8 ms·

To recap the facts: - Man drives car on public highway @ speeds of up to 70mph - Hackers turn on windshield wipers and fluid to blur view - Hackers Blare mus

by hoopism 11y ago

To recap the facts: - Man drives car on public highway @ speeds of up to 70mph - Hackers turn on windshield wipers and fluid to blur view - Hackers Blare music and obscure any comms link to driver - Hackers disable vehicle on Highway at location with no shoulder And there are people who are not only ok with type of experiment but think there should be more of it. I understand that these exploits need to get attention... but I really can't stop thinking about my wife and kids being behind this guy while he shows how dangerous this can be. I applaud the person who notified the police.

danielweber 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board is how normal people deal with this.
- kbenson 11y ago
  No, I think notifying the police, who then notify the IRB is how normal people would deal with this. I don't expect the normal person knows about the IRB (I'm not surprised it exists, but I was unaware of it). In a similar vein, if you notified your local police about a kidnapping they would notify the FBI, because kidnapping is the FBI's jurisdiction.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    By "deal with this" I meant "deal with the fact that researchers have giant blind spots about the ethical impacts of their research." I don't expect Joe Random to know to contact these guys' IRB, when they likely don't have one at all.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Ah, fair enough. I interpreted it as you saying people should have contacted the IRB, not the police, regarding this breach of ethics in research.
Grue3 11y ago
Now imagine the exploit being used by a blackhat. The hackers aren't the problem here. The fact that somebody can even control cars over the Internet at all is.
- peeters 11y ago
  It's not either/or. You're presenting a false dilemma. You can demonstrate the problem without doing it where you put real lives in danger. The researchers acted recklessly.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > You can demonstrate the problem without doing it where you put real lives in danger. Indeed. And according to the article, they already did. The manufacturers ignored them.
    - peeters 11y ago
      Well, no, the manufacturers didn't ignore them. They responded with a patch, but the researchers didn't like their response. Still doesn't matter though. There are a million shades between quiet disclosure and outright stupidity that would still make headlines. 1) They could have let the "test dummy" in on what was going to happen, so they could give feedback as to when it was safe to do so. 2) They could have ensured constant two-way communication. 3) They could have done it when nobody was on the road.
      - yellowapple 11y ago
        > They responded with a patch, but the researchers didn't like their response. It was my understanding that the patch was released in response to the live highway test, not the prior tests in controlled environments. > They could have let the "test dummy" in on what was going to happen, so they could give feedback as to when it was safe to do so. The article makes it sound like they did. > They could have ensured constant two-way communication. Indeed they could've. I agree with you about the recklessness of this particular element of the test. > They could have done it when nobody was on the road. Perhaps, and I agree that maybe they should've coordinated with local authorities (if they didn't already). However, between "do the test with vehicles on the road" and "don't do the test at all", I'd certainly pick the former. Not to mention that the urgency involved with other vehicles on the road factors into the effectiveness of the demonstration.
the8472 11y ago
> but I really can't stop thinking about my wife and kids What about all those wives and kids that would have been endangered if the flaw had continued to go unfixed and exploited in a more malicious manner? Can we please not make "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN" arguments? Appealing to emotion makes arguments, well, emotional.
- hoopism 11y ago
  By saying this you are basically saying there was no reasonable alternative method of exposing this. I am unwilling to say that. This argument that somehow the ends justify the means when there was a clearly more safe means has to stop. It's just ignorant.
  - ripter 11y ago
    > By saying this you are basically saying there was no reasonable alternative method of exposing this. No, he's saying you need a better argument.
- kbenson 11y ago
  The two options here are not "test on highway with other drivers" and "let flaw exist with no testing and no exposure". There are many ways to responsibly test this while not endangering others on a public road. For example, using a private road, a large empty parking lot, an abandoned airforce base, the salt flats, etc. The Mythbusters test stuff like this all the time. What do they do? Use an abandoned airforce base or the Utah salt flats. Rule number one, don't endanger the public.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > For example, using a private road, a large empty parking lot, an abandoned airforce base, the salt flats, etc. The researchers did many of these things, according to the article. They were ignored by auto makers.
    - kbenson 11y ago
droopybuns 11y ago
Is there anything more human than to react with fear and anger towards scientists who make a difficult problem easy to understand?
- freehunter 11y ago
  There's one thing more human than that, and that is to react with fear and anger when someone senselessly endangers their lives.
- truphan 11y ago
  Maybe just the desire to extend the lives of those we love.
btbuildem 11y ago
Tell your wife not to tailgate and get off her facebook while driving, and all will be well.
- peeters 11y ago
  Stop acting like it takes negligence on the part of the other drivers to make this a dangerous situation.
yellowapple 11y ago
I take it you also can't stop thinking about your wife and kids being behind someone whose engine stalls, or who slams one's brakes to avoid hitting a deer, or who runs out of gas on an interstate (which has happened to me, thanks to my car's faulty fuel gauge). You must have a lot on your mind. I don't agree with the methodology, either, but based on the information in the article, it sounded like the researchers didn't have much of a choice, seeing as how prior demonstrations were casually dismissed by the automakers. The auto manufacturers and the public both need a wakeup call, and this is a much more sane wakeup call than the even worse alternative of outright-malicious crackers breaking into vehicles en masse and reducing highway traffic to shrapnel in ridiculously-large pileups.
- freehunter 11y ago
  "I didn't have a choice but to fire a gun in the middle of a crowd of people. It was just a wake up call!. You always have a choice. One of those choices is to do the demo, but with the proper safety authorities helping. One of those choices is to perform the demo in a place where it is safe to pull your car over. One of those choices is to do the demo somewhere where the speeds are a little lower. All of those things you listed are actual emergency situations that are hard to control. This is one thing where they were in full control of, and still decided to do it anyway. They had a choice, and they chose to endanger the public.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    There's a big difference between firing a gun and a car gradually slowing down. Yes, the researchers could have made better choices. They could have made worse choices, too. The "danger" here is significantly exaggerated given the descriptions of the scenario in the article (gradual slowdowns, contrary to popular belief, aren't that hard to react to in a timely manner), and it certainly does not compare to firing a gun.

