Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't see the incentive. I can see why people would hack routers and phones, they can obtain valuable information this way. But hacking a car to crash seems like only something a deranged murderer would want to do, and if someone wants to cause car accidents there are ALREADY ways you can sabotage a car that are likely to do that. It feels to me like the kind of threat that immediately pops into our mind, but that isn't actually that likely when you come right down to it. You also have to weigh all this stuff with the number of people who die right now from accidents caused by human error.

I mostly agree with this, but I feel obliged to point out that there are not already ways to sabotage millions of cars all at once, especially in a relatively untraceable fashion. It would only take one deranged murderer to cause a very, very large amount of damage.

That said, there are probably ways around this. Perhaps, rather than remotely programmable chips, the cars could use physically removable modules (think USB drives) that could only be programmed using a special setup, presumably available at a licensed dealer. Basically, as long as there's no way to connect these cars' brains to the Internet, we're probably all okay.

A bunch of modern cars are already connected to the internet and their software is updated remotely, which actually changes their functionality and the way they drive.

Burnie Burns from Rooster Teen talked about this a few times on the Rooster Teeth podcast, but he has a new Tesla and when he first got it the car didn't have any creep (basically if you took your foot off the break the car wouldn't slowly move forward the way most cars do, and you actually had to use the gas petal to inch it forward slowly). Tesla remotely sent out an update to all their cars and updated their software to introduce creep, so that when the driver took their foot off the break the car would move forward slowly. This update, and any update that Tesla sends out can be applied to the car while it's driving.

Now imagine someone got into that system and did something malicious, like sent out an update that causes all the cars for a specific company to speed up, or drift to the left or something. Now imagine that the use of these cars is widespread and that the drivers of these cars don't pay attention to what the car is doing because they don't drive, they just sit back and text people on their phones while the car is taxiing them around. You'd end up with giant pileups suddenly, all over the country in every city. People get injured, die, etc, no one can get where they're going because the accidents cause widespread gridlock, emergency crews have trouble getting to all the simultaneous accidents, it's a fucking nightmare.

And that's the thing, I absolutely expect that this is the kind of system that car companies would employ, for convenience. Just be able to upload updates to your car whenever they want and companies have the hubris to think that they'll always stay a step ahead of hackers, when they can't. All software has things that can be exploited, someone just has to be smart and motivated enough to do so.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I thought they discussed this not too long ago. This is a terribly stupid and dangerous idea.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126380-Nintendo-Controller-Used-to-Drive-Hacked-Cars
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31990/using-just-basic-tools-all-gps-units-across-the-world-can-be-hacked/index.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/can-your-car-be-hacked-car-hacking-threats-analyzed/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236073361/Survey-of-Remote-Attack-Surfaces
http://www.ibtimes.com/gps-terrorism-hackers-could-exploit-location-technology-hijack-ships-airplanes-1362937
http://blog.tedx.com/post/56888711934/just-what-can-we-hack-cars-drones-gps-at
http://hacknmod.com/hack/diy-gps-hacking-projects/

People think this is a good idea .. WHY?
Besides being hackable, the thing cannot even navigate obstacles properly and how does it maneuver off road when necessary? None of the roads here are even on the map.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I'd probably be behind it for public transit, but not personal vehicles.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Hell I love driving and I absolutely want an auto-pilot, because 95% of my driving time these days is in jam packed cities where you barely move inches at a time... that shit drives me nuts. If I could just put some music on and take a nap that would make life so much more bearable.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hearing people say they want this makes me want to hack their cars and make them drive out of the driveway on their own just to prove a point for some odd reason.


* wonders who else is thinking the same thing* HAHA! They have instructions easily found online for ANYONE to do this. Your cars can currently be hacked easily as it is...

 

[umbr44]

There are too many "what if's" for me to ever trust a computer driven car.

If I turn on 1000 computers in a row I would place money that one of them has some sort of error, lets translate that to cars and see what happens. How often do brand new Consoles/OS/Games release with bugs despite all the testing they've had? What happens when this is a car?

