Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

Recommended Videos

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Clive Howlitzer said:
I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.
What happens when the system gets a virus?
 

Kaymish

The Morally Bankrupt Weasel
Sep 10, 2008
1,256
0
0
driverless cars are going to be great traffic will be improved because all the arseholes will be prevented from their arseholery by computers safety will be improved because people who cant drive will be prevented from screwing up by computers my sleep patterns will be improved because i will be able to nap on the way to work
i will be able to get to where im going without taking my life into my hands because a computer will never disobey the road rules
and the best yet i can stop driving
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
I'm a pedestrian, 36 yrs old and I have no drivers licence. I'm rather proud of the fact. I could get a licence, but I've never needed, or actually been in a position where having a car is desirable. So when I travel, which I do a lot, I'm not the one driving, and I don't care, I get to work, play, enjoy myself until I reach my destination.

Yes there is the very odd occasion where something is 'out of town' and it's a pain, but less so than tax, parking fees, petrol, inner-city parking and all the other headaches that a car would bring me. Generally I travel in comfort, take a similar amount of time, cost less and get to do other activities at the same time. For me a car makes no sense. Of course thats not true for everybody, but I suspect that many people default to 'car' without knowing that you can often/possibly have an easier life without.


Yes accidents & failures will always happen, I'm of the belief that for driverless cars to make it through legislation and onto public roads in any real way they will need to be shown to be much much safer than the current. Driverless cars on public roads will be safer purely on the basis that they won't get there otherwise. A driverless car will need to perform flawlessly with a statistical probability far far lower than that of a human, and this will include failsafes for error & fault.

If we assume that driverless cars WILL ( at some point ) be safer, then I'm all for it. being able to drive isn't a right, it's a privilege, and one that can ( and is ) taken away. you want to drive for pleasure, there will always be avenues for you to do so. but in the interests of safety, the environment, congestion, nice inner-city spaces, and so many other positive benefits, I'd rather see less cars, more better public transport & infrastructure ( personal subjective opinion).

Perhaps it'll seem creepy at first, I remember ( back in the day, in my youth, when things were black & white, with the dinosaurs) that if you say someone talking t themselves in the street you thought they were mad, now you think they're mad or on a phone. Perceptions change, driverless cars are coming.

Ok I have one last point for Driverless cars, and it's a biggie! Flying cars!
NO seriously.... there are some awesome companies working on flying cars, and you know what the kicker is? the pilot. creating a vehicle that requires a pilot is soo many hoops, then everybody will need flying car licences. At best requiring a pilot puts us maybe 50 years away from flying cars in common use... having it driverless would possibly bring this forward, perhaps as much as 20 years.


No I'm not saying, that cars should be banned, nor that cars should be driverless ( though I do think it's cool, once the safety stuff is worked out ). It's not a case of this OR that, it's a case of this, and that, encourage this here and that there, discourage this here and there etc. transportation is a deep and complex issue, and no one answer is right. The guy who drives 90minutes to get to his work is going to disagree, and thats cool. Me ? I want pretty, comfortable, inner-city living, and transportation options that fit in with that.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming. When it comes to computers and programming, there is no such thing as " secure". IT DOESN'T EXIST. The reason it doesn't exist is because so far there is no way to make it exist. What we currently have for " security" is guys warring it out with code. The programmers change the code to out pace the hackers who are also programmers solving the code and re writing it. Computer security is just a war between coders rewriting code. People are still in charge of the code.

I do not think people realize that when they start talking about having systems that are only secure due to PEOPLE actively rewriting code will somehow be more secure because they remove people from making decisions on the spot, that they are actually making something more dangerous than less because the reason NOTHING is secure on the internet as it is because of humans not being able to stop everything coming in due to not being able to rewrite code fast enough or simply overlooking a vulnerability that someone else already found. People should understand that currently:

1) we are unable to secure programs, as programs can always be rewritten.
2) we are unable to prevent cars from being hacked.
3) we are unable to create driverless cars without using GPS and GPS is already hacked and we have no way to solve the problem.

