3 ms·

I'm saying that I see the risk that MY car will do something actually harmful due to a bad actor are so low that the benefits (remote control or a software that

I'm saying that I see the risk that MY car will do something actually harmful due to a bad actor are so low that the benefits (remote control or a software that evolves over time) are bigger. You think that risks don't compensate benefits, it's fine. (I'm not including in the equation theft, because any kind of car can be stolen anyway.)

palata 3y ago
> I'm saying that I see the risk that MY car will do something actually harmful Sure, but that's completely ignoring the consequences of everybody doing that, too. Just like for privacy. "If I share MY data, it's okay" -> sure, but when everyone does, it becomes a different matter. If all the vehicles are connected, and someday all the vehicles stop working (maybe due to a collateral effect like NotPetya, maybe due to some voluntary attack), then that is a problem. My point, in the beginning, was that we should not connect everything. Not because everybody is individually the target of a serious threat actor, but because connecting everything in mass with bad security is dangerous. We should stop putting mics and cameras and Internet access into everything just for some marketing benefit. That's all I was saying.
- darkwater 3y ago
  I get your point, but I don't agree. Following the privacy example, I'm not in favor of privacy just because bad actors could steal data from a company DB. I support privacy (and privacy regulations) because regular companies misbehave with that data. They have incentives to do so, they did it and continue to do it if they can. Reduce data theft risks is the cherry on the cake.
  - palata 3y ago
    > I'm not in favor of privacy just because bad actors could steal data from a company DB. I support privacy (and privacy regulations) because regular companies misbehave with that data. I don't get that. So you want to prevent regular companies from abusing your data, but you don't mind so much about bad actors abusing it? Presumably bad actors have an incentive to hurt you, whereas regular companies have an incentive to make more profit (and hurting you is a collateral damage). I mean, if we can't agree on the fact that having any group (governmental or not) out there have access to some IA trained on all the data of everybody is a national security risk for pretty much everybody, I don't think we can go any further in this discussion. We'll just have to agree to disagree :-).

palata 3y ago

> I'm saying that I see the risk that MY car will do something actually harmful Sure, but that's completely ignoring the consequences of everybody doing that, too. Just like for privacy. "If I share MY data, it's okay" -> sure, but when everyone does, it becomes a different matter. If all the vehicles are connected, and someday all the vehicles stop working (maybe due to a collateral effect like NotPetya, maybe due to some voluntary attack), then that is a problem. My point, in the beginning, was that we should not connect everything. Not because everybody is individually the target of a serious threat actor, but because connecting everything in mass with bad security is dangerous. We should stop putting mics and cameras and Internet access into everything just for some marketing benefit. That's all I was saying.

darkwater 3y ago
I get your point, but I don't agree. Following the privacy example, I'm not in favor of privacy just because bad actors could steal data from a company DB. I support privacy (and privacy regulations) because regular companies misbehave with that data. They have incentives to do so, they did it and continue to do it if they can. Reduce data theft risks is the cherry on the cake.
- palata 3y ago
  > I'm not in favor of privacy just because bad actors could steal data from a company DB. I support privacy (and privacy regulations) because regular companies misbehave with that data. I don't get that. So you want to prevent regular companies from abusing your data, but you don't mind so much about bad actors abusing it? Presumably bad actors have an incentive to hurt you, whereas regular companies have an incentive to make more profit (and hurting you is a collateral damage). I mean, if we can't agree on the fact that having any group (governmental or not) out there have access to some IA trained on all the data of everybody is a national security risk for pretty much everybody, I don't think we can go any further in this discussion. We'll just have to agree to disagree :-).