Shaikh Sultani
Gerald Scott CST 373 20 May, 2017 cybersecurity in autonomous vehicles Since the introduction of personal computers and all the incredible technology that has followed out ever increasing reliance on computer systems and the internet has managed to make us more vulnerable to the nefarious hackers of the world. With this reliance on computers, and the internet our need for cybersecurity is at an all time high. Not just with computers themselves being at risk, but in every day items that requires a computer to run it (which now seems like everything around us) cars, phones, watches, tv’s, planes, and more. With automobiles needing computers to drive, and now having technology give vehicles the ability to drive almost autonomously, using computers almost exclusively to do so, they become more and more vulnerable to a cyber attack. As the focus of the tech world leans more towards a more autonomous vehicle in the coming future, vehicle has been made stronger, and along with the security more ethical concerns to go with it. Such being the case with the farmers in the midwest and their autonomous John Deere tractors. In America’s heartland, where the main business is agriculture, farmers are growing more and more frustrated as they are unable to properly access the autonomous tractors that they have purchased from John Deere in order to increase productivity, only to find out how unproductive the machine can get. These machines have the capability to steer themselves while doing the work that would normally require a human to do, using three technologies: GPS, automation, and sensing. By having someone map out the path the tractor needs to take on a separate computer, the human does not need to be fully a part of the automation process. Allowing them to be nearby, to keep an eye out for the tractor, working one some other needs that require attention, making farming, a bit more productive and streamlined. But when a component of the tractor breaks down, needs repair or replacement, thats where the vehicles cybersecurity, and the John Deere license agreement, which farmers are forced to sign, frustrates the farmers. This license agreement not allowing these farmers to make any “unauthorized” repairs. The license agreement saying that almost all repairs and modification are not allowed to be done, all the while the farmers are not allowed to sue John Deere for any loss in crops, profits, or use of equipment due in any part to the software. Any break in the licensing agreement, and these farmers open themselves up to be sued by the company (Koebler, 2017). This agreement doesn't allow these farmers any freedom with their purchased tractors. If it breaks down, they cannot fix the problem themselves or go to a repair shop down the street. And even if they were to do any repairs or modifications, the software on the tractor would need an authorization key, one that requires a service technician to come out to the tractor to plug into the onboard computer, and authorize it, all the while the farmer is paying per the hour. With this being the case, the farmer is not only losing out on time, time that is essential in farming certain crops, but also losing tons of money since technicians aren't always available right away. This all leading to a fear from many of the farmers, that John Deere can shut down the tractor whenever they wanted, without the farmer being able to do anything about it. This has prompted the farmers to turn to an unlikely source, eastern European hackers. These hackers have been able to crack the software, allowing anyone to have authorization whenever without having to wait for a service technicians. All that is required is to pay a one time fee to this hackers, and they have the key for the rest of their the tractors lifespan. There are two clear parties that are involved in this ethical case; John Deere, a big corporation, and the farmers that own John Deere autonomous tractors. We live in a country where capitalism is at the heart of the very nation itself. So with a nation that is big on capitalism, it the right of John Deere to do whatever it can, and wants, within legal reason, to make the most money it can. In the capitalist system, the best and quite frankly the at times most selfish will make the most money. It is the responsibility of everyone at that company in order to make the company money. In this case, they have the right to have a monopoly on the autonomous vehicle repair, to make money by making it impossible for anyone other than their company to fix the tractors, and to make the farmers sign an agreement to not allow them to fix the tractor themselves. In order to pay all of the workers who are a part of making the machines, design them, advertise them, sell them and so forth, but also have a responsibility to all of the shareholders and investors that have a stake in the company. Their values are as follows, integrity, quality, commitment, and innovations (John Deere, n.d.). On the other side of the issue are the farmers of America who have purchased the autonomous vehicles for use on their farms. Such with the big businesses like John Deere, these farmers also thrive on the capitalism system. They have the right to run