It will inevitably trickle down to AU.
Edited: Title
Old Title: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Contains Backdoor ‘Kill Switch’ For Cars
Edited: New source link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/11/09/dru…
Old source link: https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/29/barr-bidens-infrastructur…
Poll: Do you approve of mandatory, in-car, automatic testing of driver’s alcohol level or other impairment in order to drive the car?
So make hacked in-car testers an offence?
If you're getting your car hacked to dodge the in-built alcohol tester, you're the problem.
It is inevitably will trickle down to AU.
Hard to say considering very few cars here get built in the US
Trust you?
Nah, I'm good thanks
Damn! You just nuked the nuker.
Pretty cool
Opinion piece
Discarded.
I changed the source to Washington Post. The mandatory automated testing was correct, the "kill switch" was conspiracy, my bad.
Old news, and nothing but the same old same alt-right scaremongering about a bill that actually passed with support from both Republicans and Democrats.
Posts distort infrastructure law’s rule on impaired driving technology
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497
Still, never let an opportunity go past to drag Australia into more cheap point scoring in the American culture wars, particularly with an opinion piece that's now more than 12 months old.
OP didn't take the bait, they yanked it and swallowed whole.
I corrected myself below. Its still bad, just not that bad.
+1 for they yanked it.
Lol
Agree, no remote “kill switch”. But it does require automatic driver’s assessment:
“the system should be able to passively monitor a driver’s performance to identify whether they might be impaired or detect whether their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is over the legal limit. If a person is impaired, the system could then “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” ”
So it's a kill switch but set to alcohol impairment. All they have to do is change the code or add a network component and do it on the fly. It's a slippery slope that politicians will be greasing their buts to slide down.
Then it will be "oh you criticised the government ,or an election….good luck walking!"
I could do with a "kill" switch to wipe out certain drivers on city roads.
Otherwise, more pointless, no news drivel
This has been talked about for years with Qld police negotiating with manufacturers to have immobilisers they can use to slow down then stop vehicles. Technology not there yet but will be good to see happen.
Seems a trial is starting in North Qld.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-30/engine-immobiliser-ca…
It will be hackable. See my first comment. Now imagine someone malicious remotely stops you on highway when its dark, or in tunnel.
Watch out, your paranoia is showing.
There is nothing whatsoever anywhere, other than in the wild imaginations of a few alt-right bloggers, to suggest that such a system might have any capacity for wireless activation, or indeed any wireless components at all. You may as well argue that the flashing red light and beeping noise that comes on if you're not wearing a seatbelt is hackable.
Or how about alcohol interlock devices being installed in the cars of drunk drivers today, I mean, it's not like parts of the technology haven't already been around for decades.
Although given how much computer tech is in today's cars, well, we already know how often all those CPUs are being manipulated by malicious individuals to stop people remotely in dark tunnels.
Hang on, what about those newfangled wireless key fobs that won't even let you turn on your car if they're not in your pocket when you sit down - no key in the ignition required. I mean, Tom Cruise uses those to hijack vehicles all the time, amirite?
Dude, the wireless key fobs have been repeatedly identified as a vulnerability. About $100 in hardware and you can “copy” and spoof the code- bang, you’re in and on your way. Only a little specific technical knowledge is required.
@HelpMeiCantSee: Yep. And yet here we are getting all knotted up about some hypothetical and purely speculative maybe new vulnerability that is at least 6 years away.
I would, however, be curious to know how many key fobs have been used to stop cars in dark tunnels recently.
@AngoraFish: Kind of like before last year nobody had ever hacked Optus?
The point is, vulnerabilities in tech get exploited, and the knowledge spreads and the attacks become more commonplace.
@HelpMeiCantSee: If this thread were about hacking cars specifically, instead of cheap alt-right point scoring about a bipartisan US government law that nobody understands properly, then you might have a point.
Worth noting that OP has significantly edited the main post since yesterday to make it appear less loopy conspiracy theory crazy.
@AngoraFish: Man, do you even read the news? EVERYTHING is right/ left point scoring or performativeness. This discussion has been revolving about the possibility of cars being hacked, and the likelihood of mandated “functions” being abused.
How about you stop imagining weird scenarios and just imagine reality, where if someone wants to stop you they throw a bit of wood with a bunch of nails in it out on the road, or just parks their car in the middle of the road?
Nah. When hacking stuff, you do not need to be near the target, remote is the way. Second point: you can automate it for thousands of cars in any region on earth. Know Python? - the world is your oyster.
@[Deactivated]: It's local software that's already in the car, it doesn't have any kind of remote access. Same way someone can't hack an ABS system to stop a car either.
There's plenty of cars that are becoming connected to allow remote updates or assistance, but that's unrelated to this software being installed to track drink driving.
@freefall101: "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"
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hackers-return-high-speed…
@[Deactivated]: Cool story, but you're missing my point. This drink driving system doesn't have to be internet connected, you could buy a car without an internet connection that still has this drink driving system.
