backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by NellyFromMA.. on Jul 17 at 10:38 AM

The report also see self-driving cars as a boon to law enforcement surveillance

Fully autonomous vehicles bring up a wide range of opinions from our readers. Some, who see driving as a mundane task — especially while sitting in traffic — welcome the technology. Others simply like being in control and scoff at the notion of a computer taking control of every facet of the driving experience.
 
Not surprisingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has its own thoughts on autonomous vehicles and what they could mean for society. According to unclassified FBI documents obtained by The Guardian, the FBI sees both the good and the bad with respect to the inevitability of driverless cars.
 
First off, the FBI fears that criminals will be more adept at multitasking, as they won’t have to focus on controlling the vehicle while carrying out nefarious acts.
 
The report details, “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.”


Google's autonomous vehicle prototype
 
The FBI is also concerned that autonomous vehicles could be used as rolling bombing platforms by terrorist organizations.
 
But the report, which was issued by the FBI’s Strategic Issues Group, also lists some positive attributes as well. They cite that overall safety may be improved by taking humans out of the equation, since autonomous vehicles aren’t affected by “distraction or poor judgment.”
 
And the FBI also is delighted by the fact that law enforcement might be able to wirelessly tap into an autonomous vehicle to make their jobs easier when pursuing criminals. “Surveillance will be made more effective and easier, with less of a chance that a patrol car will lose sight of a target vehicle,” states the report.
 
“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.”
 
Technology is quickly moving us towards the autonomous “endgame” when it comes to automobiles. Yesterday, President Barack Obama threw his support behind Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) technology, which could help to reduce accidents and vehicular deaths if mandated in future automobiles.
 
Google, however, is well ahead of the curve with fully autonomous vehicles, having fielded modified Toyota Prii and Lexus RX 450h hybrids in California for the past few years. And earlier this year, Google unveiled its vision for the future of autonomous technology with a vehicle that lacks primary controls (i.e., no steering wheel) and can take you to your final destination with the push of a button. 

Source: The Guardian



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

organ transplant
By ssobol on 7/16/2014 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 4
One thing I heard on the radio recently was that the widespread adoption of self driving cars will vastly reduce the incident of traffic accidents. This will greatly reduce the number of organs available for transplant uses (those nice young bodies will no longer be killing themselves doing stupid things in cars). There is a reason that organ donor is noted on your driving license.




RE: organ transplant
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2014 12:12:25 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, there's always motorcycle riders :)


RE: organ transplant
By kattanna on 7/16/2014 1:12:58 PM , Rating: 1
yeah.. but there usually isnt much left thats useable from a blood stain


RE: organ transplant
By integr8d on 7/16/2014 7:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
This is nothing but a preface for those a-holes wanting to be given the right to take remote control of people's cars... because turrists'.


RE: organ transplant
By Flunk on 7/16/2014 2:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
It will also reduce the need for organ transplants, but not on the same scale. Cloned organs are just around the corner anyway. Simple ones like the liver are likely only a few years away.


RE: organ transplant
By cknobman on 7/16/2014 2:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

Autonomous cars means better flowing traffic reducing congestion, fewer wrecks, and better use of our existing fuel supply.

This could mean less time spent in traffic, lower insurance rates, and cheaper fuel prices.

WIN, WIN, WIN

If it means a few more people die because of less organs being available for donating then its more than a fair trade. This world is already immensely over populated.


RE: organ transplant
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 2:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Autonomous cars means better flowing traffic reducing congestion, fewer wrecks, and better use of our existing fuel supply.


Only if 100% of all vehicles are autonomous, yes. Possibly.

Also autonomous cars aren't going to help with congestion as much as you would think. A lot of congestion is caused from have poorly designed roadways and highways. And also not having an adequate number of lanes for the given volume of traffic.

quote:
and cheaper fuel prices.


How are autonomous vehicles going to LOWER fuel prices exactly?


RE: organ transplant
By karimtemple on 7/16/2014 3:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
Long story short? By driving slower. lol. More accurately, by accelerating more efficiently, which in an oversimplified sense means slower acceleration than most people do.


