When Should Cops Be Allowed To Take Control of Self-Driving Cars?

HughPickens.com writes: A police officer is directing traffic in the intersection when he sees a self-driving car barreling toward him and the occupant looking down at his smartphone. The officer gestures for the car to stop, and the self-driving vehicle rolls to a halt behind the crosswalk. This seems like a pretty plausible interaction. Human drivers are required to pull over when a police officer gestures for them to do so. It's reasonable to expect that self-driving cars would do the same. But Will Oremus writes that while it's clear that police officers should have some power over the movements of self-driving cars, what's less clear is where to draw the line. Should an officer be able to do the same if he suspects the passenger of a crime? And what if the passenger doesn't want the car to stop—can she override the command, or does the police officer have ultimate control?

According to a RAND Corp. report on the future of technology and law enforcement "the dark side to all of the emerging access and interconnectivity (PDF) is the risk to the public's civil rights, privacy rights, and security." It added, "One can readily imagine abuses that might occur if, for example, capabilities to control automated vehicles and the disclosure of detailed personal information about their occupants were not tightly controlled and secured."

Comments

The cars can detect gestures.

[romco]

After watching this video Im pretty sure the cars can detect gestures to pull over.

As the car is doing the driving it should follow the demands of a police officer (as opposed to the passenger) although Im sure it will be hacked around at some point.

https://www.ted.com/talks/chri...

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the car can detect gestures.

How does it detect a police officer?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[kyrsjo]

How do you (or another human driver) detect a police officer?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[loonycyborg]

By uniform. But any criminal can acquire a uniform and unlike a human driver an automated system can't resist orders given by a criminal that would jeopardize driver's safety.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree that it should always follow the demands of the police. Maybe that's the default behavior, but the driver should have the ability to easily override this behavior. Sometimes people pose as the police in order to car jack and burglar a person. If the person can tell the difference or suspects it, they should be fully within their rights to override it, and suffer the consequences if they are wrong. And the police already have tools for stopping a car that doesn't want to stop, so it's not like it's an ability they *must* have.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people can't tell the difference between an officer and a criminal dressed like an officer. This is why its illegal to impersonate an officer.

Have an 'override' or 'emergency' button that maybe drives you to the closest police station.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[jabuzz]

Don't know about where you live but failure to stop for a Police man/woman is an offence in the U.K. That is if an officer of the law indicates you should pull over you better dam well pull over otherwise you are facing a 5000GBP fine and a discretionary ban. Why on earth anyone thinks that a self driving car should be any different to a human driven car is really beyond me.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, really? Maybe the police could have some kind of "badge" that's hard to forge, and which the automated system can detect. If only we had some kind of digital signature technique which was robust and well understood.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes people pose as the police in order to car jack and burglar a person. If the person can tell the difference or suspects it, they should be fully within their rights to override it, and suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

Sometimes people pose as the police in order to car jack and burglar a person. If the person can tell the difference or suspects it, they should be fully within their rights to override it, and suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

Sometimes people pose as the police in order to car jack and burglar a person. If the person can tell the difference or suspects it, they should be fully within their rights to override it, and suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

You clearly did not read that part, so I figured I'd repeat it for you.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Mattcelt]

I disagree vehemently with the assumption that police should individually have control over vehicles once they've become automated.

Police have control over vehicles now primarily to stop the behaviour of drivers who are breaking motor vehicle laws. At least conceptually, self-driving vehicles should not break any laws, removing this incentive.

Self-driving cars will also be networked, providing central command-and-control capability on an infrastructure level. So for those situations where vehicle movements need to be regulated (construction, etc.), the central authority will handle modifications to ordinary traffic patterns and flow.

There are two completely irrelevant pieces of information in the summary. 1) "the occupant looking down at his smartphone". Why would this matter? And 2) the person being 'barrelled' towards is a police officer. It shouldn't matter who is at that end - the vehicle should recognise a living being and react accordingly. That is or is not police makes no difference.

I can't think of a valid reason an individual LEO should be allowed control of an individual self-driving vehicle, ever. There is simply too much potential for abuse.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not an offense in the USA. and probably isn't in the UK either.

If a drivers is told to "pull over" by a police officer, the driver is permitted to drive to a "safe" place -- police station, firehouse, lighted area, etc.
A driver is not required to stop in a dangerous place (curve, drop-off shoulder, construction, etc.).
This is "common sense" and happens all the time in the USA.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

We had issues here in Lincoln Nebraska about a month or two ago with someone driving around and attempting to pull over cars. In both instances the drivers refused to stop, and were praised by the local police because of it. The rule here is town is the police will not attempt to pull you over in an unmarked car, and if they do you are to drive to a well lit well populated area, or drive to the closet police station.

Having cars automatically pull over because they see red and blue lights is DANGEROUS, and will result in innocents being raped and murdered.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Kohath]

Automate the cop. The car can drive by itself, but traffic control at the intersection needs a human?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[silas_moeckel]

At most it should go "I see a cop trying to pull us over should i call 911 for you?" aka the same thing I tell my child to do.

In any event the person in the vehicle needs to be able to quickly override the computer's or 2 people can corner any car to carjack it.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst, here's a dirty little secret. Sometimes automated stuff breaks or malfunctions.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[sjames]

In the U.S. many police departments suggest that women (and sometimes men) should go to a well lighted area rather than pull over immediately.

Sometimes it is also suggested that you call the P.D. to make sure it's really a cop before you pull over.

It seems very risky to have a car automatically pull over in the middle of nowhere when signaled, particularly when police have put such a warning out. At the least, the car should allow the passenger to override.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[knightghost]

That could work. Police need the ability to pull over a car - it's a function of their job. However, the other questions are irrelevant to automated cars, instead general questions of search and seizure.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Talderas]

I can't think of a valid reason an individual LEO should be allowed control of an individual self-driving vehicle, ever. There is simply too much potential for abuse.

The vehicle was used to flee the scene of a crime.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[nitehawk214]

I suppose it doesn't need to. The car would stop if any person was just standing in the road. No need for gestures.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[nitehawk214]

Its pretty easy to have a fake badge that looks real enough to a passing car. Now, once you are stopped if the guy does the old "flash it for just a second" when you ask to see the badge, and refuses to hold it for inspection. Whelp, time to GTFO, and call the real police.

But in that case it is the operator not the auto-drive car that is making the decision.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[nitehawk214]

Exactly. Or there is an emergency or disruption that requires manual control of traffic.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[LifesABeach]

Just a casual observation, but what if the police officer sneezes?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[dargaud]

Here's one case: there's been a small mudslide on the road and more is expected. Police / road workers are closing the road in a hurry. Central authority / maps have not been updated. You car MUST stop. But I guess it's enough to put a barrier in the middle of the road to get any car to stop, automated or not.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[gstoddart]

So, here's the problem with this ... if the car detects gestures, or has a "bypass" mode for law enforcement ... then this can, and will, be exploited by someone else.

Every time law enforcement and government demand a special exemption in the operation of something, what they do is administratively poke a hole in the integrity of it, and then say that nobody else is allowed to use it. And stupidly believe that nobody else will.

It's like saying you're not allowed to lock your doors in case of an emergency, and demanding that nobody else takes advantage of it.

If there is a mechanism by which a police officer, with or without a justifiable reason, can take control of these vehicles ... then it is pretty much a certainty someone else will also do this.

As you say, this will be hacked at some point. Because you can't put something in which acts as a bypass and then act like it's only the people you intended to have this who will use it.

And every corner case you come up with which says "well, we need a special case here because of this" is a demonstration of why this stuff will never actually work in the real world.

There will always be cases in which the self driving car stops working. And you really can't rely on humans to take over when the system suddenly has no idea what to do. What happens in those gaps is always going to be a problem ... and I'm not sure we're anywhere close to figuring that out.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[LifesABeach]

Makes sense to me; I don't see any relevance in watching you get pulled over, and over, and over.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[LifesABeach]

As Dirty Harry would say, "Well, punk, do you feel lucky?"

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Kjella]

Automate the cop. The car can drive by itself, but traffic control at the intersection needs a human?

I don't know any place you'd put a cop instead of a traffic light, but there are quite a few scenarios where a cop needs to ad hoc direct traffic like near the scene of an accident so emergency services get through. No matter what you do you won't get away from it entirely.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why does the cop need to gesture? Why does the car need to detect a gesture? You are now using a digital "pull over" interface with some form of authentication.

Perhaps now you can follow the logic. Baby steps and all.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

The self-driving car will have mechanisms to read traffic signs. Just send a drone a few meters ahead of the car, displaying a red traffic light or possibly a sign that forbids use of that road for as specific a vehicle class as possible. The car will stop.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[CrimsonAvenger]

I don't know any place you'd put a cop instead of a traffic light

The same sort of place you'd use a school crossing guard - iow, a place where vehicle and pedestrian traffic peaks clump irregularly.

Of course, you usually have the traffic light in spots like that also. But the presence of the human controller means you ignore the light and pay attention to the human.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Jaysyn]

All these recent rapist-cops would have loved having this functionality.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Triklyn]

... we are autonomous, we can process new and critical information, and we've gotten pretty damn good at ordering us around.

and it doesn't take a decades worth of experience to program us with new directives. you can have a traffic drone fly there with lights, but you've gotta purpose build that shit, and purpose program the way the drone flashes its lights in different situations.

you know what you need to do now? give that fucker in the middle of the road a reflective vest, a poncho to keep the rain off, and a pair of glowsticks. tell him " makes sure things don't get too backed up in any direction, and if you see flashing lights, let that fucker through.

also, toss in a donut or two to fuel him, and we're done.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh. Automate the manual control. It ain't rocket science.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[CreatureComfort]

So, as a human driver, you wouldn't stop for a person standing in the road in front of you?

I hope I don't live in your neighborhood.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[dryeo]

Went through an accident scene the other day. Fireman (could have been a cop) was doing ad-hoc traffic control. It was fairly complex and it is hard to see how a purely autonomous car would have handled it. I think for a long time cars are going to need a way for manual override along with a warning system. Approaching a construction zone, accident, traffic stop. Car slows down and signals driver to take control. All the cops etc can do is put out a signal, slow down, driver take control. Then it is up to the driver whether to stop, do complex maneuvers or run away depending on situation.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Archangel Michael]

This should be the default action, not pulled over. If the car is autonomous, the passengers need to feel safe, even when being apprehended. They can pull into a sealed garage with all sort of soft weapons used to disable the humans who don't want to comply.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you let a moron implement it yes.

If a half a minute of though was given to the concept, you'd end up with the badge being a transmitter that uses cryptography similar to SSL certs so the car can determine (and make a log of) what police department's authority the badge was issued under and cross reference that with the GPS to determine if they have jurisdiction at this location.

