3 ms·

Well, one bomb would be, yes. A sufficiently hypothetically scary driverless car attack might manage to do more deaths (though it'd be really hard, even for a

Well, one bomb would be, yes. A sufficiently hypothetically scary driverless car attack might manage to do more deaths (though it'd be really hard, even for a state actor). But I think it wouldn't really get to the level of "more capable of causing terror." If you could cause let's say 15,000 deaths by a well-coordinated one-day bombing attack, and 80,000 deaths by a well-coordinated one-day driverless car attack, do those two things actually differentiate themselves in terms of your nation's agenda? I'd think they'd cause more-or-less identical amounts of terror, and the only purpose of such attacks are terror. Ultimately, I don't think it's important. Nobody who's resourced well enough to pull this off is interested in doing it.

aidenn0 9y ago
If I understand correctly, your claim is that only well-resourced (e.g. state-level) attackers will be able to pull this off. It is extremely clear to me that today both desktop computers and IoT devices do not require a well-resourced attacker to compromise (can we agree on this?). The point where we disagree is that I see little evidence that driverless car companies are investing in defense in depth that is at a level significantly higher than either IoT devices or desktop operating systems. Indeed, there is such a race to be first-to-market that the companies are incentivized to not spend resources on it.