[Submitted] “Smart” Cars?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Inspired partially by true events... (Thanks to Candlwhisper Archive for the inspiration)

The Premise:

After a string of mysterious car crashes and carjackings in @@Your nation@@, investigators have discovered that they were all caused by remote devices hacking into aftermarket “smart” car alarms installed on every automobile in question. These car alarms were easy to hack and gave hackers the ability to unlock doors, apply the brakes, and even stall the engine of the car they were installed in. Now a mob of angry soccer moms, car alarm CEOs, and random but equally opinionated bystanders have swarmed your office.

Option #1

“Imagine,” begins mini-van owning soccer mom,@@random female name@@, in what you just know will be a long winded speech by the way she sets her purse on your desk and adjusts her sweater. “I was dooped! Deceived. They told me the “smart alarm” would make my life easier and safer! I don’t know how I can drive now knowing that some nefarious creep might be plotting my demise at every turn, literally. You must make the businesses that manufacture these alarms pay for what they have done. They must recall their maniacal products and pay the poor saps who bought these life ending devices monetary compensation.”

Outcome: Buisnesses set more money aside for monetary compensation for their products than for the actual development of their products.


Option #2

Just as @@same random female name@@ is about to launch into the “think of the children” section of her monologue, she is dragged out by what seems to be the private security force of a smart dressed man. “@@random male name@@ here,” he begins after taking a seat in front of you and sitting a briefcase on your desk. “I work for Dodgeson & Ford attorneys at law. We represent the manufacturer of these remote automotive alarm system devices. To put it in layman’s terms, the company I represent isn’t, shouldn’t, and cannot be held responsible for the exploitation of this system flaw. My client’s only intention was to build a quality smart alarm system. The fact that it was easily hacked is not a liability on our end. For the sake of the continual promotion of capitalism we emplore you not to hold our client accountable.

Outcome: Anyone can do just about anything so long as they say it is “for the promotion of capitalism”


Option #3

“I have a solution!” wails @@random female name@@, a noteworthy communist, as she bounds into the room and lands atop your desk. ““This event, among many others, show that companies can’t be trusted to have the consumer’s best interest in mind. Instead they are greedy and do not take the time to test the security of their product. Therefore you must acquire this whole industry as the government’s property to punish the manufacturer's avarice.”

Outcome: “We didn’t need that industry anyway” say many CEOs

Option #4

As the situation in the room, as was expected, devolves into a total brawl, you are approached by a masked guy in a black hooded sweater. “Consider the crashes and jackings a portfolio of mine” the figure mumbles in a voice that is somehow artificially distorted. “I go by the name of Neon and am proud to have proved that any car with that system can be remotely hacked and disabled. Now, picture the possibilities for my talents. Distribute enough of those alarm systems and I can “deal” with any problem you might have. Political opponent? I stop their car and lock them inside over railroad tracks. So... whadda ya say?”

Outcome: The new Government cyber “security” force calls black hoodies and a mask their uniform

I am open to any and all feedback. Thanks!

The Premise:

Investigators have discovered that a series or motoring accidents and incidents 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.

Option #1

"Imagine," begins mini-van owning soccer mom,@@RANDOMFEMALE@@, as she adjusts her sweater. "I was dooped! Now I don’t know how I can feel safe driving with the knowledge that some nefarious creep might be plotting my demise at every turn. You must make the businesses that manufacture these alarms pay for what they have done by recalling their products and paying those who bought these devices monetary compensation."

Outcome: Businesses set more funds aside for monetary compensation than for the development of their products.


Option #2

"I have a better solution!" wails @@RANDOMFEMALE@@, a self proclaimed, "anti-capitalist", as she bounds into the room and lands atop your desk. "Regulations! This event shows that companies can’t be trusted to have their consumer’s safety in mind. Therfore we must impose strict cyber security regulations on this industry to insure that a horrible slip up like this never happens again. It will teach them that they can’t skip the safety tests."

Outcome: “We didn’t need that industry anyway” say CEOs after having their company bankrupted by safety regulations

Option #3

Just as she launches into a full on tirade, she is dragged out by the private security force of a smartly dressed man. After sitting a filled-to-burst briefcase on your desk he begins his own monologue. "I'll make this quick, my client, the creator of these fine aftermarket systems, shouldn’t be held responsible for a system flaw. My client’s only intention was to build a reliable and quality product. What are the actual odds of being hacked? My client has thousands of systems in public use and they don't all end up in a ditch."

