Pipe 3CX Is the Guardian spreading FUD?

Is the Guardian spreading FUD?

in ask on (#3CX)
I have become a very suspicious person in the last 54 years in regards to not only the government, but even more so, of mass media.
Currently, over at The Green Site, is a heated discussion over an article in the http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/16/google-fbi-driverless-cars-leathal-weapons-autonomous Guardian that raises my B.S. detector.

In particular, this is not classified, but restricted, so there is no link to a transcript. All other articles in a 15 minute search lead back to the Guardians article. And there it stops.

The comments they are paraphrasing sound like they are being taken out of context. Off the cuff remarks like, "I suppose someone could do such and such." So apparently it is restricted enough to not be able to quote from, but ok to analyze and tell us whats in it in their words? Hmmmm.

Mainly, because I never underestimate an enemy, I don't think the F.B.I.'s inner circles are made of people this stupid. The Guardian makes it sound like these were the main focus. And quotes like these are why:
One nightmare scenario could be suspects shooting at pursuers from getaway cars that are driving themselves.

This presumably reflects fears that criminals might override safety features to ignore traffic lights and speed limits, or that terrorists might program explosive-packed cars to become self-driving bombs.
Ok, I'll give them the auto-bombs.

Now, I am not a programmer, and neither I presume are most of the F.B.I., however I just don't think they are quite this dumb. I don't think it would really be possible for two reasons.

1: I don't think there will be a market for self driving muscle/supercars, so the best might end up being a Tank, er, sorry, Tesla, but the average is gonna be like a Leaf. Yeah, great getaway car there...which brings me to number...

2: To override and make the car a real life GTA V runner, is going to take some very sophisticated programming skills. Even if you have the ability, how likely are you, as programmers to be able to write that code so well that it actually works perfectly THE FIRST TIME. Because you'll be writing ver 2.0 on the concrete walls with a crude scraper if you survive your own hack. This is more MI6 than Saturday afternoon bank robber. (Maybe more Cartoon Network?)

So, dear readers, the point is probably moot, since we apparently can't see the actual papers. Do you think the central hub of one of the most powerful spy agencies is truly this paranoid? Or is it more likely the Guardian is merely punching an easy target for click throughs by sensationalizing very carefully chosen passages out of context?

Of course, since we can't see the original papers (If you find them please link!!!) I guess it's all out of context to begin with.
score 0
  • Closed (It was written after reading the Guardian article )
Reply 3 comments

Not sure what I did wrong... (Score: 1)

by pslytelypsycho@pipedot.org on 2014-07-18 06:53 (#2J4)

But I screwed the pooch on that first link.....;P

Re: Not sure what I did wrong... (Score: 1)

by pslytelypsycho@pipedot.org on 2014-07-18 06:55 (#2J5)

er, second link.
let's see...1..2...3....brain has now suffered a BSOD.

I'm reluctant to publish this (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-18 11:41 (#2J6)

Hey - editor here. No offense, but I'm reluctant to publish this one.

a) it's already a big deal at Slashdot. don't want to be sloppy seconds/late to the party.
b) it's kind of all conspiracy and conjecture anyway.

Does anyone feel strongly about this one?