Tag Archives: Apple

Security vs Security

There is currently a national debate going on in the United States about the challenges of security vs. security. Some are calling it privacy vs. security but that’s not the real issue as I’ll get to shortly. In the wake of the San Bernardino shooting, the FBI has gone to court and demanded via the All Writs Act that Apple create a special insecure version of the operating system for the iPhone (iOS).

Backdoor weakens security As in the naming of the core problem (privacy or security) we need to understand exactly what the FBI is asking for here. Many media outlets continue to report this as the FBI asking Apple to decrypt or unlock the phone. That is not what they’re asking, they are asking Apple to create a special version of the software, load it onto the phone, and then they will brute-force it. In the past Apple has cooperated with the government to retrieve customer data pursuant to a warrant, but they’ve never fundamentally weakened iPhone security at the request of the US or any other government.

I usually try to avoid blogging about political issues as well as national security ones, because they’re complicated and the state does indeed have a legitimate interest in security activities as long as they’re constitutionally supported. In this particular case the press has been all over the place and frequently misreporting the basic facts, so I feel it’s important to keep people informed to allow them ton make better decisions. On the other hand a lot of people who are also making wild claims about what the government is actually asking for. There are some very interesting issues at play in this particular drama – let’s take a look.

Articles such as the editorial today in NYT are written by those who are either ignorant of the technical details or are willfully misleading the public. They refer to “unlocking” the iPhone and “using the front door”. In both cases the phrases are designed to mislead the public by suggesting that there is no downside. A more accurate description would be that they’re asking Apple to make sure the front door is easy to break into. This of course wouldn’t sell well with the public.

As to the ramifications of the issue, The Verge noted:

The FBI has a locked phone and they want it to be unlocked. Getting there will mean building some dangerous tools and setting some troubling precedents, but that’s basically what the bureau wants.

Privacy vs Security

Privacy and securityThis issue has been framed in the media as privacy vs. security which is misleading.

The security vs privacy debate is an interesting and worthwhile topic and I’ll certainly dive in at a future date, but this issue with the FBI and Apple isn’t that issue at all. Make no mistake, this isn’t about the privacy of the data on a particular iPhone, it’s about the security of all iPhones. The government is specifically not asking for the data, they’re asking for Apple to make the phone less secure.

John Adams, a former head of security at Twitter noted today in the LA Times:

“They try to use the horrors of the world to erode civil liberties and privacy, but the greater good — having encryption, more privacy for more people — is always going to trump small isolated incidents.”


Data encryptionSome have noted that FBI doesn’t want Apple’s encryption keys, which is true. What they want is for Apple to make it easier to brute-force the login.

“In practice, encryption isn’t usually defeated by cryptographic attacks anyway. Instead, it’s defeated by attacking something around the encryption: taking advantage of humans’ preference for picking bad passwords, tricking people into entering their passwords and then stealing them, that kind of thing. Accordingly, the FBI is asking for Apple’s assistance with the scheme’s weak spot—not the encryption itself but Apple-coded limits to the PIN input system.”

In other words, let’s take the weakest link in phone security and rather than make it stronger, let’s make it weaker. Again, this is my point that this IS about security, not privacy. When someone gets in your phone, they get everything – passwords, bank credentials, personal private info that can be leveraged, etc. Are we seriously arguing that that’s ok? Consider how many smartphones and identities are stolen every day.

Chances of dying in a road accident 1 in 25,000,000.

Chance of dying in a terrorist attack world-wide 1 in 9,300,000. If you live in the US the chances are even lower.

Chances of having your phone stolen are about 1 in 42

Chances of being a victim of some form of identity theft are about 1 in 14.

So if you’re worried about something that will actually happen, you should hope that Apple comes out on top in this case. Identity theft affects about 15 million Americans each year and smartphone theft affects about 3 million Americans each year.


Some have suggested they’ve asked for a backdoor. That is an interesting topic that we could spend hours on, just trying to define what a backdoor is. But for the moment, let’s just say that whether or not it’s a backdoor, it certainly weakens the security of the device, specifically to make it vulnerable to brute-force attacks.

There’s another way

OptionsLet’s begin with understanding that this is NOT about this particular phone or incident. The government has chewed the data to death on this one and doesn’t really expect to find anything on this phone. If it were just about this phone there are other ways.

First of all, this phone happened not to be a personal phone, but one owned by Farook’s employer. Ironically, the employer is a government agency. This agency had mobile device management (MDM) software but it was either not installed or not configured correctly. Had it been in use this whole issue would be moot. The MDM software would have allowed the county to access the phone and mandate a specific configuration that would meet their security needs.

Next another misstep – sometime in the first 24 hours after the incident the county decided to change the iCloud password associated with the phone. Had this not been done they could have taken the phone to a previously configured network for it, such as their home or office, and tried to do an iCloud auto-backup.

Using law enforcement mistakes as a reason to weaken phone security is a poor argument. The better one would be to make sure that law enforcement knows how to deal with phones, when to get manufacturers involved, etc. This request to re-write the firmware is so extreme that Apple said:

The Apple executive also made a point of saying that no other government—not even China or Russia—has ever asked what American prosecutors have asked the company to do this week.

Offers and advice on accessing the phone have come from many directions. For example noted cybersecurity John Macafee has offered to break in for free. He believes he can accomplish it within a couple weeks without fundamentally weakening the smartphone infrastructure.

Snowden came up with a novel suggestion called de-capping, which uses acid and lasers to read the chip directly.

These offers have not been accepted because the FBI isn’t all that interested in what’s on this phone. They believe the under-informed will be on their side in this case so they can set a precedent. The government claims this won’t set a precedent but of course it will. Already people are saying “Apple has cooperated before, why not now?”. The whole reason the government is going after this phone IS to create a precedent – they don’t really expect to find anything useful on the phone.

Others have noted that the ramifications of specifically building weaknesses into a device at the governments request will of course be requested in the future, both by the US as well as other governments, including those we may find objectionable. In fact as I wrote this it came out that the Justice Department is already requesting Apple for 12 other phones. At this point we can pretty much put the “no precedent” argument to bed.

There are those arguing this would help prevent an attack – note that this isn’t the position of the FBI, but some in the senate who are trying to kill encryption. This is specifically about having access to the phone after you have a warrant – this would not have prevented this attack.

It’s not about finding out who committed the attack, we know that as well. It’s not about finding out who they communicated with – that comes from email logs and phone logs and doesn’t require the phone. Really it’s just a red herring to allow the anti-encryption crowd to further their agenda. Under the guise of making us safer they’d make us all less safe, since real statistics show us that the chances of having identity theft or a stolen phone are MUCH MUCH higher than preventing any terror attack, as I’ve noted above.

Legal and International Impact

What's the Impact If we choose to go down the path that the FBI is demanding, we need to think about the ramifications of this approach. I’ll break down the personal security and privacy vs police interests in the near future. For the moment we can set them aside and focus on what the impact could be.

I have to ask why the government prescribing the “how” rather than the “what“? By this I mean that if they want the phone data, then the request should ask for it. Of course, they could go to others like Macaffee and at least try to get the phone opened. But it isn’t about the phone, it’s about the precedent. That’s why they’ve prescribed how they want Apple to respond. The bigger legal question will be whether the government actually has the right to force a software vendor to write a specific piece of software.

If the government succeeds in their request, what will it mean overall? Can the government go after other security features, eventually asking Apple to backdoor their encryption methods as well? Why just Apple, why not all other smartphone vendors as well? And your desktop computer too.

And if the US government can force this, what about foreign governments? Will our security policies end up being defined by oppressive regimes? Some say that it’s about human rights because of how oppressive regimes handle their spying.

I know we all hate hearing the slippery slope argument, but in this case there is actually very little upside in the FBI demand and a whole lot of downside.

An Unreported Security Vulnerability

There’s one more issue here that scares me as a security professional. Namely the exploit of loading a new version of an OS onto a locked phone. This is certainly a problematic issue from a device security perspective. I wonder if Apple will be plugging this hole in the near future?

There is some security around this method because the new software needs to be digitally signed by Apple, but this is certainly an attack surface that bad actors will be taking a more in-depth look at. What if this build of iOS gets out in the wild somehow? Why wouldn’t people try to steal it? Can people try to figure out how to push their own OTA onto a device? How hard is it to bypass the Apple signature?

I’m certain future versions of iOS will probably take into account everything learned during this case. As always we can expect jailbreaks to continue to get more difficult as Apple tightens their security.

