Obama spoke about changes he’s looking to implement to combat climate change. Sen McConnell called the changes a War on Coal and jobs in that field. Cenk is skeptical of his intentions with Keystone XL since he’s announcing good, actionable news on power plants, but promises Keystone won’t go through if it adds significant carbon pollution. Now that Snowden is on the run and not arrested, Republicans that criticized Obama for the information Snowden revealed, are criticizing him for not catching him yet. Chuck Todd wondered how much Greenwald was involved in the Snowden “plot” and if he can explain himself. Joe Scarborough couldn’t get through his head that the IRS was looking through Progressive groups just like they were for Conservative groups. Fox News’ latest made up attack line on Obama and the immigration bill is that Obama is planning to give cars to young people.
June 25, 2013 Hour 1
Video Player
00:00
00:00
Comments
Cenk, if you ask me, the only thing you should do if you’re present at the Red Wedding before the shit goes down is to go out for a piss.
Yeah, I’m going to have to agree with Ann12345 on this one. I’m not an EE, but there’s no way that there’s a wireless network with your car that controls breaks and gas (Honestly, people would have figured this out a long time ago, it’s not exactly difficult to disassemble cars’ computer systems and I’m sure there’s legions of hackers and modders that would have found this out a long ass time ago). A lot of people don’t know that, but there’s a lot of amatuer and professional “hardware” hackers/modders who basically tear apart any device and figure out how it works (A lot of people with engineering aptitude will do this because they find it enjoyable). They’d certainly have found devices connected to the breaks/accelarator that could do this kind of thing, unless the government was outrageously clever. But then they’d have to convince every automobile manufacturer (including foriegn ones) that they need to install it. And the more hidden it would have to be, the more difficult and costly it’d be. Long story short, a lot of people would have to know about it, including foriegn manufacturers who don’t have a reason to hide this, and there’s a lot of reason to suspect that hardware hackers would have discovered it if it did exist.
Now, like Ann said, sure, you can manually add on a hardware-controlling device; however, this isn’t new technology and it’s also not something that’s terribly easy to do, you’d need to have physical access to the car for presumably non-trivial amounts of time. I worry making a big deal out of this will make TYT sound a little bit too much like Alex Jones’ show, or whatever that nutjob’s name is. It’s important to have a sane-sounding anti-establishment soapbox, especially with the issue of Wolf-PAC. Wait until you actually have confirmation of this before you through your weight behind this story…
Late model cars have electric throttles, ABS and some electronically assisted steering. Look at park assist, cars can operate themselves. As to whether someone could wirelessly hack into the cars onboard computer, maybe…
As Electrical Engineer, and hacker. The car hacking bit is a bit over the top. While clark may have been right abotu 9-11 it does not mean he is technically crediable. Yes it can be trivial to access a cars electronics, every mechanic now working needs to have some access and some need complete access. I doubt there are many cars on the market that offer wireless interface to the engine computer interface, and that is what would be required for remote contol. It would be possible to add one after but that same thing could have been done since the 80’s or earlier with a RC car/air plain controller. Parts are just smaller now, but event with a inbuit interface in the car it would be limited to a short distance comunications, which would require directed and hight power transmission that would likely mess up wifi or bluetooth communications in the target area, as those would be the technologies manaufactures would use. For tampering and maliciouly installed devices I would go with small package still based on the RC car concept as it is simple and more universal. If anyone want to investigate start with mechanics that worked on the car recently. Then look at the wreckage.
I think the issue is the way OnStar (and similar products) can open your locks for you if you’re locked out – so we know wireless access exists. Is it hooked to your brakes and accelerator? I don’t know. I thought I heard there was an anti-theft system where you call in your car stolen and they could shut it down remotely (as well as track it). That doesn’t seem like it’s hooked to the brakes/accelerator to me, but I’m not up on the details. I kind of doubt it, as you do — then again, I could see how it MIGHT be the case:
1) we know wireless access exists
2) we know the modern car has a computer they use in the shop that can do all kinds of things for testing/calibrating/diagnosing
3) suppose that anti-theft system exists as I remember it: then the wireless access is hooked up to something that can shut down your car
4) then suppose that they took a short-cut, instead of making a completely separate system to shut down the car wirelessly, they hooked it up to that testing computer and gave it a special command for shut down, but gave it no way to access to the rest of the testing functions
5) now, in theory, even if my assumptions #3 and 4 are right: this sounds safe enough, but that’s why it’s called hacking. We just need to imagine there’s a bug or exploit in the wireless program that DOES let you access the rest of the testing computer
Well, there’s a whole heck of a lot of “if” in there, which is why I’m still doubtful, but I could see it being possible now or in the future.
Maybe in the future this might be possibble. As for the shutdown stuff, the vast majority only make the car safer as they jsut shut off the fuel pump, I have bypassed a few and heard of other done this way, never hacked a Benz, so I don’t know about them. As for the tha cars with auto park and all those features, I am unsure, I would guess the liability laywers, would want alot assurances to keep it sepreate from real engine power, but who knows, don’t have the money to blow to hack those. I am just thinking that Clark is out of his experance relm here, the Gov types throw cyber around, like they just discoverd the world of computers and that DARPA did not fund the internet.
I agree with Ann12345. I’m an engineer, too, and have done a lot of deep software and hardware work for the last 30 years. I know what’s going on in tech. I also live in Michigan, and know a few of the guys that actually build and test these systems. Yes, there are control systems in vehicles that regulate braking, acceleration, and a lot of other functions, but directly controlling these via some wireless interface is not something any manufacturer would build into their cars for two reasons:
1) It is costly.
2) It is dangerous.
Regarding #1: No-one who is building these systems, which have to be day-in, day-out reliable, wants to throw in extra complexity and extra cost. It makes your job harder, and the bean counters will roast you alive. Company’s cut corners, they don’t throw on extras.
Regarding #2: If you’re building these systems, you need them to be drop-dead reliable. Introducing an arbitrary remote override increases the risk of regular operating failure (anyone remember when some model cruise controls used to go haywire in the 80s?). Regular operating failure results in recalls, and if spectacular enough, results in lawsuits and crushing impact to the business. Car manufacturers don’t want that.
Clark is wrong. He’s painting a picture that sounds like some spook sitting in their evil spook lair pressing a button and sending a car careening off the road. If there is deliberate automobile sabotage, it will require physically hacking the car on an individual basis.
Hasn’t it been established as fact that OnStar equipped vehicles are capable of receiving a signal that does lock down the car?
I thought what was in question was whether or not things other than deceleration / engine shut-off / fuel cut-off could be achieved via OnStar.
If you think this isn’t possible, go read the article in the NY Times titled, “Researchers Show How a Car’s Electronics Can Be Taken Over Remotely,” written in March of 2011. Pass it along to someone if it blows your mind.
“anyone remember when some model cruise controls used to go haywire in the 80s?”
Dude, that shit is still happening on a regular basis.
I love how much Cenk loves Game of Thrones!
Hey, this levy is really good a holding back the water… so successful I don’t think we need it anymore.
Minor nitpicking about the NSA/security clearance issues:
Sure there might be 1.3 million people with top security clearance, but they don’t all get to just browse everything that’s listed as top secret. It’s still a need to know basis. You can still question the legitimacy of the people looking at these things, but it’s not like there’s 1.3 with a free pass. The conclusion is the same, but I think you open yourself up to easy dismissal the way you are framing it.