Sad story from a combat veteran.

“I’m a former Green Beret,” Bova said, referring to the U.S. Army Special Forces. “[Tesla Autopilot] was probably the second-most traumatic thing I’ve gone through other than being in combat.”

First, Special Forces training apparently needs to work on counter-intelligence. No soldier, especially a Green Beret, ought to be willingly strapping themselves into anything branded Tesla.

Second, and perhaps still on that note, “other than combat” misses the point. A robot made by Tesla that attempts to kill an American soldier IS COMBAT if not domestic terrorism.

The 2016 Tesla killing of Josh Brown, ex-Navy SEAL, should have drawn a very bright line in society. The 2018 deaths from Tesla AI were unnecessary and gratuitous, and it’s only gotten worse since (unlike every other car manufacturer combined).

We knew back then, as we know from courts now, that Tesla Autopilot was a dangerous failure intentionally over-promoted to squeeze customers for money before throwing their lives away.

Surely by 2018 there could have been a simple and logical national security mandate: no military in Tesla, no Tesla in military.

Alas, Bova was somehow fooled into dangerous advanced fee fraud of Tesla cars and insurance, and is lucky to still be alive. Except, the toxic management culture of Tesla is now trying hard to make him unlucky.

His ordeal isn’t over. Tesla Insurance, launched in 2019 by the electric-car company, has promised policyholders “vastly better” service than rivals, as Tesla chief Elon Musk put it in April 2022. Musk also said he aimed to offer “same-day” collision repairs. But Bova says he has been battling the insurer ever since the crash.

He said he waited seven months for payment on the totaled vehicle and still hasn’t been compensated for about $50,000 in medical expenses. That required a call to the automaker’s product liability department because the crash involved Autopilot, he was told. He waited on hold for hours and got hung up on four times, he said. When someone finally answered, the person promised another callback in two weeks. Four months later, he’s still waiting.

The article goes on to point out that Tesla insurance is truly dysfunctional, untrustworthy and even cruel.

Elon Musk, like always, quickly delivered the worst possible product in the industry while promising investors a giant fantasy. The life and death consequences of his lies have been real.

Will Bova’s lament be heard? Will the military finally ban Tesla to prevent another story like his? Will the Tesla robots be classified as threats to national security?

Well duh. Finally a judge says what everyone knows.

A judge has found “reasonable evidence” that Elon Musk and other executives at Tesla knew that the company’s self-driving technology was defective but still allowed the cars to be driven in an unsafe manner anyway, according to a recent ruling issued in Florida.

Palm Beach county circuit court judge Reid Scott said he’d found evidence that Tesla “engaged in a marketing strategy that painted the products as autonomous” and that Musk’s public statements about the technology “had a significant effect on the belief about the capabilities of the products”.

Can you believe it turns out that the same guy who profited from Apartheid and spends his time shamelessly spreading dangerous anti-semitic conspiracies like he’s Henry Ford trying to help Hitler take over… also doesn’t care about all the people dying from his words and actions?

We’ve seen multiple engineers from Tesla testify that Elon Musk personally demanded fraudulent “driverless” be used as a tactic to promote their cars over the competition. Dieselgate of VW causing health concerns should be seen as a drop in the bucket, barely on the scale of intent to harm, when it is compared to Tesla killing dozens of people with intentional lies.

Related: Elon Musk Trolls Court and Victims in Autopilot Death Trial

This New Yorker story about unjustified overconfidence in AI — expensive and flashy policing toys technology — reminds me of the trouble with radar detectors.

…technology has only grown more ubiquitous, not least because selling it is a lucrative business, and A.I. companies have successfully persuaded law-enforcement agencies to become customers. […] Last fall, a man named Randal Quran Reid was arrested for two acts of credit-card fraud in Louisiana that he did not commit. The warrant didn’t mention that a facial-recognition search had made him a suspect. Reid discovered this fact only after his lawyer heard an officer refer to him as a “positive match” for the thief. Reid was in jail for six days and his family spent thousands of dollars in legal fees before learning about the misidentification, which had resulted from a search done by a police department under contract with Clearview AI. So much for being “100% accurate.”

You think that’s bad?

Imagine how many people since the 1960s in America have tangled into fines, jail or even being killed due to inaccurate and unreliable “velocity” sensors or “plate recognition” used for racial profiling law enforcement. The police know about technology flaws, and judges too, yet far too often they treat their heavy investments in poorly measured and irregularly operated technology as infallible.

