4 ms·

Not a fan of this post. Yes, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek's stunt had relatively low risk, but the difference is that they were risking the lives of innoce

Not a fan of this post. Yes, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek's stunt had relatively low risk, but the difference is that they were risking the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with it. You don't get to "quantify risk" for others who didn't ask for it, who are completely unassociated with you and your activities. "Business leaders quantify and prioritize risk, but we don't, so our useless advice is ignored." I do agree that progress needs to be made on this front.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Every time you drive a car you are risking the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with it.
roflc0ptic 11y ago
> "You don't get to "quantify risk" for others who didn't ask for it, who are completely unassociated with you and your activities." To take an example from the article: when you change lanes in a car, you're incurring risk for others "who didn't ask for it, and are completely unassociated with and your activities." I agree that it's generally unacceptable to incur risk to others' lives, but in actual fact we do it often. Not totally related to your point: on the whole people seem to ignore existing systematic risk and privilege preventing non-systematic risk. Interactions with cars kill so many people! The unmitigated disaster that is climate change - a product of using cars - is in all probability going to kill so many more people! But here we are, having a discussion moralizing about the way some security researchers did or did not misuse their car (fwiw, I'm in the "misused" camp). The problem here might be irresponsible use of cars by two bad actors, but it might be larger?
- PowerPete 11y ago
  when you change lanes in a car, you're incurring risk for others The difference is there's a reasonable expectation of danger from other drivers every time you're on the road. OTOH, you have no reasonable expectation of danger coming from random security researchers. people seem to ignore existing systematic risk and privilege preventing non-systematic risk Agree 100%, I think we agree on a lot here.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    >>The difference is there's a reasonable expectation of danger from other drivers every time you're on the road. OTOH, you have no reasonable expectation of danger coming from random security researchers. Not sure what you mean. If you're driving on the freeway and the car in front of you loses power, why does it matter whether it lost power due to lack of maintenance or because it got hacked by security researchers? The impact for you, and your solution, will be the same: momentary confusion followed by corrective action.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Every time you drive a car you are risking the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with it.

roflc0ptic 11y ago

> "You don't get to "quantify risk" for others who didn't ask for it, who are completely unassociated with you and your activities." To take an example from the article: when you change lanes in a car, you're incurring risk for others "who didn't ask for it, and are completely unassociated with and your activities." I agree that it's generally unacceptable to incur risk to others' lives, but in actual fact we do it often. Not totally related to your point: on the whole people seem to ignore existing systematic risk and privilege preventing non-systematic risk. Interactions with cars kill so many people! The unmitigated disaster that is climate change - a product of using cars - is in all probability going to kill so many more people! But here we are, having a discussion moralizing about the way some security researchers did or did not misuse their car (fwiw, I'm in the "misused" camp). The problem here might be irresponsible use of cars by two bad actors, but it might be larger?

PowerPete 11y ago
when you change lanes in a car, you're incurring risk for others The difference is there's a reasonable expectation of danger from other drivers every time you're on the road. OTOH, you have no reasonable expectation of danger coming from random security researchers. people seem to ignore existing systematic risk and privilege preventing non-systematic risk Agree 100%, I think we agree on a lot here.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  >>The difference is there's a reasonable expectation of danger from other drivers every time you're on the road. OTOH, you have no reasonable expectation of danger coming from random security researchers. Not sure what you mean. If you're driving on the freeway and the car in front of you loses power, why does it matter whether it lost power due to lack of maintenance or because it got hacked by security researchers? The impact for you, and your solution, will be the same: momentary confusion followed by corrective action.