Those Jeeps were internet connected and that entire software system was horribly flawed. The drink driving system won't need to be internet connected so it's no more of a problem than having a computer controlled ABS system.
This drink driving system doesn't have to be internet connected
I’m positive the steering wheel and brakes in the Jeep were not designed to be internet connected too. Anyway, this is not the main question here. Mandatory automated testing is. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/13199041/redir
@HelpMeiCantSee: I think you mean any computer is hackable. An unconnected network is an oxymoron.
And yes, computer is hackable but you also need to be able to make use of it. Hacking into someone's car is easy, mechanics flash firmware on cars all the time. So you'd need to flash the firmware but also add in some way of remote triggering whatever action you want to happen. So that involves adding more hardware to the car, probably a battery powered device that can trigger the drink driving software when the driver is not drunk at a time of your choosing. To automate it, you could probably add in a GPS so when they hit a certain point it'll do it.
Since this isn't a mission impossible movie, I could also just wait for you to stop then hit you with a $5 wrench and rob you.
@[Deactivated]: Reminds me of this from a short story called Road Stop. (https://archive.org/details/1963-01_IF/page/n91/mode/2up?vie…)
it's from the perspective of a gas station attendant telling the story of "The Traveler" to a couple that stops by, including a vivid description of windows covered with dust, obscuring the bony remains of passengers who've ceased to try to escape.
The car called the Traveler, rolling at the stately thirty miles an hour it always held, was coming down the road now, and the two men stood, watching. The woman, a little behind them, watched too, her face growing whiter. No one said anything as the old fashioned car rolled by, straight and steady down the highway, holding the center of the lane as sharply as it always did.
There was a film of dust inside the windows, though the Traveler was clean and shining outside. But the film did hide the white bone faces, the despairing hands that had long ago stopped trying to break through those closed windows.
"They never did get out," the man named Jack said, as the Traveler rolled on, growing smaller along the endless road.
"I don't mind it when it goes past," Sam said, this voice thinner edged. "I really don't. It's just a car. Things like that used to happen. I mean, it's a car. Even when it stops to get gas, I don't have to pay any attention."
He looked at the couple, his mouth loose. "As long as it just goes on. That's all right. But I keep thinking some day it'll stop. And the door will open. And maybe … maybe they'll want lunch."
Seems a trial is starting in North Qld.
Did you even read that? Has nothing whatsoever to do with remotely stopping a vehicle.
This is the relevant section from the legislation. I'm sure the US government wont use this for any other thing than drunk driving. Any other suggestion is just misinformation.
(1) ADVANCED DRUNK AND IMPAIRED DRIVING PREVENTION
TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology’’ means a system that—
(A) can—
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver
of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that
driver may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an
impairment is detected;
(B) can—
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the
blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor
vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol
concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23,
United States Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a
blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is
detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
"I'm sure the US government wont use this for any other thing than drunk driving."
Uh-huh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwR1-aRTyyM
"They turned off my battery!"
Yeah drink driving, I'm sure they will not be using it for surveillance and other nefarious purposes. Look at what they've done to the old mate Julian Assange who exposed the NSA/CIA dirty secrets.
You're about 8 years late to the party.
Modern cars have been hackable since around 2014, possibly earlier depending on the make and model.
This article (and video) by WIRED magazine in 2015 demonstrated a real-world proof-of-concept with a threat actor remotely controlling a target vehicle (2014 Jeep Cherokee) over the Internet and then steering it off-road (along with performing a number of other in-car operations, ranging from mildly distracting to life-threatening in the right contexts).
Internal CIA documents leaked to Wikileaks reveal that US intelligence agencies have been exploring how to hack vehicle systems since at least 2014.
This capability has almost certainly already been used to carry covert assassinations, either by state-sponsored actors or sufficiently-resourced individuals/groups. The death of journalist Michael Hastings being one of the most flagrantly obvious car hacking assassinations to-date, with Richard A. Clarke (former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism ) publicly stating the circumstances of the crash are "consistent with a car cyber attack". IIRC Mercedes Benz USA even put out a statement in the wake of the crash, reassuring customers that there has never been another known case of a Mercedes vehicle ejecting the entire engine block and transmission 50m from the vehicle body after a crash, and that the exceptionally unusual circumstances of that particular crash were to blame.
As with so many things on the Dystopian Police State Checklist that are either illegal, immoral or unethical but which governments of the world nonetheless desperately want to implement, if there is no easy legislative means of enacting suitable laws to make such goals possible, they will make secrets arrangements with the private sector as a backdoor means of achieving the same outcomes. This will probably take the same form of hostile negotiation that US intelligence agencies like the NSA have had with the entire telecommunications and IT industry for the past 30 years where they simply state, "implement these backdoors/surveillance systems in product X and under no circumstances disclose this agreement to anyone under penalty of violating 1001 national security/anti-terrorism laws which will erase your corporation from the face of the earth".
