Alex Rubalcava writes that autonomous vehicles are the greatest force multiplier to emerge in decades for criminals and terrorists and open the door for new types of crime not possible today. According to Rubalcava, the biggest barrier to carrying out terrorist plans until now has been the risk of getting caught or killed by law enforcement so that only depraved hatred, or religious fervor has been able to motivate someone to take on those risks as part of a plan to harm other people. "A future Timothy McVeigh will not need to drive a truck full of fertilizer to the place he intends to detonate it," writes Rubalcava. "A burner email account, a prepaid debit card purchased with cash, and an account, tied to that burner email, with an AV car service will get him a long way to being able to place explosives near crowds, without ever being there himself." A recent example is instructive. Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were identified by an examination of footage from numerous private security cameras that were recording the crowd in downtown Boston during the Marathon. Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.
According to Rubalcava "the reaction to the first car bombing using an AV is going to be massive, and it's going to be stupid. There will be calls for the government to issue a stop to all AV operations, much in the same way that the FAA made the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation after 9/11." He goes on to say that "unlike 9/11, which involved a decades-old transportation infrastructure, the first AV bombing will use an infrastructure in its infancy, one that will be much easier to shut down. That shutdown could stretch from temporary to quasi-permanent with ease, as security professionals grapple with the technical challenge of distinguishing between safe, legitimate payloads and payloads that are intended to harm."
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday August 31 2015, @03:45AM
Just hack a few autonomous trucks carrying fuel, chlorine, ammonia, etc. and crash them into busses, crowds, densely populated buildings. For best effect, do some in front of the fire stations and hospitals to limit emergency response, and on the bridges and freeway ramps to limit outside help. Execute in many major cities at once.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday August 31 2015, @05:17AM
How did we get from Driverless to Autonomous?
First, all you need do is make it impossible for a driverless car to undertake any journey without a live human inside.
There are many ways that this can be accomplished. More than one would probably be employed.
But the idea that just anyone would be allowed to send a vehicle across town without any human supervision, especially after years of vehicle born bombs in dozens of places around the world, is quite ludicrous.
Its easy enough, apparently, to find a human to drive a bomb into a crowd. Nobody is going to make it easier to just send a bomb.
This is also why people (and governments) are so worried about cheap drones. It will only take one incident for the entire drone market to be destroyed.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 31 2015, @05:27AM
Oh, forgot to mention, Google's self-driving cars can't handle bicycle track stands.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/30/google-self-driving-cars-confused-by-bike-stand/ [engadget.com]
Autonomous apparently is chock full of pitfalls.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @06:49AM
Heh. Not enough detail in that link, but I think I see two faults in the programming.
First, the car should have been aware of whatever was causing the bicycle to be stopped - a red light or something, I presume. Cross traffic? Pedestrians? Whatever, the car should have been tracking that, as well as the bicycle's slight movements. No lurching forward is justified, even if we account for the bike's confusing movements.
Second, the car's brakes should have been firmly applied all the time. It sounds like the car comes to a stop, then relaxes the braking system.
Defensive driving teaches you to come to a stop, and to hold the brakes, just in case someone rear ends you. That way, you don't roll out into cross traffic when hit.
I'll repeat - not enough details in the story, so I may be wrong about some of all of my snap conclusions.
On a motorcycle, a track stand can get you a ticket. Cops like to see your foot on the ground, or they ASSume that you've just done a "California stop" or "rolling stop". I'm not expert, but I've kept my motorcycle upright and stationary for as long as 30 seconds at a time. I might do better on a motoX bike - or not.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Nuke on Monday August 31 2015, @12:31PM
Oh dear, bang goes one of the much vaunted advantages of self driving cars - the ability to send it off to a parking lot or back home after dropping its rider off at school or work, and summoning it back later.
Never mind, that was going to be a sure way to double the amount of traffic on city roads.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 31 2015, @06:51PM
Oh dear, bang goes one of the much vaunted advantages of self driving cars
Better than Bang goes the Brooklyn bridge!
There is really no value in sending the cars any significant distance back to a parking facility. If they can't park within 4 blocks they won't provide a responsive service anyway.
If one of the sensing methodologies looked for weight within the unoccupied vehicle, it could refuse to move. If another looked for any packages in the unoccupied vehicle (regardless of weight), it could refuse to move.
If yet another detected a transmitter in the unoccupied vehicle, (especially a cell phone) it could refuse to move.
(Receivers are harder to detect, but strictly in-vehicle jamming of un-occupied vehicles might be be useful.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:05AM
"There is really no value in sending the cars any significant distance back to a parking facility." = false. My wife is working at the state fair. Parking within about a six block radius is both limited and expensive. I've been dropping her off at 6:15am and picking her up at 9:20pm. If I could just send the car to drop her off and pick her up I could spend much less time in the car. Also, in the general case, if she needed to go or return while I was at work, the car could be sent to whoever needs it.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:18AM
Six blocks is not significant, neither is 8 or 10. Bringing the car all the way home would be ridiculous.
