Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 300 posts

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#241

Post by Spooky23 »

harryh wrote: post #166
throwaway729 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a fairly reasonable thing given you're talking about encrypted PHI... it's some extra $ for a considerable reduction to overall attack surface when processing the most sensitive type of personal data. I don't think this meets OP's definition of "wrong".

In practical terms I don't agree that the threat of someone doing all of the following things is worth worrying about (in comparison to many other more likely failures): 1) determine what physical hardware in aws the target is running code on 2) somehow get the aws virtual machine manager to let the attacker run their malicious code on the same hardware 3) somehow pierce the protections of the virtual machine to read…

People said the same thing about cold boot attavks against encryption keys. Yet today the police and others are using that and other NAND attacks regularly.

HIPPA is a very easy compliance standard to meet. If it seems difficult to meet those requirements with your standard tool configurations, you should think about what that means with respect to the integrity of your data.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#242

Post by learningman »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #102
the_duke wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While networked cars are interesting, there is also a massive security issue here. Hackers will easily figure out a way to spoof the communication, and could play with traffic. There are mitigations for most issues, but it's a complex topic. Just imagine some scenarios: -) Spoof an emergency break advisory that causes tailing cars to also do an emergency break. (could be mitigated by first observing that cars in fron…

All good points. Seems like you could get around it by using these other-car communications as noisy signals and weighting evidence against the world as the car sees it, e.g., if you get a spoofed emergency brake advisory, and the car's own percepts suggest there's no reason to brake, the resultant action may be to not brake. The signal from the other car[s] becomes just another feature.

Considering the millions of miles driven each day, even if the networked signal wasn't heavily weighted, a spoofed emergency brake advisor signal could still do significant damage.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#243

Post by Tiktaalik »

pmyjavec wrote: post #194
abawany wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, you mentioned the core reason why you find the excitement baffling, i.e. that you don't drive often but you find it exciting when you do. Now imagine the scenario for most of the US, a public-transport-hostile country for the most part, where millions upon millions of people burn their precious lives waiting in traffic and sucking in traffic fumes. In my mind, this is one of the most appalling wastes o…

Thanks for the response and totally agree with the sitting in traffic, wasted time thing ,but with all due respect it still seems inefficient, wouldn't public transport and telecommuting be better options in a connected world? How will there still be no traffic jams, or the car will be like an office? In that case why not just work from home and come to work for meetings here and there? Might flexible / less work hou…

It's incredibly frustrating that people are getting excited for autonomous cars' ability to free them from the drudgery of driving when this has been a solved problem for a long time with public transit.

Unfortunately anti-public transit special interest groups have discredited public transit initiatives all over, and fighting this has been incredibly difficult.

On your last point people definitely do see owning expensive cars as a status item and for this reason I think it's valid to question to what degree and speed will autonomous car sharing networks replace individually owned cars.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#244

Post by seanmcdirmid »

swsieber wrote: post #185
marricks wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.

You could expect them to not call it autopilot, and instead call it lane keeping, like it really is. The name does a really good job at setting a terrible expectation, almost to the point of undoing any attention grabbing mechanism to keep users engaged.

> You could expect them to not call it autopilot, and instead call it lane keeping, like it really is.

That is all that most auto pilots in planes do, however. I don't get where "autopilot" somehow came to mean full autonomy in cars but not in planes (and other vehicles like boats) where the term was used previously.

Ridiculous.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#245

Post by xkcd-sucks »

kelvin0 wrote: post #127
sharemywin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now if the could just come up with some "Data recording and Privacy" regulations for all electronic devices. So, Google and Facebook can stop creeping me out. They're like the creepy neighbors that always look at out the window to see what I'm doing.

Do you need to use their services? Have been (mostly) Google and Facebook free for a long time, and I don't live under a rock. Maybe you should also try the "FB&G"-free diet too ...? (It's not for everyone :-)

The problem is communicating with people that use those services

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#246

Post by seanmcdirmid »

2bitencryption wrote: post #95
owyn wrote: post #79

It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Dete…

This seems suspiciously like government getting something right... with regards to a quickly-evolving new technology market... has this ever happened before?

