3 ms·
The problem is then you are driving an "IoT car". One hack of a "central server", one lying or broken set of sensors, one crack or loss of encryption keys, and
by Klathmon 7y ago
The problem is then you are driving an "IoT car". One hack of a "central server", one lying or broken set of sensors, one crack or loss of encryption keys, and someone has control over a huge number of cars.
Plus you run into issues of what happens if the central server goes down, connection issues, new or changing scenery or tons of other little issues.
IMO companies working on self driving are on the right track here. That car should be able to fully self drive alongside humans without a single byte of data going in or out of the car.
- jmilloy 7y agoI don't entirely disagree, but do the cars have to phone home in order to share standardized information with standardized communication protocols?
- pault 7y agoI would add to that by saying that governments should meet half way and standardize road markings designed for CV. In that scenario the worst thing an attacker could do is paint patterns that confuse the car, but they can do that already.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chvid 7y agoI was thinking it would work for the end-user a bit like cruise control. You drive you car to a highway that supports this form of driving. You press a button and you essentially let the authority of that highway drive you to your destination (or selected exit of that highway). A central authority can handle coordination, change of environment, safety much better than a single agent.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]