Column By Mike Bibb
I’ve no intention of bad-mouthing Elon Musk’s electric-powered marvel — Tesla. He’s responsible, although not the original inventor, for popularizing battery vehicles. Plus, he’s made a lot of money doing it.
It’s debatable if EVs are easier on the environment than traditional gas cars and trucks. The process of designing and manufacturing large lithium batteries, and their subsequent disposal when exhausted, is a matter of scientific discussion.
Also, is an electric average of 300-350 miles per charge really an improvement over newer gas vehicles capable of 450-500 miles per tank — and when needed, finding an ordinary service station every few miles?
I realize the development of more efficient batteries is constantly evolving, as are longer-range ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) cars. That’s progress and competition.
However, the aim of this article is not to discuss the battery v. gas pros and cons, but rather the expanding controversy if all-electric vehicles are more susceptible to onboard computer shenanigans.
In a society where nearly every task and whatchamacallit is influenced by computers, it has come to the attention of folks who study such nerdy things that an EV — with its abundant array of computers, chips, and other devices, could be more inclined to be influenced by external mischief.
In other words, a common hacker in some distant location might be able to alter the factory-installed internal electronics, causing the vehicle distress and damage.
The subject has come to light recently following the intentional mini-explosions of thousands of individual battery-powered pagers and two-way radios within the Hezbollah terrorist organization. Hundreds were injured and many were killed from these small detonations.
This raises the question if the devices — powered by miniature batteries — can be changed into becoming instruments of war, then it seems electric vehicles, with much larger battery packs, may be equally prone to being turned into terrorist tools.
Sort of a vehicular Individual Explosive Device (IED), capable of greater destruction.
Carrying the scenario to extremes, could the same theme also be applied to any computer-managed and guided equipment? From modern farm tractors to multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers, nearly every kind of daily function is heavily dependent upon computers.
To such an extent we’d nearly grind to a halt without them.
This isn’t a fictitious fantasy — the software already exists to remotely disable modern American machinery. For instance, a stolen vehicle, with the disabling computer code, can be shut down by police or the vehicle manufacturer. The technology is contained within the car’s electrical system, as are numerous features not usually mentioned or considered by the salesperson.
Remember, something as prevalent as the North Star and Sirius satellite radio receiving feature in millions of cars and trucks can be turned on, or off, at the will of the provider. These radio options not only provide talk, sports, and music programs but are capable of tracking your car’s every move.
Consequently, it’s not overly difficult to realize current computer-aided machinery and equipment of various types is already being produced with the necessary electrical components to switch its intended functions into something more sinister.
Gas-powered vehicles also have these capabilities, but all-electric types — due to their dependency upon a constant electrical source of energy regulated by increased numbers of chips and codes — are at greater risk of being modified.
For obvious reasons, so-called “autonomous” or self-driving vehicles have considerably more computer-aided capabilities due to the increased complexity of the machine.
