Uber Waymo Trial Delayed After Justice Department Jumps In, Unprompted, To Tell Judge That Uber Was Withholding Evidence

from the holy-shit dept

So lots of people were gearing up for the Waymo/Uber trial starting next week over Uber's alleged efforts to get Waymo's (Google's self-driving car project) trade secrets. There are a whole bunch of issues around this case that are interesting -- from questions involving what really is a trade secret to where the line is between controlling former employees and allowing people to switch jobs within an industry. But... all of that has been completely tossed out the window as more and more evidence piles up that beyond those key legal issues, Uber sure did some shady, shady stuff. This morning, the latest bombshell (in a long line of bombshells) is that the judge has delayed the trial after the Justice Department got involved, totally unprompted. No, really.

You have to piece together some of the details, because some of the key documents are heavily redacted, but let's try to unpack what appears to have happened. Earlier this year, the judge in the case, William Alsup, referred the case to federal prosecutors to also investigate whether anything criminal had happened. Normally, in such cases, federal prosecutors will spend quite a while looking into the details and no one -- including the judge who made the referral -- will hear boo from the DOJ until charges are filed (if that ever happens). Except... that's not what happened. Apparently while investigating the possible criminal behavior by Uber, the DOJ noticed that Uber had failed to hand over a key piece of evidence during discovery. Specifically, it appears to be a letter from a former Uber security analyst named Richard Jacobs, concerning efforts by Uber to access competitor trade secrets -- and to conceal that information (there is some suggestion that this involved using disappearing messaging apps).

This would have been required to be handed over during discovery, but was not. And no one would have known about it, had the acting US Attorney for the Northern District of California not decided, unprompted, to let Judge Alsup know about it -- leading Judge Alsup, just last week, to order Uber to hand it over to Waymo. You can get some of this from the heavily redacted filing made by Waymo's lawyers, in which you can hear their exasperation over just finding this out.

Also, Judge Alsup order Jacobs to appear in court and answer questions, and reports from the courtroom suggest it's been... messy. Reporters Kate Conger and Joe Mullin have been providing some fairly astounding color commentary. A few snippets from their tweets:

As computer security guru Matt Blaze points out, there are plenty of good reasons for companies to want to use secure communications -- but doing so explicitly to avoid having your conversations show up during discovery certainly doesn't look good in court.

Either way, Judge Alsup appears to be less than happy about all of this:

“We're going to put trial off … because even if half of what’s in that letter is true it would be a huge injustice to Waymo to have to go to trial now,” the judge said...

Judge Alsup also noted that "the public is going to hear everything" about this evidence, so there's likely to be more coming down the road.

Once again, there are all sorts of interesting legal questions underlying this case -- but as happens all too often, it appears that some fairly blatant bad behavior is likely to obscure much of that. While it may make for more entertaining stories, it can muck up some of the legal questions. Or, as lawyers sometimes note, bad cases make bad law. This is shaping up to be a bad case with a pretty clear pattern of incredibly bad behavior by Uber (which, of course, appears to be consistent with the company's reputation). And, unfortunately, that seems likely to distract from some actually important issues that could have a much wider impact, concerning questions around trade secrets and employment.

But, no matter what, withholding evidence like this during discovery -- not to mention some of that evidence being an explanation of how the company tried to avoid discovery -- is a double layer cake of extremely sketchy behavior. It seems unlikely that this will end well for Uber.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, discovery, doj, evidence, richard jacobs, self-driving cars, trade secrets, william alsup
Companies: google, uber, waymo

Self Driving Taxis Are Going To Be A Nightmare To Secure, Warns Ex-Uber Security Researcher

from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-Dave dept

So over the last few years you probably remember seeing white hat hackers demonstrate how easily most modern smart cars can be hacked, often with frightening results. Cybersecurity researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek have made consistent headlines in particular by highlighting how they were able to manipulate and disable a Jeep Cherokee running Fiat Chrysler's UConnect platform. Initially, the duo documented how they were able to control the vehicle's internal systems -- or kill it's engine entirely -- from an IP address up to 10 miles away.