by hoopism 11y ago

danielweber 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board is how normal people deal with this.

kbenson 11y ago
No, I think notifying the police, who then notify the IRB is how normal people would deal with this. I don't expect the normal person knows about the IRB (I'm not surprised it exists, but I was unaware of it). In a similar vein, if you notified your local police about a kidnapping they would notify the FBI, because kidnapping is the FBI's jurisdiction.
- danielweber 11y ago
  By "deal with this" I meant "deal with the fact that researchers have giant blind spots about the ethical impacts of their research." I don't expect Joe Random to know to contact these guys' IRB, when they likely don't have one at all.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Ah, fair enough. I interpreted it as you saying people should have contacted the IRB, not the police, regarding this breach of ethics in research.

Grue3 11y ago

Now imagine the exploit being used by a blackhat. The hackers aren't the problem here. The fact that somebody can even control cars over the Internet at all is.

peeters 11y ago
It's not either/or. You're presenting a false dilemma. You can demonstrate the problem without doing it where you put real lives in danger. The researchers acted recklessly.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  > You can demonstrate the problem without doing it where you put real lives in danger. Indeed. And according to the article, they already did. The manufacturers ignored them.
  - peeters 11y ago
    Well, no, the manufacturers didn't ignore them. They responded with a patch, but the researchers didn't like their response. Still doesn't matter though. There are a million shades between quiet disclosure and outright stupidity that would still make headlines. 1) They could have let the "test dummy" in on what was going to happen, so they could give feedback as to when it was safe to do so. 2) They could have ensured constant two-way communication. 3) They could have done it when nobody was on the road.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      > They responded with a patch, but the researchers didn't like their response. It was my understanding that the patch was released in response to the live highway test, not the prior tests in controlled environments. > They could have let the "test dummy" in on what was going to happen, so they could give feedback as to when it was safe to do so. The article makes it sound like they did. > They could have ensured constant two-way communication. Indeed they could've. I agree with you about the recklessness of this particular element of the test. > They could have done it when nobody was on the road. Perhaps, and I agree that maybe they should've coordinated with local authorities (if they didn't already). However, between "do the test with vehicles on the road" and "don't do the test at all", I'd certainly pick the former. Not to mention that the urgency involved with other vehicles on the road factors into the effectiveness of the demonstration.

