jxurueydyys

It reduces the attack surface to places that have been verified to be following security obligations. Otherwise a physical attack becomes much easier because you just need to work at an auto-shop that doesn't pay much attention to you. The same sort of attack is still possible with certs but it's more difficult because it would require compromising both the shop and the person who vets their practices.

The difference is that the pc is exposed to everything it interacts with including the internet while the car would only be interacting with shops that were meeting their certification obligations. Tying updates to physical locations also reduces the severity of a successful bad actor since most people in a city don't all go to the same auto-shop. A problem like a nation-wide cyber attack on vehicles is only possible if we allow personal vehicles to support the attack vector.

An easy solution would be to not allow self driving or remotely updated cars until there's a reliable solution to this. People already go to auto-shops for repairs, certified auto-shops could easily double as places to update software and the certification requirements can be tailored to require an external oversight agent come and evaluate their security practices.

This is a really lazy criticism considering they never specified which side they were talking about. WW2 is a good example because most Americans have some general knowledge of the subject to help them understand the topic compared to other possible examples.

Their point holds because there are numerous societies where killing is viewed as immoral but which make an exception for their soldiers performing their duties. Do you have an actual counter-argument or are we just using reddit memes as dismissals now?