their businesses how they please, make money however they can. It is also their right as consumers to be able to do whatever they please with the products they have purchased and have proof of ownership. Everyone who has paid in full for a product has a right to do with that product what they will. Their responsibilities include farming, producing products in a timely manner, and having products that the American consumer will enjoy. Their values include that of pricing quality, usually family, and commitment. So both these parties both have very similar goals, values, and responsibilities the only difference is the size and amount of money each company makes. When looking at the ethical issues going on with these two parties involved there is a breach of ethics from both sides. The easiest breach of ethics comes from the farmers side of thing. By turning to hackers who reside thousands of miles away in order to help them to break the license agreement by illegally hacking into the software in order to get around having to wait for service technicians every time a problem arises. Not only is this illegal, since the license agreement is a legal document, but the farmers are using a ethical approach to deciding to pursue this action. When analyzing this decision to turn to illegal hacking, we know this decision to do this does not come lightly. Because of the license agreement they were made to sign, they can open themselves up to being sued by John Deere if they break it, and they clearly break the agreement by cracking the software. But if this decision were to be broke down through a ethical viewpoint, we can see that the farmers are thinking about this through a “Rights Approach”. The rights approach defined as “This approach stipulates that the best ethical action is that which protects the ethical rights of those who are affected by the action” by Brown University Ethical department. This definition shows that the farmers believe that their ethical rights are being taken for granted, that because they do not have the ability to fix their own tractors when they break own, since they have the ownership of the tractor it is their right to fix if themselves if they so please. On the other side of the issue is the ethical breach done by John Deere. This breach being, John Deere is not allowing the consumer full rights when it comes to its products it sells. Although, like it was mentioned before, they have the right to charge for services that they deem necessary in order to make some money. But looking at this decisions through a ethical framework, we see that John Deere clearly has a “Self-interest” ethics, or the “Egoistic approach”. This framework defined as “…an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” by the same Brown University Ethics department. This company is clearly looking out for themselves when they implement this sort of monopoly on the tractor when it comes to fixing it. Does making the farmers pay for a technician to authorize certain repairs and parts before the tractor is functional help the farmers in any way? No, it does not. Is there any reason for them to be charging extra? No, it doesn't either. So this clearly is all done for the monetary gain that the company will get by implementing such agreements and repair restrictions. Resorting to hackers is the course of action that is being taken by the farmers, but there is two other options that could potentially help ease some of the issues going on. The first option being to work hard to get bills passed in legislature to prevent companies such as John Deere from having so much monopoly over these services. By implementing this course of action, the farmers would be able to take back control over their purchased equipment. Another positive effect of this course of action would be that not only John Deere would have to stop the monopoly over the services, but it would stop any other company later on from trying to do the same. But with the good, comes bad, and this course of action brings some bad with it. If John Deere were to stop these services, they will most undoubtedly lose money. If they lose money, then that has a potential to dip into the type of products they have to offer. Maybe this money they make from the services goes into research and development, that allows products such as the autonomous tractor to come to be. A second option that could be implemented is having John Deere still offer these services, but instead of selling them for every time they offer a type of key for the software for a one time fee. This allowing farmers to get more control over their tractors, while still making money. This option would allow both sides of the issue to get something out of this. The company of John Deere would still make money off of the service, albeit not as much, and the farmers would not have to pay for a service technician to come to their farm every time a piece needs to be fixed to authorize it. This gives the power back to the farmer, allowing them to fix their tractors themselves, and then authorize the fix to get right back to work. If the decision to choose a course of action were up to me, it would be clear to me that the best opinion to take is the first