The FAA and NTSB have really worked well.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#247

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jpindar wrote: post #198
eck wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could actually be an interesting problem. It might sound like "in the event of a impact >Xg, stop, shut down, and wait for police/NTSB/etc to come investigate". But if, say, you hit a deer on a wilderness road in the winter, that behavior could lead to the passengers all dying of exposure. Do self-driving cars have a button labeled "fuck your rules and DRIVE"?

Likewise, in most discussions of self-driving cars, it is noted that they probably won't work well in the snow. Someone (presumably not from a snowy area) will then say that the car will pull over and wait, as you shouldn't be driving in a snowstorm anyway. They never say what's supposed to happen next, with the highways full of people whose cars have stranded them. Are they all supposed to call for cabs? But wait, c…

I'm pretty sure they'll eventually figure out how to get self driving cars working in snow, or rain, with protocols on when to stop that match when humans should.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#248

Post by JamesLeonis »

witty_username wrote: post #122
JamesLeonis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to live near an old historic town with buildings standing since the 1850s. New people and businesses are moving in all the time and stuff needs to be built. The town uses color codes and other design elements to preserve both the older buildings as well as making newer buildings match the historic tone. This is explicitly done to promote and keep tourism flowing into the town, which is a HUGE part of their inc…

Why does the government need to prioritize the interest of people who profit from tourism [hereafter I will call them "tourism people"]? Why don't "tourism people" just pay people constructing buildings to use the colour "tourism people" want? That should be fair to both parties.

The town itself is less than 3,000 people. Tourism is it's major industry, and without it the town would disappear.

> Why don't "tourism people" just pay people constructing buildings to use the colour "tourism people" want?

That implies they could ignore that rule at any time. Reimbursement programs are an increase in paperwork, which many would simply ignore for convenience. This would give the town the "Tragedy of the Commons" problem, erasing it's historic sense (and primary revenue source), and it would become another run-down town like many others in the region.

Is that fair to those who invested heavily in keeping their businesses and homes in that area? Their answer is a resounding "No"

If somebody balks, just like this, there are other more modern and relaxed cities within a few miles that can accomodate their building ideas. These cities even have more access to freeways and trains, so economically it makes sense to put their businesses inside those cities.

Instead, the primary draw towards this town IS it's historical authenticity, and thus the people living there keep it maintained through it's building codes. There is no other reason why a business or homeowner would live in that area, so it makes sense to keep with it's character. If that's too onerous, then perhaps your motivations for building should be reexamined.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#249

Post by Animats »

ekianjo wrote: post #216
Animats wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two deaths using Tesla's autopilot. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

Why was this not widely reported?

The dash cam video was only released last week, in conjunction with a lawsuit. Now it's on all the mainstream news outlets, from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times to Fox News.

This is yet another "Tesla hit slow/stopped vehicle on left of expressway" accident. There are now three of those known, two with video, one fatal. Watch the video. The vehicle is tracking the lane very accurately. Either the driver is very attentive or the lane following system has control. Then, with no slowdown whatsoever, the vehicle plows into a stopped or slow-moving street sweeper.

Here's one of the other crashes in that situation.[1] This was slower, so it wasn't lethal. There's another one where a Tesla on autopilot sideswiped a vehicle stopped at the left side of an expressway.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkx-4pFjus

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#250

Post by JamesLeonis »

hx87 wrote: post #121
JamesLeonis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tourism. I lived near a small historic town with many buildings standing since the 1850s. Tourism is a HUGE industry that brings in dollars to local businesses. It's in the town's interest to preserve that income, so they mandate color and style codes for new buildings as well as restoring older buildings. This is complemented with many folksy festivals and re-enactments as part of drawing in tourist dollars. When pe…

As long as the codes are written by people who know their architecture and architectural history 100%, I am completely comfortable with that. It's just that I've had far too many experiences with historical preservation codes written by amateurs with limited knowledge of architectural history who effectively ban any attempts at making a building more airtight and efficient while letting aesthetic travesties like asph…

This I understand. I can tell you that this little town is maintained by both historical and design professionals, and new buildings (and renovations to a practical extent) have all the modern conveniences and safety while preserving the historic aesthetic.
Post reply on HN