What’s the answer

Again, I need to reiterate that I recognize the legitimate need of law enforcement to investigate crimes. But there is also a legitimate interest for the public in protecting their information, finances and property. We have to ask ourselves if making everyone’s phone less secure is the best way to achieve greater security?

[Update 2016-02-24 16:45 – More info available since this morning. There is an article today in the New York Times that discusses how Apple is apparently planning to fix the update security loophole as I mentioned above. Not surprising, since it’s definitely something a bad actor could also use.

There is also an article at TechDirt that explains how demanding that Apple circumvent security technology may actually be against the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. So stay tuned on that front as well. ]

[Update 2016-02-26 13:15 – San Bernardino Sheriff Jarron Burguan had an interview with NPR where he admitted there is probably nothing useful on the phone. He said:

I’ll be honest with you, I think that there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone

which pretty much shows you what I was saying – it’s not about the phone.]

[Update 2015-02-26 15:30 – Bloomberg news just reported a secret government memo that details how the government is trying to find ways around device encryption – despite wide reports that they’re just interested in those one phone and not in setting a precedent.]


Map Ado About Nothing

Navigation It’s amazing how much noise in mobile technology is created for issues that are at best marginal. For example, there was the iPhone 4 Antennagate. Honestly, my iPhone 4 didn’t give me any antenna problems, nor did my iPhone 4s. I really love my current Nexus 4 phone, but it actually does have problems dropping signal or weak signal. Sometimes it just won’t connect in a place where I know it should, and I have to reboot it. Of course, there is no Nexus 4 antennagate, though perhaps there should be.

So I thought I’d touch on another non-issue… maps in smartphone navigation. I haven’t done any comprehensive test of maps that you could call scientific, but I do know what my own experience is, and it somehow doesn’t match what the noise on the internet says. For the record, I have an android phone and table, and an iOS phone and tablet, so I can currently run checks that should be pretty good.

One thing that I’ve done frequently when I travel with colleagues from work is have us both run our mapping apps at the same time. In the past, I’ve had multiple occasions where the android device using Google maps got us to the wrong location, while the Apple device was correct. Bit caveat here – I normally use a paid app on the iPhone, either Navigon or Magellan. I happen to believe that with maps you get what you pay for, and my experience continues to support that. With that in mind, I really was comparing Google maps to paid maps.

And there’s the rub – if you’re used to old-fashioned web-base map applications with static routes and static turn-by-turn, then the Google map app is amazing. More still if you’ve been stuck in the tar pits and are using a paper map. The experience is so much better with Google, that the fans tend to overlook the comparison with serious GPS applications and devices, where Google maps looks mediocre at best. Don’t get me wrong, Google has a good track record of improving things they care about, and maps seems to be one of them, so it probably will get there. At the moment however, it takes a back seat to the traditional GPS big boys.

So Apple dumped Google map late last year for their own app, how has that worked out? Well there was a lot of noise about how horrible it was and how much money it would cost and how long it would take to fix them. As it turned out, many fixes were made much faster than the naysayers predicted. Surprise – Apple has deep pockets! Note that Apple still has a ways to go, especially against the afore-mentioned GPS big boys, but overall it’s not bad. Like Google, if Apple cares, they’ll fix the problems. If it’s a “marketing checkbox” for them, then it’ll never get fixed. I’d hope for the former, but since I almost always use 3rd party map apps and currently carry the Nexus 4 as my primary, it doesn’t really matter to me.

As far as the reason Apple changed, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the aspiring journalist, but a few possible reasons are:

a) Apple wants to screw us
b) Apple wants to screw Google
c) Apple wants to stop sending revenue in Google’s direction
d) Apple wanted to build voice turn-by-turn full app and Google license didn’t allow it

apple_maps_tomtom1apple_maps_tomtom2 A point to remember in this comparison is also that many people still don’t seem to know that TomTom supplies at least some of the map data behind Apple maps. Note from the picture on the left the TomTom name right above the “Drop Pin” button. On the right look for TomTom intellectual property in the last paragraph. Everyone loves TomTom, everyone hates Apple – what does that tell you about anti-fanboi-ism? The people at TomTom say that the data is fine, and the app has problems, and I suspect they’re correct. I suspect the overall question of accuracy is less troublesome than people make it out to be.

The question is how does it work out in real life usage. I have three examples I’d like to share. My first actual test was traveling to San Francisco for a conference. It was a quick trip, so I decided to use public transit and my feet. Yes, here Apple has a problem, they need public transit support. I was lucky, because I knew basically what I was doing to get from Airport to downtown. The maps came into play when I exited the subway and tried to find my hotel.

In the past, I’ve not been very happy with GPS when I’m on foot in a city. Out in the field they’re great, but when trapped between tall buildings and weak signal it’s tricky, plus nuances of direction and signal accuracy can be far more confusing. On this point Apple scored big for me. When you drill down to their 3D view, you can actually tell not just where you want to go, but where you actually are. Foot travel was a win for Apple. I do happen to enjoy Google’s street view, but I don’t find it useful for navigation.

Best Buy SLO location in Google maps on a Nexus 4
Best Buy SLO location in Google maps on a Nexus 4

The second experience was a recent trip to San Luis Obispo. At the hotel I found myself missing a wanted cable, (gotta have that HDMI cable so I can connect my table to the hotel TV) so I set out in search of the local Best Buy. It was my first trip carrying the Nexus 4, so I was using Google maps.

Best Buy SLO location in Apple maps in iOS 6 on an iPhone 5
Best Buy SLO location in Apple maps in iOS 6 on an iPhone 5

As you can see from the maps on either side, Google got it wrong, while Apple got it right. Unfortunately for me, I was only carrying the Nexus 4 at the time, and had to resort to stopping at a few stores to get directions. When I tried it on my iPhone later, you can see that it put me at the store front, rather than the middle of an empty field.

I know that this happens to Apple maps users as well, the point is that Google also suffers from it’s own share of inaccuracies. I will note that in this instance, I definitely like the better imagery of the Google maps, but accuracy has to come first. Imagery quality varies by locations, sometimes giving the nod to Google, and other times Apple.

Another situation happened to me on New Year’s Eve at the Pomona Valley Mining Co in Pomona, CA. I’ve driven past the place numerous times, as it sits on a hill above the freeway, but I’ve never actually been there and wasn’t sure how to approach it, so I took to the phone maps once again.

pomico_la_iphone4 The top picture, captured from my iPhone, shows a good route using Apple maps. Unfortunately, this was captured after-the-fact, having been misdirected by Google I was curious once again to see if the Apple maps had it right.

The bottom photo is where my Google maps on my Nexus 4 tried to send me. Note that it was correct up until the last, where it directed me for a final right turn, instead of a left and a quick-right. Lucky for me I stopped at the intersection with no traffic behind me and figured it out. pomico_la_nexus4_google

As a funny afterthought, I tried the same thing at home using Navigon on android and it got me to the same wrong place as Google maps, while Navigon on iOS just stopped at the road itself where Android was telling me to turn right, without telling me to turn left or right. This one surprised me, as I’ve had pretty good luck with Navigon. Magellan on iOS did the “right” thing by telling me to turn left. I’m not sure what maps sit behind Navigon on both platforms, but it would be interesting to know.

So there you have it, so far I’ve tried Apple maps three times against Google, and where I live and travel, Apple works out better than Google. What have your experiences with maps been? What app do you really love?

[Update 2016-03-11 It really depends where you live. In the Tysons Corner / McLean Virginia area Apple maps is horrible. In California it’s generally pretty good. Waze is really great in lots of areas – but mostly where there is heavy population density.]

That Bright Light You Saw was the End of Flash

It’s finally official – at least for those who are aware of how the web works. Yesterday Adobe (ADBE) announced that they will be discontinuing flash support for mobile devices.

HTML5 © by Josef Dunne

A couple of brief quotes from their blog post follow:

“However, HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively. This makes HTML5 the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms. …”

“Our future work with Flash on mobile devices will be focused on enabling Flash developers to package native apps with Adobe AIR for all the major app stores. We will no longer continue to develop Flash Player in the browser to work with new mobile device configurations…”

To be sure they did plenty of backpedaling about renewed focus and new features for the desktop, but make no mistake, they see the light at the end of the tunnel, and they finally figured out it’s a train. Hello HTML5 Express!

As I’ve said before this is a fine thing. The truth is that many years ago Adobe was the only way to do animation, video, and interactivity at all. And after that, it was just the best way. And after that, the most common way.

Today the need for Flash has greatly diminished. HTML5 has already delivered on the promise in the area of video, and AJAX works very well for interactive web applications.