one, work to find a way to get a bill that prevents big companies from making these type of services required, and making it illegal to make fixes on your own tractor. I believe that the consumer has the right to do what he will to his own purchased product. I know that if people were told that they cannot work on their own cars, personal vehicles, or do any type of modifications unless its all done by the manufacture themselves, then it would not go over well with anyone. Everyone has the right to do with their own products what they will. Not many people like to go to a manufacturer garage to get their car fixed, it is always much more expensive for something that you could either do yourself, if you have the knowledge, or have your trusted mechanic do. So by taking this course of action you give the power back to the farmer in this case. By giving them full power, you give them full access to their machine. To get past the security software in place. This gives them the right to do anything they want without the risk of being sued, or loosing out on the crops that would be destroyed due to lack of farming in time. With autonomous vehicles becoming more of a norm in everyday life, the idea of a autonomous tractor is strange to the everyday man. Perhaps this is why John Deere has such strong cybersecurity that does not allow farmers to get the full access to their purchased vehicle. I believe that the consumer has the right to have full control over his or her own vehicle, to allow them to do with it what they will. Not to have to ask permission to make repairs every time something happen. It is the right of the farmers, sometimes stronger cybersecurity isn't the best approach. When it comes to hurting what is the backbone of the economy, no one really benefits. References
0 Comments
Just one decade ago lots of people in the world might not have have thought about all the new technology that is coming or is already made for public use being a part of our lives. Technology like self driving cars, personal devices with fingerprint security, or cell phones with faster processors than what was available at that time. But we are now even at a time when a computer is able to imitate someone voice after listening to the void after one minute! How crazy is that! According to the article Speech-imitating algorithm can steal your voice in 60 seconds, a Canadian based startup named Lyrebird has done just that.
Now I have heard some of the samples of the audio that they are up with, using Obama, Trump and Hilary Clinton as examples, and its obvious that these voices aren't the real thing. You can immediately hear the digital accent in the voices, but you can tell who the voice is trying to be. It sounds just like the robot version of each of the political figures. Its scary how they get the tone, and pitch of someone by using just the computer to analyze the voices in one minute. Although, it is a beta so far so knowing that they can go so much further with the technology is impressive. I have some mixed emotions, mostly amazed by this, but at the same time, some worry has come out form this news. With new ways to secure things like your bank account, one can see how this technology can cause some concern. If you secure your account by using voice recognition or something of the same sort, this technology can be potentially used to get into such accounts. And that would be all bad. This makes me think of all those spy movie, or bank heist movies where someone has super high tech protecting the valuables, with fingerprint analysis, retina display, and voice and speech recognition and people using some sort of computer tech to get into all of those. Now thats all possible! Well almost, but now those movies are more a reality than ever. I think this new technology is really awesome, i think that technology is fascinating and I'm definitely in the right field of study. When you buy a car, motorcycle, or basically anything that might require some sort of repair in the future, you would expect to be able to do your own repairs on the car if you're so mechanically inclined. But also, seeing as how expensive car repairs can be, and how much authorized dealerships charge, its safe to assume many people would go to their own trusted mechanic who would charge a fraction of the price while doing a good job repairing the car. But for rural farmers in America they are not able to do any of these things anymore when it comes to their John Deere tractor that they need to do their farm work as it says in the article Farmers are hacking their tractors so they can actually fix them. These tractors are now automated, I know it surprised me also, automated to do some of the driving, tilling, or just tractor jobs without a driver controlling it. But when these tractor break down, no one but a authorized John Deere representative may fix the tractor. Basically this rep has to insert some sort of key to allow authorization to be able to fix the truck, no matter how small the problem in the tractor. And this effects the bottom line for the farmers, since these reps sometimes can’t get there on time, and since farming is timely work, the farmers loose a lot of money. Plus, the fix is expensive as well.