But the two would go on to highlight how things were notably worse, pointing out last year that they'd also found a way to kill the vehicle's brakes, cause unexpected acceleration, or even direct the vehicle to perform sudden and extreme turns:

"Last year, they remotely hacked into the car and paralyzed it on highway I-64—while I was driving in traffic. They could even disable the car’s brakes at low speeds. By sending carefully crafted messages on the vehicle’s internal network known as a CAN bus, they’re now able to pull off even more dangerous, unprecedented tricks like causing unintended acceleration and slamming on the car’s brakes or turning the vehicle’s steering wheel at any speed."

Just the gift for intelligence or private sector ne'er-do-wells looking to cause mayhem -- or worse.

After Miller and Valasek's hacks made consistent headlines, the two were quietly hired by Uber to help the company secure its self-driving taxi service. Miller has since moved on to Chinese competitor Didi, and tells Wired he's much more free to speak about the perils of securing automated cars and taxis. What he's saying isn't what you'd call comforting:

"Autonomous vehicles are at the apex of all the terrible things that can go wrong,” says Miller, who spent years on the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations team of elite hackers before stints at Twitter and Uber. “Cars are already insecure, and you’re adding a bunch of sensors and computers that are controlling them… If a bad guy gets control of that, it’s going to be even worse."

The problems that Miller highlighted with the Jeep Cherokee are significantly worse when you're talking about a taxi that sees significantly more use each day. A taxi that, under current federal law, won't be able to block consumer access to the vehicle's OBD2 port (something consumers want the freedom to tinker with in their own vehicle, but perhaps not so much in a communal car):

"There’s going to be someone you don’t necessarily trust sitting in your car for an extended period of time,” says Miller. “The OBD2 port is something that’s pretty easy for a passenger to plug something into and then hop out, and then they have access to your vehicle’s sensitive network."

Miller notes that securing an automated vehicle isn't impossible, but it's going to require the use of "codesigning," restrictions built into the OBD2 port, better internal segmentation and authentication -- and basically a complete retooling of how self-driving vehicle security is implemented. But Miller notes that companies like Uber are bolting their computer systems onto already built vehicles, which complicates things. And the slow pace of finding and patching security vulnerabilities in vehicles poses an additional layer of problems.

The solution will also involve greater "open conversation and cooperation" among carmakers and developers, something Miller says was lacking at Uber, and hasn't exactly been the trademark of other automated vehicle vendors.

Right now, we continue to find the lack of security in our smart fridges and TVs kind of cute. But it's threats like those being exposed by Miller that have some security researchers like Bruce Schneier consistently predicting some massive problems on the horizon that may result in notable human casualties. And we're not helping the problem by letting companies monopolize repair, or consistently erode our privacy rights or our freedom to tinker.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, security, self-driving cars

Disappointing To See Google's Waymo Sue Over Patents

from the get-the-market-right dept

For years, we had pointed out that one of the nice things about the new generation of tech companies was that they rarely seemed to use patents offensively. Yes, they were subject to tons of patent lawsuits from trolls or from legacy players trying to hang on against innovators, but we've pointed out in the past that young companies innovate, while older companies litigate. So, we have a tendency to watch companies to see when they shift from being patent litigation defenders, to going on the offensive. For years -- even as patent system supporters falsely claimed that Google only existed because of patents -- it was good to see not a single example of Google going on the offensive and filing patent lawsuits against other companies.

That changed, unfortunately, back in 2012 when Google brought a patent lawsuit against Apple. Some argued that it wasn't "really" Google, because it came from Motorola, a company that Google had purchased (mainly for the patents) and then only owned for a short while before dumping, but it was still a Google-owned property going on the offensive. At that time, we argued that if Google really wanted to support patent reform (as the company claimed) then it should stop being a patent aggressor.

