Why It's Unlikely Someone Killed Michael Hastings By Hacking His Car
<snip>
Our own Jason Torchinsky did a thorough debunking of why this is so unlikely, including how modern cars' internal networks aren't normally equipped to receive wireless instructions and how it's absurd to think that mechanical systems can somehow be easily overridden by a remote signal.
Put simply, car hacking isn't what people think it is. You most likely have to have access to a car, then install software, then break through the car's systems. If Clarke is basing his analysis on the university research and not some secret government information, then he should also know that right now this isn't easy.
It's actually more plausible to think that someone could have physically tampered with Hastings' Mercedes rather than "hacked" it. You could argue that this would also be a form of "hacking," perhaps literally hacking at cables, but we'll have to wait and see if there's more evidence of this.
We need to wait until all the facts are in before we start buying in to conspiracy theories because no one has been able to dismiss the most obvious theory: Hastings was working on a big story, as he often did, and then he was involved in a car crashed caused by driver error, speeding, alcohol or some other factor.
<snip>
http://jalopnik.com/why-its-unlikely-someone-killed-michael-hastings-by-ha-584806047
= new reply since forum marked as read
