Barnaby Jack dies days before he was to reveal how to remotely kill pacemaker patients

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

God help us but how long until we hear about the first man dropping dead because some punk had to test the theory and see if it REALLY works?

hahahahaha, aren't you funny and a few decades late.
dude, surely you don't think any of this is "new", do you really ?

the only thing he was really going to expose is how readily available the tools to achieve it have become and that's all i'm gonna say about this matter other than, sad to see another bright mind snuffed.
condolences to his family and friends.

oooops, almost forgot ... those of you electronic geniuses on board really should review the PPACA a little closer and you might discover why he felt the need to share.

and something else to consider, many ppl are walking around with nearly 25yr old units ... just how 'protected' do you think they are ?

as someone else stated, recall & replace would be out of the question.

already a thread here www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by dominicus


No.. Dick Cheney is an oldass man with a young man's heart.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


...think about it though how many other ways can people kill a person and just because you show someone how to do something doesn't make you responsible for what they choose to do with it. Were there othere uses for this tech? Hacker conventions aren't what most people think. I think people know enough about the risks of pacemakers that they could figure it out, it was likely just an interesting presentation and he died of natural causes.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Sounds like a stupid thing to make public if you ask me.

People die and even if murdered this guy doesnt get any sympathy from me, Im sure him dying and taking his info with him will save at least 1 life

I think you're a little confused. He wasn't some kind of evil James Bond villain seeking to the power to murder people in technological ways. He was investigating weaknesses in these things and encouraging the manufacturers to increase the security of them.

If anything, the work he did helped to INCREASE the safety of tech devices used to maintain life and health.

Would you rather someone else find these methods and use them to murder, all because the companies making them could save a couple of million a year by ignoring their flaws?

I would rather someone like him out these companies and force them to keep developing, than just let them get away with selling compromised products.

I saw a report on this yesterday where it was said that the cause of death had not been released. That's a little suspicious to me. But who would be behind it? Could it be a manufacturer hiring someone to take him out before their corporate brand was exposed?

That's not too unlikely in my opinion. We're already living in a very sick world where corporations will literally do ANYTHING for profit, and our governments let them.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


If he really found the way to do that, he is almost sure not the only one. Once someone knows that something is possible, they will find hundreds of ways to do this.

The only thing it could do, is to improve security of pacemakers. Or install Kaspersky

reply to post by Honor93


(sigh) I'm glad you see the humor in it. I see absolutely none, whatsoever.

Now it's not exactly earth shattering news that it's possible to do this. It *IS* new to me that someone had actually DONE it to prove and establish the method for repeatable results. Theory is one thing and nothing is secure in theory. Nothing at all. Practice is quite another and demonstrating, with or without the details to do the entire process, where the end result is an innocent and unsuspecting person dropping dead in their tracks? Well.... Discretion and Judgement come to mind as what is badly lacking to go talking about such things in conventions full of people who take hacking and cracking things (depending on which hat they consider themselves) to be entertainment.


It's much like explosives. Sitting in my HD archives are manuals that will show you quite easily how to make a home versions of plastic explosive. Every gun show sells the same little books. I understand it's incredibly effective too. I haven't tried and I have a few hundred megs of text files like the Anarchists Cookbook as collectors items as much as anything else. No harm, no foul and no law against it. Nothing will ever be used from them in my home.

Now, if I were to go appear as a guest speaker at a pyromania convention and highlight the methods for making a home version of RDX or Thermite...it would have carried beyond merely entertainment and novelty to BAD judgement in offering the information directly into the hands of those most likely to not only USE it, but use it to the worst imaginable outcome.

That's the difference and where my thinking comes in on lecturing how to hack and shut down pacemakers to a hacker convention.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Comparing hackers to pyromaniacs? Really bro, that is like comparing a pineapple to a pineapple grenade. You do realize most "hackers" are "whitehat" and are "hacking" to improve security don't you?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

...think about it though how many other ways can people kill a person and just because you show someone how to do something doesn't make you responsible for what they choose to do with it.

As an honest question, not challenge...did you read about what this was supposed to be able to do, if he'd been able to explain all he intended? I think what I keyed on the most and what gave me a 'You've GOTTA be kidding me' moment for the fact this would even be discussed publicly to give people ideas was not the fact the end result is a dead man on the ground. As you say, many things do that. Some, far more creative than this.

It's the fact the story mentioned it could be done from 50 feet away. He didn't get to explain the rest and I'm not the least interested in exploring the how's myself....but that fact stopped me cold. If it's legitimate and works? Think about that....if it's not hard to make and use? No famous person with a pacemaker would be safe walking a public rope line or being in close proximity to an unscreened crowd until the defect was secured. Unscreened would be everything down to a smartphone, depending on what he came across for method...... lest some detractor activate their gizmo and turn out the guy's lights like flipping a switch.

After around six months of research, Jack said he developed a way to hack one of those devices remotely and send it a high-voltage shock from upwards of 50 feet away.

Is there any limit, of any kind at all, for means to murder without detection that we should consider too dangerous to be openly discussed in a convention setting, while still a wide open exploit? If not this...what would qualify?

