Ads as an attack vector was identified in 2007 when security responders began receiving reports of malware hitting user machines as victims viewed online advertisements.
OK, then I'm afraid these 'security responders' were oblivious to the 7 or so years before that, and are therefore suspect.
Malware has been in ads since the friggin'.com era, saying they started in 2007 tells me they weren't paying attention.
Flash has been a vector for security exploits from ads as long as it has existed, as has javascript (popup window hell anybody?).
Sorry, any security researcher who forgets that ads have always been a vector for malware is a little too clueless.
Freaked out in the "gee I'm so totally surprised by this" sense? Not even a little.
Freaked out that organizations continue to be grossly incompetent with IT and security and bear no responsibility? Absolutely.
This stuff is all around us, on a constant basis. That these guys know they've been compromised and done nothing means they are either incompetent, or so grossly underfunded there was only ever going to be one outcome.
But apparently being grossly negligent and incompetent with security isn't something which ever gets acted on. Because nobody ever seems to have any actual penalties for this kind of stuff.
I'm sorry, but should we think these stats have changed from ye days or yore in chatrooms?
The sweaty fat guy pretending to be a female?
I'm sure if you had honest reporting, there's be a bunch of creepy stats... how many people got rolled in a hotel room thinking they were gonna get some, how many people have had extortion attempts, how many people have fapped to dirty chats which was really a guy on the other end.
It's the freakin' internet, isn't the fact that a good portion of the women, especially the ones looking for sex, are actually bored guys?
I'm sure people actually were getting laid, and a woman looking for a man is probably going to succeed. But I bet a lot of guys didn't do anything but chat with other guys without realizing it.
In fairness, this was a 2004 or so model year several years ago when satnav was newfangled.
I have no idea what it costs now.
But even at $200 to update the DVD in an Audi is more than you'd pay for a good quality dedicated unit with lifetime maps. So the one built into your car isn't cost effective over its lifetime, not by a long shot.
LOL, good luck with your Ford... won't it have Microsoft Sync these days?
Wow... I see the monkeys are fucking with the page layouts again.
My wife's previous car had built in satnav. It was driven from a DVD. Apparently upgrading the DVD would have cost around $800 or so from GM. This for older tech built into the dash. And the display tech was pretty lame and outdated.
My TomTom cost me under $175, comes with lifetime maps, and I can move it from my car to the wife's car, to a rental car, or to my parents car when I'm visiting. It doesn't require a data plan, no company gets to serve me ads or track where I go. It's got the really nice split screen to tell me "you need to be in one of these two lanes, definitely none of these three".
I just don't see value in the satnav being built into my car. It will be older tech very quick, much more expensive to replace, and you're stuck with it.
When you factor in the cost of these accessories when they come in the car vs buying an aftermarket device, it's just really not a cost effective way to do this.
And as far as speed and fuel... unless you're a race car driver I'm having a hard time believing you can't check these two things safely while driving. People have been doing it for decades, and only the most beginning of driver can't watch his speedometer and drive.
And, hell, my TomTom displays my speed as well. And I can look at it and barely take my eyes off the road for a fraction of a second.
But I'm not spending a bunch of extra money for this to be built into my car. It's just a way for car companies to pad the bottom line.
Think On-Star where you say "hey, can you find me a Sushi restaurant?"
Apparently that is an actual thing, I'm not sure.
The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are in-vehicle concierge (43%); mobile routers (38%); automatic parking systems (35%); heads-up display (33%); and built-in apps (32%). Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. Those features include Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto, in-vehicle concierge services and in-vehicle voice texting. When narrowed to just Gen Yers, the number of vehicle owners who don't want entertainment and connectivity systems increases to 23%.
These aren't features I want. They're fiddly gimmicks I'm not interested in.
I don't want apps (I don't even know what they'd be), or things to facilitate texting. I like the idea of stereo controls on the steering wheel, but I won't want anything overly complicated.
My current car stereo has an AUX input so I can feed it from my iPod, it has Bluetooth so it integrates with my phone... the rest of this reads like a bunch of stuff I want no part of while I'm driving.
