You're repeatedly posting on this thread that "the manufacturers" have ignored the researchers' previous tests.
That doesn't seem to be true; Chrysler (the singular manufacturer involved) have, after being alerted to the hack prior to this report, already issued a patch. The researchers are practicing responsible disclosure, have the co-operation of the manufacturer, and are going public with the details at Blackhat next month.
This Wired piece is NOT part of that responsible vulnerability disclosure, it's a teaser to hype up their blackhat talk. It was not necessary to get this piece in Wired to save "hundreds of thousands" of lives. I guess you could argue that the vividness of this imagery will encourage people to follow through on getting their Jeeps patched, so there's that, I suppose.
Since you've repeatedly made this claim, do you have a link to back up the assertion that there are manufacturers who were ignoring this research who will now pay attention because of the crazy stunt Wired pulled?
My remarks were strictly based on the claims of the article. Nothing more, nothing less. The article claims that the researchers performed prior tests, and that said tests were dismissed by auto manufacturers. If we're going to take one component at face value (the idea of the reporter putting others in danger), it would be unfair to not extend the same courtesy to the rest of the article.
Responding to a Hacker News discussion about the article based in information from the article seems quite reasonable. Perhaps it does not deserve phrases like "saying stupid, reckless things". Could you step back for a moment and consider how YOU want others to perceive YOUR postings? I, for one, am a big fan of civil discourse on HN.
Given this is in the context of people loudly condemning a poster here for actually being concerned about other human beings' well-being, I think your claimed concern about "civility" in this one instance is dubious at best.
If someone prefers people making stupid and reckless arguments to other people civilly pointing out that those arguments are stupid and reckless, I'm not concerned about their perception of me.
In that case, the commenter who started this whole discussion of whether or not the researchers' behavior was in the wrong should've also educated him/herself before making phone calls to law enforcement agencies based on the claims of a WiReD article.
Or is basing one's statements on the subject matter alone only valid when you happen to agree with it?
That doesn't seem to be true; Chrysler (the singular manufacturer involved) have, after being alerted to the hack prior to this report, already issued a patch. The researchers are practicing responsible disclosure, have the co-operation of the manufacturer, and are going public with the details at Blackhat next month.
This Wired piece is NOT part of that responsible vulnerability disclosure, it's a teaser to hype up their blackhat talk. It was not necessary to get this piece in Wired to save "hundreds of thousands" of lives. I guess you could argue that the vividness of this imagery will encourage people to follow through on getting their Jeeps patched, so there's that, I suppose.
Since you've repeatedly made this claim, do you have a link to back up the assertion that there are manufacturers who were ignoring this research who will now pay attention because of the crazy stunt Wired pulled?