Hacker News Reader

Comment by stale2002 | Hacker News Reader

stale2002

This isn't some "clever trick". It is genuinely not illegal to release a bunch of code open source on github.

The Government asked him to not sell his product, so he complied with the government's request.

> The Government asked him to not sell his product,

Well, the Government didn't that, they asked proof that it was safe before selling it https://es.scribd.com/document/329218929/2016-10-27-Special-...

They specifically used the words "delay selling your product", which is what he did.

He still seems to be operating a "data network", to collect driving data for further optimization. I think that part makes the "selling" moot, given that his business is based on input from this "free" app...

To give an example of another field, the OpenAPS project for diabetes seems to be walking a very narrow tight rope in their actions and statements in order to not be regulated by the FDA.

https://openaps.org

This doesn't seem to be a narrow rope at all. Code is speech, as determined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bernstein v. United States. The government cannot prevent you from publishing very detailed descriptions on how a regulated device would operate, which is all OpenAPS is.

It insulates him from the government, not civil liability. If someone uses this and gets killed, he can still be sued and have to defend himself out of his own pockets.

Well, IANAL but wouldn't the license of the software protect him from that:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Him, maybe. Let's wait until it is tested. But it certainly won't insulate johnny github from liability

This is more of a disclaimer which won't stand up in a court of law. If he released the software and understood the risk that someone could use it and get into an accident and get killed, then the responsibility is on him.

Also, since this isn't released by his company, he alone will be personally responsible without any of the laws that would normally shield a business owner from repercussions of something like this.

This is similar to someone releasing malware. The government doesn't just go after the guy who downloaded it and used to get a bunch of credit card numbers, they go after the person who actually wrote the software:

MegalodonHTTP Author Arrested in December RAT Raid - http://www.securityweek.com/alleged-author-megalodonhttp-mal...

Ransomware Author "Pornopoker" Arrested in Russia - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ransomware-au...

Blackhole Exploit Kit Author Sentenced to Prison - http://www.securityweek.com/blackhole-exploit-kit-author-sen...

To say he's taking a huge risk is an understatement.

It is an ethically shitty move, though. The software is not properly tested. People will run it thinking it's legit and probably some will get hurt or die. The law doesn't matter.

It's ethically shitty to release open source software now? People who pull down some source from Github that has 4 commits, thinking it's legit and rely on it to drive your car are probably not too many. Those that do, are generally hard to protect from themselves in any area of life.

7 years ago I completed a PhD developing the first control software for quadrotor drones. I mention this only to give a sense of time. Now every idiot with an arduino and a github account can crash one into my family at the park. Do you think the adoption of shitty self driving technology by unequipped amateurs will follow a different path?

The cost of both entry and failure for hacking on quadcopter vs car is orders of magnitude apart?

Unless you know something about the upcoming price of cars that you'd like to share ;).

Really?

In 5 years how many cars will be equipped with the basal level of sensors that make these sorts of hacks possible? My guess is more people will have compatible cars in their house than qudrotors....

Cost and chance of failure is poorly (or not at all) evaluated by the kinds of dangerous beginners likely to crash their car-pilot into a bridge.

The point wasn't about the ubiquity of the feature set in cars but rather the cost of bricking one/crashing one being well beyond what it is for a quadcopter. And the point still stands.

The people who are out there with quadcopters are the same people who would be doing these hacks at home on cars; some hobbyist/tinkerer subset of nerd.

I don't share your low opinion of their threat evaluation functions either.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree then.

I find it plausible that self driving cars with the same software can perfectly understand each other via predefined behaviour patterns.

If you follow that premise, it becomes less safe to drive manually.

So, under this premise, the modus operandi is to be automatic pilot instead of manual where perhaps manual driving is even illegal because it is less predictable.

The question wouldn't be, if this change happens; its when. Where's the turning point? One could argue its up to our politicians to decide. I'd be interested in data from other trends such as smoking. When was the turning point there, and what was the "market penetration" of smokers vs non-smokers or proponents and opposers?

So someone is an "idiot" if they hack drone code without a doctorate degree?

You should have written in code to keep the things from crashing into buildings and people.

> People will run it thinking it's legit

That might be believable if they didn't explicitly warn you and you didn't have to flash the phone yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com