7 ms·

I appreciate your call to the cops and your reasoning. I also have driven a significant number of miles for work and have seen a number of people killed in traf

I appreciate your call to the cops and your reasoning. I also have driven a significant number of miles for work and have seen a number of people killed in traffic accidents. This "test" was extremely irresponsible. I know I will be downvoted for saying this, but I think you made the correct decision.

bengali3 11y ago
Agreed. I missed the video the first time and didn't believe the text that described the shutdown, video shows the stupidity here, let alone release a recording of it. I expect that will come down soon. Important research but very poorly tested. Wired and Chrysler (research was funded by Chrysler?) legal teams would not like the contents of this video. edit: wired's link to video, jump to 2:00: http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/55ad80d461646d4db7000005/9aca04ce-083b-4756-bda9-a37a148bf90flow.webm http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/55ad80d461646d4db7000005...
- kbenson 11y ago
  Reporter: "Seriously, this is fucking dangerous. I need to move." And that was while the security researchers caused the radio to blare so loud that he couldn't hear them on the other end of the phone. The more I see, the more I think they were really negligent in how they planned this out, and I was already firmly in that camp.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  So watching the video, I don't see a vehicle stalled on the highway. What I see is a vehicle slowed considerably, but at least nominally over the legal minimum speed of 40 MPH on highways, and without the driver being able to accelerate on his own. He's travelling in the rightmost lane, explicitly with his hazard lights on. This is not an unusual occurrence on highways. He's then told that to regain control he needs to stop and restart the car, which he does while remaining in motion. I was surprised, since this is quite different from the way it's being talked about here, as if he was stopped in the middle of the freeway. See GGP comment about "a car stopped in the middle of a multi-lane interstate." That's not what happened here.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Here's my attempt at a partial transcript starting from shortly after they disable the accelerator: Driver: "It says 43 miles an hour, but it's not really that fast." [voiceover omitted] Driver: "Guys, I'm stuck on the highway." Researcher A: "I think he's panicking." Researcher A: "He's not going to be able to hear us with that radio. So loud." Driver: "Guys, I need the accelerator to work again." Researcher A: "The accelerator..." Researcher B: "It won't work! You're doomed!" Driver: "Seriously [beep] dangerous, I need to move." Researcher A: "You gotta turn the car off!" Many cars can be seen passing them on the left in the video during the test.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      Right, but the video never shows the car stalled on the highway. It's moving in every highway shot. It's in the righthand lane, not in the center. The driver is somewhat panicked. We can see how fast he's moving relative to the background. This discussion has been distorted and sensationalized, and it has not been based on observable recorded facts.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        I can agree that the car is not shown at a full stall in the video, however it is the case that the driver reports that they are unable to control the vehicle during the test. I cannot agree that this would matter regarding the idea that this is "[beep] dangerous" as was stated by the driver, because that is supported by the driver's own statements as well as observable facts.