These are not " minor issues" these make or break the idea.Although, there are other issues, until these 3 things are solved it would ignorant to remotely consider moving forward on the idea as the dangers would be too great to allow a vehicle without a driver on the road.
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
Lil devils x said:
UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming.
I'm a professional dev for my day job, so I'd say yes. And generally I agree with what you're saying. However we already have ( in the western world ) most of our critical infrastructure controlled & managed by computer, water, traffic management, planes, power ( inc. power generation ), our financial systems, pretty much all business on the planet, I could go on. Is it 'secure' no of course it's not, but the risk is managed.

Of course there is a risk, BMW recently had to announce a patch since in theory it was possible to destroy a car engine via smartphone. But by the same point there are huge known issues involving SCADA systems that run our power grid, nuclear power stations, and a bunch of other really scary stuff.

No it's not a minor issue, but it doesn't make or break the concept, if it did we would have much bigger problems on our hands. You don't have planes dropping out of the sky, or nuclear explosions, power outages, complete financial collapse etc as a regular occurrence due to hacking ( though yes it does happen, stuxnet being a prime example). Clearly managing this risk, ensuring that the proper systems and resources are in place is important, but it is possible to manage this risk. Far from the chaotic "wild west" which is often portrayed ( and I don't deny there is a consistent "arms race" in security dev on many, many levels ), it is currently possible to manage this.

Generally security considerations scale in importance. Sure heartbleed was an utter nightmare ( lots of lessons learned there! ), but you find as the importance/criticality of a system or information assets increases, as does the time,effort, resources & collaborative effort to keep it secure.

It comes down to this, Do I believe that driverless cars can be safe or not from a security standpoint? If I didn't I'd be living in a cabin in the woods, far away from flightpaths,roads,power stations, and pretty much anything that could kill me with a programming error ( including my bluetooth fridge... I know that thing hates me, I can tell)
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Lil devils x said:
Clive Howlitzer said:
I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.
What happens when the system gets a virus?
Why go the virus route?
What happens to pedestrians? What happens with stray animals? What about the possibility of a falling tree?

That is why it has only worked in controlled circuits or simulations, but we can't rule out the exterior world. Not in this problem... And interaction with the real world variables is the main issue behind this problem.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Jesterscup said:
Lil devils x said:
UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming.
I'm a professional dev for my day job, so I'd say yes. And generally I agree with what you're saying. However we already have ( in the western world ) most of our critical infrastructure controlled & managed by computer, water, traffic management, planes, power ( inc. power generation ), our financial systems, pretty much all business on the planet, I could go on. Is it 'secure' no of course it's not, but the risk is managed.

Of course there is a risk, BMW recently had to announce a patch since in theory it was possible to destroy a car engine via smartphone. But by the same point there are huge known issues involving SCADA systems that run our power grid, nuclear power stations, and a bunch of other really scary stuff.

No it's not a minor issue, but it doesn't make or break the concept, if it did we would have much bigger problems on our hands. You don't have planes dropping out of the sky, or nuclear explosions, power outages, complete financial collapse etc as a regular occurrence due to hacking ( though yes it does happen, stuxnet being a prime example). Clearly managing this risk, ensuring that the proper systems and resources are in place is important, but it is possible to manage this risk. Far from the chaotic "wild west" which is often portrayed ( and I don't deny there is a consistent "arms race" in security dev on many, many levels ), it is currently possible to manage this.

Generally security considerations scale in importance. Sure heartbleed was an utter nightmare ( lots of lessons learned there! ), but you find as the importance/criticality of a system or information assets increases, as does the time,effort, resources & collaborative effort to keep it secure.

It comes down to this, Do I believe that driverless cars can be safe or not from a security standpoint? If I didn't I'd be living in a cabin in the woods, far away from flightpaths,roads,power stations, and pretty much anything that could kill me with a programming error ( including my bluetooth fridge... I know that thing hates me, I can tell)
And we already have in the western world, MANY problems with our systems as they attempt to connect them to the internet. They were warned repeatedly TO NEVER DO THIS by those who created the systems. ( I know this due to my father being an engineer that designed and built systems for nuclear power plants as well as the guy who converted the old main frames to the systems they have running them now) Although there is some speculation that they knowingly did this to warrant their need to police the internet later due to "cyber security", this still does not mean this is any way safe to do.

