Skip to comments.Hackers Reveal Nasty New Car Attacks--With Me Behind The Wheel (Video)
Posted on 07/25/2013 9:36:18 AM PDT by Crazieman
Stomping on the brakes of a 3,500-pound Ford Escape that refuses to stopor even slow downproduces a unique feeling of anxiety. In this case it also produces a deep groaning sound, like an angry water buffalo bellowing somewhere under the SUVs chassis. The more I pound the pedal, the louder the groan getsalong with the delighted cackling of the two hackers sitting behind me in the backseat.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“I wonder how quick the gov would shut down a site that would publish how to remove the wireless circuitry from a car, to make it a truly stand alone car.”
Why don’t you publish the info and find out? I don’t think that they would bother. There are plenty of cars out there with no wireless capability, anyone can just buy one of those if they are worried.
Amen on no Cadillacs made after 1997...
I made the mistake of buying a 97 caddie only to discover that the Vortek engine, while a pretty awesome piece of technology, likes to crack head gaskets and eats oil like most cars eat gasoline. I hear they worked those problems out after a few years, but I am not buying another Cadillac just to find out if it is true.
I like it. I've been wanting to restore any of several late 60s/early 70s cars I wanted in high school, from when I got got my permit on, but never could afford.
At the time, they were usually beaters by the time we (and the salt) got them, but I still regret a couple that I had to let get away.
I've been trying to figure out a way to justify spending the money to buy/build a "new" old car and/or pickup and now I've got one! "But, hon, it's hackerproof! We need this car. Like the Winchesters."
If I can get physical access to your computer, it's no longer YOUR computer.
Now it applies to vehicles, too.
This fact alone points to a poisoning rather than some fanciful remote car hacking. Where was this man going at such a high rate of speed? A hospital could make sense. Don’t know the area.
It could be as you say, to desensitize US to the ever present, omni-eyed beast, like they have built in other countries. The machine seems to be a "good guy" and on our side, acting on behalf of life.
Is that because Finch is a good person and he not only programmed it for this watchdog function/purpose, his program is by extension also good?
We like to believe good outweighs bad, and it should, but what if society and/or that programmer is bad? Think of what all we're building now. Please don't misunderstand, I enjoy enjoy a good drone strike as much as the next guy, but we are seriously starting to creep me out.
I grew up reading/watching science fiction that is now reality, so I see that show as a warning, that this is now possible, no longer just sci-fi.
Reminds me of a joke: What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
Agreed. And seriously scarey. For this reason:
"You know what's wrong with scientific power?" Malcolm said.
Its a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails."
Hammond said, "What is he talking about?
Harding made a sign, indicating delirium. Malcolm cocked his eye.
"I will tell you what I am talking about," he said.
"Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power.
There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years.
Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru.
Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort.
You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you.
And once you have attained it, its your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you.
It is literally the result of your discipline.
Now what is interesting about this process is that,
by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands,
he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely.
So that kind of power has a built-in control.
The discipline of getting the you so that you won't abuse it.
But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline.
You read what others have done, and you take the next step.
You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast.
There is no discipline lasting many decades.
There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored.
There is no humility before nature.
There is only a get-rich-quick, make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy.
Cheat, lie, falsify--it doesn't matter. Not to you, or to your colleagues.
No one will criticize you. No one has any standards.
They all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast.
"And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly.
You don't even-know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it; patented it, and sold it.
And the buyer will have even less discipline than you. The buyer simply purchases the power, like any commodity.
The buyer doesnt even conceive that any discipline might be necessary.
Hammond said, "Do you know what he is talking about?"
"I haven't a clue" Hammond said.
Ill make it simple" Malcolm said.
"A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands. He does not lose his temper and kill his wife.
The person who kills is the person who has no discipline no restraint,
and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special.
And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits.
And that is why you think that to build a place like this is simple."
"It was simple," Hammond insisted.
'Then why did it go wrong?"
--from Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. New York: Ballantine Books, 1990, pp.305-307.
As I mentioned I have seen car fires but most of them are not caused by collisions and even in very bad collisions, including where engines are ripped apart fires are not common. There is more to this than just a suspicious fire though, this is a person that said that he was being investigated for a big story he was about to break. Added to that, the city decided to cremate the body despite the families formal request for a autopsy. When taken at face value this seems like an unlikely set of coincidences.
One time is an accident.
Two times is a coincidence.
Three times is a pattern.
Four times is a trend.
In the mean time, I sandwiched the credit card section of my wallet in tinfoil to mess up the random reader.
Yay, a justifiably paranoid use for tinfoil!
How hard would it be for a well-financed organization to create a device that could be quickly and discretely installed and would provide wireless access? And burn away in a fire?
Mr. Hastings death was certainly very suspicious.
The fact that there are agents everywhere can be construed many ways. I can say from a conservative perspective that there are simply too many federal employees. ;)
“As I mentioned I have seen car fires but most of them are not caused by collisions and even in very bad collisions, including where engines are ripped apart fires are not common.”
I’m going to trust the conclusions of the people who collect the statistics on these things nationwide, rather than your, or my, subjective and limited experience.
“There is more to this than just a suspicious fire though, this is a person that said that he was being investigated
for a big story he was about to break.”
No, he claimed the FBI was questioning his friends (I don’t think anyone else has actually come forward and confirmed that claim), and he also claimed he was onto a big story. He didn’t actually connect those two things in his statement.
“Added to that, the city decided to cremate the body despite the families formal request for a autopsy.”
That’s unfortunate, but what is it evidence of? Government screws up? Or that intelligence agencies take city workers into their confidence for top secret assassination plans?
“When taken at face value this seems like an unlikely set of coincidences.”
Not really seeing it, but even if that is true, it only proves that there is an unusual set of coincidences, not that anyone was assassinated. I’m sure I could look into nearly anyone’s death, and if I scrutinized it closely enough, I could find some unlikely coincidences. That’s just how the human mind works. When we are suspicious, we can easily find fuel for our suspicions anywhere we look.
Not sure, but it would seem to be harder than for the driver of a vehicle to crash it into a tree while driving at an unsafe rate of speed.
All cars are made of plastic.
Fortunately the statistics match my subjective and limited experience.
No, he claimed the FBI was questioning his friends (I dont think anyone else has actually come forward and confirmed that claim), and he also claimed he was onto a big story. He didnt actually connect those two things in his statement.
He said "feds" but the email was titled FBI investigation. In the same email he mentioned the "Big Story", that intrinsically links the issues. Regardless of him actually saying he was being investigated about the story, it is strongly inferred.
Thats unfortunate, but what is it evidence of? Government screws up? Or that intelligence agencies take city workers into their confidence for top secret assassination plans?
I'm not suggesting that it is evidence of anything. When a certain number of odd coincidence occur in a case then it becomes increasingly unlikely that they are in fact odd coincidences.
Not really seeing it, but even if that is true, it only proves that there is an unusual set of coincidences, not that anyone was assassinated.
Occam's razor suggests that the most likely explanation is usually the correct answer. When faced with an increasingly unlikely set of circumstances the most likely explanation has to change. I'm not saying the CIA had him killed, but it appears to me that there is more to the story than a car accident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.