
FBI: Google's driverless cars could be lethal weapons - schrofer
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28344219
======
dm2
Autonomous vehicles offer far more benefits than they have drawbacks.

This article is mainly focused on the situation where the criminals will have
both hands free. It ignores the fact that the vehicles would just stop if
anything was blocking the path. Plus, the vehicles could certainly be turned
off remotely during an emergency. And nothing stops law-enforcement from
having autonomous vehicles that could be set to follow another vehicle with
near perfect accuracy.

This is similar to the Tesla stolen vehicle. WHY would the police engage in a
high-speed pursuit, risking the lives of numerous people, to catch a vehicle
that has GPS in the car and can probably be shut down remotely. Law-
enforcement should be partially responsible for the people injured in that
situation, in my opinion.

~~~
bryanlarsen
All the police probably have to do to stop an autonomous vehicle is to turn on
their lights. Autonomous vehicles have to follow all traffic laws, which would
include stopping for emergency vehicles.

~~~
Zikes
That's actually a grey area. Following incidences of police impersonation, it
was recommended that concerned people should turn on their blinker to
acknowledge the police and safely drive to the nearest populated area before
pulling over.

Having your car automatically and uncontrollably pull over every time red &
blue lights are observed could lead to traps being set up on any backwoods
road.

Edit: I really wish the news article would link to the actual source report so
I could confirm it, but I bet that the above scenario is included in the FBI's
hypotheticals.

~~~
derefr
If it's really a concern, (real) emergency vehicles could stick in a wireless
beacon with an API the driverless cars could query, that would respond with a
{currently_an_emergency: true} signed by a government-CA-issued TLS cert. Then
you'd only have to worry about _officially sanctioned_ creepy cops pulling you
over on deserted roads.

------
Zikes
Some people apparently don't realize that this is a part of the FBI's job: to
dream up and evaluate all the possible scenarios, weigh risks, and plan for as
many contingencies as possible. As the article notes, the report is not
entirely negative about driverless cars, apparently mentioning as many pros as
there are cons.

The point is, when the first mobster/hacker manages to turn a driverless car
into an autonomous hit-and-run machine, or the first terrorist uses one to
deliver a car bomb, the responsible agencies will be able to react quickly
because they've already made plans for that scenario.

~~~
wavefunction
I thought they were supposed to investigate crimes?

Not decide what cars can and cannot do because of their speculative
thinking...

~~~
Zikes
> I thought they were supposed to investigate crimes?

When someone manages to figure out how to send a driverless car through a
crowd of people in a mall somewhere, do you want the lead investigator to show
up and say "What do you mean there was no driver?!"

Some of investigatory science comes from analyzing crimes that have taken
place, and some of it comes from imagining potential new crimes. By having
imagined the above scenario and being familiar with the type of car in
question, they might know to look for computer logs on the car that could lead
them to the perpetrator, or that autonomous vehicles rely on GPS which might
have left a trail.

The purpose of the research and report is not to determine whether or not
driverless cars should be legal, rather to determine what the potential risks
are and how they might be mitigated with regulations and/or cooperation with
the manufacturers.

~~~
wavefunction
That's where the forensic team would come in, examine the evidence and
determine the culpability and likely perpetrator.

Pre-crime isn't a thing except in a P. K. Dick novel or a Ghost In the Shell
OVA. I expect private vehicle ownership to become mostly a thing of the past
once autonomous vehicles are available, and I also expect there to be a phase-
change analog where one day most cars are driven by humans and then none are.
I can't wait for that day observing the jackasses around me in their cars
driving while they: eat, drink, apply make-up, text, talk on the phone, eat,
read (!) or watch video on their in-car displays. I lost my brother to a
distracted driver and I can't wait until the option to drive becomes obsolete.

And I love driving.

------
mikeyouse
It's easy to ridicule the FBI for statements like this, but I'm glad they're
considering the downside to some of these technologies. The pie-in-the-sky
version of a driverless car society is tremendous, and I hope we get as close
as possible to that, but it does open up some other problems.

1\. How would you go about stopping an autonomous semi truck that was
programmed to drive through crowds?

2\. Will terrorists use autonomous cars as delivery mechanisms for what were
formerly suicide bombs?

3\. If locations with pedestrians are sandboxed in some way, could a
sufficiently skilled 'hacker' intentionally break that sandbox without a trace
only to blame it on bad technology?

4\. How much privacy / 'liberty' would we be willing to give up to enable such
a society?

 _Someone_ should be considering the worst-case scenarios..

~~~
Someone1234
> 1\. How would you go about stopping an autonomous semi truck that was
> programmed to drive through crowds?

In my opinion that question is no longer important. Back in the 80s and 90s
the prevalent thinking was that "bad guys" won't die for their cause. This
mandated things like removing the baggage of passengers who aren't flying
(which wasn't the case before).

I think we learned quite starkly in the 2000s that suicide attackers are a
legitimate threat and therefore we cannot take for granted any longer than a
"bad guy" won't put themselves in harms way in order to hurt others.

So if we apply that to your autonomous semi-truck example, how do you stop
that NOW? Since presumably someone who wanted to accomplish that could go out
right now, get in a truck and then do it. Automation doesn't really change too
much.

As far as an answer: Concrete bollards supported by steel mesh (both
internally and in the foundation) in pedestrian areas.

~~~
sailfast
This is true, but humans scale a lot worse than automation. Now instead of
convincing somebody to kill themselves, all I've gotta do is wire up 30 trucks
to do what I need them to do. Didn't work? Do it again. Cars are cheap.

Discussing this keeps reminding me of Suarez's Daemon novels. Swarming changes
many, many things.

------
DanBC
Stories like this are useful. Not for the details they contain, which are
scant and make me think a lot of people in olved are stupid, but because they
give "us" a chance to prepare for the inevitable accidents or criminal uses of
this good tech. One day a child is going to be oilled by a self-driving car.
That will be very sad for that one child, but we need to be able to point to
the thousands of children who were not killed or maimed. Getting that message
right seems important.

------
clavalle
>The report noted criminals using automated cars would have both hands free
and be able to take their eyes off the road during a car chase.

They would also be remarkably predictable compared to a human driver.

------
stanmancan
Would a driverless car really be ideal to use as a get away vehicle? You would
be stuck in a car that obey's the speed limits and rules of the road. Hardly
useful to dodge the cops.

~~~
rtkwe
Clearly that section is based on the question 'assuming car software could be
modified in a way that made them violate the Laws of Robotic Cars, what new
dangers would that pose.' Just like the bit that mentions the trailing car
assumes they would have a way to know where a car is going in the future,
suggesting a way to query a given car for it's direction.

The first isn't an outlandish question, modifying locked down software isn't
exactly a new art. It wouldn't happen for a while likely just due to the small
reward to the difficulty of execution.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
Wow, the comments here are of an unusually low quality. Let's step it up.

I've personally been thinking of the negative implications of driverless cars
as well. I also thought that a car with a driver could take advantage of a
highway full of conservative automated cars by driving like a maniac to get to
his or her destination faster while all the autonomous cars moved out of the
way.

Of course, I still strongly support moving to driverless cars, but I can
acknowledge that there are some unanswered questions.

------
Zigurd
This is scare-mongering, likely for the purpose of reducing privacy and
personal rights in using autonomous vehicles for personal transportation.

There is enough open information regarding autonomous vehicles that anyone
with disregard for safety could build an autonomous car bomb now. As with
other supposed terror threats, the only thing preventing them is that nobody
is doing it. But that doesn't sell anti-terrorism brainstorming consulting.

------
ChuckMcM
Pretty typical right? And your bank robbery getaway car could be orbiting the
bank waiting for you to come out, etc etc. The report boils down to "gee a
self driving car should would be useful to crooks." which is sort of obvious.

That said the benefits for non-crooks are a lot higher. And while roads in
general benefit crooks getting away in cars, most of the people on them are
just trying to get somewhere.

------
nickthemagicman
What about a driverless car filled up with murderous clowns?

That's something we should all be afraid of and why we should stop progress
immediately.

~~~
krapp
Because any suggestion that driverless cars might present any hint of
increased risk in any possible scenario amounts to mindless Luddite paranoia
and should be dismissed out of hand?

