So, who's liable when an autonomous car hits another vehicle and causes injuries and/or deaths? Since the owner doesn't necessarily have (full) control of the situation, is the programmer liable? Is the auto maker liable? If the car is fully autonomous, it wouldn't even be an owner's decision. Can you hold them liable? (I suppose, even the choice to BUY a car like this could be considered as accepting liability..?)
Ultimately I figure some legal fiction will emerge, but assuming no outright negligence(not performing required maintenance/disabling safety systems for 'convenience') or malice(deliberate damage with intent to injure) I figure it'd be treated like accidents.
Who pays? I can see 3 options: 1. Owner pays: pretty much the situation now 2. Injured party pays(has insurance in case of accident happening to them) 3. Manufacturer pays. Legislative limits on damages.
So, speed differential alone is not acceptable - the car's passengers will almost certainly survive crashing in the tree largely uninjured but the cyclist is likely to get severely injured or worse.
I'd go with 'lowest speed differential at the anticipated time of impact'. Ideally the car would still be braking like a mofo, and with the brakes fully engaged, every foot is a substantial change in velocity.
So if you're on a bike, but closer to the car than the tree, while heading away from the car(but you won't pass the tree before impact), the car would consider that despite the difference in velocities the impact would be greater on you than the later one into the tree, so it picks the tree.
If you're further away than the tree and receding, I see a very narrow window for the car being restricted to a choice of hitting you or the tree.
Really, you'd have to be in a very narrow zone of 'nearly to the tree' to 'just a smidgeon past' in order for the car to select you but be unable to stop. Otherwise you're having to have the program be able to identify a person/human as opposed to a 'mere' obstacle, which I think is still pushing our AI development.
Heck, what about a different edge case - do you scrape along a wall/barrier or hit something?
I suspect that overall we are only going to get to the autonomous vehicle stage when they are better than the "average" human driver by a factor of ten or more, so the cost of having to re-examine "who pays?" issues are probably going to be equally reduced.
I've tended to use 'half' myself. We're at around 32k deaths/year from automobiles, down from nearly 55k back in '72.
If you prevent 16k deaths, it would save the country $7.6M in damages per death, $122B per year. Even if you consider that each death might cost the insurance companies* far less, maybe $500k between liability and life insurance payouts, that's $8B the insurance industry can 'save' if they can cut the accident rate. Disability insurance
Countering that is if the liability costs are low enough manufacturers might get into the business, baking the insurance cost into the price of the car.
*Remember that most insurance companies issue many forms of insurance, doing car, home, and life.
When that happens with a real driver, often, they are charged with manslaughter.
I think this would be quite rare if the investigation showed that they'd have had milliseconds to make the correct decision to avoid the accident.
Honestly, I figure that the remaining accidents once 'all' cars on the road are autonomous will be the really freaky ones. Things like blown tires, wildlife dashing into the road, rock slides, and actual equipment failures. IE they'll be actuall accidents, not the result of a number of negligences adding up to an accident, much less incompetence like driving drunk.
It's a problem because insurance cares about who's fault a crash is. If it's your fault, your insurance has to pay up - and they may even refuse to if they can prove negligence, in which case you have to pay up. Bad news all round. If it's the other parties fault, then same story but for them.
Just a nitpick, but I know of no automobile insurance policy that will refuse to pay up in the case of negligence - they even have to pay for DUI accidents. They just get to jack your rates up after because you've proven to be a higher risk. There wouldn't be much point of insurance for personal liability if it didn't cover negligence, because something negligent is nearly always found.
The only exception would be if the action was deliberate, and I think they even have to pay out for that - it's just that they can now sue YOU to recover the money.
Actually, no. One is not pre-paying for a ride from a taxi. You are buying a voucher that has other people paying most of the fair.
Yes, it was prepaid. From what I remember of the program, you paid $20 for the card, the charitable organizations ponied up $20, and they'd negotiated with the taxi companies that the voucher would cover the trip so long as it remained within the city/negotiated boundaries.
As for negotiating a better price - that rather depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it? There aren't federal guidelines for taxies, so not only do you have different rules for different countries, you have different rules for different states and even cities.
In affluent and sunny enough areas they already install carports to help keep people's expensive cars cool and unfaded.