A rent-for-the-ride car service would locate parking/recharging lots near events like fairs, not to mention office buildings, school campuses, factories etc.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:14AM
"How did we get from Driverless to Autonomous?". I don't understand the question; the headline mentions autonomous vehicles. Also, since my premise includes gaining unauthorized control remotely, any software restrictions can be assumed to be circumvented.
I would support a legal requirement for any vehicle carrying dangerous amounts of a dangerous substance to contain a conscious human with a hardware emergency stop button.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday August 31 2015, @03:52AM
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1559/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:20AM
Obligatory cunt: http://xkcd.com/136/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:38AM
Well shit. How does an obligatory link to xkcd get modded down? Could it be? Randall really is a cunt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:45AM
You got issues, dude. Or dudette. And Randall is probably the least of them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:52AM
At least I don't worship at the altar of a pretentious asshole who pretends to be scholarly while he's drawing cunts to amuse stupid fuckers like you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:20AM
gsjklfjglsdjgldsjflhsbl;jalkgjsdflgjdsflkjsudotaue0toglsdnglrhjfo[sud8gpr
e[=reag-hsdgjfo!!!! With extra spittle. Go home, Troll, it must almost be daylight where you are, and we do not want you to turn to stone. Like, in addition to being stoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cafebabe on Monday August 31 2015, @04:18PM
If hired autonomous vehicles can be used for nefarious purposes then it may start a arms race of Turing tests. This will make hired autonomous vehicles almost impossible for use by drunks or disabled people while doing nothing to prevent real terrorists.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2, Touché) by spamdog on Monday August 31 2015, @04:16AM
Future terrorism is going to be so fucking awesome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @06:15AM
self driving cars will only be used by 4chan type of "terorrists"!
The real fun is going to be in reprogramming military systems...
bored hacker: "ship, fire at that city's financial district in a civilian casualty maximizing pattern"
hijacked navy battleship: "YESS 'SAH! Firing all weapons, 'SAH!"
*sound of railguns firing*
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday August 31 2015, @06:26PM
Not enough mil ships, and usually they have people keeping an eye on them.
On the other hand:
Bored hacker: "half-million vulnerable autonomous cars, head to new home @ $destination" Where there might be either half a million random destinations, or just one, depending on who you're trying to piss off.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:31AM
Depraved you say. It is not depraved hatred when your labor force participation rate falls below 50% as people who want to find work cannot find work because they are actively discriminated against for being unemployed. You will find that the hared will be justified hared very very soon.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 31 2015, @09:30AM
You will find that the hared will be justified hared very very soon.
Now, you see, this is exactly the problem with terrorism. Blowing stuff up, body parts in the air, yes, that is all very well and good. But what exactly are you saying? Are we talking genus Lepus here? The Hares will be justified very soon? Well, it is probably about time, since bunnies have been much put upon by industrialization and all. But I fail to see what that has to do with Self-driving autonomous frojack style vehicles. And why should it be soon, when bunnies have been oppressed for so very long? Oh, wait, you didn't mean to actually exclude rabbits from the category of justified hares, did you? Splitter! Heretic! Hiss!!! Urinate emphatically!!!! Now we see who the real terrorists are. Thinking they are better than others just because they are born with hair, and so they are justified hares!
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 31 2015, @04:32AM
But, you can't just STEAL a smart car! The manufacturers have put software in place to prevent that!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 31 2015, @04:42AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @04:42AM
If you have to worry that your own citizens will rise up against you, there's something seriously wrong with your society. You The People have a government by The People for The People because you voted for it, didn't you? You The People are The Problem. Why don't you just kill yourselves?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @03:17PM
You The People have a government by The People for The People because you voted for it, didn't you?
No. next question?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @05:16AM
Seems like a straightforward problem with a straightforward solution.
If there is a living person in the car who can respond to prompts then no need to do anything different from the way cars are today.
If the car is unoccupied, being sent somewhere like to pick up groceries or the kids after school, etc, then whoever sent it must have some sort of verification.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @05:58AM
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday August 31 2015, @11:05AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @08:38PM
How many people can afford one vs. the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @07:38AM
We are orders of magnitude more likely to die from a normal car accident than any 'terror' plot. The chance of one of these terrorists using an AV (I always thought that meant Audio/Visual) is so abysmally low as to barely rate a statistical blip. Stop the sensational fear-mongering, please.
AVs are extremely bad at insecurity, we know that. They're not even realistically available to the public, and it will likely be a long, long time before they become enough of a norm (even 2% of cars on the road would be an absolutely massive trend).
I bet even an asteroid colliding with earth is a bigger threat.
Nothing to see here.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 31 2015, @08:49AM
I predict ideological terrorism will take off big time if all these automated systems are left on the internet. For example, it would be possible in a very automated near future, to use hacked vehicles to shut down several of the key shipping lanes around the world at the same time and cause massive damage (think hitting Suez, Panama, and Soo Locks at the same time as wreaking havok on airport runways and major highways, the whole world's economy would come to a grinding halt).
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 31 2015, @09:27AM
I have been pointing this out in public for over a year but it has been plainly apparent to me that whole time we've had hobby drones and self driving cars.
In the late 1980s I saw a movie called I think Malcolm in which Malcolm knocks over a bank by remote control. His Radio Controlled car had a pistol, a loadspeaker and a place for the tellers to place his loot. Two thumbs up.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday August 31 2015, @11:04AM
Terrorists don't need autonomous vehicles, even if they don't want to get caught. Just find someone dumb enough to want to die, or dumb enough to believe your plan will get them out alive, and send them in with the bomb. Pay a homeless drug addict $50 to deliver a package. Attach a bomb to the car of someone works at or near your target.
The article makes it sound like there's a hundred terrorists on every block, just biding their time for autonomous vehicles which will solve aallll their problems, when actually the author's invented the problem to propose the solution.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday August 31 2015, @12:29PM
Ah the difference between the "personal touch" and AV attacks is like the difference between one jackass human trying to break into your internet server by hand typing common passwords vs a million machine botnet in China hitting the login so hard its almost a DDOS.
The problem isn't one homeless dude vs one autonomous vehicle as a strategy, its one homeless dude vs the entire manufacturers fleet of autonomous vehicles being reprogrammed over the air simultaneously to cruise-missile at top speed into the next cop car they see, or for pure terror driving off the next bridge they see while occupied, or into the next pedestrian (of a certain skin color) they see. All ten million of them, simultaneously, at 9am on Sept 11th 2025, programmed by some dudes in Saudi Arabia, so that we'll respond at a national level by invading Iran in retribution and getting rid of whatever civil rights are still left, or something similar anyway. Its all in the parallelization.
Or for that matter, its not like the poverty stricken USA is going to be AV central. We have so many unemployed people to hire as taxi drivers, its hard to economically pull it off. Now a rising country like China will have more AVs which equals more targets. So you can expect the Taiwanese to have some backup plans in case the Chinese navy is ever dumb enough to float an invasion fleet. Or if you want an area where there's plenty of reason to fight, I bet the network connections of autonomous cars in Israel are going to be under something like a DDOS of traffic of terror and false flag operatives trying to stir the pot for some very old traditional reasons, even if maybe there aren't all that many autonomous cars in Israel.
The advantage of programming a drone or AV is you can launch thousands to millions at once, remotely, whereas there are certain scalability problems with homeless crack fiends. You need a hundred operatives to carry out a hundred human touch operations in country, but you need one terror or false flag team with a network connection to carry out millions of remote operations simultaneously.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 31 2015, @03:31PM
Bruce Schneier has been right on about the basic mistake a lot of people make when discussing terrorism. Basically, they target specific plans that they could imagine in their heads, while failing to understand that defending against specific plans is dumb because the terrorists can change their targets or plans much more cheaply and easily than the defenders can (e.g. if the Oklahoma City federal building had spent a huge amount preventing McVeigh's van from getting close enough to bomb it, McVeigh could have easily just said "fine, I'm bombing Tulsa today instead").
Terrorists can and do strike anywhere at any time. Sure, they might do more damage striking a high-profile event like the Olympics or something, but they have also attempted (and sometimes succeeded) in blowing up buses and public spaces, and shooting up shopping malls and hotels and religious buildings. The hard part was almost never transporting things from one place to another: Consider how easily illegal drugs move around the US, and you'll get an idea of how easily a terrorist could move a bomb. The hard parts typically were (1) getting the technical know-how to build a bomb without blowing themselves up, (2) making sure nobody involved was an undercover agent for the authorities, and (3) making sure nobody else who knows what's up decides to tell somebody.
The entire list of useful measures to prevent terrorism are:
1. Intelligence-gathering, including human infiltration of organizations that are likely to commit terrorism, to locate and catch the tiny tiny number of people interested in committing terrorist acts before or after they do them.
2. Emergency services, to deal with the aftermath of any successful attack.
That's it. Anything else is a waste of money and probably a completely unnecessary invasion on people's liberties.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2015, @10:01PM
You had a very chaotic situation. You had three kamikaze planes striking around the same time, and you had another one go silent. It was clearly a coordinated attack and there was no obvious way to know if other planes had been taken over. This wasn't a case where one plane flew into a building and it wasn't clear it was an accident or not. This was a clear, active and coordinated attack. Grounding all the planes was the smartest thing to do.