[SUBMITTED] Hi-tech Problems Require Hijack Solutions

[Candensia]

Something to consider,

The options reference a "security system" that was exploited by hackers and used to control vehicles. However, nothing is established about these security systems in the premise, and so reading the issue, I found myself going "Wait, what?" "What security system?" "Why are we talking about security systems?".

If security systems were the "remote device" that hackers, well, hacked to control a vehicle, then that needs to be explained in the premise.

EDIT: Looking back through the original draft thread, it seems a decision was made to cut out references to "security systems" in the premise, to improve realism. If that is your intention, options 2 and 3 need to be twisted to fit the new narrative.

Does that make sense?

[SherpDaWerp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0SrxBC1xs

It's almost never the "security system" that gets hacked - it's the head unit that communicates with some server, and then if you send in some data and pretend it's from the server, you can do dangerous things.

Also, realistically, these hacks are almost always discovered by someone who is working non-maliciously, who then reports it to the company in question. NS can probably ignore that part for sake of a better issue, though.

[Noahs Second Country]

Investigators have discovered that a series of automobile accidents were caused by remote devices hacking wireless car systems linked to the owners' phones. Hackers found they could unlock doors, apply brakes, and even stall engines. Now an odd assortment of concerned individuals have gathered in your office, all demanding action.

I find this description kind of odd. The issue opens with 'investigators discovered...' then the following sentence says 'hackers found...'. While this is correct, I personally don't like the way it reads. I would change it to something along the lines of

Investigators have discovered that a series of automobile accidents were caused by remote devices hacking wireless car systems linked to the owners' phones. More specifically, it was found that hackers were able to remotely and anonymously unlock doors, apply brakes, and even stall engines.

Also, oftentimes it is a white-hat hacker that finds security issues in real life, as SherpDaWerp has stated above me. Perhaps to work around this you could frame the issue as a third party organization finding security flaws in @@denonymadjective@@ made vehicles and bringing these issues to your attention following media publicity or escalation of the situation as a result of the manufacturer's refusal to admit they are wrong.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Investigators have discovered that a series of automobile accidents were caused by remote devices hacking wireless car systems linked to the owners' phones. Hackers found they could unlock doors, apply brakes, and even stall engines. Now an odd assortment of concerned individuals have gathered in your office, all demanding action.

I find this description kind of odd. The issue opens with 'investigators discovered...' then the following sentence says 'hackers found...'. While this is correct, I personally don't like the way it reads. I would change it to something along the lines of

Investigators have discovered that a series of automobile accidents were caused by remote devices hacking wireless car systems linked to the owners' phones. More specifically, it was found that hackers were able to remotely and anonymously unlock doors, apply brakes, and even stall engines.

Also, oftentimes it is a white-hat hacker that finds security issues in real life, as SherpDaWerp has stated above me. Perhaps to work around this you could frame the issue as a third party organization finding security flaws in @@denonymadjective@@ made vehicles and bringing these issues to your attention following media publicity or escalation of the situation as a result of the manufacturer's refusal to admit they are wrong.

Taking several of your comments to heart, I've created a second version of the issue (look at the OP to find both versions) that uses white-hat hackers instead of black-hat ones. Let me know what you think of that version. Do you prefer it to the original? Thank you all for your feedback. It has been highly invaluable in this process.

[Noahs Second Country]

Taking several of your comments to heart, I've created a second version of the issue (look at the OP to find both versions) that uses white-hat hackers instead of black-hat ones. Let me know what you think of that version. Do you prefer it to the original? Thank you all for your feedback. It has been highly invaluable in this process.

I like the description much better, nice job. This is more of a personal style choice, but I would change

installed in thousands of cars in @@@NATION@@@

to

installed in thousands of @@NATIONS@@'s cars

I just skimmed the new draft and saw this

"Do you realize the possibilities of this find?" he asks in a hardly audible whisper. "Picture the possibilities of this find

You may want to change the wording a bit here to avoid redundancy.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Taking several of your comments to heart, I've created a second version of the issue (look at the OP to find both versions) that uses white-hat hackers instead of black-hat ones. Let me know what you think of that version. Do you prefer it to the original? Thank you all for your feedback. It has been highly invaluable in this process.

