I will still call the police in the future, but just so they can fill out a police report for insurance claims or potential law suits. Other than that, I don't expect the police to do anything unless they were on the scene and saw somebody break the law.
And even then, one of the times when my car was vandalized, the cops were there and they filed a police report and told me to try to figure out who will pay between the two dudes that jumped on my car and if that doesn't work, give the officer a call and he will help me with the next steps. Obviously those guys didn't wanna pay so I tried to get in touch with that cop and he was avoiding my calls. I called over 10 times over the course of a couple weeks and he was never there and never returned my calls.
Another time my neighbor was throwing eggs at my motorcycle for 3 nights in a row and I got him on video, call the cops and they come by about 12 hours later and just laughed at the video, and then all of a sudden got a call to something more important and bounced. It may seem funny, but me having to pay someone $300 to clean egg out of all of the fairings and tubing is not funny. At the very least, do your job and file a fucking police report.
* Cops are under no obligation to go into harms way to protect the public.
* Cops primarily exist to collect evidence for prosecution after the fact.
* Just because criminals and crimes exist doesn't take away from cops' bad behavior.
* If calgoo becomes the victim of a crime, cops are unlikely to be able to make him whole again - for bodily injury, prosecution of the perpretrator can't restore his body or life - for property damage or theft, police usually can't be bothered with the small stuff.
Have you seen what happens to communities when police withdraw? They become overrun by gangs and other less accountable organizations.
Even favelas where cops act paramilitarily, say in Caracas, people still want cops because no cops is usually worse, unless you get a private version of cops, which is essentially cops by another name.
(Of course, even if it's not an exaggeration and even if it reflects the actual probabilities of getting hurt by cops and criminals there, it does not follow that things wouldn't be even worse without a police force.)
Being a security researcher or journalist doesn't give you a license to put the public in physical danger.
I can't wait for the pathetic outrage when "racial profiling" now means harassing white kids with laptops that fit the profile of hacker.
This is a matter for a company like Google to take on politically, not some beat cop in St. Louis of all places.
Why not engage the FBI? This is not an issue specific to St. Louis. Throwing some researchers in jail solves nothing. This is a way bigger deal than some local offense.
You need an agency with the ability to see the bigger picture.
This basically suggests thousands of cars could be driven off the road and deliberately crashed right now. I'd say that's a threat that they need to deal with at the national level on an immediate basis.
Would you rather wait for a malicious actor like North Korea to get involved before the FBI makes a move?
What I'm trying to say is I'd rather the FBI gets involved and works with these researchers to develop an expedient fix for this problem than some beat cop in St. Louis to bust them and throw them in jail where they help nobody and the threat remains extremely grave.
Calling the police will not have them go to jail or have their data deleted. It might (rightfully) get them a fine. It will however ensure that their next experiments are done in a safer, more legal way.
Calling the police isn't all about emergency. You can call them to talk about issues that worry you such as this one. They will take care of bringing the issue the the right entities, it's their job.
> Calling the police will not have them go to jail or have their data deleted.
If there's a case to be made, the police will build it. If they build it, the DA will prosecute it, and there could be (is going to be?) things like charges under the CFAA, since they could certainly try the perspective that the access needed to be authorized by the auto manufacturer, rather than the owner of the car.
I could totally see how invoking the power of the police on these researchers could, through the kind of progression we've seen many times before, destroy their lives. I really hope that's not the case -- I'd much rather they got some kind of warning like, "Don't you ever do this on a road with other people on it again". Even so, I agree with many others that their actions were pretty reckless, more so than I realized when I first read the article. This is the kind of thing that should have been done on a private test track, and doing it around others was reckless and negligent.
Having considered how dangerous their little stunt was, I'd almost expect them to be sentenced to some gaol time. What they did was pretty darn Serious!
If prior HN articles are anything to go by, it's a matter of time before SWAT kicks down their doors, beats them up a bit, and maybe even a few officers "fearing for their own lives" (yeah right) take a couple of shots in "self defense" against unarmed nerds.
You're delusional if you trust in a law enforcement agency to take reasoned and measured action in any situation.
Or not done at all.
I may not fully agree with their methodology but I'm thankful this work is being done by people with good intentions instead of having these issues come to light when people with malicious intent find the vulnerability and kill or maim countless people.
You cannot simply test a car like that on the highway. There are privates road, abandoned airports, big parking lots that are more suited.
Old habits die hard.
This isn't really engaging with his action. Specifically, because called the cops because he believed that their methods put people in danger of physical harm. This objection isn't coherent without an argument either that:
1) He was unreasonable in his belief that they'd put people in harm's way.
or
2) It is not appropriate to contact law enforcement as a result of observing one person put another in harms way.
I'm guessing you're arguing both, correct?
aside: He contacted the state highway patrol, not the local St. Louis police. aside2: Hi Geofft! How are things going?
My argument is roughly that we don't know for sure that people were put in harm's way, and we have good reason, as hackers, not to trust the legal system to reliably figure these sorts of things out (and they generally fail in the direction of being worse for both individual researchers and society of a whole). If we did empirically find the legal system reliable and fair, I'd be more convinced that the threshold for objecting should be "unreasonable".
The action is also over right now, and I see no indication that they intend to do so again. So this is either about punishment-as-retribution, or about dissuading future researchers from doing similar things. I don't think retribution is particularly justifiable, and I think there are better ways to dissuade future researchers, like having a conversation about it without the police involved. So I guess I'm arguing the specific sub-case of 2 that if they don't intend to put someone in harms' way again, law enforcement isn't necessarily right.
(You're right about the highway patrol thing, btw. I think I had it confused in my head with some other recent public/police conflict where the highway patrol was worse than the local police, but it looks like the opposite was true of the Ferguson protests.)
The researchers could have achieved the exact same results (albeit with fewer clicks) by conducting this experiment in a remote parking lot or a private road. Heck, if the writer had contacted the cops, they could have given him an escort to make sure nothing bad happens.
If you ask me, it is this kind of behavior that makes the work of real researchers harder, as the media is quick to paint all security researchers as clueless nerds who will put people at risk.
According to the article, the researchers already did as early as 2013. Auto manufacturers ignored the reports while continuing to pretend that their vehicles are secure.
If I were an auto manufacturer, I wouldn't wait until someone finds a wireless exploit (at which point it's too late to do anything about it before people die or are maimed unless I'm lucky enough for the zero-day to be found by a white-hat or grey-hat). I'd see those earlier reports, say "holy shit if we have one wireless bug, the whole car could be pwned", and start working on a better isolation of critical systems from internet-connected systems immediately.
Sure you do. This is why large businesses (smart ones, anyway) require employees' smartphones to be locked with a password or PIN. This is why standards like HIPAA require secure data to be encrypted at rest. This is why laptops being stolen from government agencies leads to things like millions of confidential records disclosed (true story).
And you're still missing my point: that the likes of Toyota and Ford are relying on their wireless systems being secure. That's reckless, since now their wireless systems are the single point of security failure. The lack of even basic safeguards, access levels, etc. should a breach occur is the point of this article, more so than the specific UConnect breach. Having only one layer between "secure" and "pwned" is by no measure a good idea.
Calling it a disagreement over methods glosses over the real issue, which is that it was a dangerous exercise and its perpetrators apparently don't have sufficiently good judgement to be left to their own devices.
Are we still on Hacker News, or is the transformation to Enablers of Traditional American Power Structure News complete?