However, more broadly, the car when driving itself should follow all traffic signals, including those given by a person in the road directing traffic regardless of police authority (could be a boy scout directing traffic at a community event or something) and pulling over in response to emergency lights. As only an idiot thinks you'll be allowed to operate even a self driving car without a driver's license or the expectation that you're alert and ready take over for it any time soon (like within the lifespan of anyone over 10 year old) cases where the person directing traffic should be ignored will fall to the operator to disengage auto-drive and deal wit the situation.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[grahamm]

They not only need the ability to pull over a car, but at an intersection direct it which exit to take. They need to be able to close a road because of an accident or other emergency ahead (but out of view of the intersection). All of these are done using recognised gestures.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's where common sense comes into play, I won't pull over for ANYONE in a dark alley or in the middle of the boonies. What I will do is call 911 and report a problem or drive to a public place and pull over. A computer system simply cannot tell when & where to pull over, so at the most it should note for the driver that there is a problem and let them choose what to do (continue on, pull over, drive to nearest police station, etc).

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Ravaldy]

Guys, watch the TED talk the parent linked. It will answer all your questions. Google's implementation is very good with continued work to improving it. All these are technicalities that the Google R&D have already pointed out as obstacles to be dealt with. For the most part they have a handle on most issues that users have brought up.

The tech is more advanced than most of us know and for that reason many users are commenting without knowing what is actually out there right now.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's many videos where the woman has done just that, and the cop was very angry & wanted to arrest the driver.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Rockoon]

So, as a human driver, you wouldn't stop for a person standing in the road in front of you?

As a human pedestrian, I do not test the brakes of random vehicles that are traveling down the road by standing in front of them.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

by the fact he is pointing agun at me and threatening to kill me for 'disrespect'

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[pavon]

Yeah, I had a cop put his signal on in the middle of a construction zone where there were barrels blocking both the shoulder and the median. I pulled over at the end of the construction and he was pissed that I waited so long. I guess he wanted me to just stop in the middle of the lane. Then again he was also insistent that I must be stoned, and was interrogating me as to why I was in his city when my car is registered in a different county, all over a dead tail-light, so it was probably just him.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

We had issues here in Lincoln Nebraska about a month or two ago with someone driving around and attempting to pull over cars. . . .

Having cars automatically pull over because they see red and blue lights is DANGEROUS, and will result in innocents being raped and murdered.

The police where I live frequently make traffic stops using unmarked cars.

They will never publicly say it, but the police believe that it is far better that 100 innocent people are raped and/or murdered than the authority of one police officer be disrespected.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[laurencetux]

hate to say this but if there was a beacon on an actual LEO (say part of the camera rig or the radio) then that signal could be picked up by CAR.net.

but then on the other end anybody in the road using standard gestures should be able to control cars for minor things.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I'm riding in an autonomous car, but I need to be alert to take control at any given moment, what's the point of having an autonomous car? Clearly, I cannot take a nap, or bury myself in coding, or whatever.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Police have AUTHORITY over vehicles, which we don't mind much and aren't worried about today.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[R3d M3rcury]

Just make sure you have an manual override for the automated manual control.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[SQLGuru]

Those other use cases you mention could be dealt with via communication with a central location. As soon as the road needs to be closed, broadcast the fact and the car will reroute based on updated "traffic" information.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[sjames]

Sure, cops all too often forget their place and assume they have some sort of supreme power even when their own department says otherwise. I'm guessing that might be counter-balanced by automated cars having a variety of cameras and other sensors that might be recording the scene.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nobody, not ever, should have control over a vehicle that I'm in and responsible for. For any reason. If I cop wants me to pull over, then I will initiate or approve that action. Nobody gets a override, and that's what's being talked about here--not whether or not someone should obey the law. That is irrelevant. This is about some people trying to give extra abilities to law enforcement just because driving technology might in the future change.

And then, after that, they'll demand the same feature be implemented as much as possible in human driven cars--some kind of remote engine disabling most likely. Yes, I know that OnStar can do that, I dislike it immensely, and it's the one and only reason I won't even consider buying a GM car again.. The human owner of the vehicle should be the one initiating that behavior, not some operator elsewhere.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

This applies whether the system is automated or not. We have a law saying that human drivers need to pull over if instructed to do so by a cop ... and we have thieves pretending to be cops to get their victims to pull over.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're usually right, but it seems for traffic people make an exception. Do you have a flashing IR LED on your dashboard? Why not? That's all you need to get a green light, or at least cause the intersection to go into all-red lockdown (useful if you just got to the intersection at the yellow, it will then switch to your direction after you turn off the LED).

I mean, sure, it's illegal. But, still, people don't do it.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a human pedestrian, I do not test the brakes of random vehicles that are traveling down the road by standing in front of them.

Yet;

Maybe tomorrow you will have a stroke and walk out into the street in a daze. Of course we hope not, but if it does happen let's hope for your sake that you meet a civilized driver who realises something is wrong and drives you to hospital in time to avoid any major brain damage rather than a maniac who just drives over you afraid you might be trying to kill him.

Re: The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. Bunch of lemmings here apparently.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except an automated vehicle probably isn't violating any traffic laws. So, they don't need to pull over the vehicle unless they're going after someone suspected of a violent crime.

For everything else, they can note down the tag number and send the driver a letter.

The whole scam of pulling people over for tiny traffic infractions in hopes to search their cars for money in order to seize it is going to end some day.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Call the license plate in to dispatch and let dispatch handle it. Dispatch would contact the OnStar equivalent and have the vehicle disabled.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also buy a cop uniform and stand in a street waving your arms around. The difference is only in the risk to the offender.

Why don't people buy cop uniforms and stand around intersections waving their arms around? Because wearing a cop uniform when you're not a cop is a pretty damn serious crime, and you're going to go to jail for a long time even if you *only* do that. Same here, if you go around disabling cars using the "special cop code" then you're pretending to be a cop - the penalties for doing that will be severe. Now all we need to do is be able to find these jerks behind their TOR nodes and make Stringrays constitutionally compatible so we can find them.

Oh wait, now you've created a police state. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's some belief that once the power to make decisions has been removed from the citizen that it should be given to the authorities - that everything should respond to the lawful orders of a representative of the government. The problem is those authorities aren't above lying, cheating and stealing either. They're still human.

If I pass an irritated police office just a little too closely and he/she is having a bad day (e.g. the coffee was cold) then what's to stop them hunting you down and demanding you out of the car at gunpoint? With automated cars they don't even have to demand - the car will dutifully unlock the door. Heck if the door is motorized it can even open itself. Heck, lets put an automatic handcuff applicator and ejector seat in there to throw them into the middle of the freeway. Fuck it, lets just put a gun behind the steering column so they can remote-kill the driver. Also, these cars are gasoline filled bombs on wheels, we should have the ability to remote-kill the car. Detonate it, to keep everyone safe. Why stop there? Let's put a gun in everyone's livingroom, right next to the Kinect camera, and the PC camera, and the TV camera, and the baby monitor. Some of those babies are monsters y'know. Absolute monsters. We need to be able to remote-kill them. Drones are expensive. All houses should have a built in cyanide gas system so we can remote-kill all the occupants. You never know, the whole family might be terrurists. Every person should be implanted with an explosive at birth. REMOTE-KILL.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[lhowaf]

Exactly. The only case where outside control should be allowed is when there is no licensed driver on board (self-parking, etc).

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I had a cop put his signal on in the middle of a construction zone where there were barrels blocking both the shoulder and the median. I pulled over at the end of the construction and he was pissed that I waited so long. I guess he wanted me to just stop in the middle of the lane. Then again he was also insistent that I must be stoned, and was interrogating me as to why I was in his city when my car is registered in a different county, all over a dead tail-light, so it was probably just him.

No, it was you. You are black or other minority, right?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

And because of this everyone will need a drivers license, need to know how to drive a car, stay alert, not drink and drive, and generally do everything that having an autonomous car was supposed to solve. And because in reality autonomous car owners WON'T stay alert and WON'T actually know how to drive, we will have huge problems.

Autonomous cars are a all or nothing proposition and we are nowhere near the "all" case.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[david_thornley]

You're driving down the street. Two men step out into the street, effectively blocking it. The car isn't going to hit a pedestrian, so it stops. A third person steps out behind the car, so it can't back up. Your car has been cornered by three people without police uniforms.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[knightghost]

You missed the point - people get pulled over, and not just for traffic issues. Not to mention that AI is far away from being a good driver, as Google causing a dozen accidents can attest to. Sure they followed the law, but not the reality.

And the "search for money" is politicians, not police. Put the blame on the source.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

that doesn't mean he is a cop. and if he isn't, then you are probably better off speeding up.

Re: The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain how Google caused a dozen accidents when their cars were rear-ended by other vehicles? Surely the drivers of the other vehicles caused the accidents by following too closely or paying insufficient attention?

I used to drive a Ford Fiesta. One day somebody drove into the back of my car because they weren't paying attention to the road. Should I have sued Ford to get the boot repaired? The other driver's insurance company admitted that he had been at fault and they were liable - should they have recovered their costs from Ford?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Mattcelt]

Again, I disagree. I mind it greatly and am worried about it already.

The police have authority over vehicles only in order to protect and/or restore order. Once an unpredictable driver is removed from the equation, there is no possibility for disorder (other than glitches in or compromise of the firmware or system, but those are much larger problems), and so the police authority should be scaled down appropriately. Accountability and oversight are primary concerns and authority should not exceed those mandates except in true emergency situations.

Re: The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like autonomous cars in your country need some form of strong authentication. 3FA involving a key, a passcode and a biometric perhaps? A duress code that locks the doors and sends the car to the nearest police station would be pretty useful.

If people contemplating car jacking were aware that autonomous cars had such features as standard, they might choose different targets.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Frobnicator]

as Google causing a dozen accidents can attest to.

Citation needed.

Last I've seen, there were 14 crashes since they started open-road tests in 2009. Only one has had injuries, the rear-ending in July. They state that all of them were caused by the other vehicles (and their human drivers), and that they have evidence to prove it.

Of the 14, 11 were rear endings from when a car behind them failed to stop, 1 was a t-bone where someone ran the intersection and hit them. The other two were unspecified, but assuming we take their assurances that the crashes were not the self-driving car's fault, that really only leaves sideswipe crashes (someone entering their lane).

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the right way: the officer should have a large QR code on their uniform that the car can use to identify the specific officer, contact the dispatch center, and authenticate that this officer has logged in for traffic control duty in this GPS zone. This will also be helpful with all the other legally obtained video of police interactions.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Frobnicator]

I won't pull over for ANYONE in a dark alley or in the middle of the boonies.

Absolutely correct. Officers are (normally) trained that they need to allow the person to travel to a location they feel safe, which can mean a lit area or a populated area. Similarly if you are are on a bridge or somewhere with no shoulder, you can turn on your hazard lights, slow down, and continue to a safe area. If someone in the vehicle has a cell phone, they can call 911, describe the situation, and tell dispatch they will stop in a location with light and other people. You can also call 911 to verify the person is a real officer.

If you decide to do that you should slow down, pull to the outer lane, and turn on your hazard lights so the officer can see your intent.

Once stopped you can also keep your doors locked, roll down the window only enough for the discussion, and ask them to show you their department issued ID card, which has a photo and contact details, which you can verify with 911 if you want.

.

