Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:...customized editorial content will happen as a result of tracking and data collection...
Right, and this is a Big Deal.

Tyndmyr wrote:...not due to the options on my car...
That's the part where the danger lies. Yes, it's happening anyway, and that's a Bad Thing (with a few good benefits to keep the crowd happy). But if every car has a rotating laser ranging radar enhanced camera on it, hooked up to the biggest Big Data Vacuumer, Analyzer, and Broker ever made, it's hard to imagine they would voluntarily overlook a huge profit center (and selling point) because of their motto.

Headline - Nov 23, 2019: Facebook and Google enter new data sharing agreement: Google cars will track down your long lost friends wherever they are, pick them up, and take them to you!
Spoiler:
Talks with Amazon to dispatch drone packages to them fell through, Amazon stock fell 23%.
Ok, that's a little colorful, but it's not like being paranoid over the cameras on a laptop (which don't have to be on) or flashlight apps (which don't need an internet connection but have one anyway); these cars need the cameras for basic functionality. I've worked with several groups that have installed cameras with archival capability for monitoring various important things; in no cases were archives necessary (or even particularly useful), but in all cases the recordings were saved and archived indefinitely. This (very common) attitude will drive the cars unless steps to prevent it are taken, and Google has the 'tude.

I'm not sure what steps would be effective. But it's important enough to give serious consideration to. Now.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:15 pm UTC

Cameras are proliferating now.

You probably have one in your pocket, internet connected and all.

Surely, though, you didn't put anything google related on it. Nobody does that, right?

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby cphite » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This happened long before computers. The idea that you could just cut someone's brake lines because they were critical and reasonably accessible isn't particularly new.

And yet, that sort of thing is a rounding error on automobile deaths.


The difference is that it's approximately 10,000 times more difficult to cut the brake lines on 10,000 cars compared to one car. With many attack vectors it is only moderately more difficult to hack 10,000 devices (cars, PCs, whatever) than to hack one. In a word: scalability.


This is unlikely. Different brands of cars, different models, sometimes, and even different years within the same model often use different systems. It isn't like the desktop world where it's much more of a monoculture for operating systems, browsers, etc.


Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Because a large part of making computer driven cars work on a large scale will be their ability to communicate and interact. Which means that there will be hardware dedicated to communication. Which, in turn, means that there will be some sort of common communication standard, as well as a command and control standard. For this whole thing to work, there needs to be a network.

Your statement is correct today because that network doesn't exist. But once it does exist, there will be huge incentives to compromise it. The largest efforts will be put into seeking ways to mine the data that it holds - to know where people are going, when they're going, etc. And once those cracks are found - and they absolutely will be found - they can be exploited by people with more malicious intentions.

The moment a network is open to the world, it is vulnerable; and with enough incentive it will be breached. Period. And this network has to be open or it doesn't work. And it has to be standardized or it doesn't work. And yes, they're obviously going to add multiple layers of security; and just like every other open network those layers will be peeled away almost as quickly as they are raised. Every day people breach government systems that are far more insulated than what we're talking about here could ever be; so it's delusional to think otherwise. In this case, by necessity, the hardware will be available to anyone with access to a car, to be taken apart and reverse engineered. The standards will be made available so that service can be performed. And so forth.

Part of the reason for the recall after the Jeep hack was the realization that, if these guys had been malicious, it would have been fairly easy to scale the hack from one car to many. Once we start actually networking cars together, it gets even easier to do on a much larger scale.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Cameras are proliferating now.
You probably have one in your pocket, internet connected and all.
Surely, though, you didn't put anything google related on it. Nobody does that, right?

1: It's under my control.
2: It's dark in my pocket.
3: No, there is nothing google-related on it.
4: It is not required in order to use the device.

And no, I don't use twitter, facebook, plus, pinterest, picassa, or any of those other things. And when google merged all of its services to better "understand" its users, I wrote my own software to replace our use of google docs.

The cameras that are proliferating now are not essential parts of a nationwide network (except for the law enforcement spycams that are being deployed, which I also have a problem with).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby Quercus » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:26 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Your statement is correct today because that network doesn't exist. But once it does exist, there will be huge incentives to compromise it.

If it isn't pre-compromised by "security" service edicts.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:09 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Part of the reason for the recall after the Jeep hack was the realization that, if these guys had been malicious, it would have been fairly easy to scale the hack from one car to many. Once we start actually networking cars together, it gets even easier to do on a much larger scale.
Part of the reason was that Chrysler was in the process of getting fined 100 plus million for being too slow for to take care of recalls. Money talks and bullshit walks.
ucim wrote:And no, I don't use twitter, facebook, plus, pinterest, picassa, or any of those other things. And when google merged all of its services to better "understand" its users, I wrote my own software to replace our use of google docs.
I use all three, what's your point? Not one in ten thousand could write that software. No one in ten million would want to. Do you not swim in the ocean because of sharks? To this point your argument is that we should do some vague thing. And that we should do it now, before the fact. Yet when confronted with a class of technology that we did in fact limit, you didn't care for it.(7x7 simulators) This isn't science fiction. We don't write laws without having an example of what it is that we are trying to prevent.
Quercus wrote:If it isn't pre-compromised by "security" service edicts.
This is the world we live in. The irony is that this is exactly what the security services of our respective countries try to do, with predictable results. You can't close loopholes until you know they exist. We didn't stop the 9/11 terrorists and you didn't stop your own version of 9/11 in Britain.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:41 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I use all three, what's your point? Not one in ten thousand could write that software.
I was answering the question (which seemed intended to show some hypocracy on my part). And yes, I'm fortunate that I can code. What of it?

morriswalters wrote:You can't close loopholes until you know they exist.
We know these loopholes exist. We differ on whether or not they are important.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:04 am UTC

ucim wrote:I was answering the question (which seemed intended to show some hypocracy on my part). And yes, I'm fortunate that I can code. What of it?
Given your lack of specificity it's hard to know your point.
ucim wrote:We know these loopholes exist.
I glad you know. Now tell me. So far all I hear is vague murmurings. If I understand you correctly I am to assume the Google et al, are going to use the connected technology of the autonomous car to instantly spy on anyone and everyone.

My position is, let Google look. If they look, effectively, there is nothing for them to see, unless I choose to let them see it. Cars move me from point a to point b. If they want to take pictures of the sidewalks, let them. Why should they be any different the the thousands of others doing exactly the same thing.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Cars discussion, split from 'other news'

Postby elasto » Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:02 am UTC

ucim wrote:We know these loopholes exist. We differ on whether or not they are important.

We do? I for one think they are very important. In an ideal world we'd have expertly crafted legislation to eliminate them. Unfortunately we live in a democracy rather than a technocracy, so our laws are less than perfect.

Fortunately the US is a punitive-damages-happy justice system, and hopefully the first non-white-hat exploit in the wild is not too destructive. It'll be at minimum three decades before this technology is ubiquitous, so there's a lot of opportunity for smaller incidents to ring the alarm bell prior to your nightmare scenario.

I'm optimistic that the car manufacturers will either choose to or will be forced to get their act together - but even if they don't the technology is too valuable simply to shelve.

All technologies have winners and losers. If planes had not been invented, those who died on 9/11 would still be alive. Taking the long view, so long as there are more winners than losers with any new tech, mankind is the better for it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests