Debate on speeding, with a side order of "For $60, you can hack a connected car (original topic)"
-
In my opinion, laws are there to punish, not prevent, crime.
Well, that, and also in the jurisdictions I am aware of, speed limits are ordinances and not laws. The only time you would end up afoul of the actual law is when you are driving fast enough to be considered
wreckless driving, or when you violate a lot of ordinances and become a HTO.
-
-
-
-
they have more security holes than unpatched Windows XP…
I'm not sure I would call them security holes. It's not like these systems were designed to operate in a hostile environment; there is not real concept of "security" that could have "holes". They're just not meant for externally accessible systems.
-
But in our ever-increasingly interconnected world, where you can control your central heating at home in, say, Sheffield from a hotel room in, say, Kuala Lumpur, surely it should be a consideration?
-
But in our ever-increasingly interconnected world, where you can control your central heating at home in, say, Sheffield from a hotel room in, say, Kuala Lumpur, surely it should be a consideration?
If when you design a system, you never conceive of a reason why it would ever need to be connected to the outside world, then why would you worry about increasing development time by worrying about security? When the CAN architecture was developed, it was 1987. The latest standard was ratified in 1991, IIRC.
Should they have worried about developing a system with rock solid security? No. The thought of this ever being an issue was not even conceivable. Prior to the wirelessly connected car, the only way it was vulnerable was if someone plugged a laptop in to the port under the dash. At the point that they are able to do that, you were already fucked.
-
I never said the security needed to be in the CAN layer itself; the real insecurity is exposing the CANbus to the wireless connections. And it's that weakness that should never have existed in the first place.
Or, since CAN was only made mandatory in cars in the last decade or so, have a new CAN standard that is securable.
-
In my opinion, laws are there to punish, not prevent, crime.
Isn't prevention the purpose of punishment?
-
-
But in our ever-increasingly interconnected world, where you can control your central heating at home in, say, Sheffield from a hotel room in, say, Kuala Lumpur, surely it should be a consideration?
Look at the vendor-customer relationship here. The main purpose of security in cars is to make sure that unauthorized equipment manufacturers of car accessories don't connect to the vehicle without paying a license fee. The security has nothing to do with the person that bought the car or a potential car thief. It is only to ensure that they can sell a factory authorized remote starter for $500.
My mother's Jeep came with a pre-wired trailer harness. Having the dealership activate it costs much more than the harness is worth. There is no purpose to the security in the way of activating the harness other than to protect the revenue stream.
-
In my opinion, laws are there to punish, not prevent, crime.
Erm, punishment is a tool for prevention. It's not the best there is, but it does work - within certain boundaries, those being:
- the punishment has to be appropriate for the deed
- it has to be consistent
- the punishment has to be in a timely manner
The intent behind laws is indeed to prevent crimes through punishment. How well that actually works is a different matter.
-
Isn't prevention the purpose of punishment?
I believe @mott555 was talking about precrimes, for one thing - which is what speeding is. Speeding by itself kills or injures nothing.
-
Isn't prevention the purpose of punishment?
No, the purpose of punishment is discouragement, or, failing that, rehabilitation.
-
That game is like a knockoff of every good NES game ever.
-
No, the purpose of punishment is discouragement, or, failing that, rehabilitation.
That's sophistry.
-
No, the purpose of punishment is discouragement, or, failing that, rehabilitation.
Discouragement and rehabilitation have nothing to do with preventing the behavior in that individual or others?
-
In my opinion, laws are there to punish, not prevent, crime.
This is pretty much the reason that the American criminal justice system doesn't work. American are much more concerned with punishing the offender than with making society better. That's why our drug laws are so horrible.
-
Looks like someone took the middle part out of the Buster Sword.
-
This is pretty much the reason that the American criminal justice system doesn't work. American are much more concerned with punishing the offender than with making society better. That's why our drug laws are so horrible.
While a perfect world would indeed only use positive reinforcement to achieve its goals, I'm interested in your view on how you would react to an actual crime?
-
Isn't prevention the purpose of punishment?
We can either assume most people will do the right thing most of the time and deal accordingly with those that don't, or we can assume everyone is a lawbreaker and go all Big Brother on them in an attempt to control their lives and prevent them from doing "bad" things (where, of course, the definition of "bad things" is in constant flux by the powers that be). I prefer the first option.
-
We can either assume most people will do the right thing most of the time and deal accordingly with those that don't, or we can assume everyone is a lawbreaker and go all Big Brother on them in an attempt to control their lives and prevent them from doing "bad" things (where, of course, the definition of "bad things" is in constant flux by the powers that be). I prefer the first option.
That's not really related to your statement about "laws".
What you're talking about is an issue of "how do we enforce the laws".
-
It makes sense going back to whoever talked about cars reading speed limit signs and preventing you from speeding. That is trying to control someone and preventing them from doing "bad" things.