Having a self-driving car that obediently directed itself into a dark parking garage based on a masked stranger in uniform, that faithfully recorded the screaming of the passenger as the car stopped and opened for a group of masked people in uniform, recorded the passenger getting beaten, bound, and gagged by those same people, then faithfully returned home... well, that would be a problem.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Greyfox]

Could be overridden from a central location and commanded to drive to the nearest police station, far less risky to the public and police officers in the field than pulling them over in some random location. Once it's at the local police station it could be directed to the high security suspect holding spot / car crusher out back, where the occupants could be safely extracted before or after being crushed with their car.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Macdude]

Simple solution:

When the car approaches an emergency situation where a cop is directing traffic (e.g an accident scene) and detects the emergency vehicle lights it pulls over and stops. The driver can then take manual control and drive until they are past the situation then re-enable the automated system.

If the vehicle is driving down the road and detects emergency lights behind it, the vehicle pulls over to allow the emergency vehicle to pass -- just like people are supposed to do -- and continues after the emergency vehicle has passed. If it's a cop pulling over a specific vehicle the cop will stay behind the automated vehicle and it will pull over and stop. If the person driving the automated vehicle questions the authenticity of the cop they can take manual control and drive away.

This stuff isn't hard.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Greyfox]

Wouldn't be any accidents with all automated cars. For that matter, if a light's out, it won't matter to an automated car. Once they're all automated, lights would just be a visual indicator to the car's passengers that they're stopping. And central traffic control should have to stop cars a lot less than cars currently have to stop.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time that police should be able to take over is in an emergency as in there is a bridge out ahead etc...or where a felony warrant has been issued for the driver/occupant. Anything else is abuse of authority. The car should automatically pull to the side of the road and stop, or return control to the driver if the car has a malfunction. Since it would be programmed not to break traffic laws, it should do so only if there is a malfunction. No matter what the situation, the driver should be able to take control and over-ride the automatic driving functions if necessary.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[dryeo]

No pedestrians or cyclists doing stupid things? No trees falling over, or infrastructure failures? No floods, snowstorms, or other unexpected weather events? Then of course there are the software glitches, including the ones taking central traffic control out.
Not to mention how far away we're from having 100% automated cars. My vehicle was manufactured 29 years ago and as the average person gets poorer due to lack of work, vehicles won't be replaced as fast.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[mjwx]

I can't think of a valid reason an individual LEO should be allowed control of an individual self-driving vehicle, ever. There is simply too much potential for abuse.

The correct answer to "when should cops be allowed to take control of an autonomous vehicle" is "never".

An autonomous vehicle should never allow remote control because it's only a matter of time before it gets compromised and then used by someone with less than benign purposes.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of a valid reason an individual LEO should be allowed control of an individual self-driving vehicle, ever. There is simply too much potential for abuse.

I got one, the split second that one of the following is threatened or harmed by an auto-drive vehicle, a baby / elderly person / politician / some move star / etc., is when some group will DEMAND from on high that an officer can do just that. That occurrence is a matter of when not if. (Remember it only has to APPEAR that way on the 6'o clock news for people to be fooled in the US.)

If you think that will have some logistic problem, forget about it. The very nature of the current auto-drive systems as you have pointed out are centralized. Once the appropriate legislation has passed, all it will take is some cop on the road with a tablet or smartphone to push a button and whelp looks like you need to buy some tickets now......

The real scary thing is what happens to that auto drive system's security when that legislation passes. Any cop that needs to access it will probably not be using 2 factor authentication to do so. (That might cause a waste of time and LIVES to be lost!) Given that possibility, I'm sure that the adage around Slashdot about some hacker on an overpass will come true, as will any terrorist group or sociopath's dreams of killing unsuspecting people at the push of a button. May you live in interesting times.......

Sadly we seem to be on a never ending roller coaster of bad ideas when it comes to connecting things to the net, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I do know one thing though, if the damn auto-drive vehicles become mandatory I'll be walking or biking instead.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[tehcyder]

By uniform. But any criminal can acquire a uniform and unlike a human driver an automated system can't resist orders given by a criminal that would jeopardize driver's safety.

If you're the sort of person who seriously has to worry about criminals dressing up as cops to kidnap/murder you, I'm sure you will have your own security back up measures in place.

Meanwhile, in the real world for us civilians, if a cop signals you to pull over, you pull over.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[tehcyder]

At most it should go "I see a cop trying to pull us over should i call 911 for you?" aka the same thing I tell my child to do.

In any event the person in the vehicle needs to be able to quickly override the computer's or 2 people can corner any car to carjack it.

In the UK if you called 999 when a police officer asked you to pull over, they'd probably do you for using a mobile phone while driving, just to rub in the fact that you acted like a knob.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[silas_moeckel]

In the UK somebody impersonating the police will probably become very familiar with the working end of a billy club in short order.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[lightbounce]

Police have control over vehicles now primarily to stop the behaviour of drivers who are breaking motor vehicle laws.

I agree, but Google is moving towards self-driving cars that don't have steering wheels. One day they may remove the brake petal. In such a case the car itself will have to be able to respond to requests by the police to stop. Similar issues could arise if one day we get the hyperloop.

If a police officer sees a crime such as murder or rape being committed in a self-driving car, they have every right to stop the car without the occupants permission.

I can't think of a valid reason an individual LEO should be allowed control of an individual self-driving vehicle, ever.

That happens today if the police are in hot pursuit. They take control of the car by doing things such as putting out spikes to blow the tires. There's been talk of EMP-like devices to blow out the electronics that every modern car uses. The legal justifications for this are well-established.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[loonycyborg]

I mean if you're deep in some remote locale and the cop who tells you to pull over is in middle of armed to the teeth biker gang would you?

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Agripa]

Absolutely correct. Officers are (normally) trained that they need to allow the person to travel to a location they feel safe, which can mean a lit area or a populated area. Similarly if you are are on a bridge or somewhere with no shoulder, you can turn on your hazard lights, slow down, and continue to a safe area. If someone in the vehicle has a cell phone, they can call 911, describe the situation, and tell dispatch they will stop in a location with light and other people. You can also call 911 to verify the person is a real officer.

They may be trained in this but most officers (and the court) will use your not stopping immediately as evidence against you.

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[Anonymous Coward]

They just track the car because it is on a control network after all. With proper authority a request can be sent to car network central control to have it lock all doors and divert to the nearest Law enforcement center.
And how will a self-driving car "flee"? It will follow all traffic laws and there will be no speeding and weaving through traffic, side-streets and alleyways. cops don't even have to pursue.
If the car has a full manual mode then they get to treat it like they have with human driven cars for the last 100 years -except that the car will still report its location on the control network and probably accept shut down commands (like on-star does now)

Re:The cars can detect gestures.

[sudon't]

If automated cars are built to follow speed limits, and other traffic laws, why would a cop ever need to pull it over? It should rarely come up, unless some dolt decided to use one in a robbery. Sure, it can - it will - happen, but this should be a rare occasion. What is much, much, more common, is that police find, or invent, a traffic violation in order to conduct drug and cash searches. If cops are worried about anything, it would be losing this highly profitable activity.

Oh yeah, abuse is definitely coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Abuse will surely come, just like any other technology has come to be abused by the government to limit our freedoms.

Never

[Anonymous Coward]

If the police can take control of an automated vehicle, then so can the bad guys. There is nothing magical about the police. They have power because they have guns and lots of buddies to back them up. They have authority to use this power because other humans have agreed to give it to them. Technology cannot tell the difference between the police and some random jackass and so unless we want to live in a world where anyone can commandeer a self driving vehicle, we should not allow anyone to be able to do it.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

... and that, kids, is why we can't have nice things.

Re: Never

[Anonymous Coward]

The bad guys can already take over the controls with existing cars equipped with OnStar due to flaws in thathe system, so that'should a moot point.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Once automated cars are normal, imagine police cars, ambulances or fire trucks trying to get somewhere quickly. The drivers of these vehicles will simply tap a button in an app and suddenly all cars along that road and nearby will move towards the curb and clear the roads for these vehicles. Yes, the govt will have a remote control for your driverless cars, whether you like it or not.

Hackers can already break into a lot of services, but that does not mean the services will be shut down.

There needs to be a standard device

[Applehu Akbar]

An automated car could be programmed to be pre-empted by emergency vehicles using lights in the standard manner, but how, exactly, would police stops be handled, especially when the stop is a gesture from the side of the road? There is going to have to be a device which police carry that broadcasts a standardized signal to pull over and stop. It will have to be secure against being imitated by criminals, perhaps with frequently-changed security keys.

Just deploying these to all the agencies that will need them is a non-insignificant problem. And cities are going to require that the devices, deployment and maintenance be paid for by the manufacturers.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[bigpat]

There is going to have to be a device which police carry that broadcasts a standardized signal to pull over and stop. It will have to be secure against being imitated by criminals, perhaps with frequently-changed security keys.

No, no, no. The car should have the same inputs as a human driver. Visual and audio only. Otherwise you are 1) creating a different system which is expensive, more complicated and unreliable. 2) Opening the door to criminal hackers and terrorists to take control over cars remotely.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[JackieBrown]

cities are going to require that the devices, deployment and maintenance be paid for by the manufacturers.

So paid for by the consumer, then?

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[Rei]

On XKCD a while back we were talking about the possibility of automated cars transiting through countries on their way to a different country, either with goods or people. Since nobody is supposedly going to be stopping there and no goods left behind, then it opens up the possibility of much simpler border crossings - just simple contraband checks and off you go.

The issue becomes, what if once the car has crossed the border, it is instructed to "change its mind" and route to somewhere within the country? Well, it's easy to say "you can't". But what about needing to go to the bathroom? What about a medical emergency? Can a person override this?

My personal thoughts are that you can automatically route direct to any destination in any country that you and your vehicle/goods have permission to be in, plus any controlled access point in any third country where you can't just walk off (to allow for traffic island stops and the like). You can also instruct the car to route to any location in any country, but it has to route you through a controlled access point that is listed as having the authority to approve your entry into the country (wherein you have to go through the normal border controls process). If there would be an emergency request for stop, the car would route you to the nearest police station or similar and phone ahead that you would be coming, so that there could be someone there to ensure that you don't just run off. If you had to make an emergency stop at a hospital, it could alert the police that you would be arriving at the hospital, and alert the hospital and ensure that they're willing to accept responsibility for ensuring that you're not willing to run off before the police arrive. And if any passenger finds these rules uncomfortable, they could just simply go through the normal border controls process before entering the country.

I found some people who found that concept uncomfortable. They felt that the car should always do exactly what you say, regardless of the circumstances, and never work with the authorities, and that it'd be better to not be allowed to have through-country transit at all than to even have optional through-country transit wherein a driver's vehicles might not do precisely what they tell it to.

I disagree with that logic, but it did make clear from some of the points that were made that even if the user can't override their vehicle in certain decisions, they should at least have a hotline to someone who can. For example, if there's some flood or fire or whatnot that the road service doesn't know about and which isn't reflected in your maps, and to get out of the situation you'd have to go the wrong way down a one way street to get out... even if you don't personally have the authority to tell your vehicle to make an otherwise illegal move (since that could mean putting other drivers at risk), you at least need a way to quickly get such an action authorized by someone who does have such authority. That is, you tell your car specifically to break the law, but before it does so it automatically contacts a 24-7 emergency authorization service who is fed a live video feed from your car and voice connected to you, and they give you a quick yes or no.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[Applehu Akbar]

Yes. The other alternative to have the cities and states pay for the devices, which means paid by the consumer.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[orasio]

Nonsense.
Right now policemen are able to stop cars, no device needed.
Autonomous cars should be able to match current driver behaviour. There's room for improvement, but they don't need a better solution in all regards, to replace drivers, only to be as good as them.