The risk isn't really currently "managed" at all yet, we have only seen the beginning of cyber crime, but as we have more growing up with the know how and tools readily available to do so, these damages will necessarily increase. Currently we do not actually have a way to solve the problem other than to take systems offline. Sure our power only went out for a while while they resolved the problem, of course that isn't really an option for people on the way to the hospital, or are crossing railroad tracks. Our power can be out for 8 hours while they resolve this, however, to leave people stranded for 8 hours or more on the streets would be devastating.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/technology/security/energy-grid-hack/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-01/renewable-energy-s-expansion-exposing-grids-to-hacking.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/government-hacked-24000-files-stolen-worst-pentagon-cyber-attack-298771
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/04/pentagon-source-says-china-hacked-defense-department-computers/
Oh look what they have here!
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/421112/how-to-hack-the-power-grid-for-fun-and-profit/

The difference between what you are comparing and the millions of vehicles on the road is that the millions of cars could be turned into already deployed lethal weapons before anyone could stop them if someone decides to access and abuse the already known and publicized vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities already exist and millions of people are already aware of how to exploit these vulnerabilities. Knowing this and using this in driverless vehicles is terribly negligent and should be considered a hazard to public safety.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Dirty Hipsters said:
You've never seen hackers do things "for the lulz?" There isn't always a monetary incentive to hacking, some people just do things to see if they can. Those are also the scariest people, the kind who are loners, don't really have empathy, and think that they're too good to get caught.

As far as being able to cause accidents by sabotaging cars now, yeah sure, you could sabotage a car and make it crash, but could you sabotage hundreds or thousands? Absolutely not. You could however sabotage thousands of cars all at once if they're being operated by computers that are all networked together.
Do these people know right now that there are driverless planes? And get this, it has onboard MISSILES.

Seriously though why would anyone hack a car when you can use the exact same idea to hack a UAV, a vehicle actually equipped to cause huge collateral damage? Why is one possible but not the other? I feel like the UAV is far more dangerous.

Where was this uproar about UAV's? Why hasnt anyone hacked one yet if these genius sociopathic hackers are just waiting in the background to hurt 1000's of people. They have had UAV's to hack for yonks and never did it. Why do you think they didnt?
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
hermes200 said:
Lil devils x said:
Clive Howlitzer said:
I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.
What happens when the system gets a virus?
Why go the virus route?
What happens to pedestrians? What happens with stray animals? What about the possibility of a falling tree?

That is why it has only worked in controlled circuits or simulations, but we can't rule out the exterior world. Not in this problem... And interaction with the real world variables is the main issue behind this problem.
This is assuming they can even build better sensors, when the system itself can never be secure no matter how they resolve other issues, I do not see it as being a realistic option.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Jesterscup said:
Lil devils x said:
UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming.
I'm a professional dev for my day job, so I'd say yes. And generally I agree with what you're saying. However we already have ( in the western world ) most of our critical infrastructure controlled & managed by computer, water, traffic management, planes, power ( inc. power generation ), our financial systems, pretty much all business on the planet, I could go on. Is it 'secure' no of course it's not, but the risk is managed.

Of course there is a risk, BMW recently had to announce a patch since in theory it was possible to destroy a car engine via smartphone. But by the same point there are huge known issues involving SCADA systems that run our power grid, nuclear power stations, and a bunch of other really scary stuff.

No it's not a minor issue, but it doesn't make or break the concept, if it did we would have much bigger problems on our hands. You don't have planes dropping out of the sky, or nuclear explosions, power outages, complete financial collapse etc as a regular occurrence due to hacking ( though yes it does happen, stuxnet being a prime example). Clearly managing this risk, ensuring that the proper systems and resources are in place is important, but it is possible to manage this risk. Far from the chaotic "wild west" which is often portrayed ( and I don't deny there is a consistent "arms race" in security dev on many, many levels ), it is currently possible to manage this.

Generally security considerations scale in importance. Sure heartbleed was an utter nightmare ( lots of lessons learned there! ), but you find as the importance/criticality of a system or information assets increases, as does the time,effort, resources & collaborative effort to keep it secure.