This is not fair at all, in my opinion if you pay to own something then you have the right to do anything you want to that item you own. Whether that means you want to drive it off a cliff to see if the tractor flies, or just to change the timing belt because thats the repair that is needed to fix the tractor. So of course if you cant do the fixing yourself on your owned product, you're going to find a way around that. In this case, by turning to European hackers to sell you key to the tractors software to fix the tractor themselves. I know I would pay a one time fee to fix my own car, than have to wait for someone to come fix my car, all the while paying for the time the rep is there, and for the repair itself, when I could do the fixing in a fraction of the time. What would you do? I know turning to “Illegal” hackers to hack my car is the way I would go. Over the last year or two the possibility of a fully autonomous vehicle has become more and more of a reality. We have companies like Google, Uber, and Tesla leading the way with their technology that is now starting to be more autonomous, although there still needs to be a driver present. As exciting as this might be, with new technology comes new problems, and these cars are giving people some worry about them. One of the problems that comes with autonomy is cybersecurity. A autonomous car is basically a giant computer on wheels. And computers are not impenetrable, they are subject to hacking. This is one of the problems with computers, there is always a way to hack one, and a car would be no different.
In the past year or so, there have been people who have showed that they can get into autonomous cars, but also connected cars. And because of this people have been fearful of the new technology that is coming out. When someone broke into a jeep a while ago, the car company had to recall a lot of their cars when they found out about this. Another researcher showed that they could access a Tesla computer and showed they could stop the car. This is all prompting a fearful response from the masses. But as one reported for Scientific American has reported in the article Why Car Hacking is Nearly Impossible , these are all isolated incidents and at this moment its not possible to a car to be hacked and there is no need for the fear…yet. I guess you could say I am biased towards autonomous cars, especially Tesla, just because I love the company. And you could say I agree with the article because I Just want Tesla to be successful. But while that may be the case, I also see the points being made in this article. First off, the technology is still relatively young. Autonomous cars have not been around long enough for people to be able to hack a car at will, at the press of a button, without having a team of experts working on it for a long time. It is also unrealistic that someone can hack a car from thousands of miles away. All the stories of people hacking a car are all isolated as I've said before, all the cars that were hacked into, the people doing the hacking had the cars for a while and were physically being tinkered with and hacked into. So, while there are risks involved, as in with any new piece of tech, at the moment there is no danger to be had. There is till plenty of time for car manufactures to protect the cars more. In my ethics class, it was made to relate to our subject of study, computer science and communication design. Or, just ethics in technology. It’s safe to say that everyone in the class knows about working in the technology industry, and more specifically in the silicon valley. If you were to ask the class where a lot of the workforce comes from, most would say that immigrants are a good amount of the workforce. I would definitely agree with them, with more an more immigrants coming in to join the tech workforce all the time. They are good workers, they are very knowledgeable, and they probably don't require higher salaries than most citizen workers. I have seen the amount of foreign workers are in silicon valley at this very moment, being from Palo Alto I was in the heart of the silicon valley. I would always see many foreign people walking around, speaking different languages in and around Palo Alto.
After reading the article How Trump Is Helping Canada Beat America by Salim Teja, I have come to see that the silicon valley is potentially going to lose its nickname, only to be replaced by another tech hub in Canada’s Toronto. With Trump being elected to office, and his immigration ban, the immigrant workforce in the tech industry has taken a bit of a hit, by directly stopping workers from coming to work, and by deterring potential workers to find a new country to work in. With workers choosing to go to Canada, and current silicon valley works potentially leaving to go to a more open country, it would leave a lack of innovation in the valley. It would affect our economy, and give Canada a boost to be a better. In the silicon valley most companies now were founded by immigrants, and some are even run by immigrants. With this happening we can kiss any potential money, and innovation goodbye. It’s a problem that we need to figure out, for without fixing this we will lose on some talent that we would need. I’m sure that everyone in ethics can attest to knowing people, or of people doing drugs all while teens in middle or high school. It is not uncommon to have teens start doing drugs around these times. But recent reports, as it states in the article by the New York Times Are Teenagers Replacing Drugs With Smartphones? , there has been a decrease in drug usage in teens between the ages of 12 - 18. And the reason, at least the reason that has been thought of and discussed in the article is the increased usage of smartphones.
