Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Want An Automotive Tractor Beam
Barryke writes "According to The Observer, England is working on a remote control for cars to be used by the police. England's police force is lobbying to get a remote-control to stop other cars; this could also be used to limit speeds. Since needed technology is already available in modern cars, modification is very easy and cheap. But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch and use my speed to go downhill? Bet I'm in the hospital before they are!" Orwellian, or ... Californian?
Am I the only one wondering how long before there's an O'Reilly book on how to hack this? What animal would they put on the cover?
I can think of a couple of hacks to do:
1) Disable it
2) Stop other people's cars
Any other thoughts?
Harden your car against that system... and if the police are on your tail - hack some of the civilian cars behind you to cause a mass carambolage - instant getaway. Hackers heaven! I for one welcome our new remote controlling overlords!
This comment does not exist.
ok, it is bad style to reply to your own posts, but i have something to add on a more serious note. This may cause problems. In Germany, the police are known to cause artificial traffic jams on highways to stop people trying to get away in their cars. Several police cars occupy all lanes of the highway and start slowing down until a jam occurs. Nice thought... But up to now there were several deaths due to people crashing into the end of the so created traffic jam. And, note, the people affected were not the perps, but totally innocent ones who happend to notice the jam to late. I wonder if the proposed system might lead to similar occurences, which, in my humble opinion, are totally intolerable.
This comment does not exist.
This is absurd on so many levels.
I don't drive. Infact, I don't even have a drivers license.
Still I find this very disturbing. They don't even give examples where this would be usefull.
They simply want control.
There is no way in hell they could implement it so that it wouldn't be by-passable. How long it takes for someone to hack the fuel injection system of a new controller chip?
Then, the more dangerous area. How long does it takes someone to hack the signal to stop anyone they like?
Govermental (not saying which goverment mind you) projects are notoriously craptaliciously implemented at best. They take the cheapest bidder to desing the system.
Whee. Look ma, no hands.
*presses the button to transmit the cloned signal captured from a cop stopping a car*
They just want to herd the cattle, as they see people. Why not simply regulate driving alltogether and improve on public transportation instead?
Yes, Yes, I know public transportation isn't feasible everywhere. I live in Finland. We absolutely need cars to get around outside of the few cities.
Then the annoying stupid joke someone has already probably made: In Russia, Car drives YOU
HAAA-FUCKING-HAA... Very funny.
And now that I got all worked up, I'll conclude with: No, it ain't gonna fly. There ought to be some smart people who will point out flaws in whatever desing they come up and send it back to board untill time stops. It's just too dangerous.
Bot Assisted Blogging
Minority Report? They've seen the film and now want remote control over everones car! Bwahahaha
Thieves? Hardly. Now, add enough funding, some timers, a FUCKLOAD of power and the right power to the signal.. Think how bad 9/11 hit everyone. Now image a similar disaster, and all cars coming to an instant stop (or 100mph, which might be evn more fun.)
Then after that happens, we'll have another wave of PATRIOT acts, 'terrorism and privacy are bad' FUD, and any rights they left us with taken and replaced by more things like this to be exploited.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Well this will improve the chance of catching a previously stolen car. But if people want to speed or are planning a heist, or just don't like the idea of people remotely controlling their cars then they are going to disable it. It will probably stop the quick car thieves from stupid kids on drugs or the person who tends to speed.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
They do not exist, it not technically possible.
I am a UK Traffic Signals Engineer. The nearest thing you can have is a Bus Beacon, so the traffic signals see think you are a Bus and try to give you priority (a green signal) as soon as possible,
The bus beacons are becoming more sophisticated , so you have to know what Bus route number to emulate and how to emulate a empty Bus.
Even when you know the MIB its not practical, by the times you have reconfigured your Bus Beacon it will be a green signal anyway.
Don't they realise that this is THE THING to hack if you were a car-jacker! Anything that is supposed to be secure and in the public domain WILL be hacked. It will be the innocent public that have to suffer the newer types of criminality that will undoubtably occur with the introduction of this new technology.
