Had that Jeep run into you or you ran into it as a result of this experiment, you may have found that you have a profoundly different threshold for what is, "necessary to get the attention of auto makers".
Just because automakers are seemingly keen on ignoring security vulnerabilities does not justify putting people's lives at risk. And let's face it – a multi-ton vehicle that is not entirely in its driver's control puts lives at risk in just about any situation. The reason you and others argue that the demo's methodology is effective is precisely because of the risks involved; not in spite of them.
It is the responsibility of researchers to demonstrate risks without exercising the extent of those risks. Imagine if virologists regularly demonstrated communicability risk by injecting humans with disease outside of the lab.
> Just because automakers are seemingly keen on ignoring security vulnerabilities does not justify putting people's lives at risk.
So condemn the auto manufacturers for putting hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of lives at risk instead of yammering about a couple of nerds who put at most 2 vehicles in probably-nonfatal danger in a worst-case scenario.
And as busy as that highway was in the video, it was far more than just 2 vehicles, especially if one of those vehicles was the 18 wheeler.
At the very least they could have done this on a less busy stretch of highway that had a wide shoulder and with control vehicles in front and behind with paramedics at the ready (just like a movie production that is shooting on public streets). Instead the researchers and the journalist chose to be reckless.
Nobody's saying you can't. I certainly do (I strongly disagree with the researchers' obstruction of communication between themselves and their test subject).
My only point is that there's a massive difference in scale between a couple dented fenders and hundreds of thousands of dead/maimed innocents.
Difference of scale? Ok, I agree with you there, but characterizing the risk as "a couple dented fenders" is intellectually dishonest. A high speed accident on an interstate could easily involve serious, even fatal injuries.
It could in some situations, yes. This was not one of those situations.
We're talking about someone coasting uphill with absolutely no braking whatsoever. There's plenty of reaction time in such situations (as I happen to know firsthand, as was the case when my SUV ran out of gas and I had to coast a quarter-mile over a hill to get to the next offramp while merging from the fast lane to the far right at 70MPH). Even for semis, the reporter's car wouldn't mean having to slam on the brakes. Not to mention that the uphill helps with stopping.
The story would be different if the researchers slammed the car's brakes. If that were the case, then yes, death would be possible. That wasn't the case.
No intellectual dishonesty here. Just thorough examination of the situation as described by the author of the article.
Because scale. One is very limited in scope, ie: On one day, in one city, on one road, for a few minutes, one car caused a few other vehicles to make otherwise unnecessary lane-changes. vs the vulnerabilities exposed which affect tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles in every city, every day, on almost every road, at almost any time.
Agreed, the researchers deserve some criticism, but let's not lose sight of the forest for these two goofball trees.
Just because automakers are seemingly keen on ignoring security vulnerabilities does not justify putting people's lives at risk. And let's face it – a multi-ton vehicle that is not entirely in its driver's control puts lives at risk in just about any situation. The reason you and others argue that the demo's methodology is effective is precisely because of the risks involved; not in spite of them.
It is the responsibility of researchers to demonstrate risks without exercising the extent of those risks. Imagine if virologists regularly demonstrated communicability risk by injecting humans with disease outside of the lab.