They also have some clever court rules to protect their players in the game. For example, try walking into a court and saying this:

maximum acceleration = velocity accuracy / sample time

a_max = Maximum Acceleration
±v_acc = Velocity Accuracy
t_i = Sample Time

a_max = ± v_acc / t_i

A speed sensor typically measures velocity of an object traveling a set distance (between “gates” that are within range of the sensor). Only targets within these parameters will have a fair detection or reading.

…accelerations must not be neglected in the along-track velocity estimation step if accurate estimates are required.

If a radar sensor samples every second, a velocity change greater than 1.0 mph can exceed a limit to accurately read. A half-second sample would be a 2.0 mph change limit. A quarter-second sample would be a 4.0 mph change limit, and so forth.

In other words, you step up to the judge and tell them their beloved expensive police toy technology is unable to measure vehicle velocity when it changes faster than a known calculated limit of a radar device, which is a problem especially pronounced around common road curves and with vehicle angles (e.g. “cosine effect” popularized in school math exams).

Any trustworthy court assessment would take a look at radar specs and acceleration risk to the sensor …to which the judge might spit their chew into a bucket and say “listen here Mr. smarty-math-pants big-city slicker from out-of-town, you didn’t register with our very nice and welcoming court here as an expert, therefore you are very rude and nothing you say can be heard here! Our machine says you are… GUILTY!” as they throw out any or all evidence that proves technology can be wrong.

Not saying this actual court exchange really happened in rural America, or that I gave a 2014 BlackHat talk about this happening (to warn that big data systems are highly vulnerable to breaches of integrity), but… anyway, have you seen Blazing Saddles?

It’s like saying guns don’t kill people, AI with guns kill people.

AI is just technology and it makes everything worse if we allow it to escape the fundamental social sciences of where and how people apply technology.

Fast forward (pun not intended) and my warnings from 2014 big data security talks have implications to things like “falsification methods to reveal safety flaws in adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems of automated vehicles”.

…we present two novel falsification methods to reveal safety flaws in adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems of automated vehicles. Our methods use rapidly-exploring random trees to generate motions for a leading vehicle such that the ACC under test causes a rear-end collision.

Falsification in AI safety literally has become a dangerous life and death crisis over the past decade, with some (arguably racist) robots already killing over 40 people.

Dead. Killed by AI.

Cars don’t kill people, AI in cars kill people. In fact, since applying AI to cars in a rush to put robots in charge of life or death decisions, Tesla has killed more people in a few short years than all people killed by all robots in history.

That’s a fact, as we recently published in The Atlantic. Predictable disaster, I say, because I warned about exactly this result for the past ten years (e.g. 2016 Ground Truth Keynote presentation at BSidesLV). Perhaps all these deaths are evidence of what courts now refer to as product “harm by design” due to a documented racist and antisemite.

Look at how the NHTSA frames the safety of radar sensors for police use in their Conforming Product List (CPL) Speed-Measuring Devices to maintain trust in the technology:

…performance specifications ensure the devices are accurate and reliable when properly operated and maintained…

Specifications. Proper operation.

Show me the comparable setup from NIST for a conforming list of AI image reading devices used by police, not to mention definitions of proper operation.

Let’s face it (pun not intended), any AI solution based on sensor data of any kind including cameras should have come under the same scrutiny as other reviews (human or machine) of sensor data, to avoid repeating all the inexcusable rookie mistakes injustices by overconfident technology-laden police over several prior decades.

And on that note, the police should expect to be severely harmed by AI themselves in careless operation.

Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar

Where are all the social scientists when you need them?

“No warning came with my radar gun telling me that this type of radiation has been shown to cause all types of health problems including cancer,” [police Officer] Malcolm said. “If I had been an informed user I could have helped protect myself. I am not a scientist but a victim of a lack of communication and regulation.” […] “We’re putting a lot of people at risk unnecessarily,” [Senator] Dodd said. “The work of police officers is already dangerous, and officers should not have to worry about the safety of the equipment they use.”

Which reminds me of the police officers who have been suing gun manufacturers over a lack of safety. You’d think, given the track record of high risk technology in law enforcement, no police department in their right mind would apply any AI to their work without clear and tested safety regulations. If you find any police department foolishly buying the notoriously deadly AI of Tesla, for example, they are headed directly into a tragic world of injustice.

Judge finds ‘reasonable evidence’ Tesla knew self-driving tech was defective