Three things really killed them. I’ll take them in reverse order, since the third was just a symptom, but most think it was the cause. Namely, Steve Jobs. At Apple (AAPL), Jobs figured out that Flash not only doesn’t work well for mobile, but it probably wasn’t every going to, at least not before HTML5 would catch on. But Jobs didn’t kill Flash, he was just more vocal about it’s shortcomings.

Number one was that the need for Flash simply isn’t there the way it once was. Web pages used to be really static. In the beginning there were almost completely text. Then people started adding more images. Then came databases and data-driven apps. Then video, sound, and fully interactive applications.

But before the last, there was a gap, people wanted video and apps, but it just wasn’t easy. Most applications consisted of some special code that had to be downloaded on your machine, and were essentially client-server programs that used the web simply as a transport mechanism. Flash is pretty much the same as the others, with the exception that it was pretty easy to use, and it managed to catch on. With critical mass, it started to be supported by most browsers, and off it went.

Today we can get streaming video quite easily without Flash. Any web site that doesn’t provide video feeds in HTML5 simply cuts off millions of potential users, which is generally a poor business decision.

As for apps, the simple web applications that are in Flash will continue to live on, but the great desire for them has changed. Now users can download free and inexpensive games all day long on their mobile devices, which is where they normally play the little time wasters. (I’m not judging, I do it myself.) So why do you need Flash?

That leaves us with advertisers – and they have a problem there. People without Flash simply don’t get their message. From the producer side it’s a problem anyway, as a consumer, I’m happy to turn Flash of in my browser, and only click when I know it’s something I need. AJAX is where advertising will end up, and actually it’s very well suited to the task, seeing as the first A in AJAX stands for asynchronous, which is perfect for advertising.

So reason number one is that the need for Flash has melted away. I was tempted to say evaporated, but it wasn’t that quick. It’s been a slow steady change in how the web works, from proprietary thick browser plug-ins to open dynamic lightweight AJAX. And that’s a good thing, both for consumers and for the people who run the pipes that the internet is carried over.

I’ve always said that the value Adobe brings to the table isn’t so much Flash itself as the amazing tools they provide for web development. The designer shouldn’t have to care so much about whether the application is Flash or HTML5, they should be able to just code. Adobe should be able to quickly get in front of this by providing everything Flash does in HTML5. And to do that, they had to finally admit that HTML5 is killing Flash. Mobile is just the first step.

As for reason number 2 (for those who’ve been keeping track… 3,1,2) it explains why mobile is the first step. And that reason is that Flash is ill-suited for mobile for various reasons. One is performance. It’s easy to see that Flash is a hog no matter what the platform.

Try a simple test – fully charge the battery on your laptop. Fully disable Flash and spend a couple hours surfing the web. Then charge the battery again, turn Flash back on, and repeat. You’ll be shocked at the results. Bear in mind, I’m not talking about playing Flash games and video even, just surf the web. Not only do you avoid advertising, but you’re battery lasts longer and everything runs faster. Who would have that that dumping Flash was a way of going green? But it is. Now imaging trying the same thing on a device with a tiny battery, slower processor and a lot less memory. Painful.

The other part of the equation is the usage paradigm. Early in the iPhone era people started writing articles about how to program an iPhone. Many articles described handling the touch interface exactly the way you would a mouse. This is of course ridiculous, especially now with multi-touch and gesture.

Even without that, a finger simply doesn’t behave the way a mouse does. For instance, you can pick a finger up and put it down somewhere and the cursor moves with it. If you pick up a mouse and set it down the cursor is either where you started or in some random place – not the most useful feature.

The touch interface is just one aspect of mobile programming that makes Flash painful on a mobile device. Silly things like x controls that let you close a Flash animation are frequently too small to be used. Add that all up and you find that the basic concept of Flash is flawed, namely to be a “write-once run-anywhere” works fine on the desktop, but doesn’t translate well to the mobile touch-enabled world. Which leads us back to Steve Jobs, 1-2-3.

And a funny footnote. RIM (RIMM) has announced that unlike Adobe, they will continue to support Flash development for the Blackberry Playbook. They just don’t know when to give up, do they? It’s not surprising coming from the people who thought that no one would want mp3 files on their phones. As ZDnet
put it:

But to continue to support an already dead platform on a dying tablet is like throwing salt in the wound of an already squashed slug.

