped to give eachother the 'right' to security despite the fact it tramples over nearly every other line and right between the state and the individiual. The difference between baggage and fingerprints is that baggage is just that, materialistic - I could throw it all away tommorow but I cannot change my fingerprint and once the government has hold of it it is unwilling to let go. I also stated that the 'threat' we face is virtually non-existent which is totally and uttersly true, in the words of Peter Hitchens - its far more likely that a eagle will drop a tortoise on my head whilst im walking down the street than it is of me being involved in a terrorist attack.

Trust the United States at present? - you have to be joking. I dont trust my own government (database losses, costly ID cards + numerous other issues) let alone the administration of the United States which took us into an illegal war, blindly supports Israel through thick and thin, has abandoned the ideals of freedom and has pushed Britain onto a sideline despite the fact our men are fighting with their men in Afghanistan.

Your post outlines the basis surrounding why you wish not for their government to have your fingerprint on record, but you've yet to give me a sufficient consequence which could come out of keeping fingerprint records. The right to security is just as much of a civil liberty as the right to privacy. Infact, either one cannot exist without undermining eachother. Additionally the right to privacy would undermine itself if we were to impose the restrictions you've suggested, because if we limited security measures for foreigners, it would be more difficult to catch foreign criminals who would be, of course, obstructing actual citizen's privacy.

Anyway I still think you're being borderline ridiculous here. I mean if you don't even trust the government with your fingerprint, I can't imagine how paranoid you would be staying in that country.

[Swastika]

I don't think they do you know, unless that person was on some sort of international terrorist list. Everything else is unknown? I think that is the case, I might be wrong though.
Well Britain and the US work very close together, so i think its a real possibility - its widely known that they know your criminal record when landing too.
We nearly got sent home when i went to Florida because of a few incidents that have happened in the past :P

I think they take your fingerprints too incase you commit a crime whilst in the states, like going on a murder spree or something - at least then when they're trying to hunt you down, they have some sort of identification for you. Obviously we wont be on the American databases.