As someone who is into new technology, and keeps up with new technology trends, I can see that smartphone usage has increased in the past 10 years. With the new technology that each new phone boasts, and the software and apps that keep coming out, it is hard to put down or be without your smartphone. I know I am that way, my smartphone is my life, I don't go anywhere without it and protect it from ever falling or being lost. Without my phone, I would be lost, and I'm sure millions of others, mainly teens, can say the exact same thing. Now, smartphones are a relatively new technology, so research on the effects of smartphone usage are still yet to be seen. But there are some people who believe that with social media, games, and other apps, smartphones provide a similar euphoric effect as drugs on the brain. Not only that, but it could also be the dependency and the time spent on the phone that is driving down drug usage in teens. By spending time on their phones, they don't spend time doing drugs. But in my opinion, too much smartphone usage could be almost as bad as doing drugs. Having a dependency on your phone, could cause an addiction to it. Also, with the amount of social media being used, a psychological effect could happen. Living in a digital world could effect the personalities of individual, causing for antisocial effects. Although I do think too much smartphone usage isn’t any better than doing drugs, I do think it is better than doing drugs, for all the sense that makes. I do not see a decrease in smartphone usage since there is always going to be new technology for it that makes people want to use it. So, I guess smartphone is a better drug than actual drugs. At least smartphone’s don't make people make somewhat questionable choices at times. Recently Uber has been a part of some controversies that has hurt the company, and could possibly lose valuation. One specific controversy that has come up recently is the accounts of a former Uber software engineer Susan Fowler, who has gone to tell about her experience working at Uber for a year and the sexual harassment she endured while not being helped by he companies HR office. It is sad to hear that she had faced sexual harassment from her team manager, and even worse to hear that upon notifying HR she was told he wouldn't get in trouble since it was his first time, and that he is also a performer. By a performer, it means that he works well and his higher ups have really good things to say about him. Its ridiculous to know that these companies don't care about a person, rather they would prefer to keep someone all because he is “valuable”. It gives these people the power to feel as thought they can do whatever they want, that the are “untouchable”. She was only given the choice to move to another team, and not have to see him, or stay on with him but he could give her a bad performance review.
She later moved to another team, and encountered other female engineers who told her that they had similar encounters with the same manager. But were also told they can’t do anything since its his first offense. It’s ridiculous how people who can help with someones bottom line, they can’t get “in trouble” or punished because they are “performers”. It’s special treatment thats unwarranted when it comes down to situations like sexual harassment. It kind of makes of think about the sports, how someone on a team in the NFL or baseball team can get in trouble with the law, can get away with a small fine and some game suspensions, sometimes even being cut by a team. Only to get picked up by another team and still make tons of money and not be punished like every day people, unless its such an offense such as killing someone or something that the law really can’t avoid or look past. We need to stop the culture of looking past offense like sexual harassment in this case, all because it involves someone makes you money, or you like them for someone reason. When I think about personal digital assistants, such as Alexa or Siri, I think of new ways to help life for the users to get easier and even more fun. At least thats what I and my sister have thought ever since she got Alexa from work and she’s been playing around with its voice commands. I think many people might agree with that. At least that is what these digital assistants are supposed to be doing. What they are not to be doing is listening to personal conversations, recording, and being kept and stored by the companies that have sold these devices. That is one of the bigger problems that Democracy Now has pointed out in its interview with Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has brought up. A problem that my dad has vehemently pointed out every time we yell a “Hey Alexa” voice command in the house, “That’s how they get you”, and “Now they can listen to your conversations and everything we say in the house”. It is not really clear as too who “they” is, but one can only assume he means all the companies that sell these assistants, and he probably thinks they can give this info to anyone who asks for it (the government).
