All the researchers and the journalist had to do was to talk to the Highway Patrol and say, "We'd like to test this on a highway; what do we need to do to make that happen?"
That's it. Maybe the State Patrol would say, "Sorry, there's nothing you can do to test this here legally", or maybe they would have said, "Pay for overtime for 10 troopers and you can do it."
The point is, we don't know. We can speculate, but we don't know.
The 'researchers' and journalist elected instead to conduct this experiment on a state highway, in "real world" conditions, without any safety mechanisms in place. Not only is this unethical and dangerous, it is (and should be) illegal.
No one should stop these experiments from taking place; and the CFAA should be amended to allow security researchers to research issues; but the problem I have is the inherent danger in this experiment.
What would we be saying if the journalist had been killed, or a mother and her two kids because of this? Do you think public sentiment would support security researchers if this had turned out differently?
If anyone had gotten hurt, you'd be looking at legislation that strengthens penalties for security researchers; not at legislation that takes security research more seriously.
This was an extremely childish move that had the propensity to hurt our industry more than help it. It is incumbent upon us take safety seriously in conducting these experiments.
We can't count on level heads from outside the tech industry if we aren't willing to show that we care about people's lives and their safety when we're conducting these experiments.
> This was an extremely childish move that had the propensity to hurt our industry more than help it. It is incumbent upon us take safety seriously in conducting these experiments.
We can't count on level heads from outside the tech industry if we aren't willing to show that we care about people's lives and their safety when we're conducting these experiments.
Agreed. I would have no problems with them doing this on a test track, closed highway, or even a quiet road at low speeds. Even if we take the best possible negative scenario—say, the car is disabled going at 25 miles an hour, the driver can't handle manual steering, and then runs into someone's fence—the insurance companies are going to throw the book at the driver when they learn that they purposefully disabled their car and engaged in dangerous behavior on a public street.
I'm all for pushing the boundaries of security research (there are people in the labs all around me right now doing crazy stuff), but at least we in the academic world get our crazy stuff signed off on by a panel of competent experts.
That's it. Maybe the State Patrol would say, "Sorry, there's nothing you can do to test this here legally", or maybe they would have said, "Pay for overtime for 10 troopers and you can do it."
The point is, we don't know. We can speculate, but we don't know.
The 'researchers' and journalist elected instead to conduct this experiment on a state highway, in "real world" conditions, without any safety mechanisms in place. Not only is this unethical and dangerous, it is (and should be) illegal.
No one should stop these experiments from taking place; and the CFAA should be amended to allow security researchers to research issues; but the problem I have is the inherent danger in this experiment.
What would we be saying if the journalist had been killed, or a mother and her two kids because of this? Do you think public sentiment would support security researchers if this had turned out differently?
If anyone had gotten hurt, you'd be looking at legislation that strengthens penalties for security researchers; not at legislation that takes security research more seriously.
This was an extremely childish move that had the propensity to hurt our industry more than help it. It is incumbent upon us take safety seriously in conducting these experiments.
We can't count on level heads from outside the tech industry if we aren't willing to show that we care about people's lives and their safety when we're conducting these experiments.