Outcome: It can be hard to tell if the car's driver is the one on the wheel


Option #4

As the situation in the room, as was expected, devolves into a total brawl, you are approached by a hooded figure, whose face is shrouded in darkness. "Consider the crashes a portfolio of mine. I and am proud to have proved that any car with that system can be remotely hacked and disabled. Now, picture the possibilities for my talents. Distribute enough of those alarm systems and I can “deal” with any problem you might have."

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ "cyber security" force calls black hoodies their uniform


Requirements: You must have Capitalism in place. You can’t have banned automobiles

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Nice premise, but overly wordy. See if you can make the whole thing about 20-40% leaner in each section.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Nice premise, but overly wordy. See if you can make the whole thing about 20-40% leaner in each section.

Updated. I wasn't able to remove 40% but did get a lot cut. This was especially true for option #2. which was far too wordy and unnecessarily complex. I also increased the readability of certain lines. I would love suggestions on fixing it up from here.

[Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners]

If the "smart" alarms are installed aftermarket, why do they have access to brakes or the engine? I mean, if the alarms were built into the car and controlled by the car's own computer, I suppose a hacker could simply use the alarm as route in. But the issue makes the alarms sound like just an added accessory with a very odd degree of integration after the fact.

Also, what makes them "smart" and why? I feel like I need to know that before I can decide whether the manufacturer has been negligent in some manner. I mean, they coulda just welded a wifi router in there just so they could slap a "smart" label on the box, but then Option 1 is too obviously correct. What the reasonably good explanation for the "smart" features that turn out to have a dark side after all?

(I'm looking for a way to suspend my unassailable conviction that "dumb" security systems -- like a plain old fashioned deadbolt -- are inherently more secure precisely because they're "offline," and I need your help )

EDIT: Huh, so things like remote key fobs, remote start, and a bunch of other stuff I personally don't understand why anyone would ever want them precisely because they'd make a car so eminently simple to steal (yeah, yeah, "encryption," blah blah). In my defense, my car is 40 years old and still has a "metal" "key" that you have to physically insert into a "lock" to make it work, unless you want to try to hot wire it which isn't recommended as the damn thing tries to self-immolate enough as it is.

Anyway...I'd still recommend being more explicit about the specific feature being exploited in order to take over the cars. This will add verisimilitude, and help you set up a more balanced debate between a convenience/feature vs. the security/safety risk posed. That way, the player has more of a cost/benefit decision to make.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

If the "smart" alarms are installed aftermarket, why do they have access to brakes or the engine? I mean, if the alarms were built into the car and controlled by the car's own computer, I suppose a hacker could simply use the alarm as route in. But the issue makes the alarms sound like just an added accessory with a very odd degree of integration after the fact.

Also, what makes them "smart" and why? I feel like I need to know that before I can decide whether the manufacturer has been negligent in some manner. I mean, they coulda just welded a wifi router in there just so they could slap a "smart" label on the box, but then Option 1 is too obviously correct. What the reasonably good explanation for the "smart" features that turn out to have a dark side after all?

(I'm looking for a way to suspend my unassailable conviction that "dumb" security systems -- like a plain old fashioned deadbolt -- are inherently more secure precisely because they're "offline," and I need your help )

EDIT: Huh, so things like remote key fobs, remote start, and a bunch of other stuff I personally don't understand why anyone would ever want them precisely because they'd make a car so eminently simple to steal (yeah, yeah, "encryption," blah blah). In my defense, my car is 40 years old and still has a "metal" "key" that you have to physically insert into a "lock" to make it work, unless you want to try to hot wire it which isn't recommended as the damn thing tries to self-immolate enough as it is.

Anyway...I'd still recommend being more explicit about the specific feature being exploited in order to take over the cars. This will add verisimilitude, and help you set up a more balanced debate between a convenience/feature vs. the security/safety risk posed. That way, the player has more of a cost/benefit decision to make.

"Smart" was referring to the term actually used in an article I read on this topic. I guess it has the ability to access the full capabilities of the car's computer.

I will try to make the wording of the description make more sense.

Edit: Altered premise for ease of readability. Changed dialogue in Option 3 to create more middle-ground option. I also added a whole new option taking what CleanerBot said into consideration.

Anything else?

[Australian rePublic]

Hmmm... what about stolen, missing or replaced phones?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Hmmm... what about stolen, missing or replaced phones?

