It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was Michael Hastings Car Being Remotely Controlled?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:18 PM
Sounds pretty far fetched i know. But what we have here is the DARPA PM Kathleen Fisher saying that this can and has been done. Now i am rethinking ever getting rid of my 68 nova. Not that i could afford to put fuel in it. Do we have "backseat drivers" now sitting next to drone pilots? Pretty creepy indeed!

posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Privateinquotations

Long video, all the interesting stuff is in the first 3 mins or so I think.

Hmm, I was about to post saying that if there was any evidence of such an act, it would be found in the wreckage, but she makes damn good points.

I have no idea of the validity of such things, but I cannot see why this could not be possible... and that's scary. I'd never thought of how the interface between the electronics within a car and the intent of someone actively seeking to 'crack' it, could be done, and it's actually something I can see being entirely feasible.

Ugh what a future, you'll need to secure your garage with an antivirus application, to keep your car safe from the FBI virus - for reals...

posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:15 AM
Pretty far fetched, eh?

Forget Google Glass, I Want A Google Car

lemme quote a bit:

A product well past beta: The GOOG driverless car, equipped with LiDAR (that costs a steep $70K) can do almost everything a human can, and even better. It has navigated some of the most precarious streets (think Lombard Street in San Francisco), completed over 400,000 miles in test drives across most road conditions. YouTube videos show how the car self navigate across a four-way stop sign with pedestrians. Its nothing short of awesome. A year ago, this Google car drove a blind man to a drive-through restaurant and back.

are you entertained yet?

Think about the possibilities: Even as you get in the car, any morning, the car will know where I need to go

nuff said!

posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:10 PM
Some cars have parking assist where under a certain speed the rear wheels turn slightly. So yes a simple command executed by a virus program at 50 mph could cause something like this. Like the other poster said i never dreamed this would be a threat.

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:20 AM
Also for those that don't know or follow automotive much, years ago cars actually had a physical cable connecting your accelerator to the throttlebody or carby, these days its what they call fly by wire, there is only a sensor in the accelerator pedal that relays info back to the computer on how much you've depressed it then it does the rest, ie electronically controls how fast you go,

I did read an article about a year ago from these "smart people" that they could probably hack into a car via the signal from your tyre pressure monitor sensors (obviously not all cars equipped)

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex


Using a car as a means to assinate someone leaves too much left up to chance if you ask me, people have survived some horrific crashes before, there's always the chance the person being assassinated would survive, pretty crappy method of offing someone, don't you think?

Then there is the fact that as technology that makes a car easier to hijack electronically increases, so does the safety in it.

There's more airbags than seats these days.

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 07:56 AM
Well, with today's technology it is possible for someone to mess with a car remotely. I can't say that this was used in this case though. The programing can be built into every car computer already, a secret agreement between the government and the execs of the big corporations. Noone working on programming the software would necessarily be aware that this is being done. It would take super awareness and knowledge of programming along with the realization that this programming is possible to understand that it can occur.

If I were in control of security in this country, I would mandate this technology to be incorporated into every new vehicle made. In my mind it is only whether this technology was used that is a question and whether the outcome was the goal of use. I know it is possible. Probability in this case is the issue.
edit on 25-6-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:00 AM
Posted this in another thread on the same subject:

I am fairly certain the Mercedes Hastings was driving had some type of OnStar system. I can tell you that with those systems alone, and the access they have to the car, they are able to do quite a bit. I have been in my father's Mercedes when he had them unlock doors and start the engine, and his is a 2001 model. I am sure at this point they have access to a lot more control in cars.

I also know OnStar touts having Stolen Vehicle Slowdown capability through its system, so why would the opposite not be available?

OnStar can force a moving vehicle to slow down to idle by electronically disconnecting the accelerator. OnStar can also prevent a vehicle from being restarted once it’s been turned off. OnStar has been used successfully to foil car-jackers, the company said.

Speed up the vehicle, keep the doors locked then slightly turn the wheels and voila....wreck.

Mercedes version is called mbrace.
edit on 6/25/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by AlphaHawk

Perhaps it was just a warning gone awry. It is quite possible. Someone who represented to be with the FBI was questioning Hasting's friends and associates. If he had survived I would think he would have been able to put 2 and 2 together. Food for thought.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by AlphaHawk

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex

there's always the chance the person being assassinated would survive, pretty crappy method of offing someone, don't you think?

Then there is the fact that as technology that makes a car easier to hijack electronically increases, so does the safety in it.

That is only one scenario - here are some more:

a) he was already dead when 'they' put him into the car to make it look like an accident
b) accident was a distraction to abduct Hastings for questioning - corpse is some poor John Doe
c) accident was a distraction for Hastings to get off the radar (not holding my breath but boy do I hope this is the case!!!) Obviously in this case he would have had the help of a quite resourceful group.

Also if somebody went to the trouble of messing with the cars electronics they certainly also disabled those safeties that can be controlled and I would think that probably includes the airbags.

And while I do agree that it may simply have been an accident on account of Hastings being nervous (as mentioned by ForteanOrg) I will keep harping on my theory of foul play in connection with a Snowden/NSA/Hastings scenario. And I will continue doing so until this idea is at least considered by some more people.

There are just too many coincidents: the closeness to the Snowden story, Hastings last mail (and article on buzzfeed for that matter) mentioning the NSA and his need to "go off the radar". The car bursting into flames conveniently making it difficult to id the corpse...

new topics

top topics


log in