And it amazes me that while we're seeing texting and driving made illegal car companies are focusing on giving you alternative ways to text.. text with one button, or voice to text. I have a better idea... stop being distracted by texts, and focus on driving your damned car. It's still going to be distracting.
To me this is all marketing crap. And I don't need Google or Microsoft or Apple in my dashboard, collecting analytics, and otherwise intruding on my driving. I rank all of this stuff into the big giant "DO NOT WANT" category. But for some reason the car companies are very obsessed and hell bent on adding every piece of tech to a car they can.
One of the few cool pieces of tech I've seen in a car lately is the backup camera, because it's directly applicable to the task of driving. The rest of this is just stuff nobody cares about.
I've seen several places which have signs up which say "we'll be happy to serve you when you are done with your phone".
The funniest thing I saw around that was some guy answer his phone just as he started to place his order, and the kid at the cash basically yelled "next", and then refuse to serve that customer who answered his phone. He just pointed at the sign and served the next guy. "Sorry sir, you'll have to get back in line".
The people who ask the guy at the counter to wait while they do whatever they are doing are self important assholes who think the world needs to stop because they got a call.
We don't care who called you, we're all in line too. Your phone call is your problem.
LOL... don't confuse years of apathy with any specific complaints about any specific company.
You could make that same joke about pretty much any company without anything to back it up and the people would laugh.
The grass on both sides of the fence has dog poop scattered around. Executives always reward themselves handsomely, and often detached from performance.
Just look at how much a CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes for getting kicked out for being incompetent. It's pretty lucrative, apparently.
But thankfully, I managed to watch mobile stuff go from seldom used by anybody to used by almost everybody without being forced to be a slave to it because I never needed to.
Which means I got lucky and can simply say "I don't care" and walk away from technology for hours or days at a time.
All that time I spent craving tech when I was younger, and trying to explain to people why it was cool, has paved the way for me to not give a damn now -- because it's the same as it's always been, only shinier and smaller.
It's the intertubes and email. It'll still be there later. No, I'm not gonna read my email in the middle of the night in case someone sent me the TPS reports.
Watching someone twitch like a crack monkey when that thing goes "ding"... it's quite pathetic.
The enabling of the area-specific urges compels me to explore tissues in unexpectedly pleasant ways while pondering the grammatical nuance and specific detail implied in your ramblings, and gives pause to ask if one might inquire about the availability of a news letter.
I shall subsequently be found to be relocated to my bunk for an unspecified duration.
(You should totally post one of these in every thread from now on.)
Yeah, every bloody quarter where they say no profit sharing for us, while doling out record level executive bonuses... for having so skillfully mismanaged the company there's no room for profit sharing.
No room for raises because we didn't meet our targets. But the ass who was responsible for the targets still gets his quarterly bonus.
Most people get fucked by their company fairly constantly. Just not in a good way.
The really funny thing is to watch the group effect of this Pavlovian response.
The "ding" goes off, and everybody in earshot is suddenly frisking themselves for their phone because, oh my fucking god, teh soshul netwerkz and teh emailz.
I figure you could fuck up most gatherings of people by having a device which could emulate the "ding" sound of several different mobile devices. Just walk through crowds causing all of these people to panic and think something life-affirming is going to happen and they'll have missed it.
I'm glad I came late to mobile technology. I'll leave mine locked in a drawer (or at home) and deal with it later.
I have no interest in being so tightly tethered to an electronic device that it becomes ingrained... I bet there's a measurable physiological response to that "ding" in a lot of people. It's pathetic, but I'd be curious to see what brain centers are impacted... probably all of them, and your body now things it's a survival imperative.
Years ago I had a manager who could not put down his Blackberry.
He'd call a meeting for us to walk him through some stuff. Every few seconds he looked at his phone. Now and then an email would come in, and he'd be like "what, sorry, I missed that part".
One day I walked out of the room while he was reading his email.
He came running after telling me the meeting wasn't over.
I told him the meeting had never really started, and since it was him who called it for his benefit, he could either put down his phone and listen, or I'd send him an email. But that I wasn't going to sit there repeating myself because he couldn't put his damned phone down.