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        A car stalling does not necessarily indicate it is stopped. Stalled can indicate the vehicle is stopped, or it can also indicate the motor has stopped. Airplanes stall, and obviously they are not entirely stopped, it's just an indication that the motor has stopped. It's unclear as to whether the motor actually stopped, but it's not without precedent to use "stall" to indicate no power available for propulsion. I don't think this discussion has been distorted. It's based on the information they provided. They put a vehicle on a public highway traveling at the faster end of what's legal in the US on public roads, and then removed a large portion of the drivers ability to control the vehicle. It's unclear whether this affected the steering or brakes, which in a modern vehicle would both be power assisted, generally through the vacuum system of the vehicle. The vacuum is provided by the engine, so if the engine was actually off (which is unknown, but I think it's more likely they just forced the car into neutral), then they removed a large portion of his ability to control the car. The bottom line is that they put a driver in a situation not only unsafe to himself (which they could have gotten consent to), but unsafe for the other drivers on the road. They did not have consent from the other people on the road to do this (indeed, it's not possible they could have), and if what they purport to happen in the article and video did happen, then they endangered those people. I've seen accidents from stopped cars being hit by others. If the highway is busy enough, the initial accident isn't even necessarily the largest damage, but it moves vehicles into even more obstructing positions and causes follow-on accidents. https://www.google.com/search?q=stalled+car+accident&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=stalled+car+accident&tbm=isc...
dchichkov 11y ago
They've risked people's lives to produce real life looking footage documenting a life threatening event. Without such event present in the footage, car manufacturers can just say "Meh - no big deal". And continue recklessly risking lives by manufacturing unsafe cars without air gap between CAN bus and Internet. Remember, it's the car manufacturers that are the bad guys here, not the white hats... And just think how hard was this decision. It's a choice between risking lives and having footage that doesn't catch attention and thus allows car manufacturers to continue making unsafe cars with horrible security vulnerabilities. Amazing.
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  Blocking the visibility through the windscreen, then shutting off the transmission of a car, that is driving on an interstate overpass in traffic, is not white hat by any stretch of the imagination.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    Perhaps not, but it's necessary to get the attention of auto makers so that they stop building such trivially-compromisable systems. This was a couple of security researchers on one car for a proof-of-concept; better to demonstrate these flaws early and with a more limited sample than to watch the pileup of epic proportions that would happen should someone even less scrupulous acquire such control over vehicles on the road. I don't exactly condone the ethics (or lack thereof) of the researchers, either, but if that's the only way to get proper attention (after previous, more polite and reasoned attempts were simply dismissed by manufacturers), then so be it.
    - acaloiar 11y ago
      Had that Jeep run into you or you ran into it as a result of this experiment, you may have found that you have a profoundly different threshold for what is, "necessary to get the attention of auto makers". Just because automakers are seemingly keen on ignoring security vulnerabilities does not justify putting people's lives at risk. And let's face it – a multi-ton vehicle that is not entirely in its driver's control puts lives at risk in just about any situation. The reason you and others argue that the demo's methodology is effective is precisely because of the risks involved; not in spite of them. It is the responsibility of researchers to demonstrate risks without exercising the extent of those risks. Imagine if virologists regularly demonstrated communicability risk by injecting humans with disease outside of the lab.