So I can see installing solar panel car shades to attract people through a combination of 1. Offering electric chargers(cheap enough) 2. Drawing the greens(they have solar panels!) 3. People who just hate hot cars(shelter!)
They might also realize significant savings through tax benefits because it's not a shelter(no incentives), it's a solar system mounted high enough to be out of the car's way(incentives).
Instead of spending money on a car port just to power their car it is more practical to feed the solar power back to the grid and/or powering devices that require power during the day.
That's actually just what they're doing, FTA: With the Wallbox Pro’s features, excess solar energy not needed to charge the car can be used by the connected house.
In short it's a grid tie system that advertises itself as a car charger. Only reason the electricity would go primarily 'to the car' would be proximity.
The interesting thought I had is that if you write the work description right you could get the 30% federal credit for the whole carport by claiming the support structures are there for the solar panels(and they technically are, so you might get away with it!), and note that the solar panels ARE the roof, not laying on top of the roof, so there's some substantial savings there.
If you read the fine print, it's a grid-tie system, it feeds the electricity to the house/grid for net metering if a car isn't sucking down all it can provide and more.
Anyway, is "functional art" mean to be a euphemism for "ugly as sin"?
It's also not to my taste, but I can see somebody liking it. It has more 'soul' than conventional painted beams would.
So, using a flat surface of the carport roof for solar panels? Good idea. But it's just not really relevant to involve the car in this story, as you'll be charging it from the grid, like everyone else with an electric car.
It's more using solar panels AS the roof to save having to put a regular roof on, with it being a grid-tie system. Thus, you can consider the cost of the solar system to be reduced by what the cost of a conventional roof would have been. Since that could be 30% of the cost of the solar cells, it's not insubstantial. Plus, 30% federal rebate(in the USA) on said solar roof, while there's none for a conventional one, and you might even be able to deduct some of the carport construction by saying the supports are holding the solar panels up in a better location...;)
The only 'reason' solar power would go to the car over the rest of the grid is proximity.
First up, it's not like solar carports are a new idea. Note that in many of the pictures the cars were clearly under solar panels in commercial lots, so that handles the commute
Still, this is a lot better idea than putting solar panels on the car itself, at least a carport will have a predictable amount of sun, and as you mentioned, it can be angled properly.
I'd note that this 'solar charging station' is actually only so in name, instead being a standard grid-tie system. The benefit is that covered car ports are really, really nice to have in sunny areas(saves on air conditioning, wear&tear on vehicle, etc...), so making the roof solar panels is a marginal cost over having to have a roof there in the first place, even if it would only be corrugated tin or something otherwise.
30' south facing is only if you're at 30' latitude. I'll note that the BMW concept IS tilted somewhat. The actual angle you'd end up settling on would depend on where you are, the weather, and the balance you want between using the panels as shelter and gathering power from them.
I've proposed these before. If you do the research, you'll find that Solar panels are really, really tough. One possible way to reduce expense in new-build, as we see here, would be to actually use the panels as the 'roof', eliminating the expensive conventional roof underneath.
Those are very good rules, but laughable and naive.
You kind of contradict yourself with this. While I initially liked the idea of the 3 laws, problems quickly came up even within Asimov's books. Even in the books it's noted that fulfilling the 3 laws actually took up the MAJORITY of the 'brains' of all 3-rules compliant AIs. The cost to implement the 'laws' was, and would be, enormous.
I mean, consider the 'through inaction' clause. That means that every robot has to be constantly on the lookout for a human that might be about to be injured, to the limits of it's sensor ability, and be ready to sacrifice itself, if necessary, but only if necessary, in order to prevent said injury.
I prefer Keith Laumer's Bolo series. Given that they're explicitly military AI in giant tank bodies, there is no direct prohibition on killing. Instead they concentrated on making the AIs have a sense of morality, sort of idealized knights. Friendly fire still occured, factional warfare happened, but the only 'traitor' AI in the books turned out to have taken a shot to it's computer core that took out it's friend/enemy detection abilities(like brain damage to a human might do, though extremely rare), so it saw everything(except some kids that it was protecting) as enemies.
Nobody is going to launch a million dollar bullet (smart missile) then tell it to self destruct.
You'd be surprised. To a combatant commander, a million bucks is nothing. It all depends on the tactical circumstances.
Worst case you make the abort recoverable.
Heck, what do you think about a AI type interlock system? Both the machine logic AND a human have to decide firing is appropriate. Done right it *should* cut down on mistakes.