There is nothing more annoying than some idiot who is in the middle of a social interaction, whips out their phone, loses the plot, and then expects you to give them a recap. Sorry, but I'm standing right here... I don't give a crap about your electronic device.
If you want to be a selfish bastard, do it on your own time. But don't waste my fucking time because you have the attention span of a child.
That people know it's rude and do it anyway... that's the part that really annoys the crap out of me. Go away, and I'll send you an email if you prefer. But stop constantly checking the damned thing, because I'm just going to walk away.
It's a market. Which means you are guaranteed that people will game the market for their own ends.
Like all markets, as soon as it exists, someone comes along and says "how can I exploit this for my own profit", and then proceeds to do just that.
And then you'll get cartels forming to do even more of it. Because humans are greedy and dishonest as group. And have figured out that ion groups they can be even more greedy and dishonest.
If anybody didn't see this coming with this kind of thing, they're hopelessly naive. When they brought this in people were saying this is exactly what would happen.
Here's a little rule: All systems which assume humans won't be greedy selfish bastards who will cheat and manipulate the system for their own gain, are systems which are doomed to fail because they stupidly ignore human nature.
That covers all ism's... economic, political, religious... if your ism says "at their core humans are nice and friendly and play by the rules"... your ism is full of crap.
This was doomed to have this outcome from the very beginning.
The only reason insiders use insider terms with outsiders are:
To hide something - a lie, incompetence, overcharges, etc.
And I would say the obfuscation begins with the words innovation and stifling, because it starts out with the premise it's an actual improvement.
What we have is companies selling products, or trying to co-opt the conversation about education.
The problem is these aren't entities who have any demonstrate-able skills in this field. They're taking stuff they've made up which they claim improves education, but have no evidence for.
So when we see "stifling innovation" in the headline, the headline is already bullshit, because it pre-supposes that "not buying into the bullshit of corporations" is stifling, and that "untested and proven methods" is innovation. The headline is a lie from the beginning.
What it's really doing is shedding light on the fact that university professors are calling bullshit around some vague terms which lack standardization or substantiation.
Most of this article could have been generated by a bullshit mission-statement generator, and would be about as meaningful.
Jeffrey R. Young writes about technology in education and leads a team exploring new story formats.
In other words, we have a tech columnist who is already biased towards to claim this stuff is "better".
Marketing terms, not substantiated by evidence, used by corporations and entities advancing their own agenda (profits), trying to control the conversation about education (again, without evidence).
"Education based on the ability to take tests well, as opposed to demonstrating competency. (Kidding. It's another meaningless catchphrase.)"
"Where the goal is to serve capitalist enterprise and produce workers who are 'competent' in 'skills' rather than give people models of ways to think. The goal of showing competency never really motivates anybody to do anything difficult/uncomfortable, but it does get them to see that doing the minimum and getting down a formula for the appearance of thinking is enough."
This is self serving corporations either selling a product, or trying to control the direction of education for their own ends.
This has nothing to do with "teaching" or "education" or anything which is founded in evidence.
Which means you should treat this for what it actually is: marketing puffery by people who stand to gain something.
This is about as nuanced and insightful as when HR wants a checkbox of tech terms they don't understand, and it gets used to say "anybody with this checkbox can do this job". It's to allow incompetent people to manage task-based workers with no understanding of the task.
Which is great if what you really want is cheap, outsourced labor instead of an actual educated workforce.
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.
Anybody who is surprised by shit like this is an idiot.
Everybody setting up "free" hotspots wants to monetize with anayltics and ads.
Google wanting to sell you a router they can control is also going to lead to monetizing and ads.
The problem is unless we have really good quality tools to block this shit, we're never going to stop it. And this is why we can't trust ad infrastructure at all and need to block it.. because it's being done by people who want money, and don't give a crap about your security of your privacy.
Until this shit is deemed illegal (ie the computer fraud and abuse act), it will continue. Because the assholes at AT&T feel it is their right to do anything they want with your internet traffic.
Never trust that "free" doesn't come with strings like this. And never trust than any corporation won't revert to being sociopaths and decide they can do anything they want to.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, then I'm afraid these 'security responders' were oblivious to the 7 or so years before that, and are therefore suspect.
