[x] Yes

// Perhaps someone can come up with reasons for 'no', I can't.
@Snowfire - any reason Mary couldn't participate in the same way if she wants to?
 
Is there any way we can guard against cognitive attacks, basilisks, audio-visual hacks etc.? I think we should at the least take precautions, lower resolution, framerate, low-fi audio, pattern-scanning sacrificial VI that's continuously monitored for integrity failure. Specifically caution against magnifying interesting-seeming patterns. If one of the visitors had had an AI uprising, they might still be carrying antibodies. As said, Iris is unique and nobody knows she exists, so they wouldn't think it harmful.

I want a running backup of Iris's mindstate/memory state that she can roll back at a moment's notice.

If Iris is hurt, we'd never forgive ourselves.
 
Last edited:
[X] Yes

Like everyone else here, I'm having a hard time seeing any reason to say no, let alone any one that might be compelling.
 
[x] Yes
[x] Yes
[x] Yes

That's all I agreed to
Man~dy~ You know we can't trust that!

you saw the worry in her eyes, its source her knowledge of who you were
Even Mary knows!

"And all that I will, I promise."
Okay, fine.

"No." She shook her head, eyes flashing with emotion. "No! Not being there in person, I can understand. Vision could be considered a VI, if a very advanced one, and this body is clearly inorganic to even cursory scans. Not being there in person makes sense, until we know who they really are and what they really want. Insight says that they're friendly, but that might not mean all of them. I get it." She glared at you and Mary, but there was reason behind it, not petulance.
Another mark for Coda's "I told you so" tally.

Not as bold as some of the other marks since I didn't push very hard on this or go into the full details of what I was thinking, but it's still there.
 
Is there any way we can guard against cognitive attacks, basilisks, audio-visual hacks etc.? I think we should at the least take precautions, lower resolution, framerate, low-fi audio, pattern-scanning sacrificial VI that's continuously monitored for integrity failure. Specifically caution against magnifying interesting-seeming patterns. If one of the visitors had had an AI uprising, they might still be carrying antibodies. As said, Iris is unique and nobody knows she exists, so they wouldn't think it harmful.

I want a running backup of Iris's mindstate/memory state that she can roll back at a moment's notice.

If Iris is hurt, we'd never forgive ourselves.

Concordia has literally every single security system and countermeasure known to humanity built into it. Whilst there is a solemn guarantee of privacy for foreign delegations, the rest of the station is wired to gills. I will say (I think again?) that as far as you've been able to uncover, none of the races in the Contact Fleet have ever acquired AI technology. Insight isn't necessarily perfect, but it's never been wrong.
 
Do you agree to let Iris attend the conference through a virtual projection?
[X] Yes

I don't think you'll find anyone voting no to this, Snowfire :p
 
Concordia has literally every single security system and countermeasure known to humanity built into it. Whilst there is a solemn guarantee of privacy for foreign delegations, the rest of the station is wired to gills. I will say (I think again?) that as far as you've been able to uncover, none of the races in the Contact Fleet have ever acquired AI technology. Insight isn't necessarily perfect, but it's never been wrong.
I think it's still a relevant point. There's a difference between a security system / countermeasure and the suggestion being made. It's a question of defense in depth: Just in case the security systems fail, do they fail safe (equivalently, how much damage can an attacker do if they get past the defenses)? And also, how can we tell if the security systems have been breached?

Air gaps and other kinds of tightly-limited bandwidth connections help with the former, as do backups. Honeypots and change monitoring are a way to identify the latter. (Backups also help provide a means to accomplish change monitoring.)
 
Another mark for Coda's "I told you so" tally.

Not as bold as some of the other marks since I didn't push very hard on this or go into the full details of what I was thinking, but it's still there.
I don't have any problems with Iris observing via telepresence; my only concern was whether she was able to. If she feels confident that she's up to it, why not?
 
I don't think you'll find anyone voting no to this, Snowfire :p
[X]No

:V
More seriously, having Iris playing backup to Vision during the initial phases, in the event she gets hit by something we haven't foreseen and goes down would be the proper, paranoid response.
And I think it's my duty to be paranoid for the rest of us.

@Snowfire
I do hope that both Amanda and Mary discuss this in private, whatever the vote is, before telling Iris what they think.
Because when co-parenting a child, it's important to present a united front on these things.
 
Her watching remotely is the same as someone watching over a VR feed back home. It's a minimum risk, and I don't see a reason to deny that argument she gave.

[X] Yes
 
Back
Top