It comes down to this, Do I believe that driverless cars can be safe or not from a security standpoint? If I didn't I'd be living in a cabin in the woods, far away from flightpaths,roads,power stations, and pretty much anything that could kill me with a programming error ( including my bluetooth fridge... I know that thing hates me, I can tell)
Examples aside, I think you are underestimating the complexity of the problem. A driveless car has been at the aim of very smart people for generations. That should give you an idea of the kind of effort here. It is the holy grail of AI. A machine that can interact with the real world, in a highly dynamic, highly complex continuous environment, without all the relevant information available, with split seconds decision making (as scary as a failure of a water or power station is, the systems running them have perfect information of all relevant variables at all times and very limited options available that they can outperform a human doing it).

Forget Turing test. A software as complex as this would ace Turing test like it was a slow day.

We are going to make mistakes into this one. It is inevitable (there are bugs in Assassins Creed, and those are child's play compared to this)... the real question is, is the public willing to risk the mistakes until the system is reliable enough? And, as bad as humans are at driving, we are hundreds of times more competent than the most advanced software out there. It will be a long time before it gets to reliable enough, so, are people willing to risk being put into half a ton metal boxes at 50 km/h controlled by something that is about as competent as them?... As people here have said, most of the public would rather risk a human being accountable for that, that a faceless program that could be running in millions other cars.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
You've never seen hackers do things "for the lulz?" There isn't always a monetary incentive to hacking, some people just do things to see if they can. Those are also the scariest people, the kind who are loners, don't really have empathy, and think that they're too good to get caught.

As far as being able to cause accidents by sabotaging cars now, yeah sure, you could sabotage a car and make it crash, but could you sabotage hundreds or thousands? Absolutely not. You could however sabotage thousands of cars all at once if they're being operated by computers that are all networked together.
Do these people know right now that there are driverless planes? And get this, it has onboard MISSILES.

Seriously though why would anyone hack a car when you can use the exact same idea to hack a UAV, a vehicle actually equipped to cause huge collateral damage? Why is one possible but not the other? I feel like the UAV is far more dangerous.

Where was this uproar about UAV's? Why hasnt anyone hacked one yet if these genius sociopathic hackers are just waiting in the background to hurt 1000's of people. They have had UAV's to hack for yonks and never did it. Why do you think they didnt?
People brag about hacking these things all the time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/car-hacking-code-released-at-defcon/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/tech/mobile/five-hacks/

One of the earlier links in this thread had kids bragging about hacking cars and phones.
Ahh here it is:
"I hack cars, phones, GPS; I'll hack anything," he said. You might recall Bailey and Nick DePetrillo's Black Hat 2010 Carmen San Diego Project [PDF] [video]. At Black Hat 2011, Bailey presented "War Texting: Identifying and Interacting with Devices on the Telephone Network," [PDF] which told how he sent an SMS over the cell network to unlock a car and start the engine; basically he managed to steal a car with a text message.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2222878/microsoft-subnet/defcon-kids--hacking-roller-coasters-and-the-power-grid-with-cell-phones.html
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Lil devils x said:
People brag about hacking these things all the time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/car-hacking-code-released-at-defcon/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/tech/mobile/five-hacks/

One of the earlier links in this thread had kids bragging about hacking cars and phones.
Neither of them talk about UAV's. Why are UAV;s unhackable?
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Lil devils x said:
hermes200 said:
Lil devils x said:
Clive Howlitzer said:
I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.
What happens when the system gets a virus?
Why go the virus route?
What happens to pedestrians? What happens with stray animals? What about the possibility of a falling tree?

That is why it has only worked in controlled circuits or simulations, but we can't rule out the exterior world. Not in this problem... And interaction with the real world variables is the main issue behind this problem.
This is assuming they can even build better sensors, when the system itself can never be secure no matter how they resolve other issues, I do not see it as being a realistic option.
The sensors are not the problem. Nowadays there are cameras that could put our 20/20 eyes to shame, not including all the extra sensors (like satellite information, distances measuring by laser, internal engine information, APC, etc) available only to electronic systems.

The problem is the software. To put it simply, we are playing catch up with a lot of programs evolution and nature developed in the course of hundreds of millions of years. We are making progress, but we are decades away from any realistic projection.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Lil devils x said:
People brag about hacking these things all the time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/car-hacking-code-released-at-defcon/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/tech/mobile/five-hacks/

One of the earlier links in this thread had kids bragging about hacking cars and phones.
Neither of them talk about UAV's. Why are UAV;s unhackable?
They aren't why would anyone think they were?
They already have been hacked, and people have been complaining about those as well. I am not sure what you are going on about.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-professor-drone-hacking-249/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/

Now even for their so called " hacker proof drones" they really are not " hacker proof" they are just "invulnerable to large classes of attack". That isn't actually hacker proof, as nothing really is " hacker proof" It is just better than what they had before. LOL
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Lil devils x said:
They aren't why would anyone think they were?
They already have been hacked, and people have been complaining about those as well. I am not sure what you are going on about.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-professor-drone-hacking-249/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/
The sentiment seems to be that if cars were hackable people would commit atrocities with them, drive everyone into a wall, cut breaks ect, that this would be an inevitable consequence.

I ask that if we have pilotless flying missile launchers and THESE are hackable why isnt there mass terror and hysteria as the hackers do these things already with far more potent tools?

Hackers can already commit mass murder apparently, just turn a drone around and blow up cities. But they havnt, either UAV's cant be hacked by these back garden hackers or they dont want to commit domestic terrorism. Either way theres a demonstration that theres simply not been an abuse of drones to kill people by hacking them. Why would it be different for cars, arguably a far less efficient method?

Honest question, if you think there would be hacker car attacks why hasnt there been a hacker drone attack? Answer that one question tbh since thats the crux of it.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Lil devils x said:
They aren't why would anyone think they were?
They already have been hacked, and people have been complaining about those as well. I am not sure what you are going on about.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-professor-drone-hacking-249/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/
The sentiment seems to be that if cars were hackable people would commit atrocities with them, drive everyone into a wall, cut breaks ect, that this would be an inevitable consequence.

I ask that if we have pilotless flying missile launchers and THESE are hackable why isnt there mass terror and hysteria as the hackers do these things already with far more potent tools?
It is a matter of availability. There are more cars then there are drones, and these cars are deployed at all times in every city. You are not talking about something that is of limited use, you are talking about what people rely on to get them to and from work, shopping, hospitals and every where else they go every day. BIG difference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/drone-hacked-by-universit_n_1638100.html

THEY ARE HACKING CARS. Read the links above in the thread, however, you still have a driver currently. Since they have cars available for them to hack , they already do so, but luckily we still have drivers in control.

Although some doubt that even having a driver will help with the current vulnerabilities.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-08-09/article/41312?headline=On-the-Strange-Death-br-of-Michael-Hastings-br-Was-the-Reporter-Car-Hacked-or-Bombed---By-Gar-Smith
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/michael-hastings-car-hacked_n_3492339.html
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
hermes200 said:
Jesterscup said:
Lil devils x said:
UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming.
snip
Examples aside, I think you are underestimating the complexity of the problem. A driverless car has been at the aim of very smart people for generations. That should give you an idea of the kind of effort here. It is the holy grail of AI. A machine that can interact with the real world, in a highly dynamic, highly complex continuous environment, without all the relevant information available, with split seconds decision making (as scary as a failure of a water or power station is, the systems running them have perfect information of all relevant variables at all times and very limited options available that they can outperform a human doing it).
I don't disagree with this, it's a huge problem, and we don't have the systems to deal with it properly yet[\i].Tech issues aside we are not going to wake up one day with driverless cars, what is far more likely to happen is that driver assists will increase over time, to the point where actually relinquishing control to the vehicle will be a minor point. There is already talk of vehicles which will automatically brake when a dangerous situation is detected, over time as the public accepts more and more of these assists, then public acceptance of driverless cars will become more palatable. sure the tech to safely have a driverless car on the roads is still a little off ( I'm not foolish enough to give a timescale), but if asked 10 years ago, we'd have thought they were farther off than they seem today.