the8472 11y ago

> but I really can't stop thinking about my wife and kids What about all those wives and kids that would have been endangered if the flaw had continued to go unfixed and exploited in a more malicious manner? Can we please not make "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN" arguments? Appealing to emotion makes arguments, well, emotional.

hoopism 11y ago
By saying this you are basically saying there was no reasonable alternative method of exposing this. I am unwilling to say that. This argument that somehow the ends justify the means when there was a clearly more safe means has to stop. It's just ignorant.
- ripter 11y ago
  > By saying this you are basically saying there was no reasonable alternative method of exposing this. No, he's saying you need a better argument.
kbenson 11y ago
The two options here are not "test on highway with other drivers" and "let flaw exist with no testing and no exposure". There are many ways to responsibly test this while not endangering others on a public road. For example, using a private road, a large empty parking lot, an abandoned airforce base, the salt flats, etc. The Mythbusters test stuff like this all the time. What do they do? Use an abandoned airforce base or the Utah salt flats. Rule number one, don't endanger the public.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  > For example, using a private road, a large empty parking lot, an abandoned airforce base, the salt flats, etc. The researchers did many of these things, according to the article. They were ignored by auto makers.
  - kbenson 11y ago

droopybuns 11y ago

Is there anything more human than to react with fear and anger towards scientists who make a difficult problem easy to understand?

freehunter 11y ago
There's one thing more human than that, and that is to react with fear and anger when someone senselessly endangers their lives.
truphan 11y ago
Maybe just the desire to extend the lives of those we love.

btbuildem 11y ago

Tell your wife not to tailgate and get off her facebook while driving, and all will be well.

peeters 11y ago
Stop acting like it takes negligence on the part of the other drivers to make this a dangerous situation.

yellowapple 11y ago

I take it you also can't stop thinking about your wife and kids being behind someone whose engine stalls, or who slams one's brakes to avoid hitting a deer, or who runs out of gas on an interstate (which has happened to me, thanks to my car's faulty fuel gauge). You must have a lot on your mind. I don't agree with the methodology, either, but based on the information in the article, it sounded like the researchers didn't have much of a choice, seeing as how prior demonstrations were casually dismissed by the automakers. The auto manufacturers and the public both need a wakeup call, and this is a much more sane wakeup call than the even worse alternative of outright-malicious crackers breaking into vehicles en masse and reducing highway traffic to shrapnel in ridiculously-large pileups.

freehunter 11y ago
"I didn't have a choice but to fire a gun in the middle of a crowd of people. It was just a wake up call!. You always have a choice. One of those choices is to do the demo, but with the proper safety authorities helping. One of those choices is to perform the demo in a place where it is safe to pull your car over. One of those choices is to do the demo somewhere where the speeds are a little lower. All of those things you listed are actual emergency situations that are hard to control. This is one thing where they were in full control of, and still decided to do it anyway. They had a choice, and they chose to endanger the public.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  There's a big difference between firing a gun and a car gradually slowing down. Yes, the researchers could have made better choices. They could have made worse choices, too. The "danger" here is significantly exaggerated given the descriptions of the scenario in the article (gradual slowdowns, contrary to popular belief, aren't that hard to react to in a timely manner), and it certainly does not compare to firing a gun.