Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Saturday June 17, @10:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the safety-first dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The arrival of autonomous vehicles (AV, or self-driving vehicles) on the public highways is getting closer. Just this month (June 2017), Nutonomy announced a partnership with Lyft for R&D on its existing AV testing on the streets of Boston. Lyft announced yesterday that by 2025 it will provide "at least 1 billion rides per year using electric autonomous vehicles." Also this week, Japanese robotics firm ZMP announced its plan to have an AV taxi on the streets of Tokyo in time for the 2020 Olympics. The need for AV regulation is pressing.

The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee responded Tuesday by releasing bipartisan principles for AV legislation ahead of a Wednesday hearing titled 'Paving the way for self-driving vehicles.' The authors of the principles, U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), plan to introduce legislation, but have so far set neither a date nor deadline for this.

The principles focus on safety, promoting innovation, tech-neutral legislation, clarification over federal and state responsibilities, public education, and -- of course -- cybersecurity. The last is minimal. The document states that cybersecurity must be included 'from the very beginning of their development,' and that "Legislation must address the connectivity of self-driving vehicles and potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities before they compromise safety."

Source: SecurityWeek


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17, @11:01PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 17, @11:01PM (#527188)

    They mean DRM, or am I mistaken?
    More mechanism to prevent you from tinkering with a device you 'bought'? When you do an oil change yourself, they can charge you under the DMCA.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Saturday June 17, @11:43PM (4 children)

      by hendrikboom (1125) on Saturday June 17, @11:43PM (#527203) Homepage

      They could mean DRM. But they more likely mean for it not to be possible to take control of someone's car without permission while it's barrelling down a busy expressway.

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by c0lo on Sunday June 18, @12:58AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 18, @12:58AM (#527236)

        But they more likely mean for it not to be possible to take control of someone's car without permission while it's barrelling down a busy expressway.

        What about getting safely (for the rest of the traffic) to the next highway exit and barrelling it down into a disused quarry with the congresscritter inside? Or drive into the dessert for all the remaining fuel. Or find some water deep enough...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 18, @01:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 18, @01:34AM (#527255)

          drive into the dessert

          Mmm...pudding...Ice cream...linzer tarts....mmmmm....dessert.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 18, @01:58AM

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 18, @01:58AM (#527266) Journal

        not to be possible to take control of someone's car

        This.
        If even 3% of vehicles could be remotely controlled you could shut down every freeway or busy city route on a moments notice.

        As soon as it was determined that Jeeps could be remotely commandeered that model should have been ordered off the roadway nation wide.
        Instead we have parking lots full of Volkswagen Diesels waiting for software fixes and cars with takata airbags still driving around.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by kaszz on Sunday June 18, @05:00AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday June 18, @05:00AM (#527339) Journal

        DRM will be great when your car is taken over and you find out the backseat is filled with rapidly decomposing gel and the infotainment says something about Akbar all over.

    • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Saturday June 17, @11:43PM

      by Lagg (105) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 17, @11:43PM (#527204) Homepage Journal

      That and the kind referring to things like not being able to crack it and steer a guy off a cliff. Not sure why they think sternly calling for it is going to force the manufacturers to do any better here though.

      --
      http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
      8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 17, @11:47PM (9 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday June 17, @11:47PM (#527205)

    There are procedures and standards that are so broad you could sail an aircraft carrier group through them, and then companies barely follow them anyway.

    Time to market is king, profit is queen, cybersecurity is the deuce of spades - nobody in control cares.

    • (Score: 2) by leftover on Sunday June 18, @12:06AM (3 children)

      by leftover (2448) on Sunday June 18, @12:06AM (#527211)

      This in all suits. To make them take it seriously, make failures extremely costly. Nothing else is necessary and nothing else will work.

      --
      Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Sunday June 18, @01:00AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 18, @01:00AM (#527237)

        To make them take it seriously, make failures extremely costly.

        What?!? More government regulation? Why do you hate capitalism?

        (grin)

        • (Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday June 18, @04:11AM (1 child)

          by number11 (1170) on Sunday June 18, @04:11AM (#527324)

          To make them take it seriously, make failures extremely costly.

          What?!? More government regulation? Why do you hate capitalism?

          (grin)

          Nah. Don't need regulations. Just have the law say that the manufacturer is fully liable for all real and/or consequential damage due to security screwups, and top that by making the C-level corporate officers personally responsible. Then the suits would focus on doing the job right, instead of the embroidery on their golden parachute.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday June 18, @04:46AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 18, @04:46AM (#527335)

            Nah. Don't need regulations. Just have the law say that the manufacturer is fully liable for all real and/or consequential damage due to security screwups, and top that by making the C-level corporate officers personally responsible.

            Semantic quibbling: last time I checked, laws are a special kind of regulation.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 18, @12:07AM (4 children)

      Easy to fix. Make them care. Make punitive damages on lawsuits actually impact their bottom line significantly. Make shoddy, non-updated security something you can be held liable for in situations where damages are real rather than digital.

      --
      Save Ferris!
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday June 18, @12:09AM

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 18, @12:09AM (#527214) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, let's secure the vehicles.

    Don't worry about your own senatorial emails, or the NSA or anything like that: worry about those darn vehicles. 'cause the terrorists might, you know, drive a car into the NSA and accidentally download and release to wiki-leaks the specs to how to change a tire or something {cough}wannacry{cough}.

    Man, politicians can be so stupid and out of touch with reality: probably from all that not having to drive themselves around while sitting comfortably in bullet proof cars with the doors locked and a nice bottle of scotch in their laps.... AHHH, that's what they mean by security!!!

    --
    --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday June 18, @01:23AM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Sunday June 18, @01:23AM (#527244)

    These assholes are clueless, yet they have political radar that sez 'Hey! Let's pontificate on this subject I know nothing about! What could possibly go wrong?"

    In terms you and I understand, if Google/Apple/Waymo/etc give enough $$$ to the appropriate asshats then full speed ahead.

(1)