Do Programmers Think Like Computers?

A couple thousand years ago, Greek philosophers hypothesized about matter and about human understanding of the world. They reasoned that since humans could understand the world, then that must mean the human brain is made of the same kind of matter that the world is made of. Probably not the most logical of deductions, but it got me thinking. The human brain is a fairly logical machine. While it can do many things and reason in many ways, it’s owner can think pretty logically when he puts in the effort. Computers, too, are strictly logical machines. They operate sequentially depending on certain conditions in the program and input from the user. The programmer knows this well. So, if an analogy may be drawn from the ancient Greek’s hypothesis, the programmer, in order to understand a computer, must have the capacity to think like a computer. Fair enough, right? The question that I’ll try to answer is whether programmers, over time, come to think more and more like computers and whether they can “go back” to other, less logical forms of thinking.

The human mind is a complex thing. Humans don’t fully understand it, though we may have a general idea of what goes on in certain locations in the brain thanks to fMRI machines. While we don’t fully understand the brain, we know quite a few important things about it. We know that the brain is fairly adaptable (read: alterable). We know that the brain can be operated logically. And we know that the brain’s grey matter “grows” with the region’s use.

With all this in mind, is it far-fetched to say that people may become more logical over time as they use their brain’s capacity for logic? In other words, do people who regularly engage in intensely logical work (i.e. programmers) tend to, over time, think more and more like computers? The simple answer is “yes”. People who routinely employ logic in their thinking are better able, over time, to think logically.

Now onto the second question: can programmers who have had their brain modified by all that logical thought ever “go back” to their former ways of thinking. This is a more difficult question which I don’t think I’ll be able to answer at this time, but I’ll give some of my thoughts on the issue.

We’ve already established that consistent logical thought alters the brain. And a brain’s thinking is largely dependent on its structure. So…does that mean that brains altered by intense logical thought will never be able to “return” to their previous patterns of thought? What about a partial return to previous modes of thought? I’ll get back to this.

Why is any of this Important?

Am I just philosophizing over useless ideas again? It wouldn’t surprise me, or anyone who knew me, if I was, but this stuff is important. Human beings are both rational and emotional creatures. Our rationality and emotions are often in conflict with one another, but, even with this in consideration, most people would argue that both rationality and emotionality are requirements of human survival. And I think a point can be made that rationality should be able to overshadow emotionality when the times call for it, and vice versa. So, do intensely logical brains marginalize emotionality? Will brains shaped by intense logic be able to “return” to previous patters of thought?

We know that use and disuse of the brain affects its shape and functionality. And that certain areas of the brain are structured to perform certain tasks. The question is whether logical brains necessarily marginalize emotionality. To this, I say “nay”. Logical brains can be just as emotional as non-logical brains. And this is a good thing.

Keep in mind that although the brain is an interconnected mass of gray matter, it is segregated into different work areas. Some areas, such as the left prefrontal cortex, are reserved for logic and reasoning while the brain’s right hemisphere and amygdala are reserved for creative thought and emotion. While intensely logical thought will work to develop those areas of the brain associated with logical thought, logical thinking doesn’t necessarily diminish the parts of the brains associated with emotionality.

However, it should be noted that people who focus all of their thought on logic, and neglect emotionality, will see a decrease in the ability to use emotionality and, thus, tend to think only in a strictly logical manner. It’s a use it or lose it bargain. So, if a person wants to keep a healthy balance of logic and emotion, then that person should work on improving both regions of the brain. A well-rounded and well-proportioned brain is the greatest survival tool of all.

Summary

In order for computer programmers to understand computers, they must, to some degree, think like a computer. Thinking like a computer, which involves thinking logically, necessarily conditions the brain to think logically. However, this “reshaping” of the brain doesn’t necessarily mean that the emotional parts of the brain will be necessarily diminished in capacity, since the brain is divided into logic regions and emotion regions. Still, neglecting to use the emotion centers of the brain does reduce their size and functioning so logical thinkers should endeavor to spend some time to develop those important emotional regions. The brain is an integrated machine whose capacities must be well-exercised if it is to be of greatest benefit to its user.