BTW, I'm figuring having this on 'big boom' weapons, not small arms.
The goal of this controversy is that no machine should never have the authority to issue the *first* kill command. That responsibility should always lie with a human. With that, I concur.
Agreed. Sort of like how casualties, on either side, are on the president's head if he orders troops in. Heck, it's on his head if he decides NOT to order troops in. Sometimes your only option is some influence on WHO dies.
It's not like being a legal taxi driver prevents you from being a murderer. Or even just charging illegal fees.
I'm sure that most illegal cabbies are just trying to make a living. The best solution is probably to end the protectionist rackets that limit the numbers of legal taxis.
The one thing that gets people is that they go to a supply / demand bidding system during ultra-high-demand periods like New Year's Eve. They put warnings all over the place when they do this, but prices can get VERY, VERY high.
Might sound strange, but I'm okay with this. Helps limit demand to only the essential. Personally, I prefer the service be available if you're willing to pay the price than for the drivers to decide that they'd rather have new year's off as well combined with insane demand resulting in effectively NO service for most people.
As for the black cabs, I kind of hope that the plan backfires on them as people blame THEM and not Uber for the disruption, thus calling for sanctions/loss of privilege for them, not uber.
Are there services where you can pre-pay for a cab ride?
Actually yes. The only one I'm familiar with is the 'free ride home' program. It's not actually free, but you pay a nominal fee(with the rest picked up by various donations) and get a card good for a ride home from the bar. The idea is that you can't spend the card on booze, thus always have a ride home without 'having' to drive.
Other than that, like in a lot of cases if you call ahead of time you can sometimes negotiate a better deal.
because machine decision-making exists on a continuum.'
No kidding. Depending on how you define it, a cruise missile could be considered a one-use killer robot. It executes it's program as set on launch.
Now consider making it more sophisticated. We now provide it with some criteria to apply against it's sensors when it reaches the target location. If criteria A is met, dive and explode on target, if B, pull up and detonate more or less harmlessly in the air. If neither criteria is met, it depends on whether it's set fail safe/deadly.
This is mixed - on the one hand properly programmed it can reduce innocent casualties, but on the other it encourages firing missiles on shakier intelligence. But then again Predators armed with hellfires are a heck of a lot more selective than WWII gravity bombs. As long as you presume that at least some violence/warfare can be justified, you have to consider these things.
On the whole, I like weapons being more selective, tends to cut down on civilian casualties, but I think that it's a topic more deserving of careful scrutiny than a reflexive ban.
This is like the government prosecuting your secure phone line business for being insecure, because someone can hold a tape recorder up to the receiver.
I think it depends on just what you promised your customers. If you said 'Your conversations over our phone calls CANNOT be intercepted or recorded by any means' you're promising a lot.
If your promise is more along the lines of 'Your conversations cannot be listened to or recorded by intercepting the telephone line or circuit as long as the device is intact and properly used', IE you don't promise that the phones will hold up to physical manipulation, bugs in the room, etc... You're probably safe as long as your phones actually work for that purpose.
Worse, it's important to remember that the Taliban isn't some organization that is evil 'just for the lulz'. It's a bad organization overall, yes, but one way to fight it is to rise above it's level and avoid giving them recruits because we do something stupid.
Bing - If the people see healthcare workers as purely helpful people, then they won't want the Taliban attacking them, they'll resist them being attacked, etc...
It's just like the prohibition on using holy sites as military points - doing so not only removes the protection from attack the site enjoys, but reduces the protection all the other sites enjoy. If we can keep our medical personnel from being seen as suspect, they're much better able to access these areas.
If we 'take the high road', then it pushes the Taliban(who are not Al Qaeda) to toe the line better. If both sides are toeing the line, it makes peace easier.
Every time I read about that I want to flog the CIA operatives that thought that up.
I mean, couldn't they have given out the REAL vaccine while they were at it? Or better yet, followed the rules of war and NOT imitated medical personnel?
Slashdot Mirror
Just want to point out that neither were those two illegal drivers operating in London...
So, who's liable when an autonomous car hits another vehicle and causes injuries and/or deaths? Since the owner doesn't necessarily have (full) control of the situation, is the programmer liable? Is the auto maker liable? If the car is fully autonomous, it wouldn't even be an owner's decision. Can you hold them liable? (I suppose, even the choice to BUY a car like this could be considered as accepting liability..?)
