With Wireless Cars, Our Physical Safety Is Now on the Line The march of progress always takes a toll. Oct 2015 By AARON ROBINSON From the November 2015 issue Car and Driver There’s an argument to be made that mankind should have stayed in the trees, because progress is a dangerous business. No matter how carefully you engineer a new invention and study the way test subjects use it and build in safeguards against accidental harm or malicious intent, if you start sales on Monday, by Wednesday there will be blood. The act of creation produces destruction, which produces improvement, which produces a different kind of destruction, which produces more improvement until, eventually, everybody accepts that even with things that have extensive instruction manuals and a wallpaper of warning stickers and that are widely considered perfectly safe, somebody always gets hurt. Were it otherwise, there would be no personal injury lawyers. Back in 2012, I wrote a column entitled “Google is my co-pilot. What can go wrong?” In it, I observed that the high-tech industry plunges forward on a relentless pace of invention that generates more than its share of Version 1.0s that are easily hacked and/or don’t work worth a damn. I warned that the same industry now wants to automate your car. Judging from the reader responses, in which I was called “oblivious” and a “sour puss,” not everyone is dreading self-driving cars or giving much thought to the track record of the industry that is pushing them. Okay then, how many of you want to send your kids off to school in Google Car 1.0? Anyone? History proves that some casualties from a new technology are unavoidable. But there are people who are trying to do something about it. In all likelihood, their actions will save lives. Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek are computer hackers, an anonymous, cowardly profession not normally associated with laudable deeds. However, these two work on the security side and have applied their talents to new cars, viewing them not as automobiles but as wirelessly connected computer networks with license plates. In 2013, they sat in the back seats of a 2010 Ford Escape and a Toyota Prius and, sending computer commands through the onboard diagnostics ports, ordered the cars to commit all kinds of antisocial behavior, including steering off the road and disabling the brakes. Of course, writes Wired magazine reporter Andy Greenberg, the hackers had to gain access to the car first, not a very realistic scenario. But Miller and Valasek weren’t finished. This past July, in a follow-up Wired feature and video, they showed how they could remotely hack a 2014 Jeep Cherokee from 10 miles away, exploiting a weakness in the car’s Uconnect system, which runs on the Sprint mobile network. While relaxing on the sofa in Miller’s St. Louis living room, the duo took control of the machine with a laptop and a cellphone, turning on and off various systems and putting up a picture of themselves in trac.

1. With Wireless Cars, Our Physical Safety Is Now on the Line
The march of progress always takes a toll.
Oct 2015
By AARON ROBINSON
From the November 2015 issue Car and Driver
There’s an argument to be made that mankind should have
stayed in the trees, because progress is a dangerous business.
No matter how carefully you engineer a new invention and
study the way test subjects use it and build in safeguards
against accidental harm or malicious intent, if you start sales on
Monday, by Wednesday there will be blood. The act of creation
produces destruction, which produces improvement, which
produces a different kind of destruction, which produces more
improvement until, eventually, everybody accepts that even
with things that have extensive instruction manuals and a
wallpaper of warning stickers and that are widely considered
perfectly safe, somebody always gets hurt. Were it otherwise,
there would be no personal injury lawyers.
Back in 2012, I wrote a column entitled “Google is my co-pilot.
What can go wrong?” In it, I observed that the high-tech
industry plunges forward on a relentless pace of invention that
generates more than its share of Version 1.0s that are easily
hacked and/or don’t work worth a damn. I warned that the same
industry now wants to automate your car. Judging from the
reader responses, in which I was called “oblivious” and a “sour
puss,” not everyone is dreading self-driving cars or giving much
thought to the track record of the industry that is pushing them.
Okay then, how many of you want to send your kids off to
school in Google Car 1.0? Anyone? History proves that some
casualties from a new technology are unavoidable. But there are
people who are trying to do something about it. In all
likelihood, their actions will save lives.

2. Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek are computer hackers, an
anonymous, cowardly profession not normally associated with
laudable deeds. However, these two work on the security side
and have applied their talents to new cars, viewing them not as
automobiles but as wirelessly connected computer networks
with license plates. In 2013, they sat in the back seats of a 2010
Ford Escape and a Toyota Prius and, sending computer
commands through the onboard diagnostics ports, ordered the
cars to commit all kinds of antisocial behavior, including
steering off the road and disabling the brakes. Of course, writes
Wired magazine reporter Andy Greenberg, the hackers had to
gain access to the car first, not a very realistic scenario.
But Miller and Valasek weren’t finished. This past July, in a
follow-up Wired feature and video, they showed how they could
remotely hack a 2014 Jeep Cherokee from 10 miles away,
exploiting a weakness in the car’s Uconnect system, which runs
on the Sprint mobile network. While relaxing on the sofa in
Miller’s St. Louis living room, the duo took control of the
machine with a laptop and a cellphone, turning on and off
various systems and putting up a picture of themselves in
tracksuits on the car’s center display. Eventually, they shut
down the Jeep on a freeway while Greenberg, the team’s
panicky test bunny, tried to avoid a serious accident.
Flamers slammed Miller and Valasek for risking innocents by
conducting their mayhem on public roads, which is a legitimate
beef, but the stunt got people’s attention. Indeed, it made the
national news, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which until then
had been quietly offering a system patch that would have closed
the loophole that allowed the hack, suddenly found itself in the
glare of the media spotlight and recalled 1.4 million vehicles for
software upgrades. Nothing jolts an auto company like a costly
recall, especially one prompted by headlines.
Despite industry assurances of firewalls and “air gaps” that
isolate the car’s core systems, Miller and Valasek proved that

3. the race to incorporate wireless connectivity is creating entry
points for bad guys into the car’s vital systems. It’s no different
than when you plugged in your first modem and went from
being a private citizen in Anytown, USA, to a target visible to a
global cadre of evil nerds who screw up lives for fun or profit.
Now your car’s steering, gas pedal, and brakes are on the web.
There is no absolute protection except to stay offline or off the
road. The list grows longer of large institutions, those with
budgets for serious internet security, that have been hacked
silly. This past summer, the federal government had to admit
that the personal information of 22 million people, including
federal employees, was swiped.
It’s not just our credit cards and Social Security numbers at
risk; with wireless cars, our physical safety is now on the line.
Miller and Valasek like to release the details of their software
breeches at hackers’ conventions. By feeding the wolves, they
hope to spur the disorganized and perhaps naïve auto industry to
unify and take the threat seriously, and also get more hackers
out there trying to find the bugs.
Despite these efforts, the history of invention proves that some
casualties are all but certain as cars go wireless and, someday,
fully automated. Lawyers will always have work. But I, for one,
sleep better knowing that at least a couple of those dudes with
laptops are on our side.
EET 3250 Project – Part 1 Summer 2017
Network Analysis
1
Name

4. Rocket Number (Last Six Digits) _ _ _ _ _ _
ZD ZC ZB ZA A1 A2
Above is the circuit for your project. The elements of the
circuit are all resistors and the values are
found from your rocket number. Read the last four numbers of
your rocket number backwards (start
from the last number) and enter those numbers in the circuit as
the value, in ohms, of the resistances
ZA, ZB, ZC, ZD. If there is a zero in these last four digits,
enter it as 10 (ten). No resistance should be
zero! When you have completed this handout, attach this
completed document to an email (Subject
Line: EET 3250 Project – Part 1).
1) The spectral diagram for v(t) is given below . What is the
equation for v(t) ?
2) Find the Thevenin equivalent circuit and draw it here.

5. Determine VThevenin and ZThevenin
LOAD
EET 3250 Project – Part 1 Summer 2017
Network Analysis
2
3) Use the Thevenin circuit to determine the current though a
load resistance of
4) Simulate this circuit on http://www.falstad.com/circuit/ and
show that the load current you

6. http://www.falstad.com/circuit/
Attached another file
Task 1 :
Read the article With Wireless Cars, Our Physical Safety Is
Now on the Line Found under Content
Using concepts from Chapter 11 in DI what are some of the
direct consequences and indirect consequences of wireless cars?
What are some of the mistakes you see with the development of
wireless cars? How can the “level of good” be raised in the case
of wireless cars?
Respond with your first post by the second day the discussion is
open to be eligible for full points. Make your first remark to
another students comments by the third day to be eligible for
full points. Respond to at least two other students remarks.
Read all posts.
Points will be deducted from all papers and discussions for poor
grammar, improper capitalization, and misspelled words.
Proofread your work.
To receive full points you must use critical thinking and address
all items. To receive full credit you must provide references
from the text to support your remarks on the initial post and
response to other students. Use this simple method for
references in our discussions. Examples: For the Diffusion of
Innovations text (DI p. 45) for The Tipping Point (TP p. 73).
For other references use APA format.

