3 ms·

This discussion is going insane. I see lots of people arguing about the safety of how these guys conducted the hack. Okay, sure, there is probably an issue the

by jblow 11y ago

This discussion is going insane. I see lots of people arguing about the safety of how these guys conducted the hack. Okay, sure, there is probably an issue there of some degree. But it's a very small issue compared to the fact that hundreds of thousands of vehicles are arbitrarily hackable right now, with more rolling off the assembly line all the time, and people are driving these around right now. Why is most of the discussion here about the minor issue? Why is everyone so eager to derail discussion from the major issue? I thought HN was trying to be a reasonable place.

phaylon 11y ago
> Why is most of the discussion here about the minor issue? Why is everyone so eager to derail discussion from the major issue? I thought HN was trying to be a reasonable place. I find these criticisms _extremely_ reasonable. Plus, the big discussion is not about them doing something illegal, the big discussion is about people here being totally fine with it. And given that the topic you (I assume) want to discuss is something along the lines of "negligent behavior in technology", I also find it very relevant that negligence is countered with more negligence.
- jblow 11y ago
  They might be reasonable in isolation but are not being levied remotely in proportion. I just realized what the problem is: this is bikeshedding. Everyone knows about people driving around and feels qualified to have moral indignation in that area, whereas few people know anything about actual cars.
  - phaylon 11y ago
    No, when people's lives are at stake, I extremely disagree about calling that "bikeshedding".
    - jblow 11y ago
      Please make an effort to read and understand my point. Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened. The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000. How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it.
      - phaylon 11y ago
        > Please make an effort to read and understand my point. Please don't assume disagreement implies I didn't make an effort. I understand your point, I just vehemently disagree with it. Bringing up the word "bikeshedding" when discussing putting people in danger of death is just something I can not agree with. > Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened. This is exactly why I so vehemently disagree. If we found all the people who were in traffic with them at the time, do you think they'd agree that doing experiments in public traffic next to them is a purely aesthetical issue? Recklessness isn't defined by the outcome, but by the possible outcome. > The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000. Yes, and I'm saying both are very important issues. Experiments on public roads in actual traffic are something that should not ever happen. I'm also not sure I'd put the amount of people they endangered in the 1-2 range, since there was at least one other person in the car, one in the truck behind, and others in the cars that passed them. I also wouldn't go so far as calling this controlled, since that usually means a controlled setting, safety precautions and such. > How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it. As said, I do understand, I just disagree. It would also make it much easier to talk about this if you weren't trying to insult me and others. I agree that the flaw itself is a very big issue. I disagree that the way the experiment was done isn't. And nobody here is arguing that it's good that the cars have that fault, so it's quite natural for the discussion here to be around topics people disagree on. You know what the perfect location and media would have been for such an experiment? A television car show with a dedicated track and a big audience of people driving cars.
nnbvv 11y ago
Because it hits at a core philosophical dilemma. Is it ok to kill one person because their organs will save the lives of 5 others?
MichaelGG 11y ago
Why? Because this kind of idiocy makes it easier to push for laws that limit security research. Yesterday, Google had a top post on HN about new regulation. And Google's asking for exemptions that benefit them, but would still block a lot of security researchers from publishing as they see fit. When these guys acted reckless, it hurts all of us. Even if the car company is 1000x worse.
davesque 11y ago
What if that reporter had been rear-ended and killed?
dsuth 11y ago
Ethics isn't relative. You don't get to point to some other perceived problem and say "well that's worse, so what I'm doing is fine in comparison!". Vulnerabilities in cars is an issue that needs to be fixed. Performing dangerous tests in uncontrolled environments is not a reasonable way to bring about change. If they HAD caused an accident, how would you go about consoling the victims? "Oh, that sucks for you, but hey maybe your pain/death will convince the car companies to finally do something! Cool right!". It is not acceptable to introduce hazards to the general public to prove a point.

by jblow 11y ago

phaylon 11y ago

> Why is most of the discussion here about the minor issue? Why is everyone so eager to derail discussion from the major issue? I thought HN was trying to be a reasonable place. I find these criticisms _extremely_ reasonable. Plus, the big discussion is not about them doing something illegal, the big discussion is about people here being totally fine with it. And given that the topic you (I assume) want to discuss is something along the lines of "negligent behavior in technology", I also find it very relevant that negligence is countered with more negligence.

jblow 11y ago
They might be reasonable in isolation but are not being levied remotely in proportion. I just realized what the problem is: this is bikeshedding. Everyone knows about people driving around and feels qualified to have moral indignation in that area, whereas few people know anything about actual cars.
- phaylon 11y ago
  No, when people's lives are at stake, I extremely disagree about calling that "bikeshedding".
  - jblow 11y ago
    Please make an effort to read and understand my point. Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened. The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000. How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it.
    - phaylon 11y ago
      > Please make an effort to read and understand my point. Please don't assume disagreement implies I didn't make an effort. I understand your point, I just vehemently disagree with it. Bringing up the word "bikeshedding" when discussing putting people in danger of death is just something I can not agree with. > Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened. This is exactly why I so vehemently disagree. If we found all the people who were in traffic with them at the time, do you think they'd agree that doing experiments in public traffic next to them is a purely aesthetical issue? Recklessness isn't defined by the outcome, but by the possible outcome. > The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000. Yes, and I'm saying both are very important issues. Experiments on public roads in actual traffic are something that should not ever happen. I'm also not sure I'd put the amount of people they endangered in the 1-2 range, since there was at least one other person in the car, one in the truck behind, and others in the cars that passed them. I also wouldn't go so far as calling this controlled, since that usually means a controlled setting, safety precautions and such. > How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it. As said, I do understand, I just disagree. It would also make it much easier to talk about this if you weren't trying to insult me and others. I agree that the flaw itself is a very big issue. I disagree that the way the experiment was done isn't. And nobody here is arguing that it's good that the cars have that fault, so it's quite natural for the discussion here to be around topics people disagree on. You know what the perfect location and media would have been for such an experiment? A television car show with a dedicated track and a big audience of people driving cars.

nnbvv 11y ago

Because it hits at a core philosophical dilemma. Is it ok to kill one person because their organs will save the lives of 5 others?

MichaelGG 11y ago

Why? Because this kind of idiocy makes it easier to push for laws that limit security research. Yesterday, Google had a top post on HN about new regulation. And Google's asking for exemptions that benefit them, but would still block a lot of security researchers from publishing as they see fit. When these guys acted reckless, it hurts all of us. Even if the car company is 1000x worse.

davesque 11y ago

What if that reporter had been rear-ended and killed?

dsuth 11y ago

Ethics isn't relative. You don't get to point to some other perceived problem and say "well that's worse, so what I'm doing is fine in comparison!". Vulnerabilities in cars is an issue that needs to be fixed. Performing dangerous tests in uncontrolled environments is not a reasonable way to bring about change. If they HAD caused an accident, how would you go about consoling the victims? "Oh, that sucks for you, but hey maybe your pain/death will convince the car companies to finally do something! Cool right!". It is not acceptable to introduce hazards to the general public to prove a point.