As companies transition to networked automation for efficiency, the gains of reduced costs and extra zeroes on their checks masks the potential risks for public safety associated with hacks in networked systems. Companies valorize automation as the future. But why is safety something that we are willing to risk as we progress?
One company that shares Chadwick Newhouse’s admiration of the digitization is Tesla. Elon Musk has shaped the modern understanding of self-driving cars and the power of AI to transform the transportation industry. Although new users may feel anxious or fearful when first letting go of control of their car, many quickly adapt to the self-driving technology. Drivers can now text their loved ones with smaller risks. However, what if something went wrong. Tesla already networks aspects of their vehicle’s technology, allowing users to start their cars remotely or even summon their cars from their phones. Hackers could potentially disable the safeguards for Tesla’s autopilots, such as the automatic breaks and alerts. They could erratically control the speed of the car, stopping them in the middle of the highway and causing major, life-threatening accidents for Tesla and non-Tesla drivers.
Although networking and automation is a pivotal part of the Tesla experience, I would argue that the control system for Tesla’s autopilot should never be networked. This technology should be localized to the vehicle. Additionally, I believe humans should be in control, even as self-driving technology advances. Although we may not be the best drivers, malicious actors can cause just as much, or even more damage if this technology is breached. One thing that can be automated, but strictly guarded is the ability to smart start your car or unlock your car from your phone. If hacked, this could lead to potential theft. Considering Tesla’s target market (more affluent vehicle drivers), the valuables that may be entrusted within one’s car could be more extensive.
The only reason that Chadwick was able to proceed in a manner that could protect his clients and companies from future breaches and values the safety of his customers was because Sara Wilmund spoke up. Sara challenged existing social and political hierarchies that existed within the company. She spoke up when her boss tried to silence her, challenging the assumption that managers and advisors of the CEO are more knowledgeable than their subordinates. She challenged the gendered stereotypes that constantly encourage women to stay silent in the workplace, undermining them as advisors or professionals. Finally, she challenged the assumption that she wouldn’t have knowledge on how to handle security breaches despite working in a different field. The voices of underrepresented employees are commonly overlooked, but can be so pivotal to the public safety and success of a company. Famous whistleblowers such as Timnit Gebru, Frances Haugen, and Sophie Zhang have challenged large tech companies values and have worked against racialized and gendered expectations in order to protect their users. They spoke up to their company, and then spoke up to the people when they were ignored.
Had this conversation never happened, Chadwick would probably lose his family recipes, essentially losing the value of his entire company. Profits would drