[tehwalrus]

This relies on an unsuspecting victim wearing a complicated nonstandard headset and then looking at a series of images / numbers slowly enough to register each of them consciously.

In what world would the victim not become suspicious?

(I appreciate things may change in the future, and if brain control headsets become common then a malware model (ad popups, for example) could provide a plausible vector for this attack.)

[Nimi]

It's my understanding that the headset is in fact standard:

(from the actual paper) "The experiments are implemented and tested using a Emotiv EPOC BCI device"

(from the hyperbole article) "For $200-300, you can buy an Emotiv"

In what world would the victim not become suspicious? I think this result is framed as "if BCI-controlled gaming takes off, it doesn't take much to harvest personal data from gamers".

Also, I wonder what are the implications for interrogation methods (think CIA, not local police). They didn't test what happens if the victim is actually trying to resist, maybe even if the victim has had guidance on how to resist. I would love to know.

[tehwalrus]

I apologise - I meant "nonstandard" as "my mum doesn't have one".

resisting this sort of thing is easy, just think "loud" alternative thoughts and close your eyes so you don't see the stimulus. Sing a song in your head. Anything.

[VMG]

Think of it as a successor to the $5 wrench attack.

[aa0]

Is it conscious or subconscious? Because that makes a huge difference on speed and subtlety of the attack.