Re: There needs to be a standard device

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal opinion is simple. I want the manual control switch to exist. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are; if I throw that switch it is no longer a self-driving car. Control is routed back to whatever the steering column or whatever replaces it.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[sjames]

Are you willing to also have the doors and windows locked no matter what happens?

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[Immerman]

That's arguably a good idea in concept, but what happens when you encounter such a situation in a remote area, tunnel, or other communication blind spot? And of course if you have it default to "obey the driver when I can't get a signal", then all you need to do is attach a discrete switch to disable the antenna and you can override those control limitations, completely defeating the point.

Meanwhile I don' think it actually solves any problem to begin with. If you have border controls restricting who can enter a country, then having the car "implement" them is trivially overridden: Just get out of the car when it stops at an intersection. Sure, worst case scenario it costs you the price of the car, but eventually self-driving cars are going to be entering the cheap clunker market just like everything else, and that's potentially cheaper than the black-market alternatives. In fact I imagine the black market would have a thriving industry built around it - at one intersection the immigrants get out, and the next the emigrants get in.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[Anonymous Coward]

Just deploying these to all the agencies that will need them is a non-insignificant problem

Smart cars end up requiring smart cities and infrastructure.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[funwithBSD]

Didn't anyone watch Minority Report?

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[Applehu Akbar]

In essence, we all become part of the city's urban transit system.

Re:There needs to be a standard device

[Anonymous Coward]

Your through-country transit fantasy seems to imply there isn't a way to do a replay attack of the crossing of the border of an autorised destination country.

abuse is subject to subjectivity

[turkeydance]

and you're the subject who'll suffer

Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the software detect him and apply an algo to go around him. He is just another obstacle that these cars already know how to avoid.

Fucking cops always trying to justify overreach.

Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the possible abuses from police, if the cops can take control, you've left a security hole that can be exploited. While cars may drive themselves, it's still necessary to have a human who can take control if needed. If the police need to pull a car over, the person in the car should take control, manually drive, and pull over. Let's not make cars with huge security holes like that. Current cars have enough security holes already.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[rossdee]

They shouldn't be able to take over, bit they should be able to stop the vehicle in an emergeancy

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Immerman]

Why? They don't currently have that ability, what changes just because I have an automated chauffeur?

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Anonymous Coward]

Try it with a human chauffeur, I doubt he'll ignore a police officer signaling him to stop, thereby risking losing his license (and thus his job), just because you'd want him to.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Anubis IV]

Agreed. A woman I personally know was nearly the victim of a fake police officer about 15 years ago, back when she was in college.

As she was driving home on the interstate late one night, an unmarked car came up behind her and turned on a roof-mounted red, spinning light like you'd expect with an unmarked police car. She wisely called the police from her car phone to ask them to tell their unmarked car that she'd be continuing until she reached the nearest gas station, and they informed her that none of their units were pulling her over. They sent out an actual police cruiser to follow her and were able to apprehend the fake cop.

A couple of folks in these discussions are suggesting that cars should be smart enough to recognize police officers and follow their traffic instructions, which makes sense most of the time, but there are definitely cases where it does not make sense to follow the directions of someone who appears to be a police officer. The last thing we need is a rash of crimes where criminals dress up as police officers so as to confuse smart cars into pulling over unexpectedly.

All of which is to say, I'm okay with the default behavior being to follow "police" signals, but there should always be an override available to the driver in case they have good reason for not stopping, such as a belief that something fishy is going on or an emergency of sufficient severity to warrant disregarding police signals.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[tlhIngan]

Exactly.

There should be no remote control capabilities. It should be based on existing standards for controlling traffic.

So the traffic cop controlling traffic? His hand signals are all the control required - they're standard and both human and electronic drivers need to be able to read them and recognize them. That's all the control you need. If an autonomous vehicle disobeys, it's just like a regular human driver disobeying - a traffic citation.

Emergency? Well lights and sirens means pull over to let them pass, so again, car recognizes those signals and does just that.

No remote control capabilities are needed - they shouldn't need anything more than the rules of the road. Why should they need the capability to remotely stop your car when the laws already cover those cases? If a cop tries to pull you over and you refuse, there's already existing law and it makes no difference if it's a human driver or an electronic one refusing to pull over.

Just treat them the same. There is no need for remote control, since disobeying is the same regardless.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been previously stated, in an emergency, the car tells the person driving to take over and they stop. no need to have a police office do it. Also as has been stated, in the event someone is in the road, the vehicle will stop and not hit them. Same with debris of emergency vehicles.

In an emergency, the police should be able to send a signal that tells all of the cars to tell their drivers to take controls because the situation is so unpredictable the drivers need to be paying attention and alert, but more then that is not needed.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[kheldan]

I'm glad someone else said this instead of it being me this time.
This 'what if' scenario also illustrates the need for so-called 'self-driving' vehicles to always have a full set of manual controls, and for all drivers to be properly trained, tested, licensed, and insured at all times. No 'self-driving' vehicle is going to be able to handle any and all circumstances that may arise, and all bets are off in emergency situations. If it's a matter of the safety of human beings, then human being must at least be the final 'backup system' to prevent disaster.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Immerman]

Really? Even if it was a scruffy-looking "cop" in a bad neighborhood? I doubt it. The problem is that, at least at present, the AIs fall far short of being able to exercise the sort of situational judgment necessary for such things. And any technological signaling solution is going to be hacked.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Namarrgon]

manually drive

If you ask me, that right there is a huge hole in the security - for everyone else.

Way too many people are unfit to be in control of that much inertia, most people at least occasionally. And since cars have so far killed over 3.5 million people in the US alone, it's past time we did something about that.

Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control

[Anonymous Coward]

easy solution hire an illegal immigrant as your chauffeur and then elect one of the republicans as president, that want to deport all the illegals.

now your human chauffeur will likely refuse to stop for the police in most cases.

Never.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never.
Next question.

Really, when are police allowed to take over moving cars now? This can only be bad thing.

Re:never.

[tehcyder]

never. next question?

It's always nice to see someone think things through carefully and provided a well argued, grammatically correct post on slashdot.

Stand in front

[Rande]

The car will refuse to run over anyone, policeman or otherwise.
Then once the policeman has the occupants full attention, he can then instruct him to pull over.

Re:Stand in front

[wonkey_monkey]

Ah, but how sure can you be that the human isn't driving?

I foresee life-like dummy police officers for deployment in such situations.

hhhuuurrrr, they already have dose on the force
(just getting in before someone else)

Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Overzeetop]

The big red button. If you press it, the car will continue to your destination unless physically disabled or completely blocked, regardless of non-traffic signals. It needs to be there for times when it is unsafe, or the occupant feels unsafe, with questionable external conditions (fake emergency vehicle signals, etc). And cops should be just fine with that because self-driving cars will otherwise obey the rules of the road (i.e. not speeding or running traffic signals), so if they really need to stop the car they can (a) surround it and slow down/stop to prevent the car from moving or (b) follow it to its destination - which in an emergency should be selectable by the operator as the original destination, the closest police precinct, or closest hospital emergency room entrance. There is no need or reason to offer electronic remote kill capabilities.

By choosing a fully automatic car, you give up a level of independence in return for convenience. I, for example, don't carry a sidearm or wear protective body armor today. That puts me in an inferior position to those who do, or those who have greater physical strength. It doesn't bother me because I evaluate the chance of needing such things is smaller than, say, being struck by lightning. I trade the convenience of lower kitted weight and bulk for an inferior defensive position.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Google programs their cars to break the speed limit. They say it's safer, but it does involve breaking the law. http://gizmodo.com/googles-autonomous-car-is-programmed-to-speed-because-i-1624025227

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[bigpat]

There is no need or reason to offer electronic remote kill capabilities.

'Nough said. But the car should respond automatically to police intervention. I would want the car to pull over when a car with flashing lights pulls up behind it. Or when a person with a uniform steps out in front of it and gives an order to stop or pull over. A person could be unconscious and need to be pulled over. Shouldn't rely on the driver for that. But that functionality should be based on visual and audio rather than any specialized equipment that would have to be distributed to millions of police before it would be effective and would be expensive to maintain and unreliable.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Lord Duran]

But what if the cops want to stop you because you're breaking laws that aren't traffic laws? For instance, if they suspect you're fleeing from a crime, carrying weed or are a murder suspect?

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. If we're giving outsiders the ability to control the car, it WILL be abused. That's not to say we shouldn't allow it to some degree, but it needs an override like you described.

There should actually also or instead be an emergency mode (which possibly overrides manufacturer liability to some extent) that turns on flashers and starts honking, but then continues to drive to an approved emergency location (like a hospital or police station) even if it has to use emergency lanes or go through red lights as safely as possible. I'm not sure about America, but in Europe you're allowed to temporarily become like an emergency vehicle if necessary as long as you still follow certain rules. That would take care of situations like getting to a hospital faster in case of a heart attack, and also take care of situations where someone in an unsafe situation (either from crooked police, hackers, or just carjackers) still has a way to save themselves. Hell, since we're taking over other people's cars, the emergency mode would also signal to all local traffic what is happening so cars would stop even at their green light and wait.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Anonymous Coward]

The big red button. If you press it, the car will continue to your destination unless physically disabled or completely blocked, regardless of non-traffic signals.

No, "the big red button" should return the car to full manual control and then the driver can determine the best course of action to take in an emergency situation. It should be something only to be used in an emergency, instead of becoming the "Oh no I'm late for work" button.

Even current cars need to have some kind of obvious manual override to prevent Toyota runaway acceleration syndrome. Those were software glitches, imagine what kind of software glitches might hide in autonomous automobile control systems.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Overzeetop]

Why would they need to? You're in a self driving car that's going to obey traffic laws - they can just follow you to your destination without fear of loss in pursuit. It's not like you're going to "get away" in a self driving car or the car will be operated in an unsafe manner. If it's a single officer, you'll be followed until the car stops. If it's multiple officers, all the have to do is get in front of and to the left and they can "guide" your car onto the shoulder and stop safely.

There's no operating condition where they actually need an electronic remote disable.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[internerdj]

Box the automated car in and slow the group of vehicles to a stop. Standard maneuver now with a completely compliant driver. No need to throw technology at it. Beyond that the driver should be able to cancel navigation and order a complete stop of the vehicle for all sorts of reasons not just the orders of an officer.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[IHTFISP]

The big red button.

You mean like this?

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[bigpat]

Also, I would expect that most owned vehicles (not taxis) would offer a driver manual override feature... So, what is the value of a police override that can itself be overridden by the driver? Again, if you don't allow a driver/passenger override then you have created a safety issue, potentially a large scale safety and security issue if you consider the possibility of a widespread hacking attack.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Immerman]

So, all Jack the Ripper needs is to put a flashing light on his car and he can force his victims to a stop? No thanks.

Hell, it's not unheard of for actual police officers to engage in kidnapping, rape, and murder - if you suspect such a situation, they should NOT be able to trivially disable your vehicle.