So when HTML5 gets better and your mobile device gets stronger, you can thank Adobe for finally recognizing the inevitable – Flash is dead.

Google has a tool that you can use to convert Flash to HTML5.

AI Smackdown – Siri vs Eliza

John McCarthy © by eschipul
John McCarthy, creator of LISP, and father of modern artificial intelligence (AI) died today. He was one of the first guys to work seriously on getting computers to do things that you wouldn’t normally have expected computers to do, like play Chess or have a conversation.

One of the most common AI applications programmers have played with over the years is Eliza. Like others at the time, one of my first attempts at writing an interesting piece of software in my youth was to alter an Eliza program written in BASIC (as taken from the pages of Creative Computing, for all you old-timers). Eliza is a simple software psychoanalyst created in the 60’s by Joseph Weizenbaum. While Eliza wasn’t written by McCarthy, she was certainly a product of his inspiration on the industry.

Ever since the new iPhone came out with Siri, the digital assistant, I’ve been thinking about comparing her to Eliza. I don’t often get to play with AI here at Parasoft and the death of McCarthy brought the topic to my mind again. I’ve put together a small comparison of questions and answers from Siri and Eliza. Note that with Siri, your mileage may vary, she doesn’t always answer the same way. I’ve obviously skipped most of the “useful” things that Siri can do, as it would be an unfair comparison for poor old Eliza, who doesn’t have all the modern advantages that Siri does.

It’s interesting because while they share a common logical bond, their personalities are very different. Siri was designed to be helpful and amusing. Eliza was specifically designed not to be helpful, in that she’s supposed to be a therapist and lead you to your own conclusions rather than give you answers. Eliza isn’t an assistant, she’s an attempt to play the “imitation game” also known as the turing test.

For the samples below I used a java version of Eliza that you can try for yourself on the web.

Q: Can you help me?
E: You believe I can help you don’t you ?
S: You can say thinks like… (A list of sample queries)

Q: What are you doing?
E: Why do you ask ?
S: Just thinking

Q: Who is your favorite composer?
E: Why are you concerned over my favorite composer?
S: I guess I don’t have one.

Q: Are you married?
E: Why are you interested in whether I am married or not ?
S: We were talking about you, not me.

Q: What is your name?
E: I am not interested in names.
S: My name? It’s Siri.

Q: You are beautiful
E: What makes you think I am beautiful?
S: Oh, Stop.

Q: I love you
E: Perhaps in your fantasies we love each other.
S: Oh, Stop.

Q: How are you?
E: Does that question interest you?
S: I am well ____ (name)

Q: What do you think?
E: What is it you really wanted to know?
S:It’s nice of you to ask, but it doesn’t really matter what I think
or I think differently.

Q: Good night
E: I’m not sure I understand you fully.
S: Ah… it’s still only _____ (fill in the time)
or other answers depending on the time of day.

Q: Can you send a message to my brother?
E: Tell me more about your family.
S: I don’t know who your brother is, To whom shall I send it, I need a contact name, phone number, or email address.
orWhat do you want to say to ____ (your brother)?

I’m not sure about all of the reasons they’re so different. Sure, the state of the art in AI has come a long way since the 60’s. Or is it just that men’s expectations of women have changed? I was tempted to write that perhaps people are more friendly or helpful now than in the 60’s but that’s ridiculous. Perhaps it’s only that computers are now more helpful and friendly than they were. Is it possible that Eliza’s seeming bad mood had something to do with her obvious handicaps in memory and CPU. Maybe she was aware of this, and it caused her to be ill-tempered? In any case, Eliza comes across as a bit cynical, while Siri is much more light-hearted most of the time. Siri’s mood can definitely change as you can see from some of the answers.

It occurs to me that it would be funny to get Siri to talk to Eliza – would Eliza help Siri, or would Siri end up making Eliza more friendly?

So if your computer was nice to you today, thank John McCarthy.

[Update I added a few more links and minor clarification as well as AI resources]

Here’s a list of my favorite fiction books about killer AI.

Some resources on AI artificial intelligence:

Artificial Intelligence: The Basics

Artificial Intelligence for Humans, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms

Artificial Intelligence in the 21st Century (Computer Science)

The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Will Artificial Intelligence Serve Us Or Replace Us?

Books on AI at Amazon