RE: organ transplant
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 3:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
No I understand that, but hear me out. Using less fuel won't translate into "lower" fuel costs. If anything, prices will INCREASE to compensate.

Hell while he's at it, claim self driving cars will cure cancer!


RE: organ transplant
By karimtemple on 7/16/2014 4:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
Crude prices honestly have nothing to do with saturation. America has learned that lesson the hard way lol. Automated automotives would definitely lower fuel costs.


RE: organ transplant
By Bad-Karma on 7/16/2014 4:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not so much. Our fuel prices are primarily dictated by the commodities market. Should our demand go down our over supply simply gets redirected back onto the world market.
Most people don't realize it but a vast majority of crude coming out of AK is actually sent to Asian markets.

So Reclaimer is right, if you lower the demand, then the corporations will simply redirect the supply in an effort to maintain profits. So you really wouldn't see much changes in local prices.

That and you'd have to remember that when you crack the crude, you can re-distribute the bulk into other distillates. For example it takes a bit more refining to generate diesel then it does to say leave it for use as aviation fuel. Kerosene and is in that same category.
Another example if bunker diesel (think ships) It is so close to being raw crude that you actually have to heat it up just to get its viscosity to a point to push it through a pump.


RE: organ transplant
By boobo on 7/17/2014 4:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
But Asian markets will be switching to self-driving cars too.


RE: organ transplant
By hughlle on 7/17/2014 6:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
It is kinda economics 101. Supply and Demand.

And while it might be claimed by some that that doesn't happen in the USA, it sure as hell happens elsewhere in the world. UK government introduces home efficiency schemes (solar, new efficient boilers, loft insulation), the result is a huge drop in gas/electricity consumption, the knock on effect is a 20% rise in prices from one company, which is quickly followed by all companies. The same seems true with petrol in the UK. Car have become more efficient with clever diesel engines or hybrids, fuel just goes up and up.


RE: organ transplant
By Mint on 7/16/2014 8:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Lower fuel costs per mile are possible through efficiency.
Lower fuel costs per barrel are out of our control.

OPEC has the final say in fuel prices, because they control a decent share of the market and they self constrain production. If prices get low, they cut production, and vice versa. They could further cut maybe 10% of their production and send the price of oil to $150+/bbl, but they don't because such a price will rapidly spur alternatives like CNG, biofuels, EVs, etc.

It would take a loooot of new production or loss of demand for OPEC to stop colluding this way.


RE: organ transplant
By M'n'M on 7/16/2014 11:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By driving slower. lol. More accurately, by accelerating more efficiently, which in an oversimplified sense means slower acceleration than most people do

Huh ? I'll think you'll find that acceleration makes only a little difference these days. So long as you don't whack the go pedal followed by the brake (= stupid driving) there's not the penalty there was in the non 'puterized before FI days. An ICE runs more efficiently at WOT than it does elsewhere. Fuel enrichment to prevent "leaning out" is not what it was. The energy (= gas used) is the same to go from X mph to Y mph, independent of how long it takes. It all depends on the conversion efficiency.

The only way V2V saves gas and improves drive time is that it can reduce the stop'n'go inherent in traffic due to what a controls engineer would call "transport lag".

FWIW you can improve drive time via V2V by allowing cars to go faster but faster is less MPG and so I can only see bad things in the future if "we" allow Big Mama to make that decision for each and everyone of us, no matter our differing circumstances.


RE: organ transplant
By Philippine Mango on 7/17/2014 12:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
Saving fuel by driving at WOT would only work in a car that allowed independent control of the transmission and throttle, like a manual transmission. An automatic transmission will delay upshifting to redline when the accelerator is pushed to full throttle, hurting fuel economy. While WOT would reduce pumping losses, on cars that do not have wideband oxygen sensors, it typically runs less efficient than slightly before WOT as the narrow band o2 sensors are ignored during WOT- leading to fuel enrichment.


RE: organ transplant
By SlyNine on 7/16/2014 3:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because everyone thinks these cars are perfect, omnipotent drivers.

I think we wont see them for a long time. 15+ years at least.


RE: organ transplant
By SlyNine on 7/16/2014 3:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think we're still a long ways away from that.