To its credit, I don't believe the company went on the offensive again... until just now. As has been widely reported, Google's Waymo subsidiary (which works on Google's self-driving cars) has sued Uber over its self-driving car technology, which Uber obtained last year, in purchasing another startup, Otto, for its self-driving car technology. Otto, of course, was founded by a former Google/Waymo guy. Just a few weeks ago, Bloomberg had written that a bunch of early Google car team members had left to found Otto in part because Google had paid them a ridiculous sum of money, so they no longer needed to stay there.

Along with the lawsuit, both in the filing itself and in a separate blog post about the lawsuit, Waymo tries to bend over backwards to say that this situation is not your typical "patent" lawsuit, but a very specific one. Indeed, the company is clear that the patent issue is a lesser concern. The larger one is over trade secrets -- and here the company is fairly specific that Otto's founder, and several early employees, appear to have deliberately copied a huge amount of proprietary info from Google/Waymo before departing:

Recently, we received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s unique LiDAR design.

We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints.

Beyond Mr. Levandowki’s actions, we discovered that other former Waymo employees, now at Otto and Uber, downloaded additional highly confidential information pertaining to our custom-built LiDAR including supplier lists, manufacturing details and statements of work with highly technical information.

If accurate, that does sound fairly deliberate and sneaky. And you can certainly understand why the company is upset. The main focus of the lawsuit is the trade secrets claim. But the lawsuit also makes claims for patent infringement on three separate patents as well.

Again, you can understand why this situation would be frustrating for Waymo/Google. And maybe the direct evidence of downloading all that material prior to leaving Google is a legitimate reason to file a lawsuit. But it still seems problematic. When Elon Musk freed up all of Tesla's patents, he made it quite clear the reason he was doing so was that this was a brand new, emerging market, and it was going to need all the help it could get in becoming established. And that meant lots of companies competing and innovating and together educating the market. Thus, it didn't really matter if new entrants copied Tesla's electric car/battery technology, because in the end it would help create a larger market that helped everyone.

That same situation is true for self-driving cars as well. Even given the presence of the potential smoking gun of the downloads of documents, there's still something to the idea that the market would be a lot better off if everyone were just building the best possible self-driving car tech they could find, even if that means copying one another. Fighting over trade secrets and patents in a market that barely even exists feels silly. Yes, from a purely profit maximizing standpoint, you can understand the argument: the larger share of the market you can capture early can make a huge difference. But why not focus on executing in the marketplace and fighting the battles that are blocking the adoption of self-driving cars, rather than fighting back and forth with each other.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, patents, self-driving cars
Companies: google, uber, waymo

Uber And California DMV Fight Over Definition Of Self-Driving Cars

from the policy-fight! dept

In highly regulated private industries the law means what it says – right up until a regulator decides that it doesn't. For that reason Uber, a company with a reputation for aggressively challenging legal norms, must have been particularly frustrated when the California Department of Motor Vehicles decided to publicly rebuke it for complying with the law of the Golden State.

The crux of the issue is that Uber decided to move forward with deploying some of its vehicles with automated technologies onto California's roads without a permit which, the California DMV believes, it must first obtain before rolling out.

In a statement, the DMV said that it has a "permitting process in place" through which twenty manufacturers have obtained permits. Then, so as to leave no double about its position on the matter, stated that "Uber shall do the same."

Now, whether the new Volvo XC90's equipped with Uber's technologies are "autonomous vehicles" as a matter of perception or regulatory projection is up for debate. Different people have different ideas about what fits that mold. But, when it comes to whether the DMV should take action to slow Uber's work, the question turns from one of perception to one of law and textual interpretation.

California, by way of the DMV, has chosen to define an autonomous vehicle in regulation as a vehicle equipped with technology "...that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person...." Thus, the factual question that confronted Uber before it made its decision to deploy the vehicles in California was simple: "is this vehicle capable of driving without being monitored or controlled by a driver?"

For all of their impressive capabilities, it is a matter of public record that Uber's vehicles often require human intervention. By extension, those vehicles require constant monitoring by a human driver. On that basis, Uber likely thought that, while not toeing the industry line, its vehicles do not meet the definitional threshold necessary to trigger the state's autonomous vehicle testing regulations.