You don't need to know all the variables of a system, but you do need to know enough, in our financial systems there is huge uncertainty, and generally that is a risk that is managed, a properly equipped driverless car can have far more information available to it than a human doing the driving. and there are simply loads of really really neat solutions to a lot of the problems. currently the biggie ( and yeah it is a biggie!), is the detection of unexpected objects on non-motorways ( children, animals, bikes etc ad nauseum ) but practical demonstrations of networked autonomous vehicles on motorways were first demonstrated a decade ago. Sure it's speculation, but it's not inconceivable. I could go into detail about specialist systems, object recognition systems & networked threat mapping as excellent examples of solutions to problems that seemed insurmountable only a few years ago.

@Lil Devils : I'm not disagreeing with you at all, there are aspects of our cyber security that are really REALLY scary, we could have nuclear explosions, planes dropping out the sky, cars blowing up, our entire economic system collapsing. With a backdrop of all that ( and with a car that can already be hacked and blown up ), I'm really not fussed if my car is slightly more autonomous, it's already at risk. You know that in a year or so's time, every single new car in Europe will be required to have a sim card and a dedicated network connection as standard, among other things it'll be able to automatically dial emergency services if it detects a crash. Imagine what a malicious agent could do with that.... the only way to not be worried about your car getting hacked is to either not drive, or have an old car.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Lil devils x said:
It is a matter of availability. There are more cars then there are drones, and these cars are deployed at all times in every city. You are not talking about something that is of limited use, you are talking about what people rely on to get them to and from work, shopping, hospitals and every where else they go every day. BIG difference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/drone-hacked-by-universit_n_1638100.html

THEY ARE HACKING CARS. Read the links above in the thread, however, you still have a driver currently. Since they have cars available for them to hack , they already do so, but luckily we still have drivers in control.

Although some doubt that even having a driver will help with the current vulnerabilities.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-08-09/article/41312?headline=On-the-Strange-Death-br-of-Michael-Hastings-br-Was-the-Reporter-Car-Hacked-or-Bombed---By-Gar-Smith
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/michael-hastings-car-hacked_n_3492339.html
I dont doubt they are hacking cars, i just wonder if these people, apparently willing to cause death and trauma with their hacking, are too lazy to go down to the nearest military base and hijack a drone.

Sure its not massively easy, but we are discussing murderers, are they so lazy that they cant be assed to use a missile drone and would rather use a car? Are domestic terrorists so common but at the same time so incapable of actively looking for tools? You make a totally fair point and I agree with you, im just sorta confused by the attitudes of these hypothetical murderers.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Lil devils x said:
They aren't why would anyone think they were?
They already have been hacked, and people have been complaining about those as well. I am not sure what you are going on about.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-professor-drone-hacking-249/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/
The sentiment seems to be that if cars were hackable people would commit atrocities with them, drive everyone into a wall, cut breaks ect, that this would be an inevitable consequence.

I ask that if we have pilotless flying missile launchers and THESE are hackable why isnt there mass terror and hysteria as the hackers do these things already with far more potent tools?

Hackers can already commit mass murder apparently, just turn a drone around and blow up cities. But they havnt, either UAV's cant be hacked by these back garden hackers or they dont want to commit domestic terrorism. Either way theres a demonstration that theres simply not been an abuse of drones to kill people by hacking them. Why would it be different for cars, arguably a far less efficient method?

Honest question, if you think there would be hacker car attacks why hasnt there been a hacker drone attack? Answer that one question tbh since thats the crux of it.
Let me answer your question with another question: Where are the specifications of the hardware and software used to control military grade UAVs? Where can someone get functioning military grade UAVs to tinker with?

Cars are more vulnerable because they are available to the civilian population. Military UAV are available only through military channels, so, unless the military has at its disposal teams of hackers working in hacking enemy UAV (and they wouldn't disclose if they do), the idea of a rogue hacker being able to hack one through a phone belongs to the Watch Dogs realm of possibilities.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
hermes200 said:
Let me answer your question with another question: Where are the specifications of the hardware and software used to control military grade UAVs? Where can someone get functioning military grade UAVs to tinker with?

Cars are more vulnerable because they are available to the civilian population. Military UAV are available only through military channels, so, unless the military has at its disposal teams of hackers working in hacking enemy UAV (and they wouldn't disclose if they do), the idea of a rogue hacker being able to hack one through a phone belongs to the Watch Dogs realm of possibilities.
Thats a very fair question and i accept thats a pretty damn good reason.