
How self-driving cars could become weapons of terror - swamp40
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/How-self-driving-cars-could-become-weapons-of-9958541.php
======
patall
I agree with the danger of networked cars but most other things are already
possible now. Leaving a bag with explosives in a train is easy, equipping a
drone with explosives and flying it into a parade as well. Manipulating the
traffic light system, etc. Self-driving cars may be another possibility in
terrorist attacks but most of the things described are not really a problem of
self-driving vehicles but rather problems inherent of mass transportation or
the internet of things.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _equipping a drone with explosives and flying it into a parade as well_

Ever since at least last year I keep waiting for the news to break out: drone
+ computer vision + navigation system + some kind of weapon (maybe a gun,
maybe a poison dart) - all that stuff sent to seek someone out and "deal" with
them. Totally doable.

Just a matter of time.

~~~
imaginenore
I wonder how they protect the important people (president, VP) from something
like that. Modern drones are crazy fast. RC jet planes are insanely fast.

~~~
unclenoriega
Defensive drone swarm? It's drones all the way down.

------
Nadya
_> Picture hackers employed by a hostile nation finding a way to command large
numbers of cars on U.S. roads. Picture those hackers ordering the vehicles to
suddenly accelerate and turn hard to the right, flipping them over, killing
many passengers and clogging freeways with junked cars._

Car only needs a computer - not a network. Modern cars already have computers.
Picture hackers employed by a yadda yadda remotely disabling power-steering on
cars across the nation or disabling ABS and you have the same disaster
scenario in an already-existing attack vector.

 _> Or envision a lone-wolf terrorist loading explosives into a car and
programming it to drive to a targeted building or public space._

Already possible. Even Mythbusters sets up "life size" RC cars for some of
their crash-related myths.

I really hate puff scare pieces.

~~~
blincoln
> Already possible. Even Mythbusters sets up "life size" RC cars for some of
> their crash-related myths.

It's already possible, but it takes a lot of work, and (AFAIK), you don't end
up with a vehicle that can be programmed with destination coordinates tens or
hundreds of kilometers away and then left to its own devices.

There's always the possibility of a lone-wolf, obsessed Unabomber-style
terrorist who has their own machine shop and whatnot, but that's an edge case.
The potential danger here (IMO) is the terrorist who can steal a few
autonomous cars from parking lots (or call up a few autonomous taxis), load
them up with cellphone-detonated explosives, and be all set. That scenario
doesn't require anything really technically-challenging, and IMO is very
likely to occur.

The random "crash a bunch of cars on the freeway" scenario is not as likely,
IMO, because the number of people who are interested in killing tens or
hundreds of random people is lower than the number who are interested in
killing a few very specific people, or destroying a very specific
building/piece of infrastructure.

I don't think this is a reason to _disallow_ autonomous vehicles, but I don't
have a good answer for how to address it, either.

------
heisenbit
I'm not really worried about that. Thanks to the recent release of a
comprehensive hacker toolkit I'm able to plug into the IoT and block any self
driving car attacks with my flying drone squad.

------
outworlder
> What of the lone-wolf terrorist, placing explosives in a programmable car?
> At a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration hearing in April,
> one speaker urged the government to require sensors inside autonomous cars
> to sniff out hazardous materials and disable the cars if necessary.

How does that make sense? They are talking about "hackers" seizing millions of
cars remotely in one paragraph, on the next we have perfect technology that
can sniff dangerous chemicals and disable a car. But wait, aren't those people
supposed to be hackers? Why can't they disable the sensors then?

Also, what's preventing them from retrofitting a car to be remote controlled,
if they are so skilled? Newer cars are almost "fly-by-wire" anyway already.

~~~
throwaway2016a
<sarcasm>But no one could ever cover or electronically bypass a
sensor</sarcasm>

Also, if we could do that might as well also have it call the police with the
exact GPS location and drive the perp to a remote bomb disposal location.

------
pasta
This is the same fear spreading as with 3D printed guns.

Alternatives are cheaper, already available and you can't stop someone who
really does want to spread terror.

~~~
imaginenore
Alternatives are not cheaper if you count the labor and the cost of the
machines.

------
RickS
Nice! Weird scare pieces in the format $new_thing + TERROR is a strong sign
that new thing is catching on.

------
EvanAnderson
_“We have big firewalls, really strict firewalls to make sure no one can
operate the airbags and take over the car. "_

That's not very comforting. We're just getting to the point where it's
becoming mainstream for corporate IT to understand that "the firewall" is not
some magic line of security demarcation where "evil" stays firmly on "its
side".

~~~
0xfeba
What benefit could possibly come about by connecting the airbag system
(intertial sensor(s), the airbag, and the explosive device) to the v2v or any
other electrical system other than power?

Why does there even need to be a firewall. It should be air-gapped in the
truest sense.

~~~
jonahrd
For one, NHTSA and equivalents have regulations for vehicle behaviors in the
event of a crash beyond just deploying airbags.

Not defending this behavior, but that's a reason..

~~~
0xfeba
True, I recall now that cars automatically turn on hazard flashers and some
attempt to connect to OnStar and the like. IMO, that should all be a separate
inertial sensor...

------
canthonytucci
see [https://www.amazon.com/DAEMON-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/0451228731](https://www.amazon.com/DAEMON-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/0451228731)

&

[https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-TM-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/045123189...](https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-TM-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/0451231899)

fun reads.

------
honkhonkpants
Imagine a horrible future where cars kill hundreds of thousands of people
annually!

------
microcolonel
Committing acts of terror is _REALLY EASY_ already. Because most people are
basically decent, and intelligence agencies are largely capable of preventing
most threats at the current rate; we don't see a huge number of problems.

But if you have more people ready to accept the guilt tripping and ideological
shame it takes to make a radical, I'm guessing those capabilities will dry up.
We really ought to be focusing on the intent rather than the means, because
the means is obviously already common.

------
bicknergseng
I'm more afraid of the 10TB/s self driving car DDoS.

------
Overtonwindow
Aside: anyone read Daemon by Daniel Suarez? Some vicious self driving cars in
that book.

------
cesis
The same thing can be done with current cars and trucks.

------
BigJeffeRonaldo
Anyone willing to ride a self driving car doesn't value his life

------
carapace
"Maximum Overdrive"

(Also "Demon Seed")