Of course, what regulatory history there is that points to a different intent, one that tracks with the DMV's argument, is no doubt informative and interesting as a matter of historical record, but it should not overcome the obvious strictures of the regulation as written.

In the meantime, the DMV has sent Uber a cease and desist letter. While the merits of regulation are often a matter of debate, the even application of the plain language of the law should not be. Unfortunately, it appears that Uber, by dint of its reputation, is facing unwanted "special treatment" by its regulator. Worse, the DMV may be expanding the reach of its regulations after the fact. If that's the case, and certainty is lost, so too will be the very definitional purpose of the DMV's regulations – to make regular.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, california, dmv, regulations, san francisco, self-driving cars
Companies: uber

Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber

from the you-don't-own-what-you-bought dept

We've talked a lot about the end of ownership society, in which companies are increasingly using copyright and other laws to effectively end ownership -- where they put in place restrictions on the things you thought you bought. This is bad for a whole variety of reasons, and now it's especially disappointing to see that Tesla appears to be jumping on the bandwagon as well. The company is releasing its latest, much more high powered, version of autonomous self-driving car technology -- but has put in place a clause that bars Tesla owners from using the self-driving car for any competing car hailing service, like Uber or Lyft. This is not for safety/liability reasons, but because Tesla is also trying to build an Uber competitor.

We wrote about this a few months ago, and actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Part of the point is that it effectively will make Tesla ownership cheaper for those who want it, because they can lease it out for use at times when they're not using it. So your car can make money for you while you work or sleep or whatever. That's a cool idea.

But it's flat out dumb to block car owners from using the car however they want.

If Tesla wants to compete with Uber, that's great, but it should compete and offer a better deal for car owners, rather than artificially limiting what they can do. And the thing is, Elon Musk knows this. Remember, a few years ago when he famously freed up all Tesla patents into the public domain, recognizing that it was better to compete on execution rather than artificial legal limitations? So why not take that same approach with competing in car hailing services as well? Don't limit what owners can do with their cars. That's now ownership. ow they're just leasing.

Tesla's plan for a competing ride hailing service is a good idea, and I'm excited to see what the company does with it, but if it starts off by artificially blocking Tesla owners from using their cars on competing services, it makes me think that Tesla doesn't think it's own service will be very good, and therefor it needs to artificially lock Tesla owners into its own platform, rather than competing on the merits. That seems antithetical to the message that Tesla and Elon Musk have given off in the past. Hopefully Musk reconsiders this anti-consumer move and recognizes that Tesla can build such a service that can stand on its own merits without artificially restricting Tesla owners.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, car hailing, competition, drm, elon musk, limitations, ownership, restrictions, ride hailing, ride sharing, self-driving cars
Companies: lyft, tesla, uber

The New Federal Safety Guidelines For Self-Driving Cars Are Too Vague... And States Are Already Making Them Mandatory

from the this-probably-isn't-such-a-good-idea dept

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration earned plaudits from across the tech sphere for its recently released safety guidelines for self-driving cars.

With the NHTSA looking to offer guidance to this emerging industry, the agency issued a set of rules that largely just asks manufacturers to report on how they were following the guidelines. The 15-point checklist is vague in quite a few details, but that isn't necessarily a tremendous problem so long as the standards remain voluntary, which they purport to be. To many, this approach struck a good overall balance between oversight and flexibility.

Regulatory ambiguity can, however, turn out to be a real nightmare with standards that are mandatory. Vague rules can leave even the best-intentioned firms at a loss as to how to proceed. Given how much of a premium consumer confidence will be in a market as revolutionary and potentially transformative as autonomous vehicles, it's crucial that manufacturers comply with whatever standards the federal government promulgates.

That's why it's essential to pay close attention to an underappreciated part of the NHTSA guidelines -- the opportunities they afford federal regulators to coordinate with the states on oversight that, in practice, will be anything but voluntary. Indeed, the early signs from the first of what will be many proposed state rules to follow in the wake of the NHTSA guidelines suggests that compulsory standards are exactly what we're going to get.

First up are proposed rules from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, recently revised in response to the NHTSA guidelines. The revised draft of California's model regulations is far more permissive than the original version the agency promulgated late last year, a set of changes that were celebrated by various observers, even me.

But delve closely into the updated DMV proposal, and you'll find a requirement that manufacturers obtain a state permit certifying that any and all vehicle tests are conducted in accordance with the NHTSA’s "Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles." Thus, in the nation's largest testing jurisdiction, the NHTSA standards already are set to be made mandatory.

This is not to say the federal government doesn't have a rule to play in oversight of self-driving cars. The feds are better situated to oversee the development of safety standards, and the door should be open to refine those standards. But coordinating with the states to turn those standards into a set of de facto binding obligations smacks of underground rule-making.

The California DMV might be complicit in this collusion, but it can't be faulted for deferring to federal authority. Were the NHTSA’s safety standards clearer -- an undertaking that presents risks and problems of its own -- California’s approach wouldn't actually be a problem. The fact that the federal guidelines are so vague in so many of the details means that we can't really know either that manufacturers will be able to comply with California's rules or that the state will be able to enforce them.

For now, state regulators should use their discretion to be as liberal as possible about what sorts of vehicle testing comports with the NHTSA safety guidelines. Over the longer term, what we need is for states like California to communicate to the NHTSA that it's up to them to make absolutely clear what does and does not count as compliance.

It's broadly understood how overly restrictive regulations can dampen innovation, but regulatory ambiguity can be just as bad. For regulators, the clock is ticking. It's up to both the NHTSA and state agencies like the California DMV to bring the clarity this new market needs.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, nhtsa, regulations, self-driving cars, voluntary

Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up

from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-dave dept

As self-driving cars inch closer to the mainstream, a common debate has surfaced: should your car be programmed to kill you if it means saving the lives of dozens of other people? This so-called "trolley problem" has been debated at universities for years, and while most consumers say they support automated vehicles that prioritize the lives of others on principle, they don't want to buy or ride in one, raising a number of thorny questions.

Should regulations and regulators focus on a utilitarian model where the vehicle is programmed to prioritize the good of the overall public above the individual? Or should self-driving cars be programmed to prioritize the welfare of the owner (the "self protective" model)? Would companies like Google, Volvo and others prioritize worries of liability over human lives when choosing the former or latter?

Fortunately for everybody, engineers at Alphabet's X division this week suggested that people should stop worrying about the scenario, arguing that if an automated vehicle has run into the trolley problem, somebody has already screwed up. According to X engineer Andrew Chatham, they've yet to run into anything close to that scenario despite millions of automated miles now logged:

"The main thing to keep in mind is that we have yet to encounter one of these problems,” he said. “In all of our journeys, we have never been in a situation where you have to pick between the baby stroller or the grandmother. Even if we did see a scenario like that, usually that would mean you made a mistake a couple of seconds earlier. And so as a moral software engineer coming into work in the office, if I want to save lives, my goal is to prevent us from getting in that situation, because that implies that we screwed up."

That automated cars will never bump into such a scenario seems unlikely, but Chatham strongly implies that the entire trolley problem scenario has a relatively simple solution: don't hit things, period.

"It takes some of the intellectual intrigue out of the problem, but the answer is almost always ‘slam on the brakes’,” he added. “You’re much more confident about things directly in front of you, just because of how the system works, but also your control is much more precise by slamming on the brakes than trying to swerve into anything. So it would need to be a pretty extreme situation before that becomes anything other than the correct answer."

