So, given those assumptions, here's a scary scenario: Let's say a hacker wants to kill you, and knows where you live.
Most premeditated murder is perpetrated by someone very familiar with the victims.
The device is configured to 1) detect when you're there, then 2) try to guess your serial number every second you're within range, then 3) kills you.
Better yet, just get the serial number.
If the attacker then retrieves the device (so it doesn't fall into the hands of law enforcement), there would be absolutely no way to prove he killed you.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the prosecutor. How are you going to explain all this to the jury? In how many ways will the defense be able to attack the delicate task of explaining the technical details?
Obviously, this is an incredibly unlikely sequence of events. Nevertheless it IS possible, which is very irresponsible of the medical industry.
The "alibi machine" aspect of this scenario actually makes it more likely.
Most premeditated murder is perpetrated by someone very familiar with the victims.
The device is configured to 1) detect when you're there, then 2) try to guess your serial number every second you're within range, then 3) kills you.
Better yet, just get the serial number.
If the attacker then retrieves the device (so it doesn't fall into the hands of law enforcement), there would be absolutely no way to prove he killed you.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the prosecutor. How are you going to explain all this to the jury? In how many ways will the defense be able to attack the delicate task of explaining the technical details?
Obviously, this is an incredibly unlikely sequence of events. Nevertheless it IS possible, which is very irresponsible of the medical industry.
The "alibi machine" aspect of this scenario actually makes it more likely.