Jeep hackers hired by Uber to make the line of defense on automated cars

[jos]

Messrs. Miller and Valasek caused a stir earlier this summer when they brought a Jeep Cherokee to a halt on a St. Louis highway by wirelessly hacking into its entertainment system.

Uber said that Miller and Valasek will join the company's Advanced Technologies Center, a research laboratory Uber opened in Pittsburgh in February and staffed with dozens of autonomous vehicle experts hired away from Carnegie Mellon University.

An Uber spokeswoman said Miller and Valasek will work with the company's top security officers "to continue building out a world-class safety and security program at Uber."

Uber envisions autonomous cars that could someday replace its hundreds of thousands of contract drivers. The San Francisco company has gone to top-tier universities and research centers to build up this capability.

Uber on Tuesday announced a partnership with the University of Arizona, offering the school grant money to fund research into the mapping and safety technology needed for autonomous vehicles, which Uber will test on the streets of Tucson, Arizona.

This partnership follows the more tumultuous effort earlier this year at Carnegie Mellon University that resulted in Uber hiring away more than 40 of its top scientists and researchers, leaving one of the world's top robotics research institutions reeling.

And in March, Uber bought digital mapping firm deCarta, a San Jose, California-based company whose technology offers search and turn-by-turn directions.

 

 

 

Many make money of Uber but in future.. many will become jobless..

 

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-uber-tech-security-idUSKCN0QX2BQ20150828

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

Silly Uber. Always trying to hit people where it hurts for every dime they can get. First they hurt Taxis and actual Taxi businesses. Now they want to hurt all and demolish everyone in the transportation industry.

[iamdarkyoshi]

I think Tesla offers a cash reward or a job for managing to hack their cars.

[linuxfan66]

Well smart strategy...

[Ekpyrosis]

Well, I guess it sucks when the progress of technology is going to render your business model obsolete eventually. There are different ways to deal with that. Sabotage is one of the worst.

[Majestic]

Silly Uber. Always trying to hit people where it hurts for every dime they can get. First they hurt Taxis and actual Taxi businesses. Now they want to hurt all and demolish everyone in the transportation industry.

 

Seen the Handicar episode from South Park? They ridicule this very idea of "hurting taxi business" and i completely agree. It's very anti free-market to expell a service because it induces unhealthy competition to an established service (by that I mean, on that very premise alone). If that is the case, it's questionable if they're worth protecting. Obviously there is something wrong with their service in the first place if über took off the way it did. If they can't compete with them in terms of price, they should throw a marketing campaign of their own. Point out the flaws or shortcomings of über and promote their own. Advocate service over lower pricing. Have things like mobile internet or beverages on board. Something, fucking anything that puts you back into a competitive position.

 

Not fucking whine to the court you're being undercut, make it illegal and continue your shitty service.

 

I really don't fucking mind these companies throwing smear campaigns. It induces the other to clean up their act and fire shots back. If they can't deal with a little criticism, they're not worth protecting. And we get to laugh at their techsavvy twitterhandles firing shots at eachother. Like Pepsi and Coca-Cola for example

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

Seen the Handicar episode from South Park? They ridicule this very idea of "hurting taxi business" and i completely agree. It's very anti free-market to expell a service because it induces unhealthy competition to an established service (by that I mean, on that very premise alone). If that is the case, it's questionable if they're worth protecting. Obviously there is something wrong with their service in the first place if über took off the way it did. If they can't compete with them in terms of price, they should throw a marketing campaign of their own. Point out the flaws or shortcomings of über and promote their own. Advocate service over lower pricing. Have things like mobile internet or beverages on board. Something, fucking anything that puts you back into a competitive position.

 

Not fucking whine to the court you're being undercut, make it illegal and continue your shitty service.

 

I don't know the full Taxi story, nor the business itself, but what I can tell you is: I don't like Uber because of these strangers making money driving people around without a Taxi license or whatever. Could be real dangerous for tourists. The Taxi business is overall bad though... 

[Majestic]

I don't know the full Taxi story, nor the business itself, but what I can tell you is: I don't like Uber because of these strangers making money driving people around without a Taxi license or whatever. Could be real dangerous for tourists. The Taxi business is overall bad though... 

 

Then don't use über and order a cab. Nobody is expecting one or the other to prevail and become the standard. Markets might shift a little but, sure. But the very idea some people are put off by having some stranger without a license drive them, makes taxi's still viable for business. Taxi services might have to change their strategies in order to compete. Obviously they can't compete in price since they mostly drive more expensive cars and have chauffeurs with licences that need to be paid. So appeal to a different market! Like I said earlier, appeal to the more wealthy people. Have services on board the vehicle (wi-fi, phone, television). Have cold beverages. All of these things don't cost a great deal, but might just make you that much more appealing.

 

Expelling or making über illegal is just anti free-market and really stupid.

[Ekpyrosis]

Expelling or making über illegal is just anti free-market and utterly retarded.

Uber wasn't made illegal, it was illegal to begin with.

[spartaman64]

Well, I guess it sucks when the progress of technology is going to render your business model obsolete eventually. There are different ways to deal with that. Sabotage is one of the worst.

what does sabotage have anything to do with this. uber wants autonomous cars and they want them to be safe

[Majestic]

Uber wasn't made illegal, it was illegal to begin with.

 

Well it was illegal due to being ruled unhealthy competition for the established taxi market iirc.

 

Regardless, it shouldn't be. If the consumers have demand for this type of service, there should be a supply.

It's the lost-sale fallacy the music industy also suffers from. They think that a person using über is a lost customer. Not even questioning whether this person would've actually used a taxi had the alternative not been there. (in music analogy; twitchtv streaming music vs. sales).

[Ekpyrosis]

Well it was illegal due to being ruled unhealthy competition for the established taxi market iirc.

 

Regardless, it shouldn't be. If the consumers have demand for this type of service, there should be a supply.

It's the lost-sale fallacy the music industy also suffers from. They think that a person using über is a lost customer. Not even questioning whether this person would've actually used a taxi had the alternative not been there. (in music analogy; twitchtv streaming music vs. sales).

Depends on the country we're talking about. Most countries require a taxi license, why would you assume that a person doing the same exact work without such a license is not illegal? Pilots need a license, busdrivers need a license etc. (and I'm not talking about the license to drive a certain vehicle, but the license to transport other people as your daily job) is that anti-competitive as well?

[Majestic]

Depends on the country we're talking about. Most countries require a taxi license, why would you assume that a person doing the same exact work without such a license is not illegal? Pilots need a license, busdrivers need a license etc. (and I'm not talking about the license to drive a certain vehicle, but the license to transport other people as your daily job) is that anti-competitive as well?

 

Because it's patronizing to assume consumers can't decide this for themselves. It's a bit of a leap to compare driving people around in a personal vehicle with planes/trains/busses/boats. It's interesting to argue where you draw the line, and if such a thing can be defined by some arbitrary number. Most likely this is something the insurance companies have a degree of say in the matter. But driving a few people in your personal vehicle can't be compared to flying a plane with 200+ people. By that logic, you'd need a license to drive your own family around.

 

Now granted, in the US it's illegal to hitchhike (not saying you get a fine for it, but by law) and über is essentially hitchhiking commercialised. So in that regard, it would be illegal by law. But it's not always the case, especially in most European countries it's not illegal. So if hitchhiking isn't illegal, über can't be illegal by association.

 

And if the argument is, it's undercutting the established form of transportation by not requiring licences, institutions or unions. Youtube couldn't have existed, and with it... this site. Because youtubers undercut the established media in a big way, and they don't need licences or institutions either.