A trade magazine, http://www.todaysmotorvehicles.com/article/5-myths-about-connected-cars/ ran this article by Shaun Kirby, Cisco Consulting CTO, "5 Myths About Connected Cars". Haven't read anything this funny all year, some clips include:
Myth: Securing connected cars requires breakthroughs in security technology.
Fact: Connected cars are extremely complex, with many sensors, computers, and networks, along with an ever-growing list of features. Fortunately, technologies already exist that have proven effective in securing some of the largest enterprise information technology (IT) infrastructures. Existing technologies are well equipped to keep drivers and their data safe now and into the future.
...and this one, the punch line at the end had me rolling in the aisle:
Myth: Automakers are responsibile for securing connected cars.
Fact: The vehicle manufacturer is just one link in the security chain. Multiple tiers of suppliers, dealerships, developers of aftermarket devices and services, regulatory bodies, and other industries creating devices and services that interact with connected cars are all responsible for keeping cars and drivers safe and secure.
It is especially important for third parties who provide connected car applications to have secure infrastructures. For instance, a mall operator installing vehicle-to-infrastructure units to guide heavy traffic to optimal parking spots will need to ensure that all the proper security controls are in place.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jimtheowl on Monday September 11 2017, @07:53AM (3 children)
So this is not a Myth. By their own words, their aim is to ease concerns, not to address the issue. Options can and will be ignored, as they have been with closed source software, whenever industry has had the option to self regulate. The 2016 IBV study is a plan to win the consumers over, not to address the actual privacy issue.
One could think that marketing prohibits honest discussions.
There are positives to be considered for the system, but it would be nice to tone down the condescending bullshit.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Monday September 11 2017, @09:25AM (2 children)
My take was that the submitter intended this as an "if you're not laughing about this, you'd be crying about this" situation.
Agreed, but I don't think Cisco's Shaun Kirby is hanging around here, so I doubt he will.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @11:49AM (1 child)
> the submitter intended this as an "if you're not laughing about this, you'd be crying about this" situation.
Submitter AC here -- this is the correct interpretation. The original article linked (by the Cisco manager) is written to be perfectly straight. As I read it, the contents struck me as completely unrealistic. The disconnect is what makes it funny.
Yes, I probably should have added a little more to explain my warped sense of humor, but then again, isn't this why we have editors?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday September 11 2017, @06:58PM
Most of us got it.