Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by gpcz on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @02:47PM
(#9924725)
Using violent methods (such as intentionally sabotaging a car on a busy freeway with someone in it) to get media attention in order to further a political goal sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by elektromekatron on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @06:52PM
(#9926444)
Only if your sense of scale has stopped functioning. It is a dangerous journalistic prank that probably does deserve a telling off from traffic cops, to much the same level as someone who is drunk driving. But I think trying to classify it as terrorism is not helpful or particularly sane.
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by omegaham on Wednesday July 22, 2015 @01:52AM
(#9927934)
Seeing as how drunk driving kills a very large number of people every year and is now punishable by imprisonment and extremely steep fines, you might be onto something here.
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by elektromekatron on Wednesday July 22, 2015 @12:54PM
(#9930793)
If people were screwing with cars like this as often as drunks were driving, I think you would end up with mortality figures that were at least in the same ballpark.
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by gpcz on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @07:21PM
(#9926613)
At what scale would you consider it to be terrorism?
Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway
by elektromekatron on Wednesday July 22, 2015 @12:48PM
(#9930746)
To my mind, it would have to be some form of an attack, if untargeted, at least hundreds of cars, and if small would have to be targeted and strongly political, dangerous stupidity in a single instance for the purposes of having a good press story, doesn't qualify as either causing terror, or having an intent to, notwithstanding the broad legal definition that has been adopted over the past 15 years.