What about in 10 years time when the first 'driverless' cars are getting old? I know my old PC has far more issues than a new one, I certainly don't need that happening to a car going at 70mph.


And even with a perfectly working model...what happens when I go through a muddy puddle or some wet leaves slap onto the car and stick over the sensors? If my brakes suddenly slam on after going through a puddle because the computers view is compromised that's a deal breaker.

Can I trust the car to make the right decision in a split second situation? What if a car coming towards me suddenly swerves into my side of the road...to my left (I'm English) is the pavement and there's a young child on it, so that's a no go no matter what. To my right heading the opposite way is a lorry. My best choice is to slam my brakes and let the car who swerved hit me, but if we flip the lorry and car around my best choice is to swerve and hit the other car to avoid the lorry. I don't trust a computer to decide the best way for me to crash.

 

[Hoplon]

Seem to be a lot of people assuming that these are remote controlled GPS guided robots.

That doesn't work, all the guidance systems are onboard and active. Lidar mostly as it's the only thing with enough resolution to map the environment accurately. If they are wise there is no remote access at all except perhaps for a kill switch (shuts off the engine) which is already on some cars as a security measure.

I certainly hope no one developing them is foolish enough to thing any connected device is secure in any meaningful manner.

 

[leberkaese]

Driverless cars are from a technical perspective amazing and extremly handy for traffic jams etc. But same goes for automatic shifting. In any other situation I wouldn't want neither of them.

But I'm german and therefore probably somewhat special. Only very few Germans want to drive with automatic transmission. If I don't have to shift manually I have the feeling of losing control over my car. And it's boring, while shifting is fun. Same probably goes for completely automatic driving. As long as I'm healthwise able to drive a normal car I'll never buy one with automatic transmission and automatic driving.
Like I said: the only situation where I think 'I would love to have a automatic transmission' is in traffic jams where you constantly have to push the clutch.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

So, what happens with hazards? What If I see a kids ball rolled out on the road, and I am able to anticipate that kid might run out on the road to get it without looking whilst a machine would actually have to start breaking once the kid is on the road?

I do believe stuff like this is a big debate in the aviation industry already but dont quote me on that Im half remembering a documentary. Like they just want the airplanes to be run by machines but pilots think they can make better judgement calls.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I don't trust driverless cars. Well no, that's not exactly true, I believe that the driverless cars will be a hell of a lot safer than real drivers, but what I don't trust is the fact that the driverless cars will be hackable and I don't trust people not to hack them.

Just imagine someone hacking hundreds of thousands of driverless cars just as a prank and then uploading code that makes them drift slightly to the left. Fairly minor, but considering the fact that people won't pay attention to what their car is doing once driverless cars are a normal thing in their life, even something that minor will create a ton of collisions.

So yeah, I don't trust driverless cars because I don't trust people not to fuck with them.

This, so much this. I have heard the arguments before that it won't happen, I don't believe it. Having worked in network security and other IT and general computer fields for most of my life, there's only one type of computer that isn't hackable: The one that isn't plugged into anything else. Beyond that, someone somewhere will break encryption, figure out a way to fuck with people and do so.
Do you really want a car that you can't control yourself suddenly break from the normal routine and go nuts with you in it? Because that is the risk you'd take every day with a driverless car. Also human programming isn't perfect, and one bug could cause a bad crash... a true BSOD except it wouldn't give you an error message just the highway equivalent of "clean up on Interstate(aisle) 4".
Sounds like a bad joke but unless there were a toggle that allowed you to take control of a car at any given point that hard-overrides the driverless portion, I'd never once trust my life to a computer like that.
People don't give me the airline argument either. Avionics computers wouldn't be sitting in someone's garage where they could crack the ***** open and get at all the things inside it, whereas someone could just buy a driverless car, get it home and spend as much time as they want cracking it.

 

[TallanKhan]

Personally I hate driving, for me it is the most stressful, tiring, unenjoyable experience imaginable. When I was taking lessons I used to lay awake worrying about my test and since passing half a decade ago have probably clinbed behind the wheel no more than two dozen times. As far as I'm concerned driverless cars cant come fast enough.