Sure, it should automatically respond to police signals just as a conscientious driver would. But you should also be able to override that behavior, just as a driver with a sense of self-preservation sometimes must.

Meanwhile, an unconscious occupant would seem to me to be one of the points of an automated vehicle. Any automated vehicle which needs me to continue to pay attention to the road in case of emergency is a horrible danger to everyone else, because passengers won't do so reliably. And if I don't have to pay attention to the road, then I may as well play video games, take a nap, etc. Just like if I had a chauffeur. You wouldn't pull over a limo because the passengers were unconscious would you?

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[bigpat]

So, all Jack the Ripper needs is to put a flashing light on his car and he can force his victims to a stop? No thanks.

Hell, it's not unheard of for actual police officers to engage in kidnapping, rape, and murder - if you suspect such a situation, they should NOT be able to trivially disable your vehicle.

Sure, it should automatically respond to police signals just as a conscientious driver would. But you should also be able to override that behavior, just as a driver with a sense of self-preservation sometimes must.

Meanwhile, an unconscious occupant would seem to me to be one of the points of an automated vehicle. Any automated vehicle which needs me to continue to pay attention to the road in case of emergency is a horrible danger to everyone else, because passengers won't do so reliably. And if I don't have to pay attention to the road, then I may as well play video games, take a nap, etc. Just like if I had a chauffeur. You wouldn't pull over a limo because the passengers were unconscious would you?

That is the case now. You are obligated to pull over. Now... I agree with a manual override. If Jack the ripper starts walking towards the car, then I would like to be able to hit a button and drive away. Or if you really feel unsafe where the car wants to pull over, then similarly I would want a manual override.

I agree that having an automated car will actually save lives where now if the driver has a medical issue the likely outcome is a high speed collision which endangers even more lives. But if the passenger has truly had a medical issue and can't stop the car then it would be good to have the ability to pull the car over. Again, manual override should take precedence. But if the person is on the phone with 911 and passes out the car should be capable of getting pulled over by a single patrol car. Something as simple as a directive to slow down and pull over when a car with flashing lights is behind you.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only necessary right now because most human drivers speed; when all vehicles on the road are automated, this becomes unnecessary and they can all be programmed to go the exact same minimum/maximum.

Remember the last time you were driving on the freeway and everyone was cutting around the one idiot going 55 MPH in the left lane? That's actually more dangerous to the both the slowpoke and everyone else on the road because it's an unexpected obstacle.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Anonymous Coward]

The only override anyone needs is, return vehicle to the operator control and let the driver take control and make the decisions. Nothing else is needed. Maybe give the police the ability to broadcast a signal that tells the cars, crazy stuff going on in this area, drivers have to take control of the vehicle and be alert, but that is all that is needed.

The only reason you would need an overall override from central command/police/traffic and then a bi red button to say, ignore those commands, is if the vehicle is 100% automated with no possibility of operator control possible. Skip all of that. Driver has to be able to drive. Obstacles in path, car will stop/avoid/etc. Anything too confusing, too many inputs because the road is exploding or lights from emergency vehicle, the vehicle alerts the driver he has to take control.

Nothing else is needed other then, confusion, order form police, etc, driver takes control and make decisions.

Re:Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Immerman]

Okay, I may have been a bit confrontational there. I'm all for having the default behavior be "obey the cops" - provided there's a manual override available. Because even today there's places where the police's official advice is that if you're at all uncomfortable being pulled over - don't. Drive to the nearest police station instead.

As for a person with a medical emergency - one would hope that if they're capable of dialing 911 they can just as easily tell the car to take them to the emergency room - and that will almost certainly be faster than waiting for an ambulance to reach them, then go to the hospital. And that's a pretty contrived example, in any other case an officer is extremely unlikely to be able to tell the difference between "guy who just had a heart attack/stroke/etc" and "guy taking a nap"

Re: Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Anonymous Coward]

Not too contrived. There are many incidents of drivers passing out. Granted if the car is on auto then it would be hard to tell if a person was sleeping versus passed out. But worst case the police do a wellness check and send the person on their way.

Re: Obey traffic laws; offer emergency override

[Immerman]

No, we're talking specifically about the person passing out while, or immediately after, calling 911, but before telling the car to take them to the ER. So that there's reason to believe there's a problem that can be helped by pulling the car over. You can't have cops pulling over every guy taking a nap in his car, that would get ridiculous, and be an invitation to abuse.

Here's the thing though...

[Lord Duran]

It's not really that hard for a bad guy to buy a cop costume. Humans can't tell them difference between the police and some random jackass. Also, if a guy is standing in the middle of the road signaling you to stop, you're gonna stop just to not run him over.

I think self-driving cars should be treated as taxis. Just like you can't expect your taxi driver to disobey a cop, nor can you expect your SDC to.

Re:Here's the thing though...

[orasio]

It's not really that hard for a bad guy to buy a cop costume. Humans can't tell them difference between the police and some random jackass. Also, if a guy is standing in the middle of the road signaling you to stop, you're gonna stop just to not run him over.

I think self-driving cars should be treated as taxis. Just like you can't expect your taxi driver to disobey a cop, nor can you expect your SDC to.

Good point, but that's a driverless taxi, not an autonomous car. An autonomous car would be a car you own and you command, that does what you ask it to do. Like a car, but instead of driving it, you tell it to go places, and override command _whenever_ you want it, not when it's lawful to do so.

I think that autonomous driving will probably be best applied to public transportation, because an automated taxi is a better taxi, while an autonomous car is a lesser car, after you take this kind of things into account.

Re:Here's the thing though...

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans can't tell them difference between the police and some random jackass.

Unsurprising... sometimes there's no difference at all!

Re:Here's the thing though...

[ExekielS]

A taxi is providing a service, a self driving car is your property. When we let someone's own property hurt them for the state or other 3rd parties, we have thrown the laws or robotics out the window and pose a threat to the safety and individual freedoms and civil liberties of humans, including their own physical ability to do wrong and face the consequences, a disturbing implication.

mo

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a real problem since shooting the driver does not work.

Highwaymen, robbers, carjackers

[fox171171]

If they all stop for a pedestrian in the way, then it will be trivial for criminals to stop any car they want for any reason. Just stand in front of it.

Re:Highwaymen, robbers, carjackers

[jeffb (2.718)]

Please fill us in on the algorithm you're using to distinguish hostile and non-hostile pedestrians.

I guess I see your point -- if it's known that autonomous cars will always stop for a pedestrian, there will be some people who decide to take advantage of that behavior. They'll realize that if they step in front of this car, it will stop. It will also alert other cars in the vicinity (so they don't have to stop as abruptly for the destination), it'll probably alert law enforcement (because a pedestrian is illegally interfering with traffic), and it'll doubtless log video of the car's immediate surroundings during the incident. But, then again, robbers and carjackers aren't normally known for their strategic brilliance, are they?

Until autonomous cars are closer to deployment, though, I hope you're continuing to push for the abolition of seat belts. After all, they could prevent you from being thrown to safety in a fiery crash!

Re:Highwaymen, robbers, carjackers

[tehcyder]

If they all stop for a pedestrian in the way, then it will be trivial for criminals to stop any car they want for any reason. Just stand in front of it.

If you live in an area where people regularly don't stop for pedestrians in front of them, I feel sorry for you.

Easy:

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put a videoscreen in the car that the cop can call and ask for them to pull over.

If they don't, or don't answer, then its clearly an emergency and the cop can use his best judgement as to how to stop the car.

if no one is in control of the car, then its going to stop when it gets to its destination, or the cop can just walk in front of it when its stopped at a light.

It shouldn't run him over, already.

When there is no passanger on board

[Karmashock]

The hierarchy of control should go this way:

1. Owner (should have an override that can shut off the engine even if not driving)
2. Driver (If they're behind the wheel only an owner can shut them off)
3. Police (can shut off any car not being piloted or directly controlled)
4. The AI

Here is how police should work... THE SAME WAY they do with normal drivers. A police car does not shoot your engine out or something. What they do is flash their lights and tell you pull over. And you DECIDE to pull over because you don't want to be in violation of more laws.

And that is how the AI should operate. If the AI is just zipping down the road and an AI police officer pulls you over (does anyone see that coming?). The AI in your car should DECIDE to pull over. It isn't being forced to do it. I can say "HA HA YOU"LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE COPPER!"... but it should only do that if you told it to do that. Otherwise it should pull over like a law abiding AI.

We've all discussed to death the issue with police overrides and how hackers can use them take control of your car.

So here is the solution. Rather than just have the AI comply immediately, you can have the AI PING the cockpit or cabin and say "Police request pull over". Then you have ten seconds in the car to reject that. If you don't reject it... then the car pulls off to the side of the road. Where likely as not a friendly Securitron will roll up wearing mirrored sunglasses and tell you to respect its authoritah!

Re:When there is no passanger on board

[dargaud]

I want to see an automatic car do this in the same situation. Using something faste than a 3 point turn: a bootleg turn or J-turn.

Re:When there is no passanger on board

[houghi]

OK. So there will be situations in the future where the person in the car is neither the driver, nor the owner.

I am thinking of taxis (or uber or whatever) where the person is the passenger. Or the schoolrun where the kid is driven to school. We know that once these cars will be standard, this will be the case.

With the taxi. Is the person the driver and should he be allowed to overrule the police? And if not, when are you the driver?
I can imagine taking a taxi and not even be allowed to drive, while I would be allowed to take a taxi. So now what? And how do you differentiate between me taking your car and driving it around and me taking your car and letting it take me around.

There will be many situations that are not yet clear at the moment. Yet I do think, although a nice subject, it is too early to worry about that now. Much will depend on the intend of the peron in the car and of the police outside of it.

Re:When there is no passanger on board

[Karmashock]

As to the relationship of the driver to the Taxi... that is up to the taxi company.

I can see it going either way.

The taxi could make someone effectively the driver for the duration of the taxi trip like a AI rental car. Or it could simply be a drone that asks people where they want to go and then you're a passenger period.

If you're a passenger... and not the owner... then the AI shouldn't recognize your authority over the police unless the owners of the taxi company want to do that. I again, feel very strongly that the owners should be in control of the car ultimately. In this case that is the taxi company.

The taxi company isn't going to want any trouble so they'll just pull over.

What I don't want is for the police to override the driving computer of a driver of a car and especially the owner.

I want them to ASK for a car to pull over. The AI will see a REQUEST by law enforcement to comply. And that message will be relayed to the driver.

If there is no one in the car... it will just pull over. If there is no one in the car that has the authorization to over rule the AI's default actions then the car will pull over.

Anyone that owns the car or has overrule privileges with the AI... should be able to ignore a police order. That doesn't mean the police will just say "oh, alright then"... it means the police are going to do what they do now. They're going to follow you around and possibly set up a road block or a spike strip to stop you. Another fun idea is to tag your car with a transponder. Fire a dart into your bumper that that emits a tracking beacon. No need for high speed chases. Just fire the dart and then drive at a safe speed. Police farther down the road will intercept. No need to maintain line of sight.

The crimes that are going to be committed with drones... so much fun.

Re:When there is no passanger on board

[Karmashock]

good luck.

Best you'll get out of the AI will be a system wide alert to turn around.

That said, I strongly support the idea that people should be able to control their cars manually either in emergencies or on private property.

