License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center • Hacker News Board

Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center

#21

Post by CM30 » Sat, Jan 16, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #20

cbhl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this reduce the risk of hijacking? An attacker would just hijack ground control instead.

Ground control is much easier to secure. Instead of having to find a needle (hijacker) in a haystack (the millions of random Americans flying each day) with a 90 second search, you can do proper background checks on the small number of people who are allowed to be there.

Until one of those people turns out to be malicious. There is no way to tell what anyone is thinking, or whether they've been spending their time outside of work being slowly corrupted by certain influences.

Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center

#22

Post by jessriedel » Sat, Jan 16, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #21

jessriedel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ground control is much easier to secure. Instead of having to find a needle (hijacker) in a haystack (the millions of random Americans flying each day) with a 90 second search, you can do proper background checks on the small number of people who are allowed to be there.

Until one of those people turns out to be malicious. There is no way to tell what anyone is thinking, or whether they've been spending their time outside of work being slowly corrupted by certain influences.

And yet the rate of terrorist hijackings, although tremendously small, is much larger than the rate at which secret service agents betray the president.

Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center

#23

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Jan 16, 2016, 11:02 PM UTC

timothya wrote: post #2

> For some time, Google has been convinced that the semiautonomous systems that others champion (which include various features like collision prevention, self-parking, and lane control on highways) are actually more dangerous than the so-called Level Four degree of control, where the car needs no human intervention. The company is convinced that with cars that almost but don’t drive themselves, humans will be lulled…

I have some sympathy with this view, however I don't see how self-parking and collision avoidance fit in? These seem like ideal places for computer drivers to show their value without affecting most driving experiences.