7. Book to follow “
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation, New York, NY,
Free Press (DI)
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point – How little things can
make a big difference. Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company
(TP
Responses : For 1, Rachel Schultz “
In our Chapter 11 text from Diffusion of Innovations the author
states that direct consequences are the changes to an individual
or social system that occur in immediate response to adoption of
innovation and indirect consequences are the changes to an
individual or social system that occur as a result of the direct
consequences of an innovation. (DI, p 445)
Using the definitions from the text as a guide, a direct
consequence of wireless cars would be that people thinking that
they don’t have to pay attention while driving because the
automobile will take care of it. An example of this is the woman
who thought that when she turned on her cruise control, it
would do all the driving for her. This feature in cars is to help
aid the driver, not fully take over for them. Another example,
which goes with the text from Robinson’s article, is the overall
digital and physical safety of the automobiles. If the interfaces
between the two are not 100% or any piece of the system
becomes compromised, then there can be some dire
consequences for the driver as well as other people on the road.
An indirect consequence, that would be much farther down the
road, could be that when cars become entirely autonomous and
human interaction is vastly limited there should be a decrease in
fatal accidents. Overall this is a good thing that people won’t
lose their lives in senseless automobile accidents. However, the
decrease of deaths from these accidents would also mean a

8. drastic reduction in available organs for people who are in need
of transplants. As a person who will be in need of a kidney
transplant within the next five to ten years, this was a concern
that was brought to my attention at a yearly Illinois Kidney
Foundation conference. Kidneys are the only organs that you
can get from a living donor but all of the other organs that
people are waiting for come from people who are deceased.
With the decrease of automobile accident deaths there will be
many more people who will not get the needed lifesaving
transplants. This may give more of a jump start to the 3D
printing of organs and other areas to help bridge the gap of
organs needed.
One of the mistakes I noticed with the development of wireless
cars wasn’t really a mistake in my mind, I see it as stepping
stone, was the overall lack of digital security of the automobile
and its functions. In my previous course I did some research on
the topic of smart homes and one of the problems that I noticed
was the lack of any type of protection or security to keep people
from digitally invading your home. I discovered that there are
currently a few companies that are working to help keep your
connected home safe and their products are “Cujo”, “Dojo” and
“Keezel”. (Cruz) I won’t dive too deep into the details of these
products but they offer different types of protection for your
smart home and devices. I feel that there should be a product
created either by the auto manufactures or outside companies
that offer the same type of service that will be able to protect a
person’s car from outside technological dangers.
To help increase the “level of good” when it comes to wireless
cars, there should be more testing and possibly more legislation
/ regulation that requires such testing to be done prior to
automobiles being released to the public. If there are
restrictions for environmental reasons why shouldn’t there be
some for the security of the automobile system to protect the
consumer?
Citations
Cruz, B. (2017, June 2). Cujo vs Dojo vs Keezel – Security

9. Devices Protect Your Smart
Home. https://homealarmreport.com/cujo-dojo-vs-keezel/.
Robinson, A. (2015, November). With Wireless Cars, Our
Physical Safety Is Now on the
Line. http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/with-wireless-cars-
our-physical-safety-is-now-on-the-line-feature
Responses : For 2, Shawn Ball .
According to Rogers (2003), "direct consequences are the
changes to an individual or a social system that occur in
immediate response to adoption of an innovation"(P. 444).
Some direct consequences of adopting wireless cars include:
more hacking crimes involving vehicles, in some instances the
hacking can lead to injury and or vehicle damage, may lead to a
price increase of certain vehicles, and may lead to new vehicle
standards and regulations. According to Rogers (2003),
"indirect consequences are the changes to an individual or
social system that occur as a result of the direct consequences
of an innovation" (p.446). Some indirect consequences of
wireless cars include: the increase of insurance on vehicles,
possibly identify theft and credit fraud, and eventually self
driven robotic cars. I recently saw the latest Fast and the
Furious movie, and there was seen where some vehicles were
hacked and caused a lot of chaos. The scene was kind of
ridiculous, but it is something that can possibly happen in the
future. In the scene, some hackers took control of about 50
vehicles and operated them to ram one vehicle off the road.
Basically it was an army of self driven cars after one vehicle. It
is hard to explain but I left a link at the end of this post if
anyone wants to watch it. Some mistakes I see with the
development of wireless vehicles is that they are not effectively
tested. There were already problems with individuals hacking
wireless systems before wireless cars. Having wireless cars
gives hackers another avenue to hack. The testing of wireless
system is a difficult task within itself because there constantly
people finding new ways to bypass security. There would have

10. to be two teams to test the wireless systems of a car. One team
to make applications and programs to protect the car and
another team that tries to bypass those security restrictions. I
say this because, again there are people that enjoy hacking and
always come up with new ways to hack systems.Creating two
teams could cost a lot of money and time. To increase the level
of good, companies should invest in efficient testing programs.
There has to be a standard procedure to test the wireless
systems of cars and that procedure has to be constantly
improved and tested to make sure it works.
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). New
York: The Free Press.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD57tucQy40 (hopefully
YouTube doesn't take it down)
-Shawn Ball