-
It makes sense going back to whoever talked about cars reading speed limit signs and preventing you from speeding. That is trying to control someone and preventing them from doing "bad" things.
I don't quite see where that has become a law?
-
knockoff of every good NES game ever
Well, if it combines all the best of NES, then.... it's a good thing?
-
Not yet, but if the technology exists someone somewhere will try to make it mandatory.
-
cars reading speed limit signs and preventing you from speeding
Which works unless you are in an emergency situation.
Need to get to hospital.
Someone is shooting at you.
Earthquake.
Twister.
2012
etc.
-
Not yet, but if the technology exists someone somewhere will try to make it mandatory.
That's a pretty good example for the slippery slope fallacy. Just because someone might try doesn't mean they'll succeed.
-
slippery slope fallacy
Which is no longer a fallacy once you have a pattern of the slope.
-
Which is no longer a fallacy once you have a pattern of the slope.
I have yet to see actual evidence for this slope.
-
Red light cameras
Speeding cameras
The proliferation of cameras and long range chip readers to detect people not paying tolls, has proliferated tolling as a form of taxation.
etc.
-
That's a pretty good example for the slippery slope fallacy. Just because someone might try doesn't mean they'll succeed.
They might try, and I think it's a stupid and wrong thing to do and explained why. Not sure what that has to do with the slippery slope.
-
Red light cameras
Speeding cameras
etc.Those have nothing to do with preventing cars from speeding.
They might try, and I think it's a stupid and wrong thing to do and explained why. Not sure what that has to do with the slippery slope.
If you're in fear of what someone might do then you have a mighty lot to be afraid of, I fear. Strong AI, Grey Goo, Capt'n Tripps, ...
... all a bit more dangerous than a "you're not allowed to drive faster than this" car.
-
-
Well, in Norway, the car we rented would observe our speed and use GPS to monitor our speeding.
Also, certain companies will fire you if you travel over a certain speed. That pretty much prevents you from speeding twice for that company.
-
@Rhywden said:
Those have nothing to do with preventing cars from speeding.
It prevents the human from speeding. We're talking about technical limitations to the car itself.
-
Okay, you guys win. Cars that prevent speeding is 100% a Great Idea because it's something that will never happen and I don't want to be afraid of something that will never happen.
-
It prevents the human from speeding. We're talking about technical limitations to the car itself.
doens't even do that. all it does is provide punishment to the human for breaking the law and speeding when they shouldn't be.
-
Okay, you guys win. Cars that prevent speeding is 100% a Great Idea because it's something that will never happen and I don't want to be afraid of something that will never happen.
How about we worry about things that are actually happening instead of talking about all kinds of things that are possible?
And how about not being butthurt when you're not able to show a logical chain of arguments to back up your hypothesis?
-
In that case we need to go back in time and prevent the guys who talked about the hypothetical anti-speeding cars from posting in this thread and starting this little sidetopic.
-
doens't even do that. all it does is provide punishment to the human for breaking the law and speeding when they shouldn't be.
And it does so in a manner that encourages last-minute braking, or forever staring at your speedo and not at the road ahead.
-
In that case we need to go back in time and prevent the guys who talked about the hypothetical anti-speeding cars from posting in this thread and starting this little sidetopic.
Here's the thing: This argument you're using? It's the same argument that's used against nanotechnology, biotechnolody and pretty much everything that can possess negative developments.
-
And how about not being butthurt when you're not able to show a logical chain of arguments to back up your hypothesis?
I'm not butthurt. All I said was I support dealing with criminals and leaving everyone else alone instead of treating EVERYONE like criminals and forcing technology into their lives to prevent them from committing potential crimes. I'm not sure how this is illogical or controversial.
-
I'm not butthurt. All I said was I support dealing with criminals and leaving everyone else alone instead of treating EVERYONE like criminals and forcing technology into their lives to prevent them from committing potential crimes. I'm not sure how this is illogical or controversial.
I'm still not seeing who forced this technology on you.
-
Holy crap now I'm getting butthurt. We were talking about hypotheticals!!!
-
Holy crap now I'm getting butthurt. We were talking about hypotheticals!!!
Yes. And now I demand we ban nanotechnology because someone might create Grey Goo.
-
It's getting warm in here,
So take off all your clothes
-
And I Just! Can't! Wait! for nanny-state bullshit like Ford's Intelligent Speed Limiter to come into widespread use. You'll be doing the speed limit soon enough, no matter how ludicrously low it is, slave.
@lolwhat you started this mess, come clean up it
-
The Intelligent Speed Limiter can, of course, be turned off. But it can also be overridden while driving by pressing the accelerator down fully to get a burst of speed if, for whatever reason, you need to break the speed limit.
Yeah, looks like a full-on Skynet Nanny technology to me
-
I'm pretty sure that somewhere a strawman who was nowhere near this topic just got the daylights beat out of him for no good reason.