Re:When there is no passanger on board

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Hierarchy is

1) Driver
2) AI
3) All else return to driver.

Owner/police shutting off while not driving is a car jack/crime scenario and the command comes and car shuts down next time the vehicle stops is the only workable option, but even that can cause issues. All other situations, if the police, a lot of obstacles, transit authority say anything, flashing lights and sirens, car reverts to the drivers control and he makes the decision. We do not need any outside influence taking control of a vehicle or making ti do anything other then reverting to the driver control. Al other scenarios open up people to potential liability and put the lives of the people in the vehicle in danger.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

When Should Cops Be Allowed To Take Control of Self-Driving Cars?

No.

No reason to be pulled over

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with self driving cars will be ignition switches that don't engage until you swipe/bio your token thus reducing the need to pull people over unless there's a genuine emergency. Long gone will be the days of profiling where an officer thinks that shady dark looking fellow couldn't possibly own that nice Cadillac he's currently driving and needs to be questioned. Alcohol is already allowed in Limos and other vehicles where there's a licensed driver with separate driving compartment. Speeding? Not while Johnny Cab is there to safely take you to your destination. Granny fell asleep at the wheel? Let the old girl enjoy her nap, the robot will deliver her home safely.

The future is automated driving, and higher taxes to pay for all the out of work cops.

never.

[spiritplumber]

never. next question?

You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

... do the same if he suspects the passenger ...

Cops have dreamt of this for 30 years. The fact no-one questioned it back then reveals how optimistic people were. Don't some cars already have remote disabling? I think it's deployed in 'Horrible bosses' with alarming consequences.

Re:You're kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

While these kinds of "kill switch" systems have existed for decades they have always had a desirable feature from a free society perspective. They weren't integrated with government in any way, if your car was stolen you contacted your security company (Onstar, etc) and THEY contacted the local PD to coordinate recovery/arrest. If you were being pulled over there generally was no way for the police to know/easily contact the company in question to have your car disabled. Even now I think integration is extremely limited, only a few major cities and a few companies cooperate to allow your license plate to relate back to the company that has the ability to shut down your car. The kinds of systems that some envision would be ubiquitous, meaning that integration would almost certainly occur even in smaller departments. If that occurs it will almost certainly lead to widespread abuse.

Who owns your car?

[Orgasmatron]

Who owns your car? Who does it serve? Who does it obey?

We lost the war for our pocket and portable computers (cell phones and tablet). We lost the war for our TVs, movie players, DVRs, etc. We lost the war for the computers that are already in our cars.

Most disturbing, we are in the process of losing the war for our desktop computers, the very heart of general purpose computing as an individual right.

If we want to own our cars, we need to stop losing control of our computers, pronto.

Re:Who owns your car?

[0123456]

But driverless cars are The Shiny! What could possibly go wrong?

There's a reason "Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State" is one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The Glorious People's State will just love having control over your vehicle, and being able to stop you from using it at any time.

Re:Who owns your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

You lost no wars whatsoever. You can buy whatever products you like. If you're buying ones based on your zealotry for a given brand, that's your fault. Furthermore, you are wrong, PCs have been open for decades, the two most popular commercial OSes have remote access built in.

You must be American, just calling war on everything says where your reality is warped.

And for your information, most modern cars can already be controller remotely, even if they aren't capable of driving for you. They can be shut down at the click of a button, both from thousands of miles away and using near-field radio protocols by someone in a car next to you.

Re:Who owns your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't lose the war for TVs and movie players. We won, by switching to piracy, which removed the need to ever have to play DRMed media. The result: absolutely fantastic operation. Easiest to use (both in terms of playback and initial acquisition), fastest and nicest-looking. And on top of that, you even save money. WTF. We won this war so utterly and definitively, that we're basically trying to reconstruct the defeated enemy, constantly inviting them to try to sell us working files. I just don't have any idea what planet you're writing from.

We have started with a huge handicap and a long line of defeats in cellphones and tablets, but this is far from over. The market is so overripe, to the point of blue balls, and so lots of people are trying (and failing, but they keep trying!). It ain't over. I bet we're within 3 years of good products becoming available in these areas.

Dude: you can almost build this stuff yourself, from parts. By "almost" I mean you already can, but it looks like shit unless you 3D print your own case. And so many people (pulling in diff directions) are trying to do the software. One of them will get it right. 3 years? Fuck. 2 years, maybe 1.

Re:Who owns your car?

[operagost]

The job of the government is to create "solutions" for problems that they create. A self-driving car only needs to replace a human driver-- it doesn't need to become an arm of the state. The police detain people, not cars, so it should be the person's decision. Don't make self-driving cars be at the mercy of the state just because you can!

Re:Who owns your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who owns our cars? Our handsomest benefactors of course. They know better, and they will do what's good for you, even if that means only letting you go where you are approved to go. It's the future, resistance is futile

Reframe the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of cars detecting gestures and all that mess, just train car to avoid objects, other cars and people in general. Keep calm and drive on..

Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Even TFS's idea does nor require a need for a cop to take control of the car. All it needs is for the car to recognize a human (any human) standing in the road signalling traffic.

Current cars probably would have to be manually prompted to pass the cop as they all seem to automatically give way to pedestrians.

Ask for confirmation

[Anonymous Coward]

If the car detects a request to pull over or any other such request. It should ask the driver if he wants to comply. It is then the drivers job to decide if he wants to obey the requester. No need for the driver to manually take over the vehicle just to be the decision maker in such scenarios.

An Autonomous Driver Must Obey Rules

[EmagGeek]

If an officer gestures for you to stop, you must stop. Period. This is no different for an autonomous driver than it is for a human driver.

Re:An Autonomous Driver Must Obey Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

If an officer gestures for you to stop, you must stop. Period.

Three things here:

1) You're only required to obey lawful orders from a police officer.
2) I can think of many extreme situations where you may need to disobey a police officer because a police officer may be acting without all the information. For example, you may not wish to pull over at the kerb here but drive the extra twenty meters to the hospital because someone in the car has suffered a heart attack.
3) How do you identify a police officer (bear in mind all situations including officers dressed as hobos with pull out FBI tags on their backs like in The Fugitive.) How does an AI do this?

Re:An Autonomous Driver Must Obey Rules

[Immerman]

Nope. If shady looking "officer" tells you to pull over, there are situations where you'll be better off driving to a police station and stopping there instead. In fact there are places where the police actually recommend doing just that.

Needs moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to moderate this - so that cops won't use it indiscriminately - it should obey the cop's signals 95% of the time and run the copy over 5% of the time.

easy

[Anonymous Coward]

When they buy it and pay for it.

My gesture...

[Anonymous Coward]

An official gesture to stop the car? What if I deem the situation warrants giving the international counter gesture to the offending officer? I would hope my car gives priority to my gesture and continues onward to my destination. The results of which should be up to the courts after the fact. i.e. If I fail to obey a peace officer, I take the consequences. It shouldn't be up to the car.

Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Self driving cars sound like a great idea. Unfortunately there are going to be people around and in them. That pretty much ruins any chances of accident free operation. I disagree with letting police dictate the actions of your car. This will absolutely be abused more often than not. If they want your self driving car to pull over, they should be in their cars behind you with the lights on. (Are police cars going to be self driving? And since they usually feel that traffic safety laws don't apply to them, perhaps they won't have the easily abused gesture controls?) The situation described in the summary is too rare to in-build the ability to stop a car just by waving at it. Perhaps when normal traffic controls are down or being serviced they could instead set up temporary sensors/antennas that tell the car what to do. This avoids having a "nervous cop" situation, and keeps me from getting pissed off at zealous cops who think they're King Richard's tax collectors.

Not clear at all

[JohnFen]

it's clear that police officers should have some power over the movements of self-driving cars

No, this is not clear at all. If police (or anybody that I haven't authorized) can take control of my vehicle, then I don't want that vehicle.

Stop 100% of the time - but nothing else

[gurps_npc]

A cop should be able to stop a car for absolutely nothing. They need that ability for public safety - there could be any number of reasons why they have to it, from a chemical spil. (undetectable to the car), to a riot.

But they should under no circumstance be able to redirect it to a new location without physically entering the vehicle. That is not reasonable behavior, an un-neccessary security risk that can be abused by non-police.

Re:Stop 100% of the time - but nothing else

[Anonymous Coward]

A cop should be able to stop a car for absolutely nothing.

 

But they should under no circumstance be able to redirect it to a new location without physically entering the vehicle. That is not reasonable behavior, an un-neccessary security risk that can be abused by non-police.

Your post is retarded.

I propose a solution.

[hey!]

Any time the cops stop an autonomous car they have to pay the owner of that car $1000, no matter what the reason for the stop. Compared to the legal costs of what comes after a legitimate stop, that's nothing. But it would dissuade police from developing a pattern of frivolous stops.

Re:I propose a solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they won't stop people "just" because there is a potentially dangerous chemical spill ahead.

no complete control from outside

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of any outsider having the ability to completely override the human inside is absurd. I can imagine that the vehicle might be programmed to reduce maximum speed and maybe observe other similar limitations when commanded by emergency personnel, possibly sending location and intended destination information to an authorized central clearing house, but just stop? No way. Some of us will never buy cars that would do that.

Bow to your OWNERS!

[AndyKron]

You know how this is going to turn out, you just know it. Bow to your OWNERS!

false dilema

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a false dilema. A self-driving car by definition drives itself and doesn't care if the user is paying attention.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many issues to be addressed here.

First, what if a passenger doesn't want the bus or train they are on to stop? Only the driver has authority over the vehicle. If they want to be in charge and in control, then they need to be in control of the vehicle.

Second, I think emergency situations come up and police and fire and other agencies need to have the ability to put out a signal that informs all driverless vehicles of an emergency situation, and they should immediately pull over and stop. That should be the way it happens already. Of course construction zones are a unique situation and the software may not account for that.

Third, all the arrogant dumbass cops that think their uniform automatically protects them, need to start using their head before they jump in the middle of the road in front of a driverless vehicle and try to order it off the road.

Control

[kilfarsnar]

When you give up control, you have no control. The car will do whatever its manufacturer and the powers that be want it to do. I have no interest in a self-driving car. I prefer to remain a self-driven human being.

The driver already surrendered ultimate control

[mysidia]

And what if the passenger doesn't want the car to stop—can she override the command, or does the police officer have ultimate control?

No... the driver already surrendered ultimate control to the car by choosing a self-driving vehicle, and I expect the vehicle to obey the law, Even over the driver's wishes, which says that citizens must follow a lawful official's orders, unless following the order clearly violates civil rights or creates an immediate safety hazard for themselves or another person.

Being required to stop your vehicle and pull over to be detained is a legal reasonable order, So long as the car can legitimate establish the authority of the person directing.

Your self-driving car should take some precautions, in case the person gesturing your car to stop is a crook in disguise.

I see a possibility of allowing the driver to override a gesture, if the driver has the autonomous vehicle place a 911 call and hold the horn down. The driver's picture identity and vehicle info will be automatically transmitted.

Re:The driver already surrendered ultimate control

[Anonymous Coward]

as the bumper sticker says "Our forefathers would be shooting by now"

Re:The driver already surrendered ultimate control

[draftmonkey2016]

Bootlicking swine.

