Posted on 09/16/2019 8:23:01 PM PDT by lasereye
When will automotive industry investors learn the lesson from this weekend's reported drone attack on a Saudi oil facility?
We saw one version of this kind of scenario in the 1977 movie "Telefon" with Charles Bronson: Brainwashed sleeper cells were sent out in trucks to smash into various critical facilities, causing huge explosions.
The attack on the Saudi oil facility explains why it's illegal to operate a drone near an airport or a city center anywhere in America today. The risk of terrorist sabotage is simply too high.
But what is a driverless car, if not a 5,000-pound, land-based drone? We saw it not only in "Telefon" but also in car/truck bomb events in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 10+ years.
Automakers can crow all they want about their intent to make their future driverless vehicles unhackable. Gee, why didn't anyone think of making a connected computer unhackable before? Please, someone call Microsoft, Apple, Google, Dell, Hewlett-Packard or any of the other computer industry entities and inform them about this revolutionary -- and easy-to-implement -- idea.
The fact is, there is no such thing as an unhackable connected computer, and there will never be. Thinking that one can be created is as futile as attempting to ban human stupidity. It's in the nature of things, and can't be wished away.
It's not only about driverless cars being hacked. Numerous Chinese brands have been salivating for years to export their soon-to-be driverless cars to the U.S. Those cars are "electric and connected" today -- and would become "driverless" when the software has "been perfected."
Then, they will be "turned on" -- or remotely upgraded -- to full driverless capability. Sort of like the sleeper cell telephone call in "Telefon."
You ought to be able to conclude from this that neither driverless cars -- of any origin -- nor Chinese cars of any kind, will ever be allowed to be sold or operated in the U.S. They constitute an even graver threat to U.S. national security than the presence of a Huawei switch in a U.S. telecom network such as AT&T or Verizon.
The message for the world's automakers and their investors is clear: When it comes to driverless cars, give it up. It's a futile exercise. If they are ever made to work, they must be immediately banned for national security reasons.
This weekend's drone attack in Saudi Arabia is yet another piece of evidence of why this is the only logical conclusion. A driverless car is just a very large land-based drone that can carry a lot more weight.
For all the automakers and other technology companies who are pursuing the pathway to driverless cars, ranging from Alphabet (GOOGL - Get Report) , Ford (F - Get Report) , Tesla (TSLA - Get Report) and General Motors (GM - Get Report) just to mention some of the more prominent ones, the futility of this outcome points to a multi-billion dollar write-off in the end.
The question is only how quickly such a write-off will have to be realized -- will it be closer to two years from now, or ten years from now?
re: “The Attack on Saudi Oil Shows Why Driverless Cars Will Never Become Legal”
And in one fell swoop we see our hero literally ‘jump the shark’ ...
Anton is a fraud.
Settled with investors who followed his fraudulent advice.
Under his theory we wouldn’t have self driving drones or planes.
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep."
I disagree.
I believe that the push is to get AI / driverless cars as first normal, then as prefered from a cost or efficiency basis, and then make self driving a priviledge, then an expensive priviledge and then not allowed at all.
Why? It is a liberal’s utopian dream to know and control where the citizens travel to and from. Taxes can be assesed on a per mile travelled basis - for the environment.
Illegality does not prevent actuality.
Exhibit # 1: Murder is illegal.
Ummm, terrorists might ignore the law - they've been known to do that before...
Ummm, terrorists might ignore the law - they've been known to do that before...
You’ve been reading my prior post!
Okay, it bears repeating.
Author Anton Wahlman is way off base here. You don’t need fully autonomous driverless cars to pilot a truck full of explosives to a target. You can do it with simple radio remote control and video cameras. Converting a truck to remote control is far easier than developing a fully autonomous vehicle.
Even that is unnecessary because all you need to do is recruit suicide bombers. There were 19 Saudis willing to fly those airplanes on their kamikaze missions on 9/11. I’m sure there are many more where those 19 came from.
Fuel taxes do that now. It is usually calculated on a per gallon basis, but with some calculations could be restated on a per mile basis.
When the government wants more money, they can just increase fuel taxes.
Just think. The trucking industry is working to develop the driverless semi truck.
The argument that driverless cars can be used for terrorist attacks is an argument against all cars including driver operated cars.
Society is better off with the cars, and trying to prevent attacks, than we are without the cars.
What you said.
40k people a year killed in cars in the U.S.
Somewhere north of 2 million injured.
And he’s worried about terrorists?
A 9/11 style attack EVERY MONTH for a year wouldn’t equal the carnage we already have on the roads.
[Telefon]
Some day I must watch that.
[Illegality does not prevent actuality.]
That’s what I was thinking. Terrorist will not be deterred by law.
By the time they realize what happened, it will all be over. Or at least the damage will be done.
Let’s also recall Timothy McVeigh. I don’t recall all details, but didn’t he park a truck full of explosives at that federal building in Oklahoma City? I think he drove it in and parked it at the target?
And as you note, a suicide bomber driving a truck on a suicide mission is an ongoing danger.
Good memory. McVeigh parked the truck and walked away.
This article is a silly scare piece.
We don’t have either one. Someone is always flying these devices, they just aren’t onboard the aircraft. We also do not have any such thing as a self driving car. Someone is always driving, it’s just not you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.