My Cybersecurity Predictions for 2018, Part 3: Protecting Killer Cars

Death by autonomous auto is coming unless the industry gets security very right. The question is really whether its already too late.

Death at the cyber-hands of a computer is coming in 2018. But more on that later.
I began this series of cybersecurity predictions for 2018 for
Security Now
because there arent enough good new year cybersecurity predictions. There are some decent ones, to be sure -- but they are far, far outnumbered by the bad ones. I have found the vast majority of next-year InfoSec predictions to be too broad, too bet-hedging, and/or too grounded in obvious trends.
So in my own cybersecurity predictions for next year, I have tried to go the opposite route -- offering
specifics
on what I consider to be merely slight likelihoods.
Previously, in Part 1 of this prediction series, I predicted that the full force of the gradually building wrath of the FTC will be visited upon an IoT device maker next year. (See:
My Cybersecurity Predictions for 2018, Part 1: Following Trends & the FTC
.) Then, in Part 2, I predicted that -- for all of the talk and fear about GDPR -- relatively little will wind up happening next year after GDPR comes into effect. (See:
My Cybersecurity Predictions for 2018, Part 2: GDPR Hype Is Hype
.)
Now, in Part 3 of my 2018 cybersecurity prediction series, I turn away from regulations and regulators -- and instead issue a forecast of a matter of life and death.
2018 Prediction No. 3: An operator or passenger of a traditional, non-autonomous vehicle will be killed in an accident involving a self-driving car. The self-driving car will be deemed by the insurance companies to be not at fault.
I really hope this prediction does not come true -- in 2018 or ever. But I have a bad feeling about self-driving cars and societys approach to them.
Autonomous-vehicle technology is far from perfect. At an AI-technology event this past spring in Boston, the
MassIntelligence Conference
, MIT computer science professor Sam Madden spoke about the problems of how machines interpret light distortion applied to various pixels -- referring to research demonstrating that machine learning can be fooled into thinking, say, that
pictures of a dog are pictures of an ostrich
. More relevantly, Madden told the audience that self-driving cars are similarly fooled. For instance, he stated, various hand gestures made by people on the street can fool a self-driving car into thinking that a squirrel ran in front of it.
Something similar appears to have happened in the case of Joshua Brown; last year, apparently carefree autonomous-car operator Joshua Brown became the
first fatality
involving a self-driving Tesla after -- the way the automaker puts it -- [n]either autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor-trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. Moreover, Brown has not been the only
operator of an autonomous Tesla operator to be killed
after a problem with the self-driving technology.
In both incidents, the operator was loudly alleged to be more at fault than the technology. Even in non-fatal accidents involving self-driving cars, the other -- human - parties have routinely been deemed at fault for insurance-company purposes. But insurance companies dont necessarily operate in the real world. Yes, it is
technically lawful
to power through a yellow light at a dangerous 40mph intersection with imperfect visibility at 38mph without paying too close attention -- but most human drivers know better. Yes, it is legally
mandated

to immediately stop at a crosswalk
when a pedestrian is standing there patiently waiting to cross -- but from a practical perspective, most human drivers who are going close to the speed limit on a fast and busy thoroughfare know better than to slam on their brakes in traffic -- risking injury or death to themselves and others behind them. (When it comes to pedestrians near crosswalks, human drivers probably also dont detect
quite so many false positives
in identifying pedestrians waiting to cross.)
Nevertheless, technophiles are crying full speed ahead with self-driving technology. They espouse the message that
we need to be okay with self-driving cars that crash
, arguing that technology cannot be expected to be perfect because humans arent perfect. This, however, misses the point -- that a world full of self-driving cars is a world lacking in individual agency.
Worse, smart cars -- even the non-autonomous ones -- are already rife with enough vulnerabilities that could cause a black-hat attacker to wet him- or herself with glee. (See
Law Comes to the Self-Driving Wild West, Part 2
and
Autonomous Cars Must Be Secure to Be Safe
.) Time and again, security researchers have exposed grossly dangerous vulnerabilities in the modern connected car -- and, time and again, the industry has
pooh-poohed
such findings. Self-driving cars are an even bigger target -- particularly because they can be so demonstrably fooled via their machine-learning avenues.
So-called progress, however, does not tend to slow. Death and destruction are coming the way of the self-driving car -- and, inevitably, the way of those in the way of the self-driving car.
Ask not for whom the autonomous car honks; it honks for thee.
Related posts:
GDPR: Broad, Complex & Coming Soon
GDPR Pressure Begins on US Multinationals
Unknown Document 739303
—
Joe Stanganelli, principal of Beacon Hill Law, is a Boston-based attorney, corporate-communications and data-privacy consultant, writer, and speaker. Follow him on Twitter at @JoeStanganelli.

Last News
▸ ArcSight prepares for future at user conference post HP acquisition. ◂ Discovered: 07/01/2025 Category: security	▸ Samsung Epic 4G: First To Use Media Hub ◂ Discovered: 07/01/2025 Category: security	▸ Many third-party software fails security tests ◂ Discovered: 07/01/2025 Category: security

**Cyber Security Categories**
Google Dorks Database	Exploits Vulnerability	Exploit Shellcodes

CVE List

Tools/Apps

News/Aarticles

Phishing Database

Deepfake Detection

Trends/Statistics & Live Infos

Tags:
My Cybersecurity Predictions for 2018, Part 3: Protecting Killer Cars