Ultimately I figure some legal fiction will emerge, but assuming no outright negligence(not performing required maintenance/disabling safety systems for 'convenience') or malice(deliberate damage with intent to injure) I figure it'd be treated like accidents.
Who pays? I can see 3 options:
1. Owner pays: pretty much the situation now
2. Injured party pays(has insurance in case of accident happening to them)
3. Manufacturer pays. Legislative limits on damages.
So, speed differential alone is not acceptable - the car's passengers will almost certainly survive crashing in the tree largely uninjured but the cyclist is likely to get severely injured or worse.
I'd go with 'lowest speed differential at the anticipated time of impact'. Ideally the car would still be braking like a mofo, and with the brakes fully engaged, every foot is a substantial change in velocity.
So if you're on a bike, but closer to the car than the tree, while heading away from the car(but you won't pass the tree before impact), the car would consider that despite the difference in velocities the impact would be greater on you than the later one into the tree, so it picks the tree.
If you're further away than the tree and receding, I see a very narrow window for the car being restricted to a choice of hitting you or the tree.
Really, you'd have to be in a very narrow zone of 'nearly to the tree' to 'just a smidgeon past' in order for the car to select you but be unable to stop. Otherwise you're having to have the program be able to identify a person/human as opposed to a 'mere' obstacle, which I think is still pushing our AI development.
Heck, what about a different edge case - do you scrape along a wall/barrier or hit something?
I suspect that overall we are only going to get to the autonomous vehicle stage when they are better than the "average" human driver by a factor of ten or more, so the cost of having to re-examine "who pays?" issues are probably going to be equally reduced.
I've tended to use 'half' myself. We're at around 32k deaths/year from automobiles, down from nearly 55k back in '72.
If you prevent 16k deaths, it would save the country $7.6M in damages per death, $122B per year. Even if you consider that each death might cost the insurance companies* far less, maybe $500k between liability and life insurance payouts, that's $8B the insurance industry can 'save' if they can cut the accident rate. Disability insurance
Countering that is if the liability costs are low enough manufacturers might get into the business, baking the insurance cost into the price of the car.
*Remember that most insurance companies issue many forms of insurance, doing car, home, and life.
When that happens with a real driver, often, they are charged with manslaughter.
I think this would be quite rare if the investigation showed that they'd have had milliseconds to make the correct decision to avoid the accident.
Honestly, I figure that the remaining accidents once 'all' cars on the road are autonomous will be the really freaky ones. Things like blown tires, wildlife dashing into the road, rock slides, and actual equipment failures. IE they'll be actuall accidents, not the result of a number of negligences adding up to an accident, much less incompetence like driving drunk.
It's a problem because insurance cares about who's fault a crash is. If it's your fault, your insurance has to pay up - and they may even refuse to if they can prove negligence, in which case you have to pay up. Bad news all round. If it's the other parties fault, then same story but for them.
Just a nitpick, but I know of no automobile insurance policy that will refuse to pay up in the case of negligence - they even have to pay for DUI accidents. They just get to jack your rates up after because you've proven to be a higher risk. There wouldn't be much point of insurance for personal liability if it didn't cover negligence, because something negligent is nearly always found.
The only exception would be if the action was deliberate, and I think they even have to pay out for that - it's just that they can now sue YOU to recover the money.
Actually, no. One is not pre-paying for a ride from a taxi. You are buying a voucher that has other people paying most of the fair.
Yes, it was prepaid. From what I remember of the program, you paid $20 for the card, the charitable organizations ponied up $20, and they'd negotiated with the taxi companies that the voucher would cover the trip so long as it remained within the city/negotiated boundaries.
As for negotiating a better price - that rather depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it? There aren't federal guidelines for taxies, so not only do you have different rules for different countries, you have different rules for different states and even cities.
In affluent and sunny enough areas they already install carports to help keep people's expensive cars cool and unfaded.
So I can see installing solar panel car shades to attract people through a combination of
1. Offering electric chargers(cheap enough)
2. Drawing the greens(they have solar panels!)
3. People who just hate hot cars(shelter!)
They might also realize significant savings through tax benefits because it's not a shelter(no incentives), it's a solar system mounted high enough to be out of the car's way(incentives).