Who's talking about "stopping progress immediately?" The FBI doesn't appear to
be saying that in this article, rather they seem to be speculating on how
driverless cars might tactically change the dynamics of a vehicular pursuit,
which is a perfectly valid thing for them to do. Because they're right - you
can shoot at the cops a lot better when you don't have to worry about a
steering wheel.

~~~
IanDrake
Also, the Pope is upset because unmarried people could have sex in the back
seat while the car drives itself. There is really no end to the infinite
possibilities.

>any hint of increased risk in any possible scenario amounts to mindless
Luddite paranoia

Not any hint, but this particular one...yes. Dismissed out of hand. A get away
driver (an idea that has been around for a very long time) would be far better
than a computer that will stop for literally anything in front of it.

The FBI pushing such stupidity is embarrassing to me as an American. Next
they'll report that if banks didn't have money they'd never get robbed.

~~~
krapp
I don't think the report (which is apparently unreleased so i'm speculating)
is suggesting that the autonomous car itself presents a greater threat in
traffic, but that the driver who no longer has to worry about operating the
vehicle is more free to shoot at the cops and bystanders and whatnot - which
would be true.

------
rurban
I call this bullshit.

As far as I know, criminals had always a designated driver for exactly those
reasons. "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"

Looks like the FBI is just pushing to get a real-time interface into the car
control. "Algorithms can control the distance that the patrol car is behind
the target to avoid detection or intentionally have a patrol car make opposite
turns at intersections, yet successfully meet up at later points with the
target"

------
ianstallings
Passenger: "Uh, car, the bridge is out."

Car: "I know Luke" _speeds up to jump it_

Passenger: "Who's Luke"?

Car: "YEEHAW!!" _hits the rebel horn_

But seriously, FBI analysts get paid to imagine all types of future scenarios
let's not hold it against them too much. It wouldn't surprise me though to see
more anti-electronic gear, such as EMP, in the field as we go forward. They
already have devices that can shut down a car, I imagine they'll work on these
new ones just as well and the FBI simply wants to prepare for it.

------
antr
> The report noted criminals using automated cars would have both hands free
> and be able to take their eyes off the road during a car chase.

... and guns aren't the problem?

------
jqm
These are very valid points.

It doesn't negate the potential use of driverless cars nor is it a good
argument against continued development....just things that are worth
considering...

My guess? Law enforcement will try to get a kill switch they control installed
in all driverless vehicles. I don't know that they should have this, but I bet
they try.

~~~
dm2
The police being able to turn off vehicles should be heavily restricted and
logged to help prevent abuse.

Maybe even require them to contact the manufacturer to get this done.

OnStar can do it currently can't they?

------
Nanzikambe
Article summary: Driver-less car leaves more hands free for evil people to do
evil things.

Someone FOI the FBI's report on hands-free sets and prosthetic limbs please.

------
Someone1234
I always just assumed that driverless cars would come with a remote kill
switch that law enforcement and public safety officials could use.

Even if we ignore this particular threat scenario, what happens if someone has
a heart attack, is passed out in an automatic car (as seen by other cars on
the road), the cops/ambulance turn up but are unable to get to the person to
give them aid?

Or if an automatic car somehow malfunctions and starts driving the wrong way
down the freeway/motorway.

------
dudus
Allow Law Enforcement Officials to remotely control driverless vehicles in
emergency cases. There I fixed it.

------
DamnYuppie
LOL, and how many tens of thousands die a year in accidents caused by vehicles
with human drivers? Apparently over 30k according to the NHTSA.

~~~
sp332
The FBI didn't say it was a bad tradeoff.

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
Hint to FBI: Driverful cars can be lethal too.

------
damnmachine
ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon if used improperly. SHUDDUP Gubmint.

~~~
dllthomas
That's a good reason not to use this as justification for regulation or
nonsense. It's not a good reason for them not to pay attention to developments
and figure out possible responses to various situations. I don't know to what
degree "warns" was flavor from the reporter versus content of the statements,
and I don't know the context in which these statements were made.

------
xster
lol, in 100 years, it'll look like us saying penicillin should be illegal
because if you fired a bucket of it through an uber powerful potato cannon, it
can act as a buckshot