Exactly. George Carlin pointed out years ago that car jackings came about due to car alarms, something like "F***ing yuppies couldn't bear to be without their precious bmw so they stuck an alarm on it, now the crooks just take them at gunpoint." How long til the crooks stop leaving the passengers behind (they could phone the cops and get the car shutdown) and just bring them along for the ride, maybe kill or maim them to keep them quiet.
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Could the National Security need some day be so great (threat is at Red ! for example) that it might be necessary to peep into millions of cars to identify the thousands of them carrying Almanacs, being stopped by tens of thousands of cops trying to figure out which one is "inappropriately" marked and highlighted.
One article I read while the alert systems was being introduced indicated that a "red" alert would basically enforce a police state - at least in populated areas. Curfews, stop and search of anybody in a public place, the whole works. Don't worry though, they'll only use it if necessary and if you're innocent you've nothing to fear, right?
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Look I'm all for finding ways of policing that don't end in needless death. But this is what we all feared would happen as Non-Lethal weapons started croping up.
There is no fear of using this!
Mass intrusion into your rights as an individual bassed soley because it "can be done" and because it "makes the job of law enforecment easier".
This is going to get more and more common as computers come to control everything. If those computers are mandated to obey master systems then imagine the kind of problems that could arise. Not only from hackers or common crooks that come to take advantage of the standardized technology, but how EASY it becomes to implement gov't controls into our lives. See: Patriot Act If this tech was in the public consiousness before 911 how long do you think it would take to make it a law?
I'm not advocating moving to the hills and shunning technology. What I am saying is that as the computer becomes the network, and the network finds it's way into everything, we have to start asking serious ethical questions like: What will this add to my life, and what will it take away? Is it worth it?
I would rather be ashes than dust!
according to The Guardian is the 1986 Vauxhall Belmont.
I can see the owners of those lining up to get one of these remote controllers fitted (not).
Newer vehicles are much less frequently stolen, presumably because it's getting much harder, what with improved central locking, engine management systems that mean you can't hot-wire the thing, and other anti-theft features. A spokesperson in the linked Guardian article is quoted as saying "it is virtually impossible to steal a new car without access to the correct keys."
I don't buy the argument that this remote control idea has much if anything to do with wanting to make it easier for police to stop joyriders. It won't help for the reasons above - joyriders don't, or simply can't steal the kinds of cars that have this technology on board.
It sounds to me like just another attempt to turn us all into good docile law-abiding consumers.
For any Rush fans out there, the future sounds all too familiar.
More mainstream than what? Automotive "hacking" has become so widespread that almost anyone who has a need and a few thousand dollars to spend on parts can "hack" their car's computer in every way imaginable.
I had to get a programmable (vs burning and soldering a new rom each time I changed the fuel or ign maps) ECU back when I added a turbo to my car.
Many of the best oem replacements are formerly what were known as "race computers" but are now often cheaper and much less complex than the stock computers they replace.
The "tractor beam" wont be stopping my car anytime soon, nor will it stop most of the cars out there capable of actually outrunning the police and their radios. And this doesnt even touch on cars that dont have extensive computerization like pre-efi Camaros. Daddy's camaro is probably carbeurated and uses a mechanical system for adjusting ignition timing. The cops would be better off just waiting for it to run out of gas.
"someone gets modded +5 insightful for pointing out problems that were probably discussed in the first meeting held by whoever is or might be working on this system."
Seriously, after the Diebold debacle, you still think that a government tech contract will be foolproof?
"A lot of people have keyless entry remotes for their car, and I've never heard of one of those being "hacked" to unlock someone's door."
Before shifting algorithms and encryption, they were routinely hacked with learning remotes and loggers. I think it took a couple of years before the technology had advanced to it's current state. However, it's usually considered to be quicker to slam the window with a sparkplug which is horrendously low-tech, but it works.
We aren't necessarily talking about something which is an enabling technology for car thieves, but instead creating a possible exploit. Seriously, I think you're playing devil's advocate, but the DMCA was created as a threat against people circumventing security, and some companies have tried to use this as a method of securing their faulty systems. This is a whole load of arse as an idea.
