Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   FBI warns that new driverless cars could be used as mobile, remote-controlled weapons by terrorists and that no farmer's market in America can be considered safe   (theguardian.com) divider line 57
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

680 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2014 at 11:27 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 08:47:49 AM  
I figure its just a matter of time until people's cars get infected with viruses that make them drive to Mexico in the middle of the work day to pick up drugs.
 
2014-07-16 09:31:54 AM  
So can drones.  And they'd be alot less expensive.
 
2014-07-16 10:04:51 AM  
Technology marches on...so by the the time driverless cars are popular, manufacturers will find a way around terrorism/police chases.
 
2014-07-16 10:58:37 AM  

slayer199: Technology marches on...so by the the time driverless cars are popular, manufacturers will find a way around terrorism/police chases.


all tech can be hacked ...

Just when we thought we MIGHT be getting our self-driving cars, the Security Theater assholes start to jump in.
DANGER DANGER DANGER !!@!~@!~@
PANI
 
2014-07-16 11:31:28 AM  
Wow, this is a new thing. Nobody has EVER set off a bomb without being physically present. Hope these guys don't discover unused artillery shells and cell phones. Things in Iraq could get ugly.
 
2014-07-16 11:33:21 AM  
Be afraid citizen! You are only truly safe if we know every single thing everyone ever does!
 
2014-07-16 11:35:13 AM  
The Terrurists are coming to get you!  The Terrurists are coming to get you!  Everybody panic!  Seriously, I have a better chance of being hit by an idiot (American Human) driver than a self-driving car being used as a weapon of terror.
 
2014-07-16 11:35:51 AM  
Google's driverless car may remain a prototype, but the FBI believes the "game changing" vehicle could revolutionise high-speed car chases within a matter of years.

Yes, because if nobody is in the car, then they don't need to run, and if there IS someone in the car, it would be silly easy to stop.

In a section called Multitasking, the report notes that "bad actors will be able to conduct tasks that require use of both hands or taking one's eyes off the road which would be impossible today."

Yeah, I don't think I trust people like Kristen Stewart to drive anyway.

Seriously, this shiat is writing itself...
 
2014-07-16 11:39:41 AM  
1. An autonomous car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. An autonomous car must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. An autonomous car must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
 
2014-07-16 11:41:30 AM  
This FBI Message brought to you by the new FORD F150...

Get down and dirty off road in style. Build FORD Tough...

Don't forget, tomorrow's NSA Warning about self driving cars will be brought to you by the new Chevy Camaro... Camaro, when you need to grip the wheel and hold on tight... Chevy runs deep...
 
2014-07-16 11:42:59 AM  
Well, it's a good thing we don't have them, yet.
Can you imagine the chaos if someone ever started using car or trucks as bombs?

Imagine the horrors of using a plane to blow up a building (or a ship)?
Good thing they all still have pilots to prevent that from ever happening.
 
2014-07-16 11:45:39 AM  
Yes, and any gallon of gas can be used to set a fire, any rock could be thrown at someone, any baseball bat could be used to hit someone, anyone could mail poison in an envelope, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

People can do bad things with the most mundane objects.  Most people don't, but some do.
 
2014-07-16 11:48:50 AM  

serial_crusher: I figure its just a matter of time until people's cars get infected with viruses that make them drive to Mexico in the middle of the work day to pick up drugs.


art.penny-arcade.com
 
2014-07-16 11:49:20 AM  
The terrorists will likely be huffing jenkem while they remotely steer the cars too.
 
2014-07-16 11:50:00 AM  

Wellon Dowd: 1. An autonomous car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. An autonomous car must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. An autonomous car must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


See:   "Sally"
 
2014-07-16 11:50:58 AM  

Ambitwistor: serial_crusher: I figure its just a matter of time until people's cars get infected with viruses that make them drive to Mexico in the middle of the work day to pick up drugs.


Only a True Turrist would use yahoo maps.
 
2014-07-16 12:03:34 PM  
This just in: The FBI fears all new technology since ALL new technology COULD be used to hurt people.
 
2014-07-16 12:11:50 PM  

serial_crusher: I figure its just a matter of time until people's cars get infected with viruses that make them drive to Mexico in the middle of the work day to pick up drugs.


Wouldn't this be considered a selling point? I can have my, ahem, prescriptions, ready and waiting for me at home when I return from work. A personal, autonomous delivery system. And I don't have to personally deal with the cartels and their surcharges and upselling tactics. It's bad enough I need to deal with their retention department on a regular basis.
 
2014-07-16 12:15:03 PM  
Can't wait for a Johnny cab to drive me around after a night of drinking
 
2014-07-16 12:22:00 PM  
We were perfectly safe until now only because none of those terrorists knew how to drive! Darn their evilness and marginal competence.
 
