Remote Access Cautions

 Good more balanced view of the recent SCADA threat in infrastructure.  Remote access is a classic potential security weakness.    Have myself been involved in the need to monitor and control industrial systems remotely   The failure was not including several elements in the remote connection.    Fix that now, early warnings are good.  Good points made here: 

Increased uptime? Check. Better access to outside expertise? Check. Improved first-time-fix rate? Check. in Tripwire

These are just some of the benefits of industrial remote access. Yet many customers are reluctant to embrace remote access. Not only that, but incidents such as the breach at the Oldsmar water utility might increase organizations’ reluctance to use remote access.

Using Oldsmar as an Example

The benefits of remote access should not be in dispute. So rather than making remote access the scapegoat, let’s consider the incident at Oldsmar water utility briefly.

It has been established that the nefarious actor was able to access the SCADA system via TeamViewer. The details of how they were able to gain access via TeamViewer is still unknown.

So, based on this information, TeamViewer is the villain, correct?

The answer is not binary. TeamViewer serves a legitimate purpose if used correctly. In this instance, to understand if TeamViewer was the right tool, let’s consider the application more closely.

As a water authority, the Oldsmar plant’s main KPI is to keep the plant operational 24/7 because we all want safe and clean drinking water when we start the tap! This means minimal downtime, timely notifications of any alarms and the ability to diagnose faults promptly. Remote access is an essential tool to achieve this objective. The remote user does not need access to the utility’s IT network to keep the plant operational. And, this is the key – IT and OT’s remote access needs are different .... " 

Controlling Robotics with Brains

Though this creates many ethical implications, it is inevitable.  The title of this article is also misleading in emphasis, its more about controlling systems remotely than controlling soldiers' brains.

The Pentagon’s Push to Program Soldiers’ Brains  (Short excerpts from a long article) 

The military wants future super-soldiers to control robots with their thoughts. ... 

 .... The mission is to make human beings something other than what we are, with powers beyond the ones we’re born with.

 .... One aspiration: the ability, via computer, to transfer knowledge and thoughts from one person’s mind to another’s.

.... Will an enhanced human being—a human being possessing a neural interface with a computer—still be a human being? ...

Control Drones with a FlyJacket

In IEEE Spectrum.  With Images and video.  Impressive, integration with virtual reality?

FlyJacket Lets You Control a Drone With Your Body
EPFL's FlyJacket exosuit allows you to embody a fixed-wing drone, making it feel like you're flying
By Evan Ackerman  ...

More about EPFL.

AI Will Still Need Remote Human Help. Or Concierges?

Truly autonomous cars still some time away?   Will they still need rooms full of operators somewhere to take over car operations remotely in some situations?   That's what dozens of companies are preparing for.   Humans stay in the loop for now.  For legal reasons, and sometimes to protect the autonomous vehicles from other humans.  ' ... The truth is that artificial intelligence is neither artificial nor intelligent.   A.I. is made out of people .... ' 

In ComputerWorld:  by Mike Elgan

" ... California just approved licenses for self-driving cars to in fact have no human driver behind the wheel, or no human in the vehicle at all (after dropping off a passenger, or for deliveries) with one caveat: The self-driving car companies must monitor and be able to take over driving remotely.

This rule matches other parts of the country where no-driver autonomous vehicles have been allowed. There’s no human in the car, or at least the driver’s seat, but remote monitoring and remote control make that possible, safe and legal. ... "

The article further examines how humans may continue to stay in the loop for some time.   Also mentions the Facebook M example, where humans were initially designed into the system, perhaps with the goal to remove humans later?  Our own approach used a 'Concierge' model, where the AI only had to be good enough to detect and solve the easiest problems OR pass the problem off to the right expert human.  While having also gathered enough data to make the human's effort easier. 

Humans will be in many loops, somewhere, for some time.