"Some policemen do abuse their power, and maybe giving them new toys will give them even more power to abuse, but this isnt a very convincing argument."
Go take a look at the number of people released from UK prisons over wrongful convictions. West Midlands serious crimes squad, for example. We still have people dying in custody over here. On the whole, the average copper is okay (I'm related to a couple), but it takes one or two to create a climate of complete distrust.
Recently one of the Soham liason officers was brought up on charges of peadophile porn.
"Even supposing that people would respond to this danger by arming themselves"
We don't have the option. Having something that can be considered a 'weapon' is grounds for immediate arrest.
"There is just a little too much "conspriracy theory" to this and too little reality for me to be convinced, because you must assume that the government has a far greater interest in being able to control people's cars than it has in protecting people."
Controlling people or protecting people? You consider that governments illegally bomb civilians because they want to protect the folks back home? Do governments fear donkeys as a delivery system, or possible strangleholds on the natural resources that they consume?
Government is an organ for extending national interests, not protecting people; otherwise you'd see some really coherent healthcare systems put in place that could handle urban tuberculosis outbreaks.
The basic point is that they're trying to introduce a number of ludicrous 'security' polices in the UK that could drag us back to the 80's when we did our hysterical 'terrorist' checks. When the police were used as a method of social moderation rather than keeping the peace, the British rioted; personally I'd rather not see that again because it was ludicrous, but we know a police state when one is being assembled.
There has been a recent spate of violent robberies (with firearms) in my area of the UK; we're bloody rural...rather than try to increase police coverage (cars are administered from 20 miles away), they're trying to increase the number of cameras. Cameras are run by private concerns under the control of the council, and they're usually playing it fast and loose with regard to the law themselves. Tell me, who do you get arrested when a council breaks the law? What happens when a government breaks international law?
You're right when you suggest that this could be conspiracy theory territory, but you're going to need to look into the UK to see the background behind this particular civil nightmare.
It's probably never going to come to fruition, as stopping a car under power is going to have to meet a number of conditions, but the fact that it's been asked for is an indicator of police thinking.
A lot of people have keyless entry remotes for their car, and I've never heard of one of those being "hacked" to unlock someone's door
Bollocks: Almost all alarms (even the most advertised ones) have been hacked. You simply leave in the wrong country. Just go somewhere east of the ex-iron curtain. When I lived there the neigbours in the same office block used to make a living off it as well as hackig ECUs, trip computers and other similar annoyances that show that the car has been driven for 300000 miles, not 30000 as is written on the fake documents.
Actually, hacking almost all of them is very simple because very few have a real challenge/responce and almost all are transmit only which forces them to have backdoors in the rolling code which allow resetting code sequence. If they did not, you would not have been able to use the spare keys because they are never at the same sequence number as the ones you normally use. Actually do the experiment for yourself. Use only one set of keys for a week and try the other one. You will notice a considerable delay before the alarm turns off. It is due to the keyfob going into reset-sequence mode. The sequence transmitted in the reset sequence mode on all but the most expensive "double rolling code" alarms is almost always the same. All you need is to jam the keyfob while doing normal transmission and record the reset sequence. Bingo. You are in.
But I'm told that if you lose the remotes for your car, the dealer can replace them
Bollocks again. Since 1995-1997 in order to replace keys on almost all cars I can think of, you need to bring both your car and your keys to the dealer. You cannot just ask for new keys if they have a built in key in chip immobilizer. Basically the dealer has to put the ECU into a special learning mode and it has to remember the codes for the keys. It is not secure, but in order to do it you have to have:
1. Same key (mechanically)
2. Tools to switch the ECU into learning mode. For anything besides Daihatsu this requires hooking it up the external diagnostic module that costs a little fortune and is issued only to authorized dealership (Daihatsu sells you a special key with the car that does that).
3. The keys available for programming while the ECU is in learning mode.
I can continue throuh the bollocks you have written, but dude. You seriously need a clue.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
You've either been unbelievably lucky in your driving to date, you're lying about even having a license yet, or you lead a very, very sheltered life.
