The FBI is concerned that self-driving cars could be used as "lethal weapons"

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,291   +192
Staff member

fbi driverless self driving car autonomous car driverless car

There's been plenty of discussion as to the benefits that self-driving vehicles will bestow upon society in the not-too-distant future. The FBI, however, believes driverless cars of the future pose a far greater risk than most of us have likely even considered up to this point.

An internal report on the matter obtained by The Guardian details a laundry list of nefarious situations in which driverless cars could be used as "lethal weapons."

For example, because a driver would no longer have to maintain control over their car, a fleeing suspect would be free to shoot at police giving chase. The bureau also foresee scenarios in which self-driving cars could be packed with explosives and driven to a specific destination for detonation.

It's not all doom and gloom as the FBI seems to be fully aware of the upside to driverless cars. The report notes that distraction or poor judgment leading to accidents would be substantially reduced. Furthermore, law enforcement activities such as tailing a suspect could become a bit easier as self-driving cars wouldn't need to be as close to the suspect thus reducing the risk of detection.

The report concludes that self-driving cars could be approved by Congress within the next five to seven years. This isn't too far off estimates that we heard from Google a few years back.

Do you think the FBI's concerns are valid? Let us know in the comments section below.

Permalink to story.

 
These are pretty weak examples.

There are pros and cons to owning a gun too. A) you kill a bad guy and protect your family or B) your kid gets a hold of it and brings it to school.
Solution: Use a gun safe.

Is the FBI saying guns are safer than driver-less cars???
 
Suck it up and get used to it! So can these little quad-choppers as they call them.
For example, because a driver would no longer have to maintain control over their car, a fleeing suspect would be free to shoot at police giving chase.
And how would this be different than chasing a car with 4 people (not just 1 but 3 of which are free to shoot back)? I would hate to think the car was actually programmed to drive itself just as wreck-less as the person wanting to get away.
The bureau also foresee scenarios in which self-driving cars could be packed with explosives and driven to a specific destination for detonation.
As if you couldn't find desperate people, willing to transport a package without knowing the contents of what they are carrying.
 
I wonder why manned car would be any less likely in such a situation. Will they really spend all that money to wreck their car? Moronic.
 
Do you think the FBI's concerns are valid?

Yes. It's their job to be concerned. I'd be concerned if they weren't. Every new piece of technology is used by criminals in ways that aren't intended. Look at the identity theft that is possible now because of the internet for example.

That doesn't mean we outlaw it... it just means we have to think about it and figure out ways to prevent and/or deal with the crime.

Can you imagine the public outcry if people starting committing crimes with self driving cars and law enforcement's response was 'oh, we never thought of that.' ??

And I'm sure the FBI has thought of plenty of ways to commit crimes with these cars that they aren't going to share with the news.
 
I wonder why manned car would be any less likely in such a situation. Will they really spend all that money to wreck their car? Moronic.
I'm fairly certain anyone wishing to use a car in this fashion would steal the one they wish to use. You know use a car that can not be traced back to the source.
 
Tell that to Mel Gibson, the real lethal weapon. :)
("I was drunk when I did/said it", said Mr. Gibson)

I dread the day when a criminal awaiting trial claims that he was forced by his self-driving car to do the crimes he was accused of.

The FBI is concerned that self-driving cars could be used as "lethal weapons"
versus
The U.S.A. government knew that unmanned drones are "lethal weapons" against its enemies
 
Rubbish! No self-respecting Islamist terrorist would allow it. They'd be inside yelling 'god is great'.
 
Its a good thing the FBI can stop this like they stopped the terrorists from blowing up boston and twin towers... oh wait...

Seriously now a pen can be used as a lethal weapon the FBI are beyond a joke anyone wanting to use anything as a weapn will and can the FBI are useless at preventing this...
 
Just wondering: How many people have been killed/injured by accidents and how many by terrorist attacks? Selfdriving cars will make the first number drastically go down, while they probably won't have too much of an impact on the second...

A car is a weapon - whether it drives itself or not.
 
Which is more dangerous:

self-driving car
or
depressed and drunken driver on a car?
 
Everything in this world poses a danger to everybody. From cars, drones, weapons and even the phones we are using.
FBI stop wining and pave way for new technology.
I think you may be missing the point. It isn't about "threat", it's about "threat perception"
1. Scare up a worst case scenario - publicise.
2. Create-a-Threat. Magnify any tangential cases where there could possibly be linkage - no matter how tenuous. Maybe some fiction - movie ideally- pitching the worst case scenario.
3. Public perceive imminent threat (real or more likely, imagined) - legislation and funding follow, maybe something along the lines of "Driverless cars could become a terrorist threat - how about giving us some control over their programming, maybe an override/kill switch....or a black box....or real-time surveillance options". At the very least you could see the DMV getting on board with cars becoming inoperable or driving themselves to impound yards because the owner has outstanding tickets or no insurance.
 
There is endless list of things that can be used as a lethal weapon in the hands of a professional. This shouldn't raise any undue concern.
 
Could driverless cars recognize chaotic hand gestures of Manhattan policemen? I thought so. Computers will replace all Google programmers long before they will be able to drive in the real world.
 
Which is more dangerous:

self-driving car
or
depressed and drunken driver on a car?
Depends. Depressed and drunken driver will maybe hit something, maybe not. Self-driving car, if used by terrorists, filled with C4 and targeted at some building, is more dangerous, but if not, then it depends on it's programming.
 
The FBI should be more concerned with senior-drivers, they are the real lethal weapons.
I beg your pardon! Not all senior citizens are tarred with the same brush and hopefully you'll live long enough to get old yourself but maybe when and if that happens autonomous cars will be in full swing. That said, I'm not quite at senior citizen age yet but not far off.
 
Last edited:
Autonomous cars are without doubt the future so the FBI will have to adapt or die. When the first horseless carriages appeared using self propulsion people said it was a passing fad and will never catch on. An understatement if I ever heard one.
 
I beg your pardon! Not all senior citizens are tarred with the same brush and hopefully you'll live long enough to get old yourself. That said, I'm not quite at senior citizen age yet but not far off.

Senior might not be the right word. Very elderly people who are flat out walking but still think they can drive. We have all seen them and there are plenty of them. If you think your reflexes will be good enough at 80+ to drive at freeway speeds safely then you must be super human or have amazing genetics ;)

If I live long enough I wont be driving or at least trying to.
 
I beg your pardon! Not all senior citizens are tarred with the same brush and hopefully you'll live long enough to get old yourself. That said, I'm not quite at senior citizen age yet but not far off.
I'm not that far off either, but seeing what carnage some of the snowcaps get up to locally makes a damn convincing argument for regular and comprehensive re-testing for eligibility for holding a drivers license. Crap like this happens on a fairly regular basis in my country - along with the reversing out of driveways without checking traffic, no/wrong indication, drifting across lanes of traffic, and that's without the comedic aspects. Unfortunately, deteriorating driving skills goes hand in hand with belligerence in a lot of cases.
 
If I live long enough I wont be driving or at least trying to.
In 40 years I'll be at home chillaxin, watching tv. *In other news, Techspot's Steve had quite a time last night as he was driving 92 on interstate 126, as seen by the following footage.*
 
Senior might not be the right word. Very elderly people who are flat out walking but still think they can drive. We have all seen them and there are plenty of them. If you think your reflexes will be good enough at 80+ to drive at freeway speeds safely then you must be super human or have amazing genetics ;)

If I live long enough I wont be driving or at least trying to.
Yeah I agree, 80+ is a bit too old to still be driving. In South Africa minibus taxi drivers kill more people than deadly diseases, heart attacks, strokes etc. yet the government and law enforcement do absolutely nothing about it. Some laws exist but the cops do not enforce them because they can make twice their annual salary in bribes.
Roll on autonomous taxis.
 
Senior might not be the right word. Very elderly people who are flat out walking but still think they can drive. We have all seen them and there are plenty of them. If you think your reflexes will be good enough at 80+ to drive at freeway speeds safely then you must be super human or have amazing genetics ;)

If I live long enough I wont be driving or at least trying to.
Stop digging the hole.It`s surprising that 'STAFF' lead with a prejudice and don`t do any research.People over 70 are less likely to kill you on the roads than the under 23s.Insurance companies know this.
 
Back