Malware has been in ads since the friggin' .com era, saying they started in 2007 tells me they weren't paying attention.
Flash has been a vector for security exploits from ads as long as it has existed, as has javascript (popup window hell anybody?).
Sorry, any security researcher who forgets that ads have always been a vector for malware is a little too clueless.
Freaked out in the "gee I'm so totally surprised by this" sense? Not even a little.
Freaked out that organizations continue to be grossly incompetent with IT and security and bear no responsibility? Absolutely.
This stuff is all around us, on a constant basis. That these guys know they've been compromised and done nothing means they are either incompetent, or so grossly underfunded there was only ever going to be one outcome.
But apparently being grossly negligent and incompetent with security isn't something which ever gets acted on. Because nobody ever seems to have any actual penalties for this kind of stuff.
The more likely scenario is those football fields find themselves wondering where the footballs are.
The football doesn't need to give a crap about the football fields in this scenario.
The footballs fields are just a metaphor (for a metaphor) for a sausage fest where most of the guys are wondering what they're spending that money on.
I'm sorry, but should we think these stats have changed from ye days or yore in chatrooms?
The sweaty fat guy pretending to be a female?
I'm sure if you had honest reporting, there's be a bunch of creepy stats ... how many people got rolled in a hotel room thinking they were gonna get some, how many people have had extortion attempts, how many people have fapped to dirty chats which was really a guy on the other end.
It's the freakin' internet, isn't the fact that a good portion of the women, especially the ones looking for sex, are actually bored guys?
I'm sure people actually were getting laid, and a woman looking for a man is probably going to succeed. But I bet a lot of guys didn't do anything but chat with other guys without realizing it.
Oh, come on .. use your imagination .. in the modern parlance ... Zombpirenado!!!
As to the ritualistic cannibalism in Christianity and the resurrection bit .. meh, don't care, don't believe it, whatever.
In fairness, this was a 2004 or so model year several years ago when satnav was newfangled.
I have no idea what it costs now.
But even at $200 to update the DVD in an Audi is more than you'd pay for a good quality dedicated unit with lifetime maps. So the one built into your car isn't cost effective over its lifetime, not by a long shot.
LOL, good luck with your Ford ... won't it have Microsoft Sync these days?
Wow ... I see the monkeys are fucking with the page layouts again.
"Eat at Joes, 3 miles ahead on your right."
It's pretty much guaranteed to happen. They're already looking at tech to display your texts, so an ad is going to be trivial.
Well, here's my take on the satnav ...
My wife's previous car had built in satnav. It was driven from a DVD. Apparently upgrading the DVD would have cost around $800 or so from GM. This for older tech built into the dash. And the display tech was pretty lame and outdated.
My TomTom cost me under $175, comes with lifetime maps, and I can move it from my car to the wife's car, to a rental car, or to my parents car when I'm visiting. It doesn't require a data plan, no company gets to serve me ads or track where I go. It's got the really nice split screen to tell me "you need to be in one of these two lanes, definitely none of these three".
I just don't see value in the satnav being built into my car. It will be older tech very quick, much more expensive to replace, and you're stuck with it.
When you factor in the cost of these accessories when they come in the car vs buying an aftermarket device, it's just really not a cost effective way to do this.
And as far as speed and fuel ... unless you're a race car driver I'm having a hard time believing you can't check these two things safely while driving. People have been doing it for decades, and only the most beginning of driver can't watch his speedometer and drive.
And, hell, my TomTom displays my speed as well. And I can look at it and barely take my eyes off the road for a fraction of a second.
But I'm not spending a bunch of extra money for this to be built into my car. It's just a way for car companies to pad the bottom line.
Think On-Star where you say "hey, can you find me a Sushi restaurant?"
Apparently that is an actual thing, I'm not sure.
These aren't features I want. They're fiddly gimmicks I'm not interested in.
I don't want apps (I don't even know what they'd be), or things to facilitate texting. I like the idea of stereo controls on the steering wheel, but I won't want anything overly complicated.
My current car stereo has an AUX input so I can feed it from my iPod, it has Bluetooth so it integrates with my phone ... the rest of this reads like a bunch of stuff I want no part of while I'm driving.
