Was it a stunt? Yes. Was it life threatening? Hardly. The real risk is the early 90s Civic with a torn up clutch and bald tires swerving between lanes.
Uhh what? It seems you cannot go a week without reading about a pile-up on a freeway. Just last week a big-rig lost a wheel, it rolled into the on-coming lane, and drivers swerving and braking to avoid it actually caused a pile up. Stopping even on the shoulder on a freeway is considered "risky" by most police officers and many (like triple digits) have been killed while stopped in the shoulder due to vehicles drifting, failing to pay attention, or otherwise being distracted.
I cannot remotely begin to fathom how anyone can think a car going 0-10 MpH on a freeway ISN'T dangerous. And it is absolutely life threatening. If a car behind didn't notice the change in speed, panicked and either hit you or the concrete barrier(s) that could very easily cost them their life. Or leave them with life-long disabilities. Bigger things like trucks and those "road-trains" are even bigger liabilities.
Honestly I'll defend security research strongly in almost all contexts, but when you put people's actual lives in danger you clearly cross a line. There's no shades of gray there, endangering people's lives and health to effectively show off is absolutely immoral and should be illegal (and likely is).
Saying "well nobody got hurt" completely misses the point. It is the intent that is wrong, not the result. The result could have multiplied the wrongness of the intent and resulting in tens of years of jail time, but luckily for them their only "crime" this time was the intent of their dangerous actions.
And let's be frank here luck is the only reason nobody got hurt. The only reason why these two won't be in jail for many years.
Impeding traffic is a misdemeanor in Missouri, probably rates a maximum 1 year jail sentence (note 6: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/stspdlaw/mospeed.... )
There are autonomous vehicles being tested on our roads with a failure mode of "coast to a stop". They may not even have a human inside to react to things around them. Do the operators deserve to be jailed?
People modify their cars with various after-market upgrades and take them onto the highway. If the car fails, do they deserve to be imprisoned?
What a slippery slope!
Driving is a risk. The most deadly risk you will take each day. Drive defensively, don't be a statistic.
You might want to review existing laws. See, e.g.:
Georgia: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-8/...
"O.C.G.A. 40-8-7 (2010) 40-8-7. Driving unsafe or improperly equipped vehicle; punishment for violations of chapter generally; vehicle inspection by law enforcement officer without warrant"
Ohio: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4513.02
"(A) No person shall drive or move, or cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person."
California: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&gr...
"24002. (a) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard."
This research appears to have happened in Missouri, where it's harder to find the actual laws on the subject. That said, I did find this: https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions/MV... which tends to imply that there are laws to this effect that I cannot easily locate via internet searches.
The people testing self-driving cars had IRBs that go over their test cases. Do these guys even know what IRB stands for?
Here's a scenario:
Let's say a person is driving a car, when their car engine fails. There's no shoulder for them to drive onto, so they are just slowly decelerating when they are rear-ended by a vehicle behind them. Would you say that the car that had a mechanical failure is at fault, or the person behind them who wasn't paying attention is at fault?
So the people that purposely tried to cause the accident wouldn't be at fault for the accident if it occurred..?
I find it highly amusing that in your scenario you're using an unpredictable failure as an equal for an intentional act.
A better scenario would be:
I open your car bonnet while you go to the bathroom. I half-cut some cables knowing that they will fail when you knock them a few more times. You come out, get in your car, and drive down the freeway. A few miles later your car stops suddenly in the fast lane, and a big rig crashes into you while you sit there stopped going 70 MpH and you die. According to you I am not, at all, responsible for your death.
Or better yet still:
You just stop on the freeway just for fun/see what would happen. Someone drives into the back of you at 70 MpH and THEY die. According to you, you aren't at all responsible for that.
This would be a completely different story if the researchers applied full force to the brakes or accelerator since those are unexpected (to other drivers), sudden, and difficult to react to behaviours.
It isn't that convoluted to hold the driver responsible for the vehicle, they knew prior to driving into the area with a minimum speed that there was some intent to tamper with it.
What if their proof-of-concept didn't work as predicted and did slam the brakes? This is just a reverse-engineered hack that was unleashed on a highway while the radio was blasting too loud to hear each other on the call.
Legally, you are required to do what you can to avoid accidents.
Ethically, it's all kinds of fucked up when you rationalize with "well, if someone goes wrong I can blame someone else."
This test could have easily been done on a closed test track or heck, even a large parking lot.
You really really don't know this.
If this was done by an actual research lab staffed by adults, it would never have gotten past the ERB.
Danger Checklist:
✔ 70mph
✔ Public highway
✔ Driver not in control
I have a 26 mile daily drive, all high-traffic interstate freeways, and I can usually count at least two occurrences per day where I have to take evasive action to avoid a collision – people illegally on their (hand-held) phones, people blowing across three lanes at 75mph and not even bothering to check their mirrors, drivers leaning over in to the back seat on the freeway, people who drift into the wrong lane in a concurrent two-lane left turn, people who tailgate leaving mere inches between them and the car in front of them despite you having nowhere to go, people braking as if their car weighed half of what it actually weighs, et cetera.
I'm honestly not sure what the solution is, but it's (i) legitimately terrifying every single day, and (ii) hard to believe that any other kind of transportation modality would accept the kind of outcomes that humans driving on the US interstate highway system produces.
If we're going to condemn researchers for potential danger, then we might as well extend the same courtesy to car-driving AI and the makers thereof.