4 ms·

Cone blocking isn't hacking. It's simple criminal behavior.

Kamq 3y ago
Understanding a system well enough to manipulate it in ways that the owner doesn't want seems at least in the same category of phone phreaker behavior. Which was also criminal behavior, but the point is that I don't think it automatically disqualifies it from the category.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Exactly. Some criminal acts are so simple even an animal could do them - destroy something. Others are so complex or use the software against itself that they clearly are hacking; even if they remain criminal.
  - jfoster 3y ago
    Is putting a cone on a vehicle to cause traffic jams really so complex? Perhaps the first person to do it was a bit clever, but anyone imitating it really isn't.
    - Kamq 3y ago
      I think it depends. To compare it back to the phone phreaker example, putting up a single cone that blocks something is roughly the equivalent of cutting a phone line. That is to say, probably not hacking. But what about when you add a level of complexity and creativity? Say, putting up a series of cones that trap the car in an endless circle?
      - jfoster 3y ago
        I don't really think the semantics matter too much. Sure, call the circle of cones a hack. The point is, it's criminal & likely causes a degree of chaos well beyond a simple prank.
        Kamq 3y ago
        That did not seem to be the point of the original post that I responded to. Specifically, it seemed to imply that anything that was criminal could not be hacking. The legal status of something, seems completely orthogonal to hacking to me.
        jfoster 3y ago
        That wasn't my point in the original post. Obviously overlap between those two things is possible.
        Kamq 3y ago
        Then I completely misread the post. In my defense I went back and re-read it, and it still looks that way. But, y'know, tone and text and all that. I could always be wrong. What was the point then?
        jfoster 3y ago
        The point was that it's a stupid and harmful crime. Calling it a hack makes it sound like a clever harmless prank. The point is about the characterization of it, not about what hacks can and cannot be.
blibble 3y ago
which law is being broken?
- jfoster 3y ago
  Good question & to be honest I'm not 100% sure, though I bet there are many laws vague enough to capture it. If it causes extreme traffic jams, perhaps there's some kind of public nuisance law that will cover it? Is interference with public infrastructure a crime? Do you actually think this type of behavior will simply be tolerated?
  - blibble 3y ago
    as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway
    - jfoster 3y ago
      They don't put the cone on the bonnet for no reason. They do it because they know what the likely outcome will be. In a similar way, if you booby trap a vehicle such that it might surprise a human driver in some way whilst they are driving, causing them to potentially have an accident, the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident.
      - blibble 3y ago
        > the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident. this is nice rhetoric and all but doesn't apply at all in this situation nothing has been tampered with: the cone can be removed and having done so the vehicle will be indistinguishable from before it was placed (no property damage) the "attack" keeps the vehicle in its safest possible state (that in which it can't move) so there is no intent to cause an accident and you still have yet to point out which law is being broken (I suspect because there isn't one), so it is a crime? however the company may be able to go after you in a civil court for lost revenue/reputation

Kamq 3y ago

Understanding a system well enough to manipulate it in ways that the owner doesn't want seems at least in the same category of phone phreaker behavior. Which was also criminal behavior, but the point is that I don't think it automatically disqualifies it from the category.

bombcar 3y ago
Exactly. Some criminal acts are so simple even an animal could do them - destroy something. Others are so complex or use the software against itself that they clearly are hacking; even if they remain criminal.
- jfoster 3y ago
  Is putting a cone on a vehicle to cause traffic jams really so complex? Perhaps the first person to do it was a bit clever, but anyone imitating it really isn't.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    I think it depends. To compare it back to the phone phreaker example, putting up a single cone that blocks something is roughly the equivalent of cutting a phone line. That is to say, probably not hacking. But what about when you add a level of complexity and creativity? Say, putting up a series of cones that trap the car in an endless circle?
    - jfoster 3y ago
      I don't really think the semantics matter too much. Sure, call the circle of cones a hack. The point is, it's criminal & likely causes a degree of chaos well beyond a simple prank.
      - Kamq 3y ago
        That did not seem to be the point of the original post that I responded to. Specifically, it seemed to imply that anything that was criminal could not be hacking. The legal status of something, seems completely orthogonal to hacking to me.
        jfoster 3y ago
        That wasn't my point in the original post. Obviously overlap between those two things is possible.
        Kamq 3y ago
        Then I completely misread the post. In my defense I went back and re-read it, and it still looks that way. But, y'know, tone and text and all that. I could always be wrong. What was the point then?
        jfoster 3y ago
        The point was that it's a stupid and harmful crime. Calling it a hack makes it sound like a clever harmless prank. The point is about the characterization of it, not about what hacks can and cannot be.

blibble 3y ago

which law is being broken?

jfoster 3y ago
Good question & to be honest I'm not 100% sure, though I bet there are many laws vague enough to capture it. If it causes extreme traffic jams, perhaps there's some kind of public nuisance law that will cover it? Is interference with public infrastructure a crime? Do you actually think this type of behavior will simply be tolerated?
- blibble 3y ago
  as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway
  - jfoster 3y ago
    They don't put the cone on the bonnet for no reason. They do it because they know what the likely outcome will be. In a similar way, if you booby trap a vehicle such that it might surprise a human driver in some way whilst they are driving, causing them to potentially have an accident, the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident. this is nice rhetoric and all but doesn't apply at all in this situation nothing has been tampered with: the cone can be removed and having done so the vehicle will be indistinguishable from before it was placed (no property damage) the "attack" keeps the vehicle in its safest possible state (that in which it can't move) so there is no intent to cause an accident and you still have yet to point out which law is being broken (I suspect because there isn't one), so it is a crime? however the company may be able to go after you in a civil court for lost revenue/reputation