Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE FBI IS AFRAID that criminals will use Google’s driverless cars to conduct freeway shootouts and car chases, according to The Guardian. Because the cars drive themselves, passengers are free to do anything else they want in the car without fear of it crashing, like pull out a Glock and pop some caps into other drivers, or police cars that might be tailing them.
The FBI commissioned a report on the impact of cars on traffic crime enforcement, and The Guardian obtained the document via a Freedom of Information request:
The report, written by agents in the Strategic Issues Group within the FBI’s Directorate of Intelligence, says:
Autonomy … will make mobility more efficient, but will also open up greater possibilities for dual-use applications and ways for a car to be more of a potential lethal weapon that it is today….In addition, algorithms can control the distance that the patrol car is behind the target to avoid detection or intentionally have a patrol car make opposite turns at intersections, yet successfully meet up at later points with the target.
The fear is that criminals might hack the cars to override its safety features or that terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them.
The good news is that the FBI report accepts that, overall, Google’s cars will likely reduce the number of accidents and fatalities. And it envisions a law enforcement version that uses an algorithm that allows police cars to get dangerously close to other cars in the event of a high-speed pursuit.
The FBI is thinking ahead: the cars are still in their test phase and are not expected to be available commercially in the US for years.
What “high-speed” means is an open question, though. Writing about the project’s progress recently, the New York Times noted that Google’s cars are planned for urban environments rather than long-distance trips and motorways – and will hit a max of 25 mph.
Earlier this year, Google was awarded a patent to allow businesses offer customers free or discounted trips to their stores, effectively turning the vehicles into a kind of ad-powered taxi.
- Additional reporting by Susan Ryan
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Surely a petrol engine would be faster than a search engine?
No. Just don’t.
??
They already can do this with two people in the car. Plus human error kills many more in car accidents than drive-by shootings do. Even in the USA.
Hence why their report comes to the conclusion that they will likely reduce the number of fatalities on the roads.
And they needed a new report for this? They also fear that ‘terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them’. Again, we already do this, you just need a ‘holy’ book and a sexually repressed young male (add some social and political issues and numerous candidates will pop up).
Gee, the FBI are real ‘glass half empty’ guys, aren’t they?
“The good news is that the FBI report accepts that, overall, Google’s cars will likely reduce the number of accidents and fatalities.”
Neither glass empty or glass full kind of guys, but rather guys who tell you that the glass is full but has a risk of spilling drink everywhere kind of guys.
More like guys that identify, groom and equip marginalised individuals with a half-full glass to ‘attack’ high profile targets.
I’d imagine driverless cars would be subject to sticking within the speed limit. Would be pretty pathetic if someone tried to do a drive-by then speed away from the scene of the crime at 50kph!
Not as pathetic as commenting on an article you haven’t read! =D
“The fear is that criminals might hack the cars to override its safety features or that terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them.”
Just so you don’t have to search for it.
Yeah. I skipped over that bit admittedly. Thought didn’t even occur to me because to me its like arguing that bank accounts shouldn’t have been made accessible online simply because they would become hackable.
Measures can always be taken to mitigate these risks. A need for proper secure systems enforced through traffic security regulation and auditing is obvious. It would be foolish and niave to leave it up to google or any other company to regulate themselves in this area.
Why would driverless cars stick to the speed limit anyway? If all cars are driverless they’ll probably be travelling at very high speeds because GPS & algorithms will ensure that cars avoid each other. Speed limits are related to the speed your average driver should be able to handle depending on the conditions. A computer would be able to handle far higher speeds so there would be no reason not to increase limits greatly (outside residential zones or where pedestrians would be a factor).
Eventually when everyone has a driverless car, yes. Until then it would be a danger to conventionally driven cars. Imagine trying to merge into a motorway when the traffic is made up of driverless cars!
Also, I’d only see the removal of speed limits for motorways, there are pedestrians to consider as well.
Car sex is gonna become a regular occurrence.
I can just see all these cars buzzing around @ 25mph after the pubs close!!
Search for bank. Click -> I’m feeling lucky
If only Stringer Bell had thought of this……..
It would be computerised, I’m sure they would have a remote override option.
Anyway, if you wanted a getaway “driver” would you really want one that follows the speed limits and stops when it’s supposed to.
have your say