4 ms·

Or you could fill a truck up with diesel and fertilizer and blow it up. This technology is far more likely to reduce deaths associated with cars than increase.

Or you could fill a truck up with diesel and fertilizer and blow it up. This technology is far more likely to reduce deaths associated with cars than increase. Go back to the beginning of the 20th century and think how much damage could be caused by creating a nationwide electric grid. People could electrocute people at will. Personally, I'm kind of glad we went ahead with it.

noduerme 15y ago
[EDIT] Again, I really don't understand why I'd be downvoted for asking a legitimate question like this. It's rather disconcerting. While it's great to think about a future in which this technology is safe and widely available, it seems to me I'm being attacked for simply asking basic security questions that I would ask about any large system that was going through trials prior to mass rollout. And rather than hearing any specific answers, I'm just being attacked and voted down. I think anyone who's spent time in IT would probably ask these things first before they deployed a new system in their company office, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them about about a potentially game-changing social innovation.[/EDIT] That's true. But blowing up a diesel truck is hard to do remotely, and requires someone to actively attack at a specific place and time. I'm not sure why I got downrated for my post; I'm just asking, doesn't this create a lot of security holes and attack vectors that need to be studied before allowing it? I mean, I haven't heard anything about security, at all. The focus seems to be on a safe driving experience, but where's the white paper on counter-hacking measures? Can you imagine if Google launched Gmail without any kind of plan to mitigate stolen passwords or hijacked accounts? As it is, there are plenty of people who do have their accounts hijacked. Luckily, that doesn't lead to collisions and deaths. Consider for a moment how many people run Windows and IE, with the latest security updates, who are still vulnerable to zero day exploits. Consider how many don't update their software and get swept up in botnets a few days later. Now imagine each and every compromised PC has physical control over 2-3 tons of rolling aluminum and steel, that can go anywhere on a public highway, with human beings inside it. An attacker who had taken control over a botnet of compromised autonomous carscould drive swarms of them wherever they wanted by remote control. Now, rather than downvote me, tell me what security protocols will be in place to prevent the scenarios I've outlined.
- kelnos 15y ago
  No network access. The computer that controls the car doesn't need to talk to anything other than the car. That eliminates a slew of attack vectors right there.
  - noduerme 15y ago
    Is "no network access" going to be part of the legal framework under which the vehicles operate? Presumably they need to download maps from somewhere, along with traffic updates, road hazards, etc. Most new cars have network capabilities as it now stands. So it's unreasonable to assume that they won't have any network access. And as we know, anything with network access can eventually be rooted.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      My guess is that the basic systems (keep the car from going off-road or colliding, letting people takeover, etc) will run on an real-time barebones OS on a embedded system and will have a very simple and well defined interface to a full machine that runs all the crap like the UI, navigation systems and such. I wouldn't discount having your car stolen remotely, but hijacking with humans inside is unlikely to work, and so is crashing into things.
      - waterlesscloud 15y ago
        If it's navigating according to a map that's downloaded from a network, upload a faulty map to it. Then it will go whereever you want it to.
        icebraining 15y ago
        Well, two things: * Being possible is not the same as being easy or likely. For example, what if the system only accepts maps digitally signed by the company? You know have to either get the signing cert from the company or break digital cryptography. * If there's a person inside, the can still take over and drive it themselves or tell it to park and ask for technical support.
im3w1l 15y ago
For the first time in history, a large portion of adult lives will hinge on the unhackability of consumer gear.
- noduerme 15y ago
  Yes - exactly my point. Before, it was relatively rare for a hack or a computer crash to lead to death. This radically changes the probability of that occurring... therefore it seems that saying we'll take standard security measures and be complacent until something happens is probably not a responsible reaction. No matter how great the technology or how gung-ho people are to see it deployed.

noduerme 15y ago

[EDIT] Again, I really don't understand why I'd be downvoted for asking a legitimate question like this. It's rather disconcerting. While it's great to think about a future in which this technology is safe and widely available, it seems to me I'm being attacked for simply asking basic security questions that I would ask about any large system that was going through trials prior to mass rollout. And rather than hearing any specific answers, I'm just being attacked and voted down. I think anyone who's spent time in IT would probably ask these things first before they deployed a new system in their company office, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them about about a potentially game-changing social innovation.[/EDIT] That's true. But blowing up a diesel truck is hard to do remotely, and requires someone to actively attack at a specific place and time. I'm not sure why I got downrated for my post; I'm just asking, doesn't this create a lot of security holes and attack vectors that need to be studied before allowing it? I mean, I haven't heard anything about security, at all. The focus seems to be on a safe driving experience, but where's the white paper on counter-hacking measures? Can you imagine if Google launched Gmail without any kind of plan to mitigate stolen passwords or hijacked accounts? As it is, there are plenty of people who do have their accounts hijacked. Luckily, that doesn't lead to collisions and deaths. Consider for a moment how many people run Windows and IE, with the latest security updates, who are still vulnerable to zero day exploits. Consider how many don't update their software and get swept up in botnets a few days later. Now imagine each and every compromised PC has physical control over 2-3 tons of rolling aluminum and steel, that can go anywhere on a public highway, with human beings inside it. An attacker who had taken control over a botnet of compromised autonomous carscould drive swarms of them wherever they wanted by remote control. Now, rather than downvote me, tell me what security protocols will be in place to prevent the scenarios I've outlined.

kelnos 15y ago
No network access. The computer that controls the car doesn't need to talk to anything other than the car. That eliminates a slew of attack vectors right there.
- noduerme 15y ago
  Is "no network access" going to be part of the legal framework under which the vehicles operate? Presumably they need to download maps from somewhere, along with traffic updates, road hazards, etc. Most new cars have network capabilities as it now stands. So it's unreasonable to assume that they won't have any network access. And as we know, anything with network access can eventually be rooted.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    My guess is that the basic systems (keep the car from going off-road or colliding, letting people takeover, etc) will run on an real-time barebones OS on a embedded system and will have a very simple and well defined interface to a full machine that runs all the crap like the UI, navigation systems and such. I wouldn't discount having your car stolen remotely, but hijacking with humans inside is unlikely to work, and so is crashing into things.
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      If it's navigating according to a map that's downloaded from a network, upload a faulty map to it. Then it will go whereever you want it to.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        Well, two things: * Being possible is not the same as being easy or likely. For example, what if the system only accepts maps digitally signed by the company? You know have to either get the signing cert from the company or break digital cryptography. * If there's a person inside, the can still take over and drive it themselves or tell it to park and ask for technical support.

im3w1l 15y ago

For the first time in history, a large portion of adult lives will hinge on the unhackability of consumer gear.

noduerme 15y ago
Yes - exactly my point. Before, it was relatively rare for a hack or a computer crash to lead to death. This radically changes the probability of that occurring... therefore it seems that saying we'll take standard security measures and be complacent until something happens is probably not a responsible reaction. No matter how great the technology or how gung-ho people are to see it deployed.