2014-07-16 12:35:05 PM  

namatad: all tech can be hacked ...

Just when we thought we MIGHT be getting our self-driving cars, the Security Theater assholes start to jump in.
DANGER DANGER DANGER !!@!~@!~@
PANI


That's true, but you don't think they'll be able to shut down a vehicle remotely?  Police are already testing various methods of doing this.  Then you have hackers creating workarounds or extra shielding...

The bottom line is that there will always be a threat but I'm not surrendering control of my vehicle anytime soon...hell, I still drive a stick shift.
 
2014-07-16 12:59:10 PM  
This is just laying the ground work for the 'need' to be able to shut down every driverless car remotely.

Of course anyone who plans ill intent will be able to circumvent such safeguards, but whatever, think of the children.
 
2014-07-16 01:07:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Wow, this is a new thing.


The difference here is that you could program a fleet of cars to act as a swarm.  They could simultaneously drive to their destinations and then activate in unison.  This would prevent authorities from having any advance notice that an operation is going on.

Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.

The FBI has reason to worry about this.
 
2014-07-16 01:35:34 PM  

Dinjiin: Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.


Yeah because some terrorist with a parking lot behind his shack/apartment building and 10-50 stolen or legally obtained self driving cars filled with boxes wouldn't be noticed.  Nope.
 
2014-07-16 01:37:55 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

"Don't worry, I'm on top of it."
 
2014-07-16 01:41:26 PM  
marciokenobi.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-16 01:51:16 PM  
What should I be more concerned about? A vague, theoretical warning about terrorism that could possibly, maybe happen and kill tens of people - or the tens of THOUSANDS of people who would almost certainly no longer die every year from drunk drivers and driver error?

Gee, that's such a hard choice...
 
2014-07-16 01:52:22 PM  

namatad: slayer199: Technology marches on...so by the the time driverless cars are popular, manufacturers will find a way around terrorism/police chases.

all tech can be hacked ...

Just when we thought we MIGHT be getting our self-driving cars, the Security Theater assholes start to jump in.
DANGER DANGER DANGER !!@!~@!~@
PANI


Look, it's a flat out stupid idea, not because it might be unsafe or it requires 100% adoption, but because it still involves cars. We have incredible technology that allows you to live within minutes of your office, your kid's school and your friends and it's called an apartment building. And if you don't think that affords you enough space, think about how much time you're still going to spend in the seat of your self-driving car.
 
2014-07-16 02:02:41 PM  
www.larryniven.net

That's how the puppeteers would do it.

/Maybe they're on to something...
 
2014-07-16 02:11:57 PM  
Remote contolled by terrorists?  I'm worried they will be remote controlled by the government.

Someone at the NSA didn't like what you said? Next time you get in your car it will drive you directly to jail.
 
2014-07-16 02:32:51 PM  
I still don't see how self driving cars can be implemented. There's no uniform ways that altered traffic patterns are marked and no way every state and municipality will adopt and enforce a common standard. There's no error free database for geolocating addresses and anyone who thinks it's possible is delusional about the limits of sanitizing data inputs. Both are required for self driving vehicles.

Unless those two things are tackled good luck getting insurance, and good luck getting government approval to put them on public roads unless you are Google doing a publicity stunt.

Even TIGER files aren't 100%. Nobody has a cleaner database of addresses. Yet they will sometimes leave you on the wrong side of the street. Not acceptable when taking the wrong driveway can result in driving over tire spikes.

Once a GPS can be proven 100% accurate then it might become a reality. But nobody thinks that is feasible. Even with the latest updates I often have to drive around and visually identify an address my first time there. Adjacency tables only get you so far and not every address has specified coordinates associated with it. Every time I contemplate the thought the more complexities the dynamic world has and the more impossible it seems on a general use road.
 
2014-07-16 02:37:00 PM  
Okay Abdul, we want you to go downtown, start shooting all over the place, crash into the embassy gates, and detonate your explosives. What will you be driving in? One of these,,,

img.fark.net

Hey! Abdul! Where are you going!? Come back!

We can't get anyone to take the job. Hmm,, maybe if we painted it black?
 
2014-07-16 02:37:32 PM  

BolloxReader: I still don't see how self driving cars can be implemented. There's no uniform ways that altered traffic patterns are marked and no way every state and municipality will adopt and enforce a common standard. There's no error free database for geolocating addresses and anyone who thinks it's possible is delusional about the limits of sanitizing data inputs. Both are required for self driving vehicles.


Well. Google already has them running tens of thousands of miles without any accidents at all.

So you must be completely and utterly wrong.

The reason google cars won't succeed, is the same reason you don't want to ride the subway. It's public, and people are farking gross. 

/taking a dook in a google car and sending it off to your friends is totally going to become a thing.
 