Respectfully... what? I agree that that would be a logical extension of the debate IRL but feel like adding in the "I was a forgetful person and left my unlocked cellphone on a park bench." adds an unnecessary complexity to an already really word heavy issue. Those are my 2 cents on it.

Then again If y'all agree that I should add that as a scenario I am happy to comply.

[Stormcalling]

How do hackable car alarms permit outright carjackings? I understand how hackable alarms wouldn't function very well as alarms, but the extent to which the issue takes this confuses me.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

How do hackable car alarms permit outright carjackings? I understand how hackable alarms wouldn't function very well as alarms, but the extent to which the issue takes this confuses me.

You walk up to the car, unlock it with the hack, start the engine (also using the hack) and drive away with it. I am open to suggestions on how to make this fact more clear in the Initial Paragraph (Premise).

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

I don't think this issue is quite where it needs to be for submission. Any other suggestions?

[Australian rePublic]

Did they get the parts from authorised dealers? That would make a significant difference

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Did they get the parts from authorised dealers? That would make a significant difference

I would say not. They were aftermarket so direct from the manufacturer of the system.

Then again, if y’all think that we should add the extra layer of complexity I am totally down for it, just let me know.

[Australian rePublic]

Did they get the parts from authorised dealers? That would make a significant difference

I would say not. They were aftermarket so direct from the manufacturer of the system.

Then again, if y’all think that we’ve should add the extra layer of complexity I am totally down for it, just let me know.

It's an important detail

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

I would say not. They were aftermarket so direct from the manufacturer of the system.

Then again, if y’all think that we’ve should add the extra layer of complexity I am totally down for it, just let me know.

It's an important detail

Alright, I will get it in then.

Update: Done.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The excessive wordiness remains.

For example, the opening:

After a string of mysterious car crashes and carjackings in @@Your nation@@, investigators have discovered that they were all caused by remote devices hacking into aftermarket car systems that were linked wirelessly to the owner's phone. These aftermarket systems which we not purchased from car dealerships were installed on every automobile in question and are evidently very easy to hack. Hackers attained the ability to unlock doors, apply the brakes, and even stall the engine of the cars these systems were installed in. Now a mob of angry soccer moms, CEOs, and random but equally opinionated bystanders have swarmed your office.

could read as:

Investigators have discovered that a series or motoring accidents and incidents 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.

Inflict a similar level of writing discipline on the options, and we'll be getting somewhere.

[Candensia]

You can trim quite a bit out of option 2. Here, I'll hand you my take.

Suggestions are in this color.

Things I was unsure about are in this color.

Just as @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@ is about to launches into the "think of the children" section of her monologue, she is dragged out by what seems to be the private security force of a smartly-dressed man. Sitting a briefcase on your desk, he begins his own monologue. "I work for Dodgeson & Ford attorneys at law. I represent the manufacturer of these remote automotive alarm systems in question. I'll make this short and simple, my client shouldn’t be held responsible for the exploitation of a system flaw. My client’s only intention was to build a reliable, quality product. The fact that it was easily hacked is not a liability on our end. For the sake of the continual promotion of capitalism we implore you not to hold our client accountable. And honestly, what are the actual odds of being hacked? My client has thousands of systems in public use, and cars aren't careening into every edifice imaginable."

Outcome: remote-controlled cars are surprisingly realistic

Fully implemented, your option would look like this.

Just as @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@ launches into the "think of the children" section of her monologue, she is dragged out by the private security force of a smartly-dressed man. Sitting a briefcase on your desk, he begins his own monologue. "I represent the manufacturer of the remote automotive alarm systems in question. Simply put, my client shouldn’t be held responsible for the exploitation of a system flaw. My client’s only intention was to build a reliable, quality product. The fact that it was easily hacked is not a liability on our end. And honestly, what are the actual odds of being hacked? My client has thousands of systems in public use, and cars aren't careening into every edifice imaginable."

Outcome: remote-controlled cars are surprisingly realistic

Just a general note. The more options proposed, the shorter each option should be. I wouldn't go longer than 4 lines long if proposing more than 4 options, but that's just me.

Good luck.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

You can trim quite a bit out of option 2. Here, I'll hand you my take.

Suggestions are in this color.

Things I was unsure about are in this color.

