Current hysteria sounds like assassins can use the pump to kill their targets and avoid discovery, which unless answers are "yes" and "yes" is false, or at least no worse than current medical devices.
Maybe the pump is crap, but the security researcher here is more crap, and
That is in fact what the researcher is saying - the answers are yes and yes. By simply gaining access to any configured PCA pump, whether it's in hospital inventory, on any patient (including an attacker admitted as a patient), an attacker can remotely manipulate any identical PCA pump on the "secure" wireless network. And as others have said, since these pumps generally dispense opioid pain killers, it would be trivial to kill most any patient attached to one.
What you're advocating is security by obscurity. Since this flaw is no longer obscure, the pump is no longer secure. Oh God, I'm channeling Johnny Cochran during the OJ trial.
And one certainly didn't get cellular service back then because you were tired of being overcharged by AT&T. A normal cellular bill back then was way over $200/month - in 1986 dollars. And that got you maybe 60-70 minutes of air time, and didn't include long distance either.
Back in the day the FCC, through spectrum allocations, mandated that each major future cellular (they weren't called wireless back then) market would be divided into two: the non-incumbent "A" service provider (e.g., like a Cellular One in the NYC metro area) and the incumbent "B" service provider (like NYNEX in this case). So in lots of markets wireless startups were funded by investors who'd make a killing. But in other markets, the non-incumbent carrier was simply another RBOC which was entering into a new territory.
And of course, when we see the later T-1000 form a pointy sword from its liquid metal arm and kill young John Connor's foster father, it's further proof that there's still old cruft code in the future kernel, since it's just reproducing Linus' most famous gesture.
You personally may have no long term plans, but if mankind wants to live as long enough to speciate, we have to clean up our act - with resource usage and population control here on earth, and branching out beyond earth. If we don't radically change our economic model, then the latter choice is the only choice for survival our our species.
It's like trying to PROVE which group is better, Christians or Catholics.
Which is better, Los Angelenos or Californians? Americans or North Americans? Asians or Earthlings?
Evangelicals or Christians? Sunnis or Muslims? Shia or Muslims?
You do understand set theory, don't you? Perhaps you missed the class on Venn diagrams
Politicians/Marketing twist everything for their own use.
The problem with scientists and engineers is that they don't understand economics or sociology.
You obviously aren't an engineer by training. Engineering education harps very heavily on the economics aspect of every engineering project. If anything, engineers are constrained by their code of ethics, whereas politicians and marketers are not.