And it amazes me that while we're seeing texting and driving made illegal car companies are focusing on giving you alternative ways to text .. text with one button, or voice to text. I have a better idea ... stop being distracted by texts, and focus on driving your damned car. It's still going to be distracting.
To me this is all marketing crap. And I don't need Google or Microsoft or Apple in my dashboard, collecting analytics, and otherwise intruding on my driving. I rank all of this stuff into the big giant "DO NOT WANT" category. But for some reason the car companies are very obsessed and hell bent on adding every piece of tech to a car they can.
One of the few cool pieces of tech I've seen in a car lately is the backup camera, because it's directly applicable to the task of driving. The rest of this is just stuff nobody cares about.
Oh, bullshit.
People exchanged something for value. It's a market.
The rest is ideology.
See my previous post about isms and how full of crap they are.
I've seen several places which have signs up which say "we'll be happy to serve you when you are done with your phone".
The funniest thing I saw around that was some guy answer his phone just as he started to place his order, and the kid at the cash basically yelled "next", and then refuse to serve that customer who answered his phone. He just pointed at the sign and served the next guy. "Sorry sir, you'll have to get back in line".
The people who ask the guy at the counter to wait while they do whatever they are doing are self important assholes who think the world needs to stop because they got a call.
We don't care who called you, we're all in line too. Your phone call is your problem.
The short answer is they simply don't care.
LOL ... don't confuse years of apathy with any specific complaints about any specific company.
You could make that same joke about pretty much any company without anything to back it up and the people would laugh.
The grass on both sides of the fence has dog poop scattered around. Executives always reward themselves handsomely, and often detached from performance.
Just look at how much a CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes for getting kicked out for being incompetent. It's pretty lucrative, apparently.
Probably.
But thankfully, I managed to watch mobile stuff go from seldom used by anybody to used by almost everybody without being forced to be a slave to it because I never needed to.
Which means I got lucky and can simply say "I don't care" and walk away from technology for hours or days at a time.
All that time I spent craving tech when I was younger, and trying to explain to people why it was cool, has paved the way for me to not give a damn now -- because it's the same as it's always been, only shinier and smaller.
It's the intertubes and email. It'll still be there later. No, I'm not gonna read my email in the middle of the night in case someone sent me the TPS reports.
Watching someone twitch like a crack monkey when that thing goes "ding" ... it's quite pathetic.
Now, kindly extract yourself from my lawn. ;-)
The enabling of the area-specific urges compels me to explore tissues in unexpectedly pleasant ways while pondering the grammatical nuance and specific detail implied in your ramblings, and gives pause to ask if one might inquire about the availability of a news letter.
I shall subsequently be found to be relocated to my bunk for an unspecified duration.
(You should totally post one of these in every thread from now on.)
Yeah, every bloody quarter where they say no profit sharing for us, while doling out record level executive bonuses ... for having so skillfully mismanaged the company there's no room for profit sharing.
No room for raises because we didn't meet our targets. But the ass who was responsible for the targets still gets his quarterly bonus.
Most people get fucked by their company fairly constantly. Just not in a good way.
The really funny thing is to watch the group effect of this Pavlovian response.
The "ding" goes off, and everybody in earshot is suddenly frisking themselves for their phone because, oh my fucking god, teh soshul netwerkz and teh emailz.
I figure you could fuck up most gatherings of people by having a device which could emulate the "ding" sound of several different mobile devices. Just walk through crowds causing all of these people to panic and think something life-affirming is going to happen and they'll have missed it.
I'm glad I came late to mobile technology. I'll leave mine locked in a drawer (or at home) and deal with it later.
I have no interest in being so tightly tethered to an electronic device that it becomes ingrained ... I bet there's a measurable physiological response to that "ding" in a lot of people. It's pathetic, but I'd be curious to see what brain centers are impacted ... probably all of them, and your body now things it's a survival imperative.
Me, I think it's pretty pathetic to watch it.
Years ago I had a manager who could not put down his Blackberry.
He'd call a meeting for us to walk him through some stuff. Every few seconds he looked at his phone. Now and then an email would come in, and he'd be like "what, sorry, I missed that part".
One day I walked out of the room while he was reading his email.