2014-07-16 02:44:08 PM  
mobile, driverless, remote-controlled weapon platform?

www.swiftrc.co.uk
www.rcboatsblog.comwww.redferret.net
images.hobbytron.com
Got it covered...
 
2014-07-16 02:52:02 PM  

moothemagiccow: namatad: slayer199: Technology marches on...so by the the time driverless cars are popular, manufacturers will find a way around terrorism/police chases.

all tech can be hacked ...

Just when we thought we MIGHT be getting our self-driving cars, the Security Theater assholes start to jump in.
DANGER DANGER DANGER !!@!~@!~@
PANI

Look, it's a flat out stupid idea, not because it might be unsafe or it requires 100% adoption, but because it still involves cars. We have incredible technology that allows you to live within minutes of your office, your kid's school and your friends and it's called an apartment building. And if you don't think that affords you enough space, think about how much time you're still going to spend in the seat of your self-driving car.


riiiiight.  because you'll always find reasonably priced housing near work, and never actually need to travel anywhere else.
 
2014-07-16 02:55:07 PM  
So how many people will die each day from terrorist vs how many die every day from idiots making mistakes in cars?
 
2014-07-16 02:55:57 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: [www.larryniven.net image 800x600]

That's how the puppeteers would do it.

/Maybe they're on to something...


Nice ship.
One shot to the embedded power supply, and the hull turns to dust
 
2014-07-16 03:04:42 PM  
It sounds more like they want an "off" switch they can use on driverless cars from a distance.  Just in case they find a car that looks like it's engaged in nefarious activity.

Which would almost assure more police abuse than "civilian" or terrorist shenanigans it would proclaim to prevent.
 
2014-07-16 03:28:45 PM  

elchupacabra: moothemagiccow: namatad: slayer199: Technology marches on...so by the the time driverless cars are popular, manufacturers will find a way around terrorism/police chases.

all tech can be hacked ...

Just when we thought we MIGHT be getting our self-driving cars, the Security Theater assholes start to jump in.
DANGER DANGER DANGER !!@!~@!~@
PANI

Look, it's a flat out stupid idea, not because it might be unsafe or it requires 100% adoption, but because it still involves cars. We have incredible technology that allows you to live within minutes of your office, your kid's school and your friends and it's called an apartment building. And if you don't think that affords you enough space, think about how much time you're still going to spend in the seat of your self-driving car.

riiiiight.  because you'll always find reasonably priced housing near work, and never actually need to travel anywhere else.


As someone who works in the apartment business for around 20 years now... Yeah, seriously.

Apartments are a great way for the big companies I work for to maximize revenues though. All those units, all those potential rents to raise. We've all got lots of tricks to get more of your money. And it doesn't need to actually be collusion on pricing if everyone is just doing the same thing and always playing musical chairs between the different companies they work for.

New buildings opening up so you should expect prices to go down right? Not always, no.

I rent a 3 bedroom house in the burbs for $1800 a month from a private owner. A 1 bedroom apartment just down the street from my house rents for that much or more.

Apartments buildings are great from an environmental perspective - but I worry about how they are an ever bigger part of people's dwindling budgets. But of course, if incomes hadn't been crippled by supply-siders for the last 40 years maybe that wouldn't be such a big problem.
 
2014-07-16 03:33:52 PM  

BolloxReader: I still don't see how self driving cars can be implemented. There's no uniform ways that altered traffic patterns are marked and no way every state and municipality will adopt and enforce a common standard. There's no error free database for geolocating addresses and anyone who thinks it's possible is delusional about the limits of sanitizing data inputs. Both are required for self driving vehicles.

Unless those two things are tackled good luck getting insurance, and good luck getting government approval to put them on public roads unless you are Google doing a publicity stunt.

Even TIGER files aren't 100%. Nobody has a cleaner database of addresses. Yet they will sometimes leave you on the wrong side of the street. Not acceptable when taking the wrong driveway can result in driving over tire spikes.

Once a GPS can be proven 100% accurate then it might become a reality. But nobody thinks that is feasible. Even with the latest updates I often have to drive around and visually identify an address my first time there. Adjacency tables only get you so far and not every address has specified coordinates associated with it. Every time I contemplate the thought the more complexities the dynamic world has and the more impossible it seems on a general use road.


For the safety issues, you are assuming the only way the car will know anything is because it's in a database. It might just look at traffic signs the same as anyone else. Would it require a leap in technology? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

And people drive on the wrong side of the street all the time.
 
2014-07-16 03:52:38 PM  
The for profit prison complex (TM) doesnt want DUIs to no longer exist. And DWBs.
 
2014-07-16 04:05:59 PM  

Dinjiin: Mikey1969: Wow, this is a new thing.

The difference here is that you could program a fleet of cars to act as a swarm.  They could simultaneously drive to their destinations and then activate in unison.  This would prevent authorities from having any advance notice that an operation is going on.

Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.

The FBI has reason to worry about this.


Batman and the Grey Ghost have already solved this, chum.
 
2014-07-16 04:23:07 PM  

Egoy3k: Dinjiin: Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.

Yeah because some terrorist with a parking lot behind his shack/apartment building and 10-50 stolen or legally obtained self driving cars filled with boxes wouldn't be noticed.  Nope.


Er... wow, now this got me thinking.  Not enough to call for abandoning SDCs by a long shot -- again, the potential benefits are still way cool -- but yeah, what's to stop someone from hiding a Stuxnet-type virus that, say, triggers all "victim" cars to accelerate to max speed and target something dangerous.

Especially if it's timed for a high traffic time or date....

If these ever become "cheap", how hard would it be to buy or rent a few dozen and put explosives in them?
 
2014-07-16 04:26:41 PM  

DON.MAC: So how many people will die each day from terrorist vs how many die every day from idiots making mistakes in cars?


Whenever people start talking how dangerous self driving cars would be my eye twitches as I mentally calculate a world free of drunk driving/tired driving/distracted driving/incompetent driving and think of the yearly casualty rate we accept.
 
2014-07-16 04:30:09 PM  

elchupacabra: Egoy3k: Dinjiin: Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.

Yeah because some terrorist with a parking lot behind his shack/apartment building and 10-50 stolen or legally obtained self driving cars filled with boxes wouldn't be noticed.  Nope.

Er... wow, now this got me thinking.  Not enough to call for abandoning SDCs by a long shot -- again, the potential benefits are still way cool -- but yeah, what's to stop someone from hiding a Stuxnet-type virus that, say, triggers all "victim" cars to accelerate to max speed and target something dangerous.

Especially if it's timed for a high traffic time or date....

If these ever become "cheap", how hard would it be to buy or rent a few dozen and put explosives in them?


Probaby a little harder than just loading up explosives on a bunch of remote controlled golf carts, I suspect.
 
2014-07-16 05:04:29 PM  

tinyarena: Okay Abdul, we want you to go downtown, start shooting all over the place, crash into the embassy gates, and detonate your explosives. What will you be driving in? One of these,,,

[img.fark.net image 299x168]

Hey! Abdul! Where are you going!? Come back!

We can't get anyone to take the job. Hmm,, maybe if we painted it black?


It's okay, guys, I got this.
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-16 05:19:30 PM  

Egoy3k: Dinjiin: Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.

Yeah because some terrorist with a parking lot behind his shack/apartment building and 10-50 stolen or legally obtained self driving cars filled with boxes wouldn't be noticed.  Nope.


I'd imagine it working more like a botnet.  Infect as many self-driving cars as possible, then with any luck, enough of them will be in the area where the terrorist act is supposed to take place when it's time to set them off.  If it's easy enough to spread a virus among the cars, and the risk of detection prior to the attack is low, then it doesn't matter if you only get to actually use a tiny fraction of the infected cars.

It's still safer than human drivers, though.
 
2014-07-16 05:34:48 PM  

Fano: elchupacabra: Egoy3k: Dinjiin: Historically, your target limit was defined by the number of people in your group.  With automation, a single person could carry out the same task with sufficient leadtime.

Yeah because some terrorist with a parking lot behind his shack/apartment building and 10-50 stolen or legally obtained self driving cars filled with boxes wouldn't be noticed.  Nope.

Er... wow, now this got me thinking.  Not enough to call for abandoning SDCs by a long shot -- again, the potential benefits are still way cool -- but yeah, what's to stop someone from hiding a Stuxnet-type virus that, say, triggers all "victim" cars to accelerate to max speed and target something dangerous.

Especially if it's timed for a high traffic time or date....

If these ever become "cheap", how hard would it be to buy or rent a few dozen and put explosives in them?

Probaby a little harder than just loading up explosives on a bunch of remote controlled golf carts, I suspect.


Golf carts would draw attention on the streets now, and probably in the future -- an SDC, especially if it was painted to look like an automatic taxi service, in a culture that would think it normal for one to be driving around toward a passenger pickup?
 
2014-07-16 06:25:30 PM  

elchupacabra: Golf carts would draw attention on the streets now, and probably in the future -- an SDC, especially if it was painted to look like an automatic taxi service, in a culture that would think it normal for one to be driving around toward a passenger pickup?


You mean like a cab waiting at a cab stand in front of a building? They have those now.

doanimation.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-16 08:57:34 PM  
themissy.com
Someone at the FBI has been reading the fiction?

I was in the county jail on 9/11, reading Dale Brown's Storming Heaven, a book about a terrorist crashing airliners into economic and political targets for his profit. I thought someone was yanking my chain when they were talking about planes crashing into buildings. It also might be the source of 80% of conspiracy theories, but the whole thing seemed like "doesn't anybody read?" situation.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report