Re:The driver already surrendered ultimate control

[Anonymous Coward]

So wrong. If the car sees something in it's way, it stops to avoid an accident. If someone tells a vehicle to stop like and officer on the side of the road or flashing lights, the car should say, I am done, driver, take control. No other modes are required of driving. Car drives and as long as everything is normal, it goes about it's business but the second something comes up that is abnormal it does 1 of 2 things. If it sees something in it's way, it stops for safety reasons. Any other abnormality, like flashing lights, it reverts control of the car to the driver for the human to make the decision.

Anything else, and you are putting the liability for the stopping of the vehicle on the person who overrode the driver (officer stopped my car and I was rear ended because I was being tail gated) and then autonomous vehicle manufacturer (the car stops for the phony officer and I was raped, it should have know better).

Never

[RandCraw]

Until cops take responsibility for their mistakes and misdeeds, they should be given less power, not more.

I foresee many police-driven autocar crashes where the cops say simply, "Oh well", and walk away from responsibility.

Simple

[TheCarp]

When they personally own them, and only then ever.

I don't see what is so hard about that.

Why are we even asking this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the day after they get to assassinate people for any reason or no reason?

Re:Why are we even asking this?

[Catbeller]

"How about the day after they get to assassinate people for any reason or no reason?"

And why was this downscored? How about that day?

Depends on WHEN the attacker attacks WHOM

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, anyone with a gun is allowed to do anything. If a cop tells you to pull over, then pull over. If someone points their gun at your face and says "your money or your life," then you hand them your wallet. (Duh? Does anyone disagree with any of this?)

But that doesn't mean the car would (or should) come with bugs that let random strangers take it over. And it's not as though anyone expects cops to be unusually diligent about keeping keys safeguarded, as though somehow they're not the same kind of tech-fuckwits as the rest of society. These people (and by that, I mean nearly everyone, not just cops) still download and execute malware, they still commit murders while their body cameras are turned on, etc. Of course you can't trust them to not leak the keys and therefore let all pranksters or criminals of the world take over your car. So naturally it's in all of society's interest that the cars remain under sole control of the driver.

So the real question is whether or not some enemy is going to be pointing guns at the car manufacturers.

Obviously, if they're being coerced, then they're going to build in whatever security holes that the attackers demand, and if you know this has happened, then you're being negligent if you buy one of these defective cars. When someone inevitably takes over your car and causes a collision or deaths, then if you can't find out who did that (and you probably won't) the buck will stop with you. You knowingly brought about a situation where any reasonable person would expect innocent people to die as well as property damage. (Of course, by extension: so did the person who forced the manufacturer to include the malware, so you might be able to shift the liability to them. Indeed, that's probably your only hope.)

And also obviously, if the manufacturer is not coerced, then they should keep the car as free of malware, as much as possible. That's just common sense, isn't it?

Liability

[PPH]

Cops stops car in the road. Bus behind it (manually operated, because unions) keeps going, rear ends car. Car bursts into flames, killing occupants. Who pays?

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Bus driver is at fault.

You *must* maintain sufficient distance from the car in front. To do otherwise is just fucking stupid, and unfortunately common.

When they want donuts?

[bigsexyjoe]

Maybe like if they are really hungry for donuts, they should be able to make a self-driving car be able to get them some.

As a volunteer Fire Police Officer

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope that these cars can detect folks directing traffic. I have enough trouble with cars being operated by people.

Easy answer

[MitchDev]

NEVER

This isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't a self driving car attempt to stop for any obstacle in its path? Including a police officer? Even if someone jumps out in the road it's still in my best interest to attempt to avoid hitting that person. I've never seen a cop on the side of the road waving people over to the shoulder without some kind of traffic disruption to begin with.

While I think self driving cars aren't too far away, I think completely automated transportation is still quite a ways out there. I imagine the first phase of self driving cars to be kind of like cruise control. If I turn on self drive it should release control as soon as I turn the wheel or hit the brake or gas. While I might not be paying 100% attention to the road I should still be aware enough to realize that my car has slowed to 10mph in a 70mph zone because traffic is backing up and there is probably something coming up that will require my attention. Or that my car has stopped at a green light and there is a person standing in the intersection waving his arms around. I should probably take control and navigate this situation.

Any citizen can direct traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

In most places, at least everywhere that I have been, it is 100% legal for any citizen to direct traffic when the situation merits.

How exactly is that going to factor into things?

When Should Cops Be Allowed To Take Control?

[Anonymous Coward]

When they have a Court Order signed by a sitting Judge.

Plausible? You seem to misunderstand the concept..

[Anonymous Coward]

"This seems like a pretty plausible interaction."

Exactly how would a self-driving car be barreling dangerously at a human, simply because the "driver" isn't paying attention? Since there is no human driver, the AI has apparently decided to become a murderer, and therefore would likely not simply pull over.

Quid pro quo? (i.e., tit for tat)

[IHTFISP]

So if I see cops in an unlawful traffic maneuver— like rolling through a red light without their lights and/or sirens on— should I be able to pull them over?

It's called a ``citizen's arrest'' in most states in the U.S. and various other former British colonies (like the Republic of Ireland, the Kingdom of Scotland, et al. ;-).

Should there be some automated device or mechanism that forces their vehicle to comply with my demands? Turn about is fair play, after all: if I surrender my civil rights to them shouldn't they be required to surrender theirs to me in turn?

What if there's a high speed chase and I am a civilian crossing guard at a senior citizen home and I think the coppers are endangering my homies?

Just askin' (*wink*). (And, yes, this is intended to be a bit tongue in cheek.)

New SWATting

[Alypius]

People already spoof their number to send a SWAT unit to an otherwise quiet house in the middle of the night. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that giving police override control of a car won't result in the same kind of abuse.

cars will frequently be empty

[circlekhaos]

It has always been my assumption that about half the time autonomous cars are moving about they will not have any occupants. Cars will be more like taxis that are summoned, take one or more passengers to someplace, and are then dismissed so they can go pick up the next rider(s). Oh yeah, rich folk will have cars that are driven by chauffeurs but the rest of us will not own automobiles any more than we own airplanes. So I expect a centralized car-management system will be aware of where each car is, where the police are, what roads are temporarily closed (why would an autonomous car ever take a rider through a section of road that was temporarily closed?), and so forth. Yep, it will be quite complicated. And you will hardly notice because you will have your nose in your work or book or news article or game or video show or whatever. Your car will stop and it will go - you will pay no attention because there's no need/point in paying attention. And if the cops want YOU, then your car will deliver you to them.

Brave new "future"

[Anonymous Coward]

The scene from "I, Robot" comes to mind. After the machines take over every car grinds to a halt except for the protagonists (Will Smith) motorcycle which hasn't been instilled with government controls. Seriously we're setting ourselves up for major problems in the future with centralized controls of any type. Only a idiot puts a nuclear plants control systems on the internet, and only the heir to the kingdom of idiots puts remote kill switches in the nations transportation network. One hacker could cause millions or even billions of dollars in damage. Even if limited to input via local/video sensors you're still creating some significant safety issues, how long before car jackers throw a police uniform in their bag and start waving down random cars on desolate stretches of road.

Re:Brave new "future"

[Catbeller]

Never saw the movie. That writer was a clear thinker, wasn't he?

I'm not worried about car jackers, who are about as frequent as lighting strikes. Worried about our invisible political lords and masters. Imagine a Dick Cheney with this power. Oh god. Assange's car would have driven into a, let us say, a concrete wall at high speed. Snowden's taxi would roll over a railing and down into a gorge. Hell, why be obvious: just drive a random passing car on the street into a political opponent as they cross at a red light. Ooopsie! What a shame, must have been programmer error.

Only when a warrant is issued, or with permission

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there will be much argument about this, particularly in Amercia, where the deaths per capita inlicted by 'law enforcement', are similar to the murder rates in more civilised countries.

A compromise

[jwdb]

Ok, so none of us likes the idea of the cops being able to take full control of the car. It leaves a security hole ripe for abuse and mischief, and the cop is not necessarily in the position to determine how best the car should move.

However, under the assumption that a self-driving car will have a manual mode, what if the cop could emit a signal that disabled the autopilot? That would put the driver in control again, who could then decide whether or not to follow the cop's instructions as well as determine how to do so in the safest manner. Make it a broadcast signal that blankets a certain area, so that the driver gets plenty of warning that they'll have to take over before arriving at the controlled intersection.

That should work long enough for us to figure out how to have an AI recognize a traffic cop's instructions.

Re:A compromise

[Catbeller]

It would have to be a mechanical kill switch for the power bus that services all the automated systems, including the robot on your brakes, accelerator, and steering, or it is just a cute story you tell yourself so you feel better. And no cute integrated batteries that can wake up if a cop wants to override. A computerized switch is a joke.

Re:A compromise

[david_thornley]

What if there is no licensed driver? What if the driver isn't fit to drive? If I have to be in the driver's seat and ready to take control at all times, why not just drive the stupid thing? It's something to do, and it keeps my situational awareness fresh.

Re:A compromise

[jwdb]

I'm not sure what you're getting at... Are you saying you're worried that car companies will say they're merely giving the cops the right to disable the self-driving mode of our car while *actually* giving them the power to transfer control of the self-driving AI to the cop?

Just in case my idea wasn't clear, I'm saying that the self-driving AI should *always* be under control of the person in the car, and that it should have nothing more for the cop than an off switch. In that scenario and assuming the car company doesn't screw it up, worst case is you have to drive manually, and your car can never be taken over by an external "driver".

Re:A compromise

[jwdb]

Fair arguments, but those are arguments against self-driving cars in general as well. What do we do in general when the AI encounters a situation it can't handle? Although self-driving cars are apparently better than normal drivers in most conditions, it would surprise me if humans are not still much better at the edge cases. And edge cases that the car can't handle will always exist - what's the AI supposed to do when it faces a tornado, an earthquake, or a crazed gunman for instance?

Of course, there are also edge cases that a human driver can't handle, which is one of the reasons even good drivers still have accidents. It's impossible to train someone, be it a human or an AI, for all possible cases, so we just have to accept that limitation and train them for the cases they can reasonably be expected to encounter. With a self-driving car that would hopefully be a far smaller list, and would therefore require less certification.

Hopefully the off-switch approach would only be a stopgap measure until the AI is good enough to handle traffic cops and other edge cases, at which point anyone, capable or not, could hop in for a ride.

Viper TV Show

[Anonymous Coward]

They had an EMP which would instantly disable any vehicle. Why not use that?

Re:Viper TV Show

[chilenexus]

Such devices are, for the most part, non-directional and indiscriminate. Destroying all electronic devices in a 2-4 block (or greater) radius would not be well received. And what you do see about them on TV is only superficially correct at best.

Answer: Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the entire population so conditioned to be slaves that this is even a serious question?

 

Re:Answer: Never

[Catbeller]

Yup. Since the drug war and 9/11, the young have been raised in a police state. They know nothing else. And don't get me started on the technoeutopians... rich white kids who will never have their cars driven to a lonely spot by a cop for a little impromptu electrocution and tooth extraction. It's the troublemakers and the poor who will see the interior of a Vehicle Sequester concrete box when they annoy some Homeland Security hawk or local cop or even one of our lovely CIA bastards assigned to remove Snowdens from the world.