Its very scary to know that companies like Google can have these technologies in our homes, possibly be recording and saving our private conversations, and have the ability to give them over to not only law enforcement for criminal investigations, but other circumstances not relating to that. And in the interview Rotenberg says in the interview how these companies aren't giving us the information as to how these technologies work and when they are recording, or exactly what information is being kept by them through these technologies. I, for one now am worried and are more wary about these technologies that soon will be even more readily available to bring into our personal lives. It is unfortunate that we cannot really trust these companies to be honest about that information, since we use so many of their products that aren't digital assistants. It is also unfortunate that although we aren't against getting better and better technology, we need to be more wary about the technology that is going to be a big part of our lives in the coming years. This does pose a question, especially with Trump wanting many pro domestic surveillance members in his cabinet, as too should we really be buying into the whole personal digital assistants? While reading the article, or blog How Much Lying Is Acceptable Online? that comes from a dating self-help type website of dating coach Evan Marc Katz, I could not help but think about how true everything Katz has said.
Someone wrote in asking how much lying is okay while online dating, the writer said that men had lied about age, height, or even about jobs. She’s okay with small little lies, such as adding an inch or two to your height, or a picture of them a few years prior, but she wants to know at what point does it go too far. Before reading this I had not thought about any other reasons as to why someone might lie, other than they think it'll get them what they want. In this case, a date, or a hookup. But in the blog Katz goes on to make a point that the people who lied about such things on dating websites are probably just insecure. And this is something I have never thought about. Although its still lying for selfish reason, they are lying to be able to get their foot in the door with potential dates. In this day and age we do live in a very superficial time. A lot of people, both men and women, have to compete for the attention of potential dates on dating sites. But these people aren't lying for nefarious reason usually, they lies because if they list that they are 5’8” women might never even think too look twice at these guys all because they are an inch or two away from someones perfect height. But these shorter guys could be their perfect match, and potentially someone who they could marry. Now, I am not someone who is a big fan of lying, or condone it in any way. But I do know where these people who are lying are coming from. They just want to have a chance to be seen for their personalities and not for the superficial reason they post on a dating site. But the internet has become a medium for rejection, and superficial activities. It has made it easy to find people purely on physical aspects. This makes it harder to meet someone for who they are, and only be seen for what they look like. Plus, for men and women who are older, they can’t find someone who wants to date them because the people who these older people are likely to date, are looking for people who are younger. So while lying about their age a bit may not be the most ethical thing to do, it is for purely emotional reasons, to get a chance. Usually when one thinks of an autonomous car, one only thinks about our society becoming a science fiction future, having driverless capabilities while not having to drive themselves. I have also been guilty of thinking of only these possibilities of an autonomous car future. But recently I have read about in ethics, has opened my mind up to a slightly different point of view for autonomous cars. Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse by Ian Adams and Anne Hobson highlights the issue of an organ shortage going on. Although its only a fraction of the United State’s population, roughly 123,000 people are in need of organs.
One stat that jumps out, is the 32000 lives that autonomous cars would save. A good amount, seeing as that in 94% of car accidents are of human error, it is good to see that there is something good coming out of it. How could something negative come out of something that is also so positive? You're saving lives, but at the same time you are also preventing other lives from getting saved. Even though organ donors make up 1 out of 5 organ donations from car accidents, it might bring up the question about how ethical would it be to allow the technology of autonomous cars to come to be. With these stats, it is definitely an issue that will arise. With this issue comes question as to where would new organ donors come from? I don't think it would be too far out of the question to assume that some illegal activities in how organs be obtained would rise. I even think that it would become a whole money issue. The small amount of organs available, would be part of a bidding type war. Where only the rich and influential would be able to have access to donor organs. Now while this does sound like an bad future issue, I don't believe that it is of any direct fault of autonomous cars. Autonomy is part of the future, a way of moving forward and making the lives of many much better. It is almost impossible to make everyone happy no matter what problem is being fixed. |
Shaikh SultaniJunior at CSUMB studying Computer Science with a Software Engineering concentration. Archives
April 2017
Categories |