RE: organ transplant
By Makaveli on 7/16/2014 6:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
lmao so true.

Like jesus chris I can put a bomb in the bottom of the soup in the cafeteria I guess we should ban it now.

NO soup for you!


meh
By Murloc on 7/16/2014 11:24:56 AM , Rating: 5
islamic terrorists have no problem driving the car themselves.
Others will just park it and walk away before making it explode.

As far crime goes, these cars respect the rules of the road so they won't go fast. That makes it easy for a police car that does not have to respect the rules to get to it.
If the car is driven manually, it will be like it is now.




RE: meh
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/16/2014 3:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure law enforcement will be able to shut down a car like they do with bait cars.


RE: meh
By boobo on 7/17/2014 4:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
They don't even need to shut it down. They can just stand in front of it and the car will stop.


RE: meh
By marvdmartian on 7/17/2014 8:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, that does sort of put you in lethal range of any bomb contained in the car. LOL

News flash, FBI: Drones can be fitted with bombs and missiles, too! Oh, wait! The federal government already does that, don't they??


Title
By NellyFromMA on 7/16/2014 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FBI Report Suggests That Self-Driving Cars Could Being Used as Rolling Bombs


Should be "Be" not "Being"




RE: Title
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/16/2014 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 4
It's been known for years that DailyTech lacks an editor to proofread these articles. Might as well get used to it.


RE: Title
By geekman1024 on 7/17/2014 4:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
What's the point of a proofreader since no one can ever edit a DailyTech post.


what
By Fanatical Meat on 7/16/2014 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
and cell phones can be used a detonators. We should be aware of this but I see far more benefit to people who are blind or even someone who is a repeat DUI offender make it so only the car can do the driving, old people that don't want to give up mobility but can no longer drive safely. The list is endless.




RE: what
By AssBall on 7/16/2014 1:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, vehicle will still just be a tool. McVeigh didn't need a robot car...

Using a vehicle illegally will be no different just because it is self driving.


Drive-by shootings
By roykahn on 7/16/2014 5:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
These cars can assist the local gangsters and mafia to perform the necessary task of drive-by shootings. They would only need one person for the task.




RE: Drive-by shootings
By shabby on 7/16/2014 7:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Poor gangster chauffeurs... they took our jerbs!


Redundancy nitpick
By ProZach on 7/16/2014 2:53:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Google unveiled its vision for the future of autonomous technology with a vehicle that lacks primary controls (i.e., no steering wheel) and can take you to your final destination with the push of a button.

"ALL destinations are final!" -G. Carlin




By Arsynic on 7/16/2014 1:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Allah needs to see the giblets. No giblets no unpopped cherries.




Of course
By SlyNine on 7/16/2014 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
They can forget the word could. They CAN be used that way. Its not like a suicide car has to be a perfect driver. It's not like the laws have to be in place. Otho it might help its chances for success.

But I'd say the sensors everywhere to help these autonomous vehicles drive would probably be used by the government to monitor suspicious activates and offset the risks.




Google CarBomb
By chromal on 7/16/2014 11:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's an interesting point, though I'm not sure it'd be the critical factor in making a car bombing scheme work or not.

Personally, and I'm surprised we haven't seen them _already_, would be personal-sized assassin drones, either armed with firearms or explosives...




That is called a "fear monger".
By Darksurf on 7/17/2014 1:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
You are scared of a "rolling bomb"? Seriously, RC cars, RC choppers, drones, actual cars with suicide bombers don't come to mind, but this does?

This is a stupid way to stunt the growth of technology due to the FBI's Fear Mongering. There are thousands of ways to blow things up, this changes nothing. FBI can shut it.




Alternatively...
By NellyFromMA on 7/17/2014 10:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
Alternatively, at least 7 out of 10 drivers on the road already are rolling-bombs. And no one knows where they are heading next.




Planes have autopilot too
By ArcliteHawaii on 7/17/2014 2:03:27 AM , Rating: 1
Well, we'd better get rid of planes before those things get too common. They've got autopilots allowing bad guys to multitask better. And some suicidal maniac might try to fly one into a building killing thousands of people.

We'd better lock that shit down before THAT happens.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki