![Raspberry%20PI%20B%202-02[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Uzw6WSZ.png "Raspberry%20PI%20B%202-02[1].png")
Don't know if I should post this on /g/ or here, so I'll try here first.
In this hypothetical scenario, let's say some people do some really bad shit with a raspberry pi. "Bad shit" meaning hack a bunch of banks, remotely set off some bombs, run a massive child porn distribution network, or anything else you can use a small, cheap disposable computer you can buy with cash for.
What are the consequences for the other legitimate users of the raspberry pi and similar tiny computers?
Do you think we'll see some outright bans or restrictions on computers once sensationalist news articles about the "$25 terror computer you can buy at radio shack" get published?
>sensationalist news articles about the
stop right there. nobody in the news is going to know or care what that circuit board is or does. I think the closest historical analogy is GPS units which what, get banned in 3rd world countries worried about spying? another similar situation is lab glassware: there are a few unenforced restrictions but it's trivially easy to buy whatever online.
The Pi isn't suited to any of those tasked you described. However what it is good for is attacking wireless networks. Get a small container, add a PI and a battery and you have a mobile hacking machine that costs less than $50. Produce a ton of them and drop them all around the target you want to hack. Government has already explored this and as such they're invested in it. They won't place a ban.
>>886628
let us not forget clockmed. "misunderstood genius" will come to mind. although if they are discovering rpis then I assume that they will go off as successfully as the unabombers many shitty bombs that never did anything or only took a few fingers.
>>886643
this guy is right.
>remotely set off bombs
something you could do for cheaper with something else
>run a massive child porn distribution network
The Raspberry Pi specifically is terrible for I/O. A CP ring would be better run by an SBC that has both SATA/USB3.0 and Gigabit Ethernet.
Basically, the Raspberry Pi is far too cheap to be useful for anything except as an embedded development board toy, or as a local terminal for a real server.
Do we see bans on vehicles because some people break the law with them? No, why would computers be different?
>>886686
Because the majority of people drive them. A tiny minority uses these boards and could be bullied easily by a scared populace. The glassware was a very good analogy.
Op is contributing to the problem by letting the idea exist. It needs to be ignored out of existslence
>>886628
We'll see nothing. When you rob a goddamn bank nobody cares what brand of laptop or shoes thieves wear. Unless it is technologically very specific attack where the said device grants its user unique capabilities.
I don't see how RPI could fill this role. There are dozens of embedded computing platforms, single board computer or whatever you call it. Many, quite affordable ones came long before RPi (e.g. PC/104).
What i could see as a potential danger for RPi is it's widespread use in professional and mission critical systems, when it's designed and marketed as basic education tool. Someone might offer backdoor'ed tools or libraries with sweet features to gain access or compromise such systems.
>>886713
>>886628
This reminds me of when Sparkfun got subpoena'd over a card skimmer
https://www.sparkfun.com/news/836
>>886628
It's too widespread. Governments can't ban hugely popular things. Alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there yet it can't be banned because too may people use it. I'm hoping drones will reach this stage before the CAA brings down the banhammer.
>>886736
Its only a matter of time before some edge lord shoots up a school with one.
>>886713
I think you underestimate how much of the news is just sensationalist bullshit to attract ad revenue. The "news" these days is pretty much just click bait, and the surest way to scare the shit out of people and get viewers is to make something that ordinary folks know nothing about seem big and scary. I can totally see some small piece of esoteric gadgetry becoming a target.
>>886754
That is true. But the piece of technology must play a very significant role compared to the crime itself to focus especially on it, compared to any other practical or technological detail, that contributed to that crime.
Like, can you even name the model of plane or weapons that the terrorists used on 9/11 without guessing?
>>886686
>Do we see bans on vehicles because some people break the law with them? No, why would guns be different?
ftfy