Why We Love Hackers

I wanted to include this in my previous post, The Hacker Mythos, but I just couldn’t find a place to put it. In The Hacker Mythos, I focused on the causes and spread of the hacker mythos. I also touched on the fact that we are enamored with hackers. We just love those masterful technophiles. But why do we love them? And perhaps “love” is the wrong word. Most people don’t love the hacker. However, when we break down people into groups, we will find that some people love hackers, some people are fascinated with hackers, some people are in awe of hackers, some people are curious about hackers, and some people simply fear hackers. Typically, most people who know of hackers have a combination of the above five attitudes: love, fascination, awe, curiosity, and fear. For this post, I think I’ll just stick with the fascination/curiosity attitudes since it seems that most people share these attitudes about hackers. So, why are we fascinated by hackers?

I think there are a few primary reasons why people are fascinated by the hacker.Obviously, there are many reasons why people are fascinated by hackers, or rather, the idea of a hacker. The idea of a hacker is expressed by the hacker mythos: the hacker is elusive, mysterious, cryptic, cool, handsome (thanks Hollywood), anonymous, intelligent, eccentric, analytical, etc. He deals with the arcane, obscure, and esoteric world of computing. Now, the three reasons I believe the hacker sparks off such interest are as follows:

The hacker is…

• mysterious
• knowledgeable
• deviant

Mystery

Hackers often aren’t in the limelight unless they have committed some kind of cybercrime, and, even then (especially then), they prize anonymity. There is something about the unknown, and unknowable, that just drives people’s interest. It doesn’t hurt that the hacker’s mysterious nature eventually leads to rumor and, typically unsupported, belief. People have a burning need to have a complete view of something, so they’ll fill that view with just about anything. For hackers, the view is filled with common beliefs about the hacker, the hacker mythos.

 

Knowledge

The hacker is a veritable maestro of the electronic arts. His knowledge and skill of computing is second to none; he clearly understands a world that few others dare acknowledge. How he does this is a mystery to most other people. To most people, the hacker almost seems to be a computer. This perception isn’t too far off the mark. The hacker speaks the computer’s language, thinks like a computer, and may even act like a computer i.e. act very logically and disinterested.

As implied in the paragraph above, it’s not just the amount of knowledge a hacker possess that enthralls us, it’s the type of knowledge. The world of computing is a mystery to most people and anyone who can successfully navigate its treacherous waters becomes an object of fascination.

 

Deviant

The hacker by his nature, knowledge/skill, and anonymity distances himself from the everyday man. He’s a technological deviant. He uses technology in ways, perhaps, the creators of the technology hadn’t intended.

Why do we have a fascination with a mysterious, technologically savvy, deviant? It’s natural for people to be interested in things or people that are unique and exotic. The hacker meets both of those requirements.

Summary

People have a keen interest in the mysterious and the deviant, especially when those objects of fascination seem to possess an otherworldly power. The hacker is seemingly mysterious by nature. His knowledge is arcane and immense. And he is made a deviant by his personality, knowledge, and works. Is it any wonder why so many people have a fascination with the hacker?

In my previous post, I had remarked on the effect that the entertainment industry, news outlets, and word-of-mouth has had on the hacker mythos. As a parting challenge, how do you think these channels of information have shaped people’s interest in the hacker? If you need some help, there’s a hint in the Mystery section of this post.

The Hacker Mythos

What comes to mind when you think of the word “hacker”? Do you picture a young brat at a keyboard, frantically typing and smiling maniacally? Do you picture a lonely guy living in his parent’s basement? Or do you picture a person well-versed in the arcane and cryptic arts of computer and network manipulation? The hacker is, by nature, and elusive character, a mystery. His works are often carried out under dark skies, in anonymity. He is feared, scorned, and mocked. He is the universal scapegoat of cyber-crime. But why? Why is he feared and even hated? Why is he blamed? It’s all part of the mythos. Our primary concern is why has the hacker has become this mythological creature?

In order to understand the causes and origins of the hacker mythos, we must first look at the hacker.

Most people have trouble defining exactly what a hacker is, and most definitions conflict (or support) one another. For our purposes, I’ll use a few definitions which, I think, capture the spirit of the hacker.

From Dictionary.com:

A hacker is…

- a person who has a high level of skill in computer technology or programming; a computer expert or enthusiast

- a person who circumvents security and breaks into a network, computer, file, etc., usually with malicious intent

Whoa, would you look at that second definition. No wonder people tend to fear and hate hackers. The hacker is, by definition, a person who subverts security applications and technologies, an electronic invader.  Okay, so now that we have some definitions to work with, let’s explore more deeply the implication of these definitions.

The Portrait of a Hacker

The Hacker’s World

The hacker, being a person who is comfortable and proficient with technology, lives in a world that is filled with technological goodness. But aren’t most people surrounded by electronic technology? That doesn’t necessarily make them hackers, not according to our definitions. In order for a person to be a hacker, he must be adept in his use of technology. The hacker is an interesting personality. Necessarily, he’s an outsider due to his technological interests and proficiency. There aren’t too many people who can match the hacker’s abilities and they are detached from the mainstream populace.

The Hacker’s Mind

The hacker’s mind can be best described as analytical, calculating, and inventive. Computer’s, by nature, are logic machines. Therefore, if a person is going to understand a computer, the person needs to be logical himself. He needs to become like a computer. Programming is the language of computers and it relies heavily on logic and logical sequence.

The Hacker’s Work

The hacker is fond of technology. It could almost be said that he loves it. Therefore, he spends a good deal of time working with it, testing its limits, modifying and altering, and exploring it. He is a skilled programmer and creates many complex programs which perform whatever function he requires or desires. He may even work to break into foreign networks or manipulate applications which aren’t his own.  

Okay, it’s easy to see how the hacker mythos got started. But a mythos in itself needs something to spread it, if it is to become anything more than a belief held by a few people.

 

Spreading the Mythos

The hacker mythos originates within the hacker: his world, mind, and work. The mythos is spread and shaped by the entertainment industry, news outlets, Internet content (this post included), and word-of-mouth.

Entertainment Industry

With our ever-advancing technology, the world has become the plaything of the hacker. The entertainment industry has taken notice and is doing its own thing to advance and shape the mythos of the hacker. Let’s face it, the hacker is an attractive, elusive rebel that the entertainment industry just loves to celebrate. Even though most people shy away from hackers, we are enamored with them. We just can’t get enough of that computer geek who can topple corporations just for fun and kicks. In short, the hacker is cool and the entertainment industry knows it.

The entertainment industry, namely movie industry, borrows from the existing hacker mythos when creating a hacker movie-character. He’ll have to be a blazing fast typist who reads code like he’s reading the newspaper (otherwise, how would the movie-goer know he’s a hacker?). Hollywood may even throw in some of its own charm and, thus, add to the hacker mythos. In this way, the entertainment industry both reinforces and shapes the existing hacker mythos.

So, what does Hollywood’s hacker look like? Well, he’s a highly intelligent teen/young adult male who has a knack for bringing down corporations’ security systems with a few minutes of frantic typing at a keyboard. Now, this is only the general idea given to us by the industry. It isn’t inclusive of all the Hollywood hackers, it’s just a generalization. And, thus, the mythos grows.

News Outlets

About a year ago, I was watching my local news. The anchorwoman was giving her report of the 359 raids conducted by the FBI. The FBI was targeting the developers of Blackshades (a remote administration tool). In these raids, a around 100 people were arrested 1,100 devices were seized. Though the anchorwoman was professional in giving her report, the scorn and contempt in her voice was obvious.  Both the arrests of the hacker and the anchorwoman’s attitude about the arrests reinforce the public’s fear, and perhaps admiration, of hackers in general. And, thus, the mythos grows.

Additionally, it is largely due to news like this that hackers are often the default scapegoats in any cybercrime event. The criminal stigma is deeply ingrained within the word “hacker”. So much so that most hackers shy away from the word altogether.

Internet Content and Word-of-Mouth

The Internet is a massive beast and it plays a large part in propagating and shaping the hacker mythos. When you think about it, the Internet is also the hacker’s playground. The hacker may perform some of his greatest feats on the Internet. Therefore, the Internet itself is given a kind of stigma by the hacker. Why is any of this important? It’s all part of the hacker mythos. Most people use the Internet at least a few hours a week. We are all aware of the Internet. We’re also aware of a subversive force of mystical power and ability lurking somewhere on the web, the hacker. The hacker’s force and power may be felt just by accessing the Internet. Why is any of this important, again? Think about the content on the web: the blogs, articles, posts, videos, .txts, etc. How much do you reckon references the hacker or hacking? I’m willing to wager at least 20% of all content on the web references hacking and exploitation. That’s quite a large number when you think about how big the Internet is. That 20% constantly works to shape and spread the hacker mythos. 

Here’s the Kicker

Do you want to know the strangest and, perhaps, most interesting thing about the hacker mythos and mythos in general? The mythos creates and shapes itself. Is this a contradiction? How can something create itself if it didn’t already exist? Well, I’ll put it to you this way. The hacker mythos began with the hacker. The lone individual cyber-geek who, often, decided to form a group of hackers and hack his way to fame and fortune, or at least to more knowledge. This started the mythos. The mythos then went on to define the hacker. The hacker and his definitions became a legend on the web (see Internet Content). The hacker, his definitions, and his mythos went on to define what Hollywood would put into their movies. And, finally, the hacker, his definitions, his legends and exploits, and his Hollywood portrayals will all go on in shaping the hacker mythos ad infinitum and it will all go backwards until the hacker is redefined by the various mythos that the original hacker’s created. The hacker formed the beliefs and the beliefs went on to form the hacker, and just about everything else.

The order of influences in the above paragraph is just my guess as to how the hacker mythos started. Too be perfectly honest, I can’t say how much of my The Portrait of the Hacker originated from real life hackers and how much is Hollywood dramatization. Such is life in the hacker mythos.

The Hacker

Does this mean we will never have an accurate view of the original hacker? No, in fact I personally possess an accurate account of the original hacker, who may or may not have qualities described in The Portrait of the Hacker. Here’s the accurate account of the original hacker, when we strip away the mythos and legend.

The original hacker was simply a person who had a fondness of technology. He was committed to observing, learning, modifying, implementing, and taking action. He was an explorer and, sometimes, a guide. His actions and intentions may have been for good or for evil, depending on the person. In a word, the hacker is an adept at technological manipulation. 

                                     Summary

The hacker mythos was created in a collaborative effort between the hacker, his definitions, his actions, his lifestyle, the entertainment industry, news outlets, and electronic word-of-mouth. The hacker mythos is a constantly shifting and changing set of beliefs that routinely influences the entertainment industry, news media, Internet content, people’s opinions, and even the hacker himself. Case closed? For now.

Hacker Implants NFC Chip into Hand to Exploit Smartphones

Seth Wahle has just done something a little unorthodox in order to break into any Android smartphone of his choosing. Yes, you guessed it, he implanted a Near Field Communication chip into his hand. What malicious purpose could he have in mind? None, yep none. He implanted the chip between his thumb and forefinger only to demonstrate the dangers that are posed by “biohacking”. In this context, “biohacking” refers to augmenting the human body in order to exploit electronic devices. Yes, I had to clear that up because the word “biohacking” has many different definitions.