I'd imagine modern EVs make full-blown remote control of cars even easier these days, as every single system is fly-by-wire with very few mechanical linkages/assemblies and most of them have built-in manufacturer telemetry, constant over-the-air firmware updates and partially autonomous driving, which already allows for some degree of full remote control of vehicles from the factory.
WIRED magazine in 2015 demonstrated …
I knew that one. The guys in my link expanded it to many other brands and models.
You're still banging on about a reality that has existed for nearly a decade now.
Whether Biden's Infrastructure bill passes or not is irrelevant.
Sufficiently motivated and resourced actors (i.e. the 'gubmint) can remotely hack into a modern vehicle and do just about anything they want to it.
The guys in my link expanded it to many other brands and models.
That's not mentioned anywhere in your link.
That's not mentioned anywhere in your link.
“Critical Vulnerabilities in Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, Porsche, and More”
https://samcurry.net/web-hackers-vs-the-auto-industry/
In very first comment of this post.
@[Deactivated]: Except half the cars there are about them hacking into the customer databases and or employee databases
No impact on the vehicle itself, just data
Hell, the Toyota hack on there was financial information
No impact on the vehicle itself, just data
You forgot to insert “half of” from your previous sentence :)
@[Deactivated]: Yeah as I said, all of that has been demonstrated years and years ago.
More to the point, those script kiddies compromising people's BMW or Kia accounts and turning headlights on and off isn't quite the same as sending someone's car careening into a concrete wall at high speed.
I'm not saying they're not doing good work exposing obvious vulnerabilities and piss-poor security in automotive systems but the real danger of the susceptibility of the CAN bus/ECUs/ADAS systems to cyber attack is obviously killing people and the conversation needs to be framed as such in life-or-death terms, instead of talking about some mildly comical remote-trolling of people's cars over the Internet.
Elon Musk FSD and cameras on Teslas are okay :P
He isn't the government. I don't fear you, or any lone actor such as Elon Musk, he could take out more people due to his influence but still nothing compared to what a rogue government can do, it's in living memory, well for those that survived anyway.
If Elon Musk sells that access to governments? He is pretty right wing conservative. Or maybe to Russia to prove himself right to influence peace in Ukraine.
I don't fear you as a lone actor but a "lone" actor with ability to pay resources to work towards a result?
The key factor is government, people have power for evil, but it's curtailed by society. Rogue governments on the other hand, the worst possible people to trust with anything!
Is it 2021 again already? I thought we just had new years… or was I too smashed.. ???
I'll just put a big tin foil hat over my car to block the gamma rays and if a copper pulls me over, I'll make sure they know I am a sovereign citizen and their laws don't apply to me.
Also vaccines make cars more hackable and this wouldn't happen if Trump was in power and if comedian Zelensky just bowed to his Russian masters.
/s
Take it to Twitter.
Is poll question too hard? Lol
More expense and red tape to keep us "safe". What's wrong with current measures to prevent drink driving?
"Interlock" Australia been using them here for thousands of years already. USA are bit behind in the game
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/drink-dr…
Thanks. My question is about it being the mandatory requirement for all new cars, not just drivers with previous DUI offences.
The post kinda split between two things, mandatory driver testing system and cars hackability. I added the latter when I thought the former includes remote control of the cars, which is not the case. (Yet :).
So lets focus on the first. Unless the breath test results will be logged by the car and available remotely, which could be a possibility.
Should I edit the title, btw?
Lol the dailycaller. i love the right wing conspiracy "real news" source you clicked on. That was founded by nutball fox news scum Tucker Carlson.
Whatever this post is about im sure someone in the comments section will definitely correct you on whatever it is that you fell for
Very poor choice, I agree :)) But the bill does mandate the system. Its the "kill switch" part that was conspiracy. Sorry, I should’ve spend 2 more minutes.
Wow thanks OP super credible "news" source /s
The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now-Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010.
I'm really tempted now to change the source :) Another comment about the source will do it.
Done!
It will inevitably trickle down to AU.
Sure, bud. We must be the 52nd state right after Canada.
It's the time old thing
They start forcing this and can get away with it. What's next? Same thing with the jab. 🤷🤷. Just saying.
It's inevitable given how cars are becoming built, electric hybrid hydrogen style cars couldn't deter the idea even if someone begged as it's inevitable.
Australian society and Australian law enforcement is comparatively better than the US. Not as necessary to disable cars for the reason of repeat drink driving.
In most Australian states a breathaliser vehicle locking device can be mandated by the courts to be added at the cost of the offender.
Its also not cost effective. To increase the price of all new cars for a niche problem.
Its not the price I'm worried about. It is slow eroding of our rights. We already are a single country that banned self-defence non-lethal stuff like pepper sprays, fireworks, air soft game, has laws to force you to reveal passwords to encrypted data, has laws to force service providers to aid government in intercepting users data, and likely something else. Vote! :)
And it will be done in shitty way, easily hackable: https://samcurry.net/web-hackers-vs-the-auto-industry/