We're living in a giant, open air prison. I hate being right.

Police power

[Wootery]

They have power because they have guns and lots of buddies to back them up.

It's very much the latter, and not the former. It's the 'lots of buddies', i.e. the power of the police force, the courts, and the prison system, that give rise to their meaningful 'official powers'. Take away the gun, and nothing really changes. Source: am British.

Technology cannot tell the difference between the police and some random jackass

There's no inherent reason why a machine must be less capable at this than a human.

passenger safety

[chilenexus]

While the police would need the ability to order cars to pull over (bank robbery getaway, or a kidnapping, etc.), there's also the problems of police abusing their authority and people impersonating officers to deal with. Rather than allow police more control than "pull over at the first safe opportunity" and "this area is unsafe, detour this way", we should also be implementing verification that the orders are lawful. A transponder in the officer's badge that could be detected by the car is one idea - where the car can communicate with the local police headquarters to verify that said officer is on duty, is an officer in that area and is not a duplicate, and what their status is if their own car/equipment can't communicate with HQ. Of course, there should be a manual override available in the event of communications jamming or the scene becoming unsafe for some other reason.

Re:passenger safety

[Catbeller]

Any code and procedure can and will be dumped when convenient. Rules can't fix this. Don't accept controlled cars. Don't accept self-driving cars. Don't accept cars controlled by Turing machines which by definition are reprogrammable. Accept only rack-and-pinion steering, hydraulically controlled brakes modulated by your foot, and an accelerator that doesn't ignore your commands when it feels like it. Like e-voting: there is NO correct solution. Any effort is useless to control a computer when hostile outside forces have access. A computer is hackable, and you don't let it control a two-ton tank with you inside.

Rolling arrest pod

[Catbeller]

I've been pointing out the obvious ever since they had the brilliant idea of controlling a car by Turing machines on an internal network, hooked up to a external cell phone network. It will follow inevitably that: bad guys will take control, at the worst possible time, or police will exercise their immediately taken prerogative to stop, control, or block vehicles, or a combination of the two, as police aren't always nice, and sometimes the term "police" means "shadowy people who have lots of power and don't like you - at all."

It will be used immediately to monitor and control cars run by poor people in rich neighborhoods or towns, because of the Children, of course. And the Wikileaks supporters, and people like Assange or Snowden, or women rights supporters in Saudi Arabia wouldn't dare step into a swell new car without taking a chance that the car doors lock, the windows freeze, and their cars drive to a lovely lonely place with a waiting squad of armored men with machine guns await them for a final escort to a place where people never leave, alive or dead. Not only do your phones and TVs listen in and track you, but you can't trust your car not to take you away while you try desperately to break the windows. They'll probably just provide a escort car behind to make sure you can't jump to freedom.

Picture this, if the above scenario makes you giggle: you're driving to work, and suddenly your steering wheel stops working. The car exists the freeway, and drives to a police station, where a squad of SWAT-armored (they wear it to bust massage parlors, for satan's sake) point guns at you and tell you to exit the vehicle. Why? Who the fuck cares? You could have too many parking tickets (and they will KNOW when you park illegally). Hell, they'll just build a concrete box to slot cars into, to make it dead easy to get you out without risk to themselves. Mass removal of troublemakers made automated. Hell, just drive the cars into a jail receiving garage and starve the passengers out if they don't want to get out, why risk a cop?

I wonder how they'll support local law enforcement when cars *can't* speed? I digress. They'll invent new crimes, of course.

It will be damned impossible to annoy or challenge people with power to control your car. It'll be a rolling arrest cage. God, what good little boys and girls we shall be.

A fun note, to the person who called me out as insane when I predicted a terrorist would just nuke the car controls en masse with an EMP bomb/gun, when I used the term "carnage": when they killed the WIRED journalist's car dead on the expressway, he had a truck barreling up behind the car. If the truck had hit him, "carnage" would have been the term to describe his death. And that was a FRIENDLY demonstration of what happens when you let a computer control your brakes, controls, and accelerator.

What am I saying? Don't. Let. Computers. Control. Your. Car. EVER. Don't buy them, demand mechanical controls. Buy an Elio, when and if they come out, and make sure the Elioites don't "improve" the autocar by adding self-driving computer systems. Not that they'll have a choice, if we don't start fighting this off now.

I have no hope this stops. A generation of people who went to school with their faces on their floor while dogs sniff their crotches, and were arrested if they drew someone punching someone, aren't exactly trained to fight for their freedom. They never had freedom; how would they care?

Opt-In

[ememisya]

The feature could be available, but the user should be able to remove it should they choose to. Now if your car has the auto-stop feature, that might make things easier with the officer, then again a crook could simply turn it on just before they approach a cop, sort of like buckling up when you see a cop. In no way should it however become a required feature, we might "live in the future" but we still have slavery in today's day and age, lets not forget we evolve very slowly.

Re:Opt-In

[Catbeller]

There is no way our security forces will let this be anything but mandatory. Manual-control vehicles will be phased out, and eventually will be criminal to drive without some sort of cop-controlled shutoff, at least. Hell, the financing companies alone love external control. They use it to disable cars which have buyers late on their car payments. They can get rid of repo men if the cars drive themselves back to the dealer.

Re:Only when a warrant is issued, or with permissi

[Catbeller]

"I don't think there will be much argument about this, particularly in Amercia, where the deaths per capita inlicted by 'law enforcement', are similar to the murder rates in more civilised countries."

Well said. And rightwingers only have so many mod points, so let me give ya a hand here.

When Should Cops Be Allowed to Take Control?

[sudon't]

Q.) When should cops be allowed to take control of self-driving cars?
A.) When cops suspect the car contains cash!

My Prediction

[doomicon]

Groups will come out proclaiming how many lives will be saved by allowing Law Enforcement, DHS, CIA, FBI, School Crossing Guard to have the ability to disable/control Self-Driving cars, it will probably be "children" that will be saved

Any opposition that proclaims Rights, Liberty, or even cold hard facts that will dispute these Groups, will be shouted down as cold-hearted, unconcerned for safety etc.

Robot Cops

[bobmajdakjr]

Why don't we just replace the cops with robots too. Maybe a series of lights that a camera can do hue detection on. Jokes aside, traffic cops really are kinda pointless when they could program a portable traffic lamp that could be rolled out to do the same custom flow required for the hour or whatever. We have them (cops) in Dallas directing traffic out of Big Business and Big Religion parking lots. I like to watch them. They rarely care about conditions, instead just relating an alternate yet regular traffic pattern.

who gets the fine?

[hraponssi]

So just a silly little question came to my mind thinking about why would the police tell your car to pull over. If the police officer wants to give you a fine for some driving related issue, whose fault is it? Who gets the ticket? For example, maybe your self-driving car was just speeding (cause it missed the speed sign or whatever). Do you get the ticket or does your car get the ticket? If the car gets the ticket, does it then have to provide an Uber service for the night while you are sleeping to pay for it? Who compensates you for the wear due to this etc.. ANd so on.. :D

When their body cam is rolling

[davesays]

If a person is not wearing a bodycam that is on, and recording footage, they must not be a real cop. Hmmm?

Databases, and the associated abuse?

[Nerobro]

This bothers me in a bunch of ways.

First, is implementation.

I can think of two ways of doing this. First is local radio, or light based communications. All automated cars broadcast, and then a reciever determines who's where, so the officer can direct a specific machine to stop. Then that box has to transmit the right code to casue a car to stop. I can not see how that protocol will not be hacked and abused in weeks, if not hours of implementation. That's it's own little version of hades. If "anyone" can stop your car, you won't let ANYONE stop your car.

The second method, is with a database. Each automated car, sends it's location to a central database at all times. When a police officer wants to pull you over, he can scan the database and find your car, and tell it to do something. This method seems like it would be reliable. But then we have the database problem.

That database could be stolen. Now someone can track you, and knowing databases, now knows where your car has been for X number of days, weeks, or months.

Second, the police now know where you are at all times. Well, that's someone, but it's supposed to be someone safe. Third, now there's a database to sell, and a command that can be issued that stops your car. The slope gets VERY steep here... so lets tread carefully.

Lets say you have 50 parking tickets. The private agency in Chicago that covers parking tickets wants to boot your car. They pay the Chicago PD to have access to that database, and issue the signal to boot your car. ... anywhere. Lets say you're in ohio when they do their processing run, well you could be stuck there.

The same goes for registration. Lets say the state sees your registration expire, they'll tell your car that it can't drive legally. So it wont' drive. Sounds fine, until you look at the realities of where you can drive an unregistered car. Or transport it. GPS isn't accurate enough, property lines aren't drwan well enough, and many other factors would lead to disabled cars in legal places.

Finally, what if your car gets registered wrong? Someone else's car is the target of disablement, and instead your car gets disabled.

Sure, all of these things could probally be addressed with lots of time and paperwork, but nobody is going to pay me back or my time spent fixing their errors.

SDCs should cut way back on useless policemen

[EmperorOfCanada]

SDCs should cut way back on useless policemen because most police spend 99.9% of their time either doing nothing or harassing drivers for money. Very few police spend very little of their times preventing or investigating crimes. With the revenue stream of bullshit tickets gone the police budgets for bullshit police should also dry up.

Thus the remaining police should be, in theory, actually busy doing actual policework. Thus like many worries about self driving cars, their ability or inability to stop them shouldn't really end up being much of an issue with just a tiny few strange edge cases.

Where it will get interesting is if you watch a typical episode of cops the police often have the same MO. A board cop looking to show off for the cameras will go to a poor neighbourhood. He will wait for a car with 4 or more black men in it drive by. Then he will follow behind for the 30-60 seconds it takes them to break one of a massive set of traffic violations, and then the cop will pull them over with his ready made excuse in hand. But then the police will "search them for weapons" demand ID and eventually search the car. Then somewhere somehow a felony or warrant will be discovered and the policeman can make some excuse that he took some more "dirtbags" off the streets. Except that warrant was probably for not paying fantastically expensive bullshit traffic tickets issued during previous similar stops. And if the driver doesn't have a licence it will be because the guy lost it for not paying said fines.

So am I concerned if those police all lose their jobs, NO; am I concerned that they might have trouble pulling people over, NO. The threshold for pulling a SDC over should be that they are certain that the specific car contains an active and ongoing serious crime such as a kidnapping. But if they start doing things like redirecting all the SDCs to a checkpoint so they can do warrant checks or with some BS excuse that there was a recent robbery then screw them and their fourth amendment violating inbred deliverance level thinking.

Why are cops even part of this equation?

[TheBilgeRat]

Self driving cars cannot disobey traffic laws or "drive erratically"... so, the answer is we don't have traffic cops. Period. When the 70 million driving jobs evaporate from self-driving car adoption, so should the jackboot jobs as well.

Any reason why...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the "occupant", seeing the cop waving (or lights blinking or whatever), wouldn't simply tell the car to pull over? It's not like these things are going to ignore all user input once it starts rolling, right?

How's...

[eric_harris_76]

How's "never" work for you?

Too long? How about "Until the police have shown themselves to be responsible"?

Still sounds a lot like "never" to me.