Just as @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@ is about to launches into the "think of the children" section of her monologue, she is dragged out by what seems to be the private security force of a smartly-dressed man. Sitting a briefcase on your desk, he begins his own monologue. "I work for Dodgeson & Ford attorneys at law. I represent the manufacturer of these remote automotive alarm systems in question. I'll make this short and simple, my client shouldn’t be held responsible for the exploitation of a system flaw. My client’s only intention was to build a reliable, quality product. The fact that it was easily hacked is not a liability on our end. For the sake of the continual promotion of capitalism we implore you not to hold our client accountable. And honestly, what are the actual odds of being hacked? My client has thousands of systems in public use, and cars aren't careening into every edifice imaginable."

Outcome: remote-controlled cars are surprisingly realistic

Fully implemented, your option would look like this.

Just as @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@ launches into the "think of the children" section of her monologue, she is dragged out by the private security force of a smartly-dressed man. Sitting a briefcase on your desk, he begins his own monologue. "I represent the manufacturer of the remote automotive alarm systems in question. Simply put, my client shouldn’t be held responsible for the exploitation of a system flaw. My client’s only intention was to build a reliable, quality product. The fact that it was easily hacked is not a liability on our end. And honestly, what are the actual odds of being hacked? My client has thousands of systems in public use, and cars aren't careening into every edifice imaginable."

Outcome: remote-controlled cars are surprisingly realistic

Just a general note. The more options proposed, the shorter each option should be. I wouldn't go longer than 4 lines long if proposing more than 4 options, but that's just me.

Good luck.

The excessive wordiness remains.

For example, the opening:

After a string of mysterious car crashes and carjackings in @@Your nation@@, investigators have discovered that they were all caused by remote devices hacking into aftermarket car systems that were linked wirelessly to the owner's phone. These aftermarket systems which we not purchased from car dealerships were installed on every automobile in question and are evidently very easy to hack. Hackers attained the ability to unlock doors, apply the brakes, and even stall the engine of the cars these systems were installed in. Now a mob of angry soccer moms, CEOs, and random but equally opinionated bystanders have swarmed your office.

could read as:

Investigators have discovered that a series or motoring accidents and incidents 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.

Inflict a similar level of writing discipline on the options, and we'll be getting somewhere.

I extensively edited Option 2 and cut one sentence from the "Premise."

[Makdon]

You walk up to the car, unlock it with the hack, start the engine (also using the hack) and drive away with it. I am open to suggestions on how to make this fact more clear in the Initial Paragraph (Premise).

I'm still a bit confused about the hacking. The options, notably 1 and 5, seemed to me to indicate that the cars were being driven by the hacker while the owner was in it, not that they would steal it. Otherwise, how could stealing a car means someone is "plotting my demise at every turn" or be used to "'deal' with any problem you might have"

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

You walk up to the car, unlock it with the hack, start the engine (also using the hack) and drive away with it. I am open to suggestions on how to make this fact more clear in the Initial Paragraph (Premise).

I'm still a bit confused about the hacking. The options, notably 1 and 5, seemed to me to indicate that the cars were being driven by the hacker while the owner was in it, not that they would steal it. Otherwise, how could stealing a car means someone is "plotting my demise at every turn" or be used to "'deal' with any problem you might have"

It is theoretically both (not at the same time). With that said, I understand the issue with that text wise and will amend accordingly.

Done.

Update: I did another round of sliming to cut some “fluff” from the issue.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Do you still think more slimming is needed? I worry that going further than that will make this a 1 dimensional issue but you all are the experts.

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

Do you still think more slimming is needed?

Yes.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Do you still think more slimming is needed?

Yes.

Alrighty, back to the axe yard! I will do another round of sliming when I get the chance.

UPDATE: Another round of slimming done. I don't know what else to cut without undermining the actual issue.

[Fauxia]

Might be better if you organized the order of options in this way:

1. Ban these cars
2. Give us a subsidy and we’ll make it safer
3. Just regulate them better
4. Hire us

(Although I’m not sure that last one is really helping the issue).

I do definitely think you don’t need both what’s currently option 1 and what’s currently option 3.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Might be better if you organized the order of options in this way:

1. Ban these cars
2. Give us a subsidy and we’ll make it safer
3. Just regulate them better
4. Hire us

(Although I’m not sure that last one is really helping the issue).

I do definitely think you don’t need both what’s currently option 1 and what’s currently option 3.

I re arranged the options. It even allowed me to cut a couple of words out of the former Option 2. The most problematic one. Thanks. Anything Else?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I feel you've not really taken on board the comments about wordiness.