Instead of spending money on a car port just to power their car it is more practical to feed the solar power back to the grid and/or powering devices that require power during the day.
That's actually just what they're doing, FTA: With the Wallbox Pro’s features, excess solar energy not needed to charge the car can be used by the connected house.
In short it's a grid tie system that advertises itself as a car charger. Only reason the electricity would go primarily 'to the car' would be proximity.
The interesting thought I had is that if you write the work description right you could get the 30% federal credit for the whole carport by claiming the support structures are there for the solar panels(and they technically are, so you might get away with it!), and note that the solar panels ARE the roof, not laying on top of the roof, so there's some substantial savings there.
Double checked my math. More like 22 kwh, or 66 miles worth of electricity a day.
It looks to be using 24 panels in a 6x4 configuration.
'Standard' 250W panels are 40"x65", giving my 20'x22', so 'close enough', especially if you slant it a bit.
Assuming ideal, that's 6kw. More realistically 3kw in most areas, about 43kwh per day. About 129 miles of electricity at 3 miles per kwh.
If you read the fine print, it's a grid-tie system, it feeds the electricity to the house/grid for net metering if a car isn't sucking down all it can provide and more.
Anyway, is "functional art" mean to be a euphemism for "ugly as sin"?
It's also not to my taste, but I can see somebody liking it. It has more 'soul' than conventional painted beams would.
So, using a flat surface of the carport roof for solar panels? Good idea. But it's just not really relevant to involve the car in this story, as you'll be charging it from the grid, like everyone else with an electric car.
It's more using solar panels AS the roof to save having to put a regular roof on, with it being a grid-tie system. Thus, you can consider the cost of the solar system to be reduced by what the cost of a conventional roof would have been. Since that could be 30% of the cost of the solar cells, it's not insubstantial. Plus, 30% federal rebate(in the USA) on said solar roof, while there's none for a conventional one, and you might even be able to deduct some of the carport construction by saying the supports are holding the solar panels up in a better location... ;)
The only 'reason' solar power would go to the car over the rest of the grid is proximity.
First up, it's not like solar carports are a new idea. Note that in many of the pictures the cars were clearly under solar panels in commercial lots, so that handles the commute
Still, this is a lot better idea than putting solar panels on the car itself, at least a carport will have a predictable amount of sun, and as you mentioned, it can be angled properly.
I'd note that this 'solar charging station' is actually only so in name, instead being a standard grid-tie system. The benefit is that covered car ports are really, really nice to have in sunny areas(saves on air conditioning, wear&tear on vehicle, etc...), so making the roof solar panels is a marginal cost over having to have a roof there in the first place, even if it would only be corrugated tin or something otherwise.
30' south facing is only if you're at 30' latitude. I'll note that the BMW concept IS tilted somewhat. The actual angle you'd end up settling on would depend on where you are, the weather, and the balance you want between using the panels as shelter and gathering power from them.
I've proposed these before. If you do the research, you'll find that Solar panels are really, really tough. One possible way to reduce expense in new-build, as we see here, would be to actually use the panels as the 'roof', eliminating the expensive conventional roof underneath.
Those are very good rules, but laughable and naive.
You kind of contradict yourself with this. While I initially liked the idea of the 3 laws, problems quickly came up even within Asimov's books. Even in the books it's noted that fulfilling the 3 laws actually took up the MAJORITY of the 'brains' of all 3-rules compliant AIs. The cost to implement the 'laws' was, and would be, enormous.
I mean, consider the 'through inaction' clause. That means that every robot has to be constantly on the lookout for a human that might be about to be injured, to the limits of it's sensor ability, and be ready to sacrifice itself, if necessary, but only if necessary, in order to prevent said injury.
I prefer Keith Laumer's Bolo series. Given that they're explicitly military AI in giant tank bodies, there is no direct prohibition on killing. Instead they concentrated on making the AIs have a sense of morality, sort of idealized knights. Friendly fire still occured, factional warfare happened, but the only 'traitor' AI in the books turned out to have taken a shot to it's computer core that took out it's friend/enemy detection abilities(like brain damage to a human might do, though extremely rare), so it saw everything(except some kids that it was protecting) as enemies.
Nobody is going to launch a million dollar bullet (smart missile) then tell it to self destruct.
You'd be surprised. To a combatant commander, a million bucks is nothing. It all depends on the tactical circumstances.
