Case Study #5: Giggle-Gov Threat Analysis
This week, we had a debate-style tutorial threat analysis on the decision to allow self-driving cars out in the streets. The class was divided into two groups, one representing the government (which I was in) and the other representing the well-reputed self driving car manufacturer ‘Giggle’. The Threat Analysis had 4 parts:
1. What Assets cared about are at risk:
The people and their safety
Buildings, Infrastructure and possible damage
People who have a job because of transportation services: Taxi Drivers, Licence certifiers, Traffic cops etc
Gas/Oil/ Electricity and other fuel resources
Legal System Stability in supporting laws for SD vehicles
Manufacturing facilities and Resources
2. What are the Threats that are present:
Car Hacks, malfunctions causing chaos
Extreme conditions: snowy and slippery roads, skidding
The market declination- no one buying a vehicle
Achieving safety through technology
Pimping off cars/ liability - third party modifying of code/ specs
3. Actions that need to be taken and who is responsible for it:
Pedestrian Training - Laws and Regulations to be set by the government
Data Collection - Government an Giggle: for road law and manufacturing purposes
Software development and Mandated Testing- in-house engineers at Giggle
Allow Manual Overrides - Manufacturers allow- state in user spec books. If the passenger does not enable it, Giggle isn’t liable.
4. What is the verdict?
My final Verdict was that we shouldn't allow self driving cars onto the roads- a human element is vital, human sensors and moral reasoning is key to making sure quick decisions are made on the roads when needed. Furthermore, even if manufacturers are able to create highly intelligent OS’s and Software systems that are well secured and bug-free, we’d still have to debate on if precision and accuracy in avoiding road accidents would overrule the absence of human-ness on the roads.
