5 ms·

Some comments here mention "AI driving the car" being the end game. I can't help but wonder what happens when a self driving car gets hacked, doors locked (unlo

Some comments here mention "AI driving the car" being the end game. I can't help but wonder what happens when a self driving car gets hacked, doors locked (unlocking disabled) and driven off a cliff. Self driving cars will be magical and transformative but we don't really know what will happen. It may end up requiring a human co-driver to take over in case the algorithm misbehaves. So I do hope that self driving cars will come with regulation that mandates the presence of a licensed driver with ability to take over the manual controls. Update: Here is a small sample of articles about "non-hackable" systems getting hacked... [1] Nuclear power plants: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche.. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche.... [2] air-gapped computers: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com.. http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com.... [3] autopilots: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack.. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack.... reply

adrianN 11y ago
Self driving cars most likely won't be hackable in that way. Autopilots in planes aren't, why should they be hackable in cars?
- idibidiart 11y ago
  Hackable? Nuclear Power Stations are hackable [1]. Even machines without any connection to a network are hackable [2] And autopilots have been hacked [3], too. When will the masses wake up and realize that "security" is just a concept. Not an infallible reality. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switches-ies-vulnerabilities/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche... [2] http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-computer-simple-cell-phone/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com... [3] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hacking/hacker-uses-an-android-to-remotely-attack-and-hijack-an-airplane.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack...
  - kjksf 11y ago
    And yet not a single nuclear accident caused by hacking. Not a single airplane accident caused by hacking. Doesn't that undermine your chicken little attitude to the dangers of car hacking? If you want to kill someone in a car, buy a gun, wait for him to get in the car and then shoot him. There are plenty of ways to do serious harm that are easier than becoming a hacking mastermind that can willy-nilly penetrate Google's security.
    - idibidiart 11y ago
      I don't think self driving cars will be allowed in a major way unless there are guarantees that humans can take over purely manual control. That is my point, not that self driving cars are a danger in and by themselves.
  - petra 11y ago
    There's a lot of boasting in this field, but the FAA claims that your number 3 , does only work in a simulator , not on certified planes. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2496667/cyberwarfare/faa-says-hijack-a-jet-app-works-only-on-simulator.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2496667/cyberwarfare/fa...
kjksf 11y ago
Google prototypes have a big, red stop button that, I assume, takes precedence over hackable software. Similarly, it's easy to not have door unlocking connected to hackable software. In general, I find hacking worries unwarranted. Sure, cars from car manufacturers were hacked because car manufacturers are bad at writing software and are bad at security. Google is good at software and they are top-notch on security. They have been fighting hacking of their web services from day one, they employ world class cryptographers and security researchers. They are also aware that if their cars were hacked, it would be a very bad PR. Requiring licensed driver would significantly hamper adoption of self-driving cars not to mention cutting off people who need such service the most (e.g. old people who are no longer fit for driving; disabled people; drunk people etc.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- avar 11y ago
  > Google prototypes have a big, red stop button that, > I assume, takes precedence over hackable software. You think so? I would assume not. I doubt the car is just going to screech to a halt via some hardware switch, think about the danger of someone pressing that while in the center lane of a highway. Instead it's probably synonymous with giving the software a "stop now" command. I.e. it would know to safely pull over to the side of the road, or take the next off-ramp in that situation. So if someone had hacked the driving software that could be overridden. I do think idibidiart is being overly alarmist. Self-driving cars don't have to be perfect, and there could certainly be malicious hacking incidents, but they're highly likely to outnumber the cases where people die now due to imperfect human drivers.
  - idibidiart 11y ago
    I agree there is more benefit than harm, but I doubt any self-driving car will be legal without a manual override... if at least for national security reasons.
sandworm101 11y ago
People have brought up the "unlock disabled" thing with Uber. Child safety locks are not allowed on most cabs. Drivers are not allowed to lock passengers into the back seats. But Uber drivers can.

adrianN 11y ago

Self driving cars most likely won't be hackable in that way. Autopilots in planes aren't, why should they be hackable in cars?

idibidiart 11y ago
Hackable? Nuclear Power Stations are hackable [1]. Even machines without any connection to a network are hackable [2] And autopilots have been hacked [3], too. When will the masses wake up and realize that "security" is just a concept. Not an infallible reality. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switches-ies-vulnerabilities/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche... [2] http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-computer-simple-cell-phone/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com... [3] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hacking/hacker-uses-an-android-to-remotely-attack-and-hijack-an-airplane.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack...
- kjksf 11y ago
  And yet not a single nuclear accident caused by hacking. Not a single airplane accident caused by hacking. Doesn't that undermine your chicken little attitude to the dangers of car hacking? If you want to kill someone in a car, buy a gun, wait for him to get in the car and then shoot him. There are plenty of ways to do serious harm that are easier than becoming a hacking mastermind that can willy-nilly penetrate Google's security.
  - idibidiart 11y ago
    I don't think self driving cars will be allowed in a major way unless there are guarantees that humans can take over purely manual control. That is my point, not that self driving cars are a danger in and by themselves.
- petra 11y ago
  There's a lot of boasting in this field, but the FAA claims that your number 3 , does only work in a simulator , not on certified planes. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2496667/cyberwarfare/faa-says-hijack-a-jet-app-works-only-on-simulator.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2496667/cyberwarfare/fa...

kjksf 11y ago

Google prototypes have a big, red stop button that, I assume, takes precedence over hackable software. Similarly, it's easy to not have door unlocking connected to hackable software. In general, I find hacking worries unwarranted. Sure, cars from car manufacturers were hacked because car manufacturers are bad at writing software and are bad at security. Google is good at software and they are top-notch on security. They have been fighting hacking of their web services from day one, they employ world class cryptographers and security researchers. They are also aware that if their cars were hacked, it would be a very bad PR. Requiring licensed driver would significantly hamper adoption of self-driving cars not to mention cutting off people who need such service the most (e.g. old people who are no longer fit for driving; disabled people; drunk people etc.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
avar 11y ago
> Google prototypes have a big, red stop button that, > I assume, takes precedence over hackable software. You think so? I would assume not. I doubt the car is just going to screech to a halt via some hardware switch, think about the danger of someone pressing that while in the center lane of a highway. Instead it's probably synonymous with giving the software a "stop now" command. I.e. it would know to safely pull over to the side of the road, or take the next off-ramp in that situation. So if someone had hacked the driving software that could be overridden. I do think idibidiart is being overly alarmist. Self-driving cars don't have to be perfect, and there could certainly be malicious hacking incidents, but they're highly likely to outnumber the cases where people die now due to imperfect human drivers.
- idibidiart 11y ago
  I agree there is more benefit than harm, but I doubt any self-driving car will be legal without a manual override... if at least for national security reasons.

sandworm101 11y ago

People have brought up the "unlock disabled" thing with Uber. Child safety locks are not allowed on most cabs. Drivers are not allowed to lock passengers into the back seats. But Uber drivers can.