I like the description much better, nice job. This is more of a personal style choice, but I would change

installed in thousands of cars in @@@NATION@@@

to

installed in thousands of @@NATIONS@@'s cars

I just skimmed the new draft and saw this

"Do you realize the possibilities of this find?" he asks in a hardly audible whisper. "Picture the possibilities of this find

You may want to change the wording a bit here to avoid redundancy.

I changed both items accordingly.

The only thing that stands out as needing my immediate attention right now is Option #2. It seems too... all over the place. Essentially, I need to convey a lot of information in a very small amount of text and I don't think I am doing the option justice right now.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Which version do you all like better, the black hat hacker version or the white hat hacker version? I am personally leaning towards the white hat hacker version but I am open to suggestions. Thank you.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Regarding the "last call" bit on page one, I am opening the thread back up to general discussion now that I have substantially reworked the draft (see "White Hat Hacker version"). You can safely disregard the "last call" notice. This draft is going to require a good bit more work before I am comfortable turning it in. Any and all feedback is, as always, greatly appreciated.

[Fauxia]

That should be well-intentioned, not good-intentioned, in the description.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

That should be well-intentioned, not good-intentioned, in the description.

Corrected the issue. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Australian rePublic]

Shouldn't the CEO of the car company be pissed with the aftermarket manufacturers, for making them look bad? Perhaps he should demand a ban on after market products or something?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Shouldn't the CEO of the car company be pissed with the aftermarket manufacturers, for making them look bad? Perhaps he should demand a ban on after market products or something?

Do you think that option would be too similar to Option #1? Option #1 is essentially everything short of banning them.

[Australian rePublic]

Shouldn't the CEO of the car company be pissed with the aftermarket manufacturers, for making them look bad? Perhaps he should demand a ban on after market products or something?

Do you think that option would be too similar to Option #1? Option #1 is essentially everything short of banning them.

Fair enough!

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Do you think that option would be too similar to Option #1? Option #1 is essentially everything short of banning them.

Fair enough!

I don't mean to be dismissive. As I've said, I really do value everyone's input. It's improved this draft immensely.

Curiously enough, an earlier version of the draft actually had an option to ban the devices outright. This option was ultimately merged with #1 because the two options turned out to be simply way too similar.

Going off my earlier inquiry, do you all think that Option #2 is fine as is? I know it's probably the least exciting option but is it still passable? If not, what can I do to improve it?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Any final structural suggestions before I move it to "last call"?

I'll be focusing on the White-hat Hacker Version from here on out.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

(If I don't specify which version (white-hat vs. black-hat) I'm referring to, then I'm referring to both.)

• taps you on the should and

  Taps you on the shoulder, right?
• Are these (the White-hat and Black-hat versions) two seperate issues? I've never heard of that being done before, just because a nation could get both at the same time and they'd basically be identical. (Overall validities are the same for both.) Maybe there's precedent, but I would think the issues team would take the first issue and then see the second one as "too similar to a pre-existing issue" and reject it.
• At present, the White-hat version doesn't seem like it would need government intervention. Presumably the company would just take those suggestions into account and fix things. Perhaps mention that they're refusing to make any changes, so that there's a bigger problem.
• I know I just suggested you add something to the White-hat intro, but at present it's also extremely wordy. Even clarifying that, you can make things considerably shorter — try not to mention anything you don't absolutely have to.
• Why the capitalist validity? Whether a private company makes the cars or the government does, they can be hacked either way. I'd downgrade that to a validity-toggled switch for option #2 (it references subsidies). You could make it so that capitalist nations get "subsidies" and socialist notations get "make them cheaper!" Having a full-issue validity is too much, in my opinion. But maybe I missed something.
• I'd change the speaker of Option 2, as some nations don't have court systems and that means no lawyers. It could always be an industry spokesperson/government official in charge of cars — in fact, this will work nicely with that same capitalist/socialist validity toggle!
• You asked if Option #2 looked good — besides the things I mentioned, it seems fine.

