Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by TheIronYuppie on Friday July 24, 2015 @05:23PM
(#9945281)
Depends. For example, in some states, it's still illegal to put someone intoxicated in a car driving on private vehicles on private roads.
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by the8472 on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @01:28PM
(#9924017)
We could easily reverse that reasoning:
Security researchers should only be liable for potential risks if we manage to hold those companies for potential risks.
If we fail to do the latter it's quite unfair to let individuals bear the brunt of legal enforcement.
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by Lawtonfogle on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @01:56PM
(#9924300)
Unfair but also of great benefit to the corporations creating products with security holes. It reminds me of 'identity theft' where the average citizen bears the risk due to the poor verification practices of loaning institutions instead of the institutions who create the risk as a byproduct of profiting off making the loans. If anyone thinks this is accidental, you should contact me as I have a great deal on this new bridge that is about to hit the market.
But as someone who says the car manufacturer ought to face legal consequences for failing to fix a remotely exploitable stall-out in a timely manner (even without demonstration of anyone being harmed), I also say that people who fuck with moving cars on the road are a menace as well.