Modern field guide to security and privacy

Podcast: Steve Weber on why hackers may start targeting your emotions

In this episode of The Cybersecurity Podcast, UC Berkeley's Steve Weber outlines his team's research into the possible futures of the Internet and cybersecurity in 2020. 

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor
Steve Weber speaks about UC Berkeley's research at a Passcode event in April.

Today, you may not care if anyone hacks your Fitbit. After all, what could someone really do with data about how far you walk?  

But that kind of information could soon be an incredibly valuable part of a new frontier in data collection, said Steve Weber, faculty director of the University of California - Berkeley Center for Long Term Cybersecurity, on the latest episode of The Cybersecurity Podcast. In fact, his research modeled a not-too-distant future in which hackers may use your biometric data to track – and manipulate – emotions.

"When we add your heart rate variability, how quickly and deeply you breathe, your galvanic skin assessment, we start to get a very granular, detailed assessment of what your emotional state is at any given moment," Mr. Weber said of one scenario in his team's recently released research project modeling five possible futures of the Internet.

"Now think about what that data looks like when its in the hands of someone who wants to manipulate me, who wants to sell me something, get me to do something that I otherwise might not want to do. How would you feel if, instead of stealing your money, I make it so that you feel you want to contribute to my cause – and you write me a big fat check?"

Also this episode, podcast cohosts Peter Singer from New America and Sara Sorcher from Passcode discuss the most interesting things they learned this past month. Singer explores the relatively unknown threats to the country's ports and ships; Sorcher explains the sometimes-controversial bug bounty process in which companies exactly how much a security flaw is worth in cash

Listen to this episode: Cybersecurity in 2020, Hacking Ships, and the Price of Bugs 

Follow all episodes: iTunes | Soundcloud | Stitcher 

Follow the hosts: Peter W. Singer | Sara Sorcher 

Learn more about this podcast 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.