It's still a question that needs asking, but with no obvious solution on the horizon, engineers appear to be focused on notably more mundane problems. For example one study suggests that while self-driving cars do get into twice the number of accidents of manually controlled vehicles, those accidents usually occur because the automated car was too careful -- and didn't bend the rules a little like a normal driver would (rear ended for being too cautious at a right on red, for example). As such, the current problem du jour isn't some fantastical scenario involving an on-board AI killing you to save a busload of crying toddlers, but how to get self-driving cars to drive more like the inconsistent, sometimes downright goofy, and error-prone human beings they hope to someday replace.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, ethical dilemma, self-driving cars, trolley problem

Uber Wasting No Time: Launching Test Of Self-Driving Cars

from the this-should-be-interesting dept

It's no secret that Uber has been interested in self-driving vehicles and how they might change its business. Lots of people have predicted futures in which Uber basically runs a fleet of self-driving cars and Uber itself has commented on the idea in the past as well. But I'm not sure anyone expected it to happen this soon. The company is apparently starting a test-run with driverless vehicles in Pittsburgh:

Starting later this month, Uber will allow customers in downtown Pittsburgh to summon self-driving cars from their phones, crossing an important milestone that no automotive or technology company has yet achieved. Google, widely regarded as the leader in the field, has been testing its fleet for several years, and Tesla Motors offers Autopilot, essentially a souped-up cruise control that drives the car on the highway. Earlier this week, Ford announced plans for an autonomous ride-sharing service. But none of these companies has yet brought a self-driving car-sharing service to market.

Uber’s Pittsburgh fleet, which will be supervised by humans in the driver’s seat for the time being, consists of specially modified Volvo XC90 sport-utility vehicles outfitted with dozens of sensors that use cameras, lasers, radar, and GPS receivers. Volvo Cars has so far delivered a handful of vehicles out of a total of 100 due by the end of the year. The two companies signed a pact earlier this year to spend $300 million to develop a fully autonomous car that will be ready for the road by 2021.

Separately, the company announced that it has bought a self-driving startup, Otto, and put its co-founder, Antohony Levandowski, in charge of Uber's self-driving efforts.

We've already noted that Tesla has Uber-like plans as well, but this could certainly get interesting. Lots of people (including us!) have speculated on what the world will look like as autonomous vehicles become more prominent, but it's somewhat amazing how quickly this is happening.

While it's not a huge surprise that Uber may be leading the way, it does still raise some interesting questions. Obviously, lots of people say that Uber wants to do this so that it won't have to pay drivers any more (though in these tests a human is still in the driver's seat and, one assumes, getting paid). But part of the genius (or problem, depending on your point of view...) of Uber was that it was just a platform for drivers who brought their own cars. That is, Uber didn't have to invest the capital in buying up cars. It just provided the platform, drivers brought their own cars, and Uber got a cut. If it's moving to a world of driverless cars, then Uber is no longer the platform for drivers, it's everything. It needs to make the investment and own the cars. That's actually a pretty big shift.

That's not to say that it won't work -- and there's an argument that Uber's real power these days is in its operations software figuring out which cars should go where -- but it is an interesting shift in the business. And given that, it's also interesting to see how Tesla is entering the market from the other direction -- a direction that is more like Uber's original concept, where individuals own their own cars, but then lease them back to Tesla to act as for-hire cars for others. I guess it's possible that Uber could do the same thing too, where any car owner could provide their vehicle back to Uber to earn money, but without having to drive it -- just making it a productive resource.

Who knows how this will turn out -- and I'm sure some people will inevitably freak out when there's a self-driving car accident -- but the future is getting really interesting really fast.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, ride hailing, ride sharing, self-driving cars
Companies: otto, tesla, uber

Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison

from the plus-cancer,-where-permitted-by-local-ordinances dept

There's apparently no situation legislators can't make worse. Self-driving cars are an inevitability, as are all the attendant concerns about autonomous vehicles roaming the streets unattended, mowing down buses at 2 miles per hour or forcing drivers behind them to obey all relevant traffic laws.

There are fears that people will just stop paying attention to driving, which is weird, because that's one of the few immediate advantages of self-driving vehicles. There are also fears that a robot car is nothing more than a tempting attack target for malicious hackers. There's some truth to this last one, especially as manufacturers have loaded up vehicles with on-board computers but given little thought to properly securing them.

Even so, that's no excuse for the sort of legislation being proposed by two Michigan politicians, which would reward self-driving car hackers with lifetime stays at the nearest prison.