* People look at the reporter's death in L.A. and say it was an assassination for a news story .... but what of this? Many like Dick Cheney had (and may still have) the power to have something like that done, IMO.....as he'd sit there, contemplating his pacemaker. It's a dangerous thing in public.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

i didn't find any humor in the incident ... only your posted nonsense.

like i said, is this 'news' for you ?
if so, you might want to reveiw this ... In Tech
especially from the page marked 149 but don't stop reading before 155 and you might begin to understand why i think your commentary was funny.

i notice you were "glad" to hear this guy died, me, not so much.
there's your difference.

and your extreme thermite comparison is nothing more than hyperbole but thanks for trying.

what is news, is the look on the patient's face when they realize just how compromised their heartbeats are.

what is also news, is that often, the patients are not informed of said risk until AFTER the device is installed.

what really bites about your commentary is that you actually believe it.
now that's sad.

the only 'right' way to manage this malfunction would be through a recall & replace program ... far be it from you to promote what might actually save lives, nah ... just kill the messenger

ps ... if you are old enough ... try to remember when some of the first garage door openers hit the market ... if not, then learn about it.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Comparing hackers to pyromaniacs? Really bro, that is like comparing a pineapple to a pineapple grenade. You do realize most "hackers" are "whitehat" and are "hacking" to improve security don't you?

C'mon... That is downright upsetting. I made the specific point of mentioning Hacker/CRACKER and also saying that depends on the hat they wear. White, Gray or Black.

Of course a hacker, in the accurate term, would not be any threat to know this. A hacker in the true sense and not media vernacular, would likely be a help to solving it, not using it to hurt anyone. Then.. a few steps beyond and also a draw at Def Con are the Black Hats/Crackers. At least, forgive me if terms have changed, it's the language I'm used to from years back.

reply to post by Honor93


Well, I'll tell ya what... I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion on it because it's an interesting topic and a very important one for the implications of what limits, if any, should exist on public conversations for things that have direct, lethal and easily accomplished ends. If that's all nonsense.. I'm sorry to have wasted your time and my own.

In fairness and honesty, I reacted yesterday when I read the story. Murder and how to commit it isn't funny or the topic of light conversation when the topic is specific to a viable, largely unknown/undefended and undetectable way of accomplishing it. So, I DO regret now having said I wouldn't shed tears over this guy being killed. That was wrong of me and clearly so. A thought expressed in the moment, and one I wish I hadn't made.

As for the rest.... You've gotten more personal here than I'm going to follow, by far. Simple as that. See ya on another thread, perhaps.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

reasonable ya say ??
that's what you'd call your thermite comparison

very well then, hack away

open, public discussions of defined RISKs to the public should not be restrained, restricted or limited, ever.

1st amendment wouldn't come into play here, would it ?

personal ???
if automated heartbeats that can be remoted manipulated aren't "personal", then what is ?

as for your expressed feelings on the matter ... those aren't mine to manage but thanks for sharing.

ETA -- if you really believe these words you typed ...

[color=amber]what limits, if any, should exist on public conversations for things that have direct, lethal and easily accomplished ends.

i'd have to ask ... why bother discussing drones at all ?
after all, one doesn't even need to have a heart condition to be 'exterminated' on the mere command of our dear leader ... why should anything else be 'restricted' conversation ?
hacking drones isn't too far away from hacking heartbeats so what's the big difference in talking about it ?
[truth be told, drones are a wee bit tougher]



oh and as an aside ... since we can fully expect the rapid increase of attempts to hack drones, why shouldn't we be discussing which of those methods might interfere with grandpa's pacemaker while he's napping ?

or are you of the opinion that we should just exterminate those who 'accidentally' figure it out for themselves ?
ya know, kill the messenger and all.

imho, this death should be the catalyst to many very large protests demanding a recall & replace program be intiiated, immediately.

400,000 implants per year in this country alone.
how many world-wide ??

reply to post by Armadall


Lookout Cheney

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

...think about it though how many other ways can people kill a person and just because you show someone how to do something doesn't make you responsible for what they choose to do with it. Were there othere uses for this tech? Hacker conventions aren't what most people think. I think people know enough about the risks of pacemakers that they could figure it out, it was likely just an interesting presentation and he died of natural causes.

anybody who has been to one already knows this.

clearly not all of us have though .

personally.. i feel more comfortable with these things out in the open. as no one entity can be trusted with this type of knowledge. hastings car crash comes to mind.

reply to post by Armadall


The guy could have been "erased". He was doing something very risky telling how to kill people.

The unshielded electronic devices (like what we use everyday) are very sensitive to magnetic devices. I can bet even a strong permanent magnet can interfere with a pacemaker.

I agree that his intentions were probably good, to finding flaws which hackers could exploit would allow manufacturers to make alteration to prevent it.

BUT, what he was saying threatened the profits of medical corporations by scaring people off their product, it also could be seen as a threat to government security as he got the idea from a tv show where the vice presidents pacemaker was hacked.

So he could of easily made enemies with this, and some very rich and powerful old people have these devices in them. Despite having private security, they might start feeling vulnerable that any kid hacker could get to them.

Seeing as he looked so young, it would be good to know how he died.

reply to post by polarwarrior


The technology of silicon wafer chips is inherently prone to magnetic interference. There is nothing anybody can do about it.

It is not possible to remedy something if technology does not provide an option.

The technology of crystal microchips based on light in place of electricity is not yet developed enough.

So there is nothing medical device maker can do.

All technological products can be hacked or sabotaged.

Hehe, I wonder if he had a pacemaker by any chance? Oh the irony...