Hope this helps.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

(If I don't specify which version (white-hat vs. black-hat) I'm referring to, then I'm referring to both.)

• taps you on the should and

  Taps you on the shoulder, right?
• Are these (the White-hat and Black-hat versions) two seperate issues? I've never heard of that being done before, just because a nation could get both at the same time and they'd basically be identical. (Overall validities are the same for both.) Maybe there's precedent, but I would think the issues team would take the first issue and then see the second one as "too similar to a pre-existing issue" and reject it.
• At present, the White-hat version doesn't seem like it would need government intervention. Presumably the company would just take those suggestions into account and fix things. Perhaps mention that they're refusing to make any changes, so that there's a bigger problem.
• I know I just suggested you add something to the White-hat intro, but at present it's also extremely wordy. Even clarifying that, you can make things considerably shorter — try not to mention anything you don't absolutely have to.
• Why the capitalist validity? Whether a private company makes the cars or the government does, they can be hacked either way. I'd downgrade that to a validity-toggled switch for option #2 (it references subsidies). You could make it so that capitalist nations get "subsidies" and socialist notations get "make them cheaper!" Having a full-issue validity is too much, in my opinion. But maybe I missed something.
• I'd change the speaker of Option 2, as some nations don't have court systems and that means no lawyers. It could always be an industry spokesperson/government official in charge of cars — in fact, this will work nicely with that same capitalist/socialist validity toggle!
• You asked if Option #2 looked good — besides the things I mentioned, it seems fine.

Hope this helps.

Regarding your first point, no, they are not two separate issues. I'll be focusing only on the white hat issue from here on out assuming it still qualifies as a valid issue. You are right, I need to make sure that the White Hat Hacker Version actually qualifies as an issue.

I'll also slim down each of the options where possible.

Regarding validity, I am not going to touch that until I am ready to submit. The wording of the issues could theoretically make all of the options or none of the options invalid to a certain type of nation. With that said, I appreciate your suggestion. I'll make sure to revisit the validity after I get the wording of the issue pinned down. Thank you for the input.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

taps you on the should and

Taps you on the shoulder, right?

Good catch. Fixed

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Effect lines are a bit weak, and the first two options feel very prosaic and pedestrian. Can you add more humour?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Effect lines are a bit weak, and the first two options feel very prosaic and pedestrian. Can you add more humour?

I've completely reworked Option #2 to address your concerns. I also added a bit of flavor to Option #1, which, I must admit, was very bland. The effect line for Option #1 has also been reworked. What are your thoughts on the alteration?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Seems solid to me.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Does anything else stand out as needing immediate attention? I really appreciate all of the feedback and suggestions I have received so far.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Alrighty! I'm moving this draft to "Last Call" status. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you see something missing or needing attention. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Trotterdam]

Your effect lines are really bland.

Outcome: actually drowning in red tape has become a legitimate concern for many business owners

Outcome: life and auto insurance are being bundled at an increased rate

Outcome: dying in an automobile accident is considered to be an occupational hazard for most elected officials

The last one is the least bad, but it's also the only one I have a suggestion for:

bicycles are rising in popularity among politicians

(Actually, my first suggestion was going to be horses, but bicycles make more sense.)

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Your effect lines are really bland.

Outcome: actually drowning in red tape has become a legitimate concern for many business owners

Outcome: life and auto insurance are being bundled at an increased rate

Outcome: dying in an automobile accident is considered to be an occupational hazard for most elected officials

The last one is the least bad, but it's also the only one I have a suggestion for:

bicycles are rising in popularity among politicians

(Actually, my first suggestion was going to be horses, but bicycles make more sense.)

Hmm. Okay. I'll make sure to address the effect lines.