8 ms·

The wonderful thing about IoT is the criminal can be on the other side of the world with no chance of any justice coming to them.

falcolas 6y ago
Not to mention, from TFA: "They're also so fleeting that they're difficult for the human eye to detect, and leave behind very little evidence." We've already got people who do things purely for the lulz (swatting, anybody) who could easily justify away these kinds of activities.
- mattbee 6y ago
  Both good points - so this kind of crime would likely be indistinguishable from a random, terrifying software failure, with the blame falling on the car maker.
  - hellotomyrars 6y ago
    I mean it is a failing of the manufacturer on some level. Not saying someone intentionally exploiting the car isn't also at fault, but I also don't think it's unrealistic to hold the manufacturer accountable as well.
  - piracy1 6y ago
    Tesla logs so much data and stores it and has used it to defend itself in various legal / PR matters. I wonder if they would catch it if someone did this. Or maybe suddenly they wouldn't have that data lol
  - a_bonobo 6y ago
    Very often I see these tiny articles in local newspapers, 15 sentences, that go something like 'The driver lost control of their vehicle and died in the crash'. I've had some terrifying software problems in Audis, including random shutdowns while driving due to faulty sensors, how often do you think someone who 'lost control of their car', which implies that there was human error, died because their car's electronics or software were faulty? That number definitely is not zero.
    - mattbee 6y ago
      Yeah! I'm sure that's happened in software in less sophisticated, but maybe more understandable ways. Lane-keeping & auto-braking software - which loads of cars have - is absolutely terrifying to think about, and I'd be fascinated to see these attacked from a research POV. My old Celica tried to murder me on the M62 and Toyota denied the problem for years (the gas pedals got stuck under the floor mats). And that was just a really obvious (in retrospect) design flaw - for how long could a car maker viably deny safety problems in their software?
Buttons840 6y ago
How long until someone claims one of these images designed to cause trouble for AIs is free speech? And are they right?
- someguy101010 6y ago
  Id say no to the free speech since that sounds similar to shouting fire in a movie theater
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Shouting fire in a movie theater is not a good example of unprotected speech, and as such it's not a good place to start reasoning from in deciding of other speech is unprotected. Otherwise, you start banning core political speech like advocacy against the draft, just like the since-overturned case that bad example comes from.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
      - katzgrau 6y ago
        > Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected. What is true or false isn't always clear though, even if there's a popular or official consensus. The point of having a public forum is to give new ideas a chance, as unheard of or unpopular as they may be. Of course, with that you get the risk of misinformation as well. As a society we must choose how much risk we're willing to tolerate, and really consider if the the downsides of the level of free speech we have today are really so much different than what we've historically dealt with.
        6y ago
TaylorAlexander 6y ago
The trick is to construct a real looking advertisement that “accidentally” triggers this effect, and order the ad placed on digital billboards in Silicon Valley through a fake company located somewhere far far away.
- userbinator 6y ago
  There have already been (audio) ads that trigger speech-recognising machines like Alexa, and in that case I would very much say it is free speech.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Like the famous 2017 Burger King ad that deliberately hijacked nearby Google Home smart speakers. [0] There's an argument to be made that it should be covered by cyber-attack laws. You aren't allowed to deliberately take control of someone else's computer without their permission. Consider a hypothetical example: an author without use of their hands, who uses text-to-speech to write books and to control their computer. Imagine if they put you on speakerphone and you read out a sequence of commands to delete their work. That certainly wouldn't be covered under freedom of expression. There's an obvious difference in degree, as spamming someone by hijacking their smart speaker isn't all that costly, but it's similar in category. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising#2000s%E2%80%932010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising#2000s%...
    - dorgo 6y ago
      >There's an argument to be made that it should be covered by cyber-attack laws. Yes, but smart speakers should not rely on laws to prevent successfull attacks.
quickthrower2 6y ago
Low chance of any justice.
gridlockd 6y ago
Your run-of-the-mill criminal has some sort of profit motive and this seems like a very roundabout way to attempt extortion. A terrorist on the other hand would probably be dissatisfied with the not-quite-catastophic outcome. If you want to cause real havoc, there are far more valuable targets to hack into.
- josefx 6y ago
  We have idiots that call swat teams on twitch streamers. The profit is for the lulz.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Yes, any idiot can call 911 and have SWAT team dispatched, but that is a very low effort "attack". I'm not saying that this could never possibly happen, but it's not much of a real threat exactly because effort vs reward is unfavorable.
handol 6y ago
What about the criminal who mounted the screen next to the road and hooked it up to the internet?

falcolas 6y ago

Not to mention, from TFA: "They're also so fleeting that they're difficult for the human eye to detect, and leave behind very little evidence." We've already got people who do things purely for the lulz (swatting, anybody) who could easily justify away these kinds of activities.

mattbee 6y ago
Both good points - so this kind of crime would likely be indistinguishable from a random, terrifying software failure, with the blame falling on the car maker.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago
  I mean it is a failing of the manufacturer on some level. Not saying someone intentionally exploiting the car isn't also at fault, but I also don't think it's unrealistic to hold the manufacturer accountable as well.
- piracy1 6y ago
  Tesla logs so much data and stores it and has used it to defend itself in various legal / PR matters. I wonder if they would catch it if someone did this. Or maybe suddenly they wouldn't have that data lol
- a_bonobo 6y ago
  Very often I see these tiny articles in local newspapers, 15 sentences, that go something like 'The driver lost control of their vehicle and died in the crash'. I've had some terrifying software problems in Audis, including random shutdowns while driving due to faulty sensors, how often do you think someone who 'lost control of their car', which implies that there was human error, died because their car's electronics or software were faulty? That number definitely is not zero.
  - mattbee 6y ago
    Yeah! I'm sure that's happened in software in less sophisticated, but maybe more understandable ways. Lane-keeping & auto-braking software - which loads of cars have - is absolutely terrifying to think about, and I'd be fascinated to see these attacked from a research POV. My old Celica tried to murder me on the M62 and Toyota denied the problem for years (the gas pedals got stuck under the floor mats). And that was just a really obvious (in retrospect) design flaw - for how long could a car maker viably deny safety problems in their software?

Buttons840 6y ago

How long until someone claims one of these images designed to cause trouble for AIs is free speech? And are they right?

someguy101010 6y ago
Id say no to the free speech since that sounds similar to shouting fire in a movie theater
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Shouting fire in a movie theater is not a good example of unprotected speech, and as such it's not a good place to start reasoning from in deciding of other speech is unprotected. Otherwise, you start banning core political speech like advocacy against the draft, just like the since-overturned case that bad example comes from.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
    - katzgrau 6y ago
      > Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected. What is true or false isn't always clear though, even if there's a popular or official consensus. The point of having a public forum is to give new ideas a chance, as unheard of or unpopular as they may be. Of course, with that you get the risk of misinformation as well. As a society we must choose how much risk we're willing to tolerate, and really consider if the the downsides of the level of free speech we have today are really so much different than what we've historically dealt with.
      - 6y ago

TaylorAlexander 6y ago

The trick is to construct a real looking advertisement that “accidentally” triggers this effect, and order the ad placed on digital billboards in Silicon Valley through a fake company located somewhere far far away.

userbinator 6y ago
There have already been (audio) ads that trigger speech-recognising machines like Alexa, and in that case I would very much say it is free speech.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Like the famous 2017 Burger King ad that deliberately hijacked nearby Google Home smart speakers. [0] There's an argument to be made that it should be covered by cyber-attack laws. You aren't allowed to deliberately take control of someone else's computer without their permission. Consider a hypothetical example: an author without use of their hands, who uses text-to-speech to write books and to control their computer. Imagine if they put you on speakerphone and you read out a sequence of commands to delete their work. That certainly wouldn't be covered under freedom of expression. There's an obvious difference in degree, as spamming someone by hijacking their smart speaker isn't all that costly, but it's similar in category. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising#2000s%E2%80%932010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising#2000s%...
  - dorgo 6y ago
    >There's an argument to be made that it should be covered by cyber-attack laws. Yes, but smart speakers should not rely on laws to prevent successfull attacks.

quickthrower2 6y ago

Low chance of any justice.

gridlockd 6y ago

Your run-of-the-mill criminal has some sort of profit motive and this seems like a very roundabout way to attempt extortion. A terrorist on the other hand would probably be dissatisfied with the not-quite-catastophic outcome. If you want to cause real havoc, there are far more valuable targets to hack into.

josefx 6y ago
We have idiots that call swat teams on twitch streamers. The profit is for the lulz.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Yes, any idiot can call 911 and have SWAT team dispatched, but that is a very low effort "attack". I'm not saying that this could never possibly happen, but it's not much of a real threat exactly because effort vs reward is unfavorable.

handol 6y ago

What about the criminal who mounted the screen next to the road and hooked it up to the internet?