To understand the dangers posed by this instance of biohacking, it is important to understand just what a NFC chip does. NFC chips are built into smartphones to manage and transfer files between smartphones. They are also used in mobile payment applications. How is this significant? The chip Seth Wahle has implanted into his hand is able to ping nearby Android smartphones, send them a link, and, after the link is opened by the smartphone’s owner, malicious software is downloaded onto the smartphone. This malicious software connects the smartphone to a remote computer from which the hacker can manipulate the smartphone, steal files, data etc.

Wahle has stated that there are limitations to this type of attack as a smartphone only needs to be locked or rebooted in order to sever its connection to the remote computer. However, this may be overcome by having the malicious program run at boot.

Wahle will be presenting his findings at the Hack Miami conference in May.  

This is a rather neat method to establish a remote connection to unsuspecting smartphones, but is it really worth it? Couldn’t you do the same thing without implanting the chip into your hand? What benefit could implanting the chip into your hand have that makes it a worthwhile endeavor? Wahle has claimed that the chip can’t be seen and is invisible to the unaided eye (however it can be detected by x-ray machines). That alone may be worth the price of admission for some. Wahle had the chip implanted for $40 by means of a really big needle. If you really want to use this method to break into Android smartphones, the price isn’t soul-breaking. Just be sure the needle is clean.

All in all, this is just another method to be added to the growing list of ways hackers can use to exploit your personal devices. It will be interesting to learn of Wahle’s findings. It seems that this technology will have plenty of opportunity to be used given the fact that nearly everyone and their fish has an Android smartphone.

Computer Program Shuts Down Computer if USB Activity is Detected

Here’s a neat little program that acts to shut down your laptop or desktop if it detects activity in the USB drive. The article isn’t too clear about what it means by ‘activity”, however, given the author of the program’s comments and recommended use, I’ve inferred that ‘activity’ refers to either plugging the USB into the port or pulling it out of the port.

The program is affectionately named “USBkill” by its author, Hephaestos. It is written in Python and is, currently, only available for Linux and MAC. Though, the program can be used on Windows, but it would need to be modified to use Windows file directories, instead of Linux or MAC directories. The program only works if it is activated.

Hephaestos claims that it could be used to protect the computer’s owner against law enforcement search and seizures. For the folks out there who don’t know, once a computer or laptop is shut down, it kills the programs running on the machine (obviously) and discards the data stored in the computer’s Random Access Memory (RAM). This information is often critical to police investigations because it paints an accurate picture as to what the user was doing before the police arrived.

Hephaestos intends to add additional features to the program in the future, but, he claims, that it is perfectly functional in its current state.

Hephaestos lays out a scenario in which his program would come in handy. His scenario involves having a USB on you, activating the program, and then plugging the USB drive into your computer the moment the police arrive. The police would likely remove the device which would power down your computer.

This doesn’t seem like the most useful application of the program as you wouldn’t necessarily know when the police will arrive and, if you did know when they would arrive, you could just restart your PC manually. However, it is nice that he has thought of a use for his program and he, along with just about everyone else, will likely think of more uses in the future.

Technological Baggage

Ah, yes, technology. I love it! Really, I do. It does so many great things for us. It cooks our food, waters our plants, destroys our enemies, runs our favorite MMORPGs, and so much more. Well, for this article, I want to focus on a specific kind of technology. The technology most people think about when they hear the word “technology”: our phones and computers, gadgets and gizmos, electronic chips and brain implants. Undoubtedly, all of our fancy, electricity-using, technology confers upon us many, many benefits. It can even be said that we’ve become dependent on our technological gizmos or, rather, dependent on the benefits that we receive from our gizmos. Just as a teenage girl loves her smartphone, we love our technology. But enough about the benefits of technology, what about the unwanted and unintended consequences that come with our technology? What about the baggage?

In a previous article, we talked about PayPal’s interest in embeddable, injectable, and ingestible devices that serve to authenticate the user. These devices would provide a more secure user experience as it reduces the chance that an attacker will be able to access a user’s device, online account, etc. But the public’s reaction (see the comments) to these devices wasn’t overwhelming favorable. If I had to take a guess, I’d say that most people would be adverse to having a chip installed inside their body, for at least a few reasons. One of these reasons relates to the possible baggage that this device carries. Just what kind of baggage, or unintended consequences, would PayPal’s authentication devices carry?

In all honesty, it’s difficult to tell what kind of consequences PayPal’s devices would have. Most of these consequences would only come to light after people began using the devices. And then it would probably be too late to completely manage those consequences. The best PayPal could do would be to try to mitigate them. However severe the consequences of PayPal’s authentication devices would be, I think they would pale in comparison to the consequences of another technology we recently talked about.

Remember that brain implant Intel is developing? It’s time for me to talk about those repercussions I only briefly hinted at in my article on the subject. Intel’s brain implant will be able to sense a person’s brain waves, interpret those brain waves into commands, and, then, send those commands to a remote computer in order to be executed. Again, it is difficult to determine just what kind of baggage this technology brings with it, but I think some baggage may be guessed. Can you imagine someone with this brain implant walking into a room and discreetly manipulating the files on a computer? I can. Of course, this will depend on how a computer actually receives the sent commands. But, for the moment, let’s just reflect on the idea of discreetly controlling a computer with only our thoughts…It is a nice thought, isn’t it?

Would people with these brain implants be allowed into office buildings, political buildings, or any building where a computer is present? If they were allowed inside, would they be required to wear tin foil hats? Can you imagine the security guard explaining the security procedure to a group of people. Picture a security guard addressing a group of people, “Okay everyone, I’m going to have to ask you to take out your brains and put them in this basket before entering the room.” What about politicians visiting the White House? “Okay everyone, I’ll have to ask you to take out your bra-“ Ah, screw it, the joke makes itself.

Additionally, what about the possibility that someone could hack into this brain implant? If a brain implant can send signals, how long before it possesses the capacity to receive signals? Now that’s some serious technological baggage.

But, you may say, does any of this really concern us? After all, what’s the likelihood of people actually getting authentication devices embedded into their bodies or people getting brain implants that allow them to remotely access and control computers? Andrew Chien, vice president of research and director of future research technologies at Intel Labs, had something to say about this.

"I think human beings are remarkable[sic] adaptive" … "If you told people 20 years ago that they would be carrying computers all the time, they would have said, 'I don't want that. I don't need that.' Now you can't get them to stop. There are a lot of things that have to be done first but I think [implanting chips into human brains] is well within the scope of possibility."

And just as all those computers people carry on them carry technological baggage, so will other future technologies, brain implants included.

So, before you buy that new smartphone, new computer, or brain implant, be aware of the technological baggage that comes with the purchase.

Embeddable, Injectable, Ingestible: Killing the Password!

It looks like PayPal is gearing up to revolutionize the way which we authenticate ourselves to our lovely devices and online accounts. Just when you thought that biometric finger-print scanners and iris scanners were high-tech authentication devices, Jonathan LeBlanc is looking into more subtle authentication methods such as identifying heart-beat patterns, vein patterns, and stomach content. How will this be done? Well, the title of this article kind of gives it away. LeBlanc intends to develop embeddable, injectable, and ingestible devices that analyze our body’s more intimate operations.

Mr. LeBlanc is PayPal’s global head of developer evangelism and, as you may have assumed by reading the above paragraph, he has large ambitions for the future of authentication. Now, LeBlanc makes it clear that PayPal may not implement these identification devices. However, the company does want to be at the forefront of such development. Indeed, what major company wouldn’t want to be at the forefront of new, innovative devices, especially in the field of authentication? Authentication and security is such a huge issue today and its only getting bigger. It only makes sense that company’s want to protect their customers and if embeddable, injectable, and ingestible devices is the way to do accomplish this, then company’s will (at the very least) look into these devices.

As to the public’s reaction to PayPal’s research, I think the comment section in the linked article is an effective gauge of the general public’s opinion. Most people will be less than thrilled about this new technology. Many will be worried and rightly so. Still, as with most emerging technology, it will be interesting to see what comes of PayPal’s endeavors.