ASCII Art:
Why don't you now explain to me (o) how, as idiot1 (i) is merging left without a clue and idiot2 (x) who has just merged IMMEDIATELY behind me, I am supposed to avoid hitting anyone without accelerating? I see one opening there, and it's directly ahead of me. Given that nobody is ahead of me, all other avenues of escape are blocked, and I have a split second before the merging moron crashes into my side, what would you suggest? And as an added bonus, the moron that merged behind me WAS STILL ACCELERATING because they were trying to swerve into the far lane to cut off (d). They barely missed swiping me in the process.If a kid is flying directly at the side of my car on a one lane street (that means "no swerving without hitting parked cars" in case your sheltered driving experience has never taken you into such an area), why don't you explain to me how to avoid him without speeding up? Swerving is not an option as it's one lane. Slowing down ensures that he slams into my car since he's already on a vector to hit it. So what would YOU do oh brilliant one?
And, I'm sorry for the ad hominem here, but, you are a TOTAL IDIOT. NOBODY in their right fucking mind would "tap their brakes" to "scare" a tailgating trucker. That's surefire suicide. I don't know if you've ever dealt with a trucker with an attitude, but they are not even remotely concerned with running your ass over. They're in a vehicle that could roll over you like a tin can and all they'd temporarily get is a slighter rougher ride. On top of that, if they're right on your ass, THEY CAN'T SEE YOUR TAILLIGHTS. If YOU want to risk your life and the lives of your passengers by "tapping your brakes to scare them" be my guest. I'll be sure to remember you for the statistic you become.
I've been in ONE accident, never caused one. The one accident I was in was caused by my "defensive driving" (ignoring, of course, the fact that speeding up to avoid an accident is a defensive manuever). If I'd have sped up instead of trying to swerve around the oncoming car that t-boned me by running out of a driveway without looking or even slowing, I'd have not been hit.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
You miss the point - the guy merging at your speed and oblivious to you is going to impact you unless *you* get out of the way - if *you* feel it's unsafe to slow down because the guy behind is driving far too closely and *you* no longer have an option of increasing your speed to keep yourself (and everyone else around) safe then what do you think is going to happen?
But I guarantee, it will cause at situation where a desperate person who viewed their only option as evading, who is now sitting in an otherwise dead vehicle, to open fire and cause a deadly force situation from the police.
...because it sounded like it was the police's fault that they're not allowing him to evade. The choice was always to surrender. If an idiot is stupid enough to open fire on the police, that's his fault, noone else's. If he's pinned down in a dead car, it'd be even more stupid than normal. If they already decided it was necessary to cut the car's engine, I imagine the cops' approach would be extremely cautious.
What's next, it's ok to knock a cop out, because he didn't let you run away on foot? Also, it wouldn't make much sense to kill a cop and then take off, in order to avoid it getting shut down. Unless you take out all the cops (usually at least in pairs), you'll quickly find your car dead anyway, and you won't see much mercy from those converging on you then...
Now let's say that he could try to evade. Either he succeeds, which is a big bummer for the police - getting away with it only inspires him to do it again, and more to do the same. Never mind that he'd never be punished for whatever crime caused him to evade. Or he fails, at which point you're no better off than before. After a car chase he could still open fire.
I'm not so worried about the proper legal uses for such a device. What I'm worried about would be all the possibilities for abuse, both by the government, car-jackers and other various idiots.
Btw, even if you don't know the signal, this would require your vechicle to listen for some sort of signal. Wouldn't something like an EMP blast fry this system, even if you don't know the code? You can easily find the resonance frequency of the antenna, and up close, like at the roadside and directed at the road, it really shouldn't take much power to do. Then what? Will your car stop? Or does nothing happen? I'd like to know...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why waste time with this car crap and other social control issues? Why not go to the root of the problem and make it mandatory for all citizens to have an electronic implant with tracking, data/bill collection and remote lockout or better yet, kill switch? Now you can prevent all sorts of nasty social issues right at the root!
27b-6