He came running after telling me the meeting wasn't over.
I told him the meeting had never really started, and since it was him who called it for his benefit, he could either put down his phone and listen, or I'd send him an email. But that I wasn't going to sit there repeating myself because he couldn't put his damned phone down.
There is nothing more annoying than some idiot who is in the middle of a social interaction, whips out their phone, loses the plot, and then expects you to give them a recap. Sorry, but I'm standing right here ... I don't give a crap about your electronic device.
If you want to be a selfish bastard, do it on your own time. But don't waste my fucking time because you have the attention span of a child.
That people know it's rude and do it anyway ... that's the part that really annoys the crap out of me. Go away, and I'll send you an email if you prefer. But stop constantly checking the damned thing, because I'm just going to walk away.
That's me baby, a Republican shill ... OMG, I've been found out.
Now where did I leave my Stormtrumper helmet?
Right, and nobody on Wall Street wouldn't do this at the drop of a hat.
Would you like to see my inventory of fine bridges I have available for sale?
It's a market. Which means you are guaranteed that people will game the market for their own ends.
Like all markets, as soon as it exists, someone comes along and says "how can I exploit this for my own profit", and then proceeds to do just that.
And then you'll get cartels forming to do even more of it. Because humans are greedy and dishonest as group. And have figured out that ion groups they can be even more greedy and dishonest.
If anybody didn't see this coming with this kind of thing, they're hopelessly naive. When they brought this in people were saying this is exactly what would happen.
Here's a little rule: All systems which assume humans won't be greedy selfish bastards who will cheat and manipulate the system for their own gain, are systems which are doomed to fail because they stupidly ignore human nature.
That covers all ism's ... economic, political, religious ... if your ism says "at their core humans are nice and friendly and play by the rules" ... your ism is full of crap.
This was doomed to have this outcome from the very beginning.
And I would say the obfuscation begins with the words innovation and stifling, because it starts out with the premise it's an actual improvement.
What we have is companies selling products, or trying to co-opt the conversation about education.
The problem is these aren't entities who have any demonstrate-able skills in this field. They're taking stuff they've made up which they claim improves education, but have no evidence for.
So when we see "stifling innovation" in the headline, the headline is already bullshit, because it pre-supposes that "not buying into the bullshit of corporations" is stifling, and that "untested and proven methods" is innovation. The headline is a lie from the beginning.
What it's really doing is shedding light on the fact that university professors are calling bullshit around some vague terms which lack standardization or substantiation.
Most of this article could have been generated by a bullshit mission-statement generator, and would be about as meaningful.
In other words, we have a tech columnist who is already biased towards to claim this stuff is "better".
The entire article sounds like bullshit to me.
Marketing terms, not substantiated by evidence, used by corporations and entities advancing their own agenda (profits), trying to control the conversation about education (again, without evidence).
This is self serving corporations either selling a product, or trying to control the direction of education for their own ends.
This has nothing to do with "teaching" or "education" or anything which is founded in evidence.
Which means you should treat this for what it actually is: marketing puffery by people who stand to gain something.
This is about as nuanced and insightful as when HR wants a checkbox of tech terms they don't understand, and it gets used to say "anybody with this checkbox can do this job". It's to allow incompetent people to manage task-based workers with no understanding of the task.
Which is great if what you really want is cheap, outsourced labor instead of an actual educated workforce.
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.
Anybody who is surprised by shit like this is an idiot.
Everybody setting up "free" hotspots wants to monetize with anayltics and ads.
Google wanting to sell you a router they can control is also going to lead to monetizing and ads.
The problem is unless we have really good quality tools to block this shit, we're never going to stop it. And this is why we can't trust ad infrastructure at all and need to block it .. because it's being done by people who want money, and don't give a crap about your security of your privacy.
Until this shit is deemed illegal (ie the computer fraud and abuse act), it will continue. Because the assholes at AT&T feel it is their right to do anything they want with your internet traffic.
Never trust that "free" doesn't come with strings like this. And never trust than any corporation won't revert to being sociopaths and decide they can do anything they want to.
LOL ... Loo-see-us ... Lucius ... that looks creepily like Luscious as I've typed it.