Michigan Senators Ken Horn and Mike Kowall have proposed a cybersecurity bill aimed at hackers and connected and autonomous cars. While Senate Bill 928 (pdf) sets out the type of crime and corresponding sentencing guidelines for car hacking, Senate Bill 927 (pdf) spells out that car hacking will be a felony. Further down, the legislation says car hacking will be punishable by life in prison.

This would be fine if… well, no, actually it's not fine at all. One tends to think of prison terms as being somewhat related to the harm caused and if someone fires off malware that prevents someone from starting their vehicle, there's no way that should be punished by a life sentence. I'm sure the legislators are contemplating worst-case scenarios where someone electronically hijacks a vehicle and causes someone's death, but that sort of thing should be punishable under other laws more commensurate with the end result of the hacking.

I can also see how not explicitly targeting hacking of vehicles might become a legal loophole which allows perpetrators to walk away from more serious charges. But this is overkill, especially because the list of violations is far too broadly written.

A PERSON SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY ACCESS OR CAUSE ACCESS TO BE MADE TO AN ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TO WILLFULLY DESTROY, DAMAGE, IMPAIR, ALTER, OR GAIN UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE.

Basically the bill says all electronic systems created by manufacturers must be sealed black boxes that purchasers, security researchers, hobbyists, and third-party suppliers should never, ever access under the pain of life imprisonment. "Alter" could mean "make things work better," but it still would be treated as a criminal act under this law. Repairs to on-board computers by "non-certified" mechanics could net them charges, especially if something malfunctions down the road. I'm sure this is a perfectly acceptable outcome to the US automakers still cranking out cars in Michigan, that would now have something more than copyright to threaten people with.

The senators claim this is necessary because they want to stay out in front of any technological developments.

Automotive News quoted Kowall as saying, “I hope that we never have to use it. That's why the penalties are what they are. The potential for severe injury and death are pretty high. Some of these people are pretty clever. As opposed to waiting for something bad to happen, we're going to be proactive on this and try to keep up with technology.”

You don't "keep up" with technology by treating electronic access to certain systems like some particularly powerful form of witchcraft, only punishable by the most severe sentences. This isn't legislators staying abreast of the latest developments. This is legislators bypassing evidence gathering and stocking up on fear. Because nothing eases the mind of the public more than declaring the autonomous car apocalypse to be upon us, with only this badly written bill standing in the way of death and destruction.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, crime, hacking cars, michigan

DailyDirt: Welcoming Our Robot Overlords...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Despite our supposed intelligence, humans don't actually know how our own brains work. But even in our ignorance, we're still developing algorithms and machines that might catch on to how we learn and think. Google's autonomous vehicle project has a pretty good driving record, except that the world is messy, and predicting how human drivers will react isn't always certain -- especially when they drive buses. Our relationship with robots is going to be more and more complex in the next few years. We'll need to recognize when robots are faulty, and that might get harder and harder to do.

• We've seen people blindly follow GPS navigation directions that endangered the driver's safety, so would you expect people to follow a robot unquestioningly in an emergency? Yup. A study at Georgia Tech created a "guide robot" that was purposely made to be unreliable (and human participants in the study were told the robot was broken), but during a faked emergency, humans still followed the robot's bad directions to evacuate a building -- even when they conflicted with clearly-marked exit signs. [url]
• A "Data Science Machine" might have better intuition than teams of humans when it comes to big-data analysis. MIT researchers entered their data machine in three data science competitions, and the machine placed ahead of more than half of the human contestants. [url]
• It's difficult to really grasp exponential improvements in technology -- other than to look back and be amazed that things like the iPhone didn't exist just a few short years ago. And it's even more challenging to predict where technology is headed when artificial intelligence projects look so primitive now (and have for some time), but by 2040, we could have significantly more autonomous devices performing complex tasks for us. (Assuming the robots haven't enslaved us instead....) [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, algorithms, analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, big data, data science, hmi, predictions, robotics, robots, trust