Re: [SystemSafety] Hackers take over *control* of a car wirelessly

From: Smith, Brian E. (ARC-TH) < >
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:54:39 +0000


See Computing and Moral Responsibility first published in 2012 at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-responsibility/

An excerpt…

Computing presents a particular case for understanding the role of technology in moral responsibility. As these technologies become a more integral part of daily activities, automate more decision-making processes and continue to transform the way people communicate and relate to each other, they further complicate the already problematic tasks of attributing moral responsibility. The growing pervasiveness of computer technologies in everyday life, the growing complexities of these technologies and the new possibilities that they provide raise new kinds of questions: who is responsible for the information published on the Internet? Who is accountable when electronic records are lost or when they contain errors? To what extent and for what period of time are developers of computer technologies accountable for untoward consequences of their products? And as computer technologies become more complex and behave increasingly autonomous can or should humans still be held responsible for the behavior of these technologies?

The design and use of technological artifacts is a moral activity and the choice for one particular design solution over another has real and material consequences.

Brian Smith

From: Tom Ferrell <tom_at_xxxxxx Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Hackers take over *control* of a car wirelessly

Stating the obvious, but isn’t there an aspect of this that goes something like, “Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.” To me, there is a fundamental engineering ethics question that comes into play when people start talking about the ‘Internet of Everything.’ When someone postulates hooking two systems together that always before have been physically separated, engineers have a moral responsibility IMHO to inject themselves firmly and fully into the benefits vs. risks discussion with a strong bias of when in doubt, don’t.

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:15 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Cc: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Hackers take over *control* of a car wirelessly

How does one distinguish a hacker attack from bad software, or operator error, i.e. unintended acceleration?



robert schaefer
Atmospheric Sciences Group
MIT Haystack Observatory
Westford, MA 01886

On Jul 21, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Martyn Thomas <martyn_at_xxxxxx

In which countries would Chrysler have any liability if a hacker caused an accident in this way?

Martyn

On 21/07/2015 16:54, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> .... and drive it into a ditch. Done during a demo, performed the day after the fix was available
> from Fiat Chrysler. But it's real. As in, really real. Thank heavens the good guys found it first.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/jeep-owners-urged-update-car-software-hackers-remote-control
>
> I must admit I thought such an act was still a couple years in the future.
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
> Je suis Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de<http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/>

!DSPAM:55ae7801234192457613276!



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx

!DSPAM:55ae7801234192457613276!



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Jul 21 2015 - 19:54:56 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:07 CEST