That said, I do think there should be a manual override so that the driver (would that even still be the right term?) could take back control in the event of a crisis or something.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't trust a computer to be able to react to the numerous situations that pop up on my commute. Plus I like driving for the most part.

Edit: I also don't like the idea that somebody could (somebody will find a way) hack into vehicles. Best case it would be prank for giggles, worst case it would part of some terror attack. Crippling huge sections of transportation infrastructure would be a terrorist's or hostile foreign government's wet dream.

 

[Parasondox]

I don't trust a computer to be able to react to the numerous situations that pop up on my commute. Plus I like driving for the most part.

Edit: I also don't like the idea that somebody could (somebody will find a way) hack into vehicles. Best case it would be prank for giggles, worst case it would part of some terror attack. Crippling huge sections of transportation infrastructure would be a terrorist's or hostile foreign government's wet dream.

Well of course you would said that, ULTRON!! Sorry your profile pic was just perfect XD

 

[asinann]

Can't be any worse than what most people call driving, seriously, I got cut off 4 times driving at 3am while driving an 18 wheeler: every time by someone in a sub-compact.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them. With what I know about hacking cars, I would rather have a drunk driver on the road than a driverless car, as that would be safer. (My sister was almost killed by a drunk driver btw and is permanently handicapped from this)

I do not think people understand that this can Never be safe is the problem.

"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

 

[MrFalconfly]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them. With what I know about hacking cars, I would rather have a drunk driver on the road than a driverless car, as that would be safer. (My sister was almost killed by a drunk driver btw and is permanently handicapped from this)

I do not think people understand that this can Never be safe is the problem.

My condolences.

My own sister was also involved in a car crash recently. Though luckily the crash happened on a 60km/h stretch of road, and she was quick-witted enough to mash the brakes so the actual crash had an impact speed of about 45km/h (or 28mph), so the frontal crumble-zone of our Skoda took the brunt of the impact (she got a minor bruise on her knee).

Getting a call over the phone that your sister (or any other relative) has been involved in an accident is probably one of the more nightmarish things I've been through.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't trust a computer to be able to react to the numerous situations that pop up on my commute. Plus I like driving for the most part.

Edit: I also don't like the idea that somebody could (somebody will find a way) hack into vehicles. Best case it would be prank for giggles, worst case it would part of some terror attack. Crippling huge sections of transportation infrastructure would be a terrorist's or hostile foreign government's wet dream.

Well of course you would said that, ULTRON!! Sorry your profile pic was just perfect XD

Yes humans, automate your vehicles. Relinquish control. Continue trading your freedom for safety and convenience, tangling yourselves up in more... strings.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them. With what I know about hacking cars, I would rather have a drunk driver on the road than a driverless car, as that would be safer. (My sister was almost killed by a drunk driver btw and is permanently handicapped from this)

I do not think people understand that this can Never be safe is the problem.

My condolences.

My own sister was also involved in a car crash recently. Though luckily the crash happened on a 60km/h stretch of road, and she was quick-witted enough to mash the brakes so the actual crash had an impact speed of about 45km/h (or 28mph), so the frontal crumble-zone of our Skoda took the brunt of the impact (she got a minor bruise on her knee).

Getting a call over the phone that your sister (or any other relative) has been involved in an accident is probably one of the more nightmarish things I've been through.

The thing is cars already are very dangerous, too dangerous when we already have issues going too far with computer malfunctions causing additional deaths. The thing is they are also very hackable already and have the information readily available online for anyone to be able to do so. Just as they already are hacking our computers and phones they are already hacking cars. Kids do these things " because they can", and often do not think about the consequences of doing so. With a phone or a computer very limited damage can be done, with a car, however, people can be killed. The truth when it comes to programs is there is no such thing as "secure". Programs can always be rewritten.. and not always by the people who are supposed to be rewriting them. I wrote my first OS at 8.. so have MANY others. These days, hacking is a normal skill for children. We should always keep it in perspective as to what it is and forgetting it's strengths and weakness is a very dangerous and shortsighted thing to do if we start implementing these things that cannot be secured in ways that can cause actual harm and deaths.