Worst case you make the abort recoverable.
Heck, what do you think about a AI type interlock system? Both the machine logic AND a human have to decide firing is appropriate. Done right it *should* cut down on mistakes.
BTW, I'm figuring having this on 'big boom' weapons, not small arms.
The goal of this controversy is that no machine should never have the authority to issue the *first* kill command. That responsibility should always lie with a human. With that, I concur.
Agreed. Sort of like how casualties, on either side, are on the president's head if he orders troops in. Heck, it's on his head if he decides NOT to order troops in. Sometimes your only option is some influence on WHO dies.
It's not like being a legal taxi driver prevents you from being a murderer. Or even just charging illegal fees.
I'm sure that most illegal cabbies are just trying to make a living. The best solution is probably to end the protectionist rackets that limit the numbers of legal taxis.
The one thing that gets people is that they go to a supply / demand bidding system during ultra-high-demand periods like New Year's Eve. They put warnings all over the place when they do this, but prices can get VERY, VERY high.
Might sound strange, but I'm okay with this. Helps limit demand to only the essential. Personally, I prefer the service be available if you're willing to pay the price than for the drivers to decide that they'd rather have new year's off as well combined with insane demand resulting in effectively NO service for most people.
As for the black cabs, I kind of hope that the plan backfires on them as people blame THEM and not Uber for the disruption, thus calling for sanctions/loss of privilege for them, not uber.
Are there services where you can pre-pay for a cab ride?
Actually yes. The only one I'm familiar with is the 'free ride home' program. It's not actually free, but you pay a nominal fee(with the rest picked up by various donations) and get a card good for a ride home from the bar. The idea is that you can't spend the card on booze, thus always have a ride home without 'having' to drive.
Other than that, like in a lot of cases if you call ahead of time you can sometimes negotiate a better deal.
because machine decision-making exists on a continuum.'
No kidding. Depending on how you define it, a cruise missile could be considered a one-use killer robot. It executes it's program as set on launch.
Now consider making it more sophisticated. We now provide it with some criteria to apply against it's sensors when it reaches the target location. If criteria A is met, dive and explode on target, if B, pull up and detonate more or less harmlessly in the air. If neither criteria is met, it depends on whether it's set fail safe/deadly.
This is mixed - on the one hand properly programmed it can reduce innocent casualties, but on the other it encourages firing missiles on shakier intelligence. But then again Predators armed with hellfires are a heck of a lot more selective than WWII gravity bombs. As long as you presume that at least some violence/warfare can be justified, you have to consider these things.
On the whole, I like weapons being more selective, tends to cut down on civilian casualties, but I think that it's a topic more deserving of careful scrutiny than a reflexive ban.
This is like the government prosecuting your secure phone line business for being insecure, because someone can hold a tape recorder up to the receiver.
I think it depends on just what you promised your customers. If you said 'Your conversations over our phone calls CANNOT be intercepted or recorded by any means' you're promising a lot.
If your promise is more along the lines of 'Your conversations cannot be listened to or recorded by intercepting the telephone line or circuit as long as the device is intact and properly used', IE you don't promise that the phones will hold up to physical manipulation, bugs in the room, etc... You're probably safe as long as your phones actually work for that purpose.
Cop was exaggerating in an attempt to provide safety. Shot, stabbed, fisticuffs, a parking spot generally isn't worth any of it.
Huh? They've undergone just as much evolution as we have, just in a different path.
Worse, it's important to remember that the Taliban isn't some organization that is evil 'just for the lulz'. It's a bad organization overall, yes, but one way to fight it is to rise above it's level and avoid giving them recruits because we do something stupid.
Bing - If the people see healthcare workers as purely helpful people, then they won't want the Taliban attacking them, they'll resist them being attacked, etc...
It's just like the prohibition on using holy sites as military points - doing so not only removes the protection from attack the site enjoys, but reduces the protection all the other sites enjoy. If we can keep our medical personnel from being seen as suspect, they're much better able to access these areas.
If we 'take the high road', then it pushes the Taliban(who are not Al Qaeda) to toe the line better. If both sides are toeing the line, it makes peace easier.
Every time I read about that I want to flog the CIA operatives that thought that up.
I mean, couldn't they have given out the REAL vaccine while they were at it? Or better yet, followed the rules of war and NOT imitated medical personnel?