bengali3 11y ago

Agreed. I missed the video the first time and didn't believe the text that described the shutdown, video shows the stupidity here, let alone release a recording of it. I expect that will come down soon. Important research but very poorly tested. Wired and Chrysler (research was funded by Chrysler?) legal teams would not like the contents of this video. edit: wired's link to video, jump to 2:00: http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/55ad80d461646d4db7000005/9aca04ce-083b-4756-bda9-a37a148bf90flow.webm http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/55ad80d461646d4db7000005...

kbenson 11y ago
Reporter: "Seriously, this is fucking dangerous. I need to move." And that was while the security researchers caused the radio to blare so loud that he couldn't hear them on the other end of the phone. The more I see, the more I think they were really negligent in how they planned this out, and I was already firmly in that camp.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
So watching the video, I don't see a vehicle stalled on the highway. What I see is a vehicle slowed considerably, but at least nominally over the legal minimum speed of 40 MPH on highways, and without the driver being able to accelerate on his own. He's travelling in the rightmost lane, explicitly with his hazard lights on. This is not an unusual occurrence on highways. He's then told that to regain control he needs to stop and restart the car, which he does while remaining in motion. I was surprised, since this is quite different from the way it's being talked about here, as if he was stopped in the middle of the freeway. See GGP comment about "a car stopped in the middle of a multi-lane interstate." That's not what happened here.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 11y ago
  Here's my attempt at a partial transcript starting from shortly after they disable the accelerator: Driver: "It says 43 miles an hour, but it's not really that fast." [voiceover omitted] Driver: "Guys, I'm stuck on the highway." Researcher A: "I think he's panicking." Researcher A: "He's not going to be able to hear us with that radio. So loud." Driver: "Guys, I need the accelerator to work again." Researcher A: "The accelerator..." Researcher B: "It won't work! You're doomed!" Driver: "Seriously [beep] dangerous, I need to move." Researcher A: "You gotta turn the car off!" Many cars can be seen passing them on the left in the video during the test.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    Right, but the video never shows the car stalled on the highway. It's moving in every highway shot. It's in the righthand lane, not in the center. The driver is somewhat panicked. We can see how fast he's moving relative to the background. This discussion has been distorted and sensationalized, and it has not been based on observable recorded facts.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      I can agree that the car is not shown at a full stall in the video, however it is the case that the driver reports that they are unable to control the vehicle during the test. I cannot agree that this would matter regarding the idea that this is "[beep] dangerous" as was stated by the driver, because that is supported by the driver's own statements as well as observable facts.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      A car stalling does not necessarily indicate it is stopped. Stalled can indicate the vehicle is stopped, or it can also indicate the motor has stopped. Airplanes stall, and obviously they are not entirely stopped, it's just an indication that the motor has stopped. It's unclear as to whether the motor actually stopped, but it's not without precedent to use "stall" to indicate no power available for propulsion. I don't think this discussion has been distorted. It's based on the information they provided. They put a vehicle on a public highway traveling at the faster end of what's legal in the US on public roads, and then removed a large portion of the drivers ability to control the vehicle. It's unclear whether this affected the steering or brakes, which in a modern vehicle would both be power assisted, generally through the vacuum system of the vehicle. The vacuum is provided by the engine, so if the engine was actually off (which is unknown, but I think it's more likely they just forced the car into neutral), then they removed a large portion of his ability to control the car. The bottom line is that they put a driver in a situation not only unsafe to himself (which they could have gotten consent to), but unsafe for the other drivers on the road. They did not have consent from the other people on the road to do this (indeed, it's not possible they could have), and if what they purport to happen in the article and video did happen, then they endangered those people. I've seen accidents from stopped cars being hit by others. If the highway is busy enough, the initial accident isn't even necessarily the largest damage, but it moves vehicles into even more obstructing positions and causes follow-on accidents. https://www.google.com/search?q=stalled+car+accident&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=stalled+car+accident&tbm=isc...

dchichkov 11y ago

They've risked people's lives to produce real life looking footage documenting a life threatening event. Without such event present in the footage, car manufacturers can just say "Meh - no big deal". And continue recklessly risking lives by manufacturing unsafe cars without air gap between CAN bus and Internet. Remember, it's the car manufacturers that are the bad guys here, not the white hats... And just think how hard was this decision. It's a choice between risking lives and having footage that doesn't catch attention and thus allows car manufacturers to continue making unsafe cars with horrible security vulnerabilities. Amazing.

elektromekatron 11y ago
Blocking the visibility through the windscreen, then shutting off the transmission of a car, that is driving on an interstate overpass in traffic, is not white hat by any stretch of the imagination.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  Perhaps not, but it's necessary to get the attention of auto makers so that they stop building such trivially-compromisable systems. This was a couple of security researchers on one car for a proof-of-concept; better to demonstrate these flaws early and with a more limited sample than to watch the pileup of epic proportions that would happen should someone even less scrupulous acquire such control over vehicles on the road. I don't exactly condone the ethics (or lack thereof) of the researchers, either, but if that's the only way to get proper attention (after previous, more polite and reasoned attempts were simply dismissed by manufacturers), then so be it.
  - acaloiar 11y ago
    Had that Jeep run into you or you ran into it as a result of this experiment, you may have found that you have a profoundly different threshold for what is, "necessary to get the attention of auto makers". Just because automakers are seemingly keen on ignoring security vulnerabilities does not justify putting people's lives at risk. And let's face it – a multi-ton vehicle that is not entirely in its driver's control puts lives at risk in just about any situation. The reason you and others argue that the demo's methodology is effective is precisely because of the risks involved; not in spite of them. It is the responsibility of researchers to demonstrate risks without exercising the extent of those risks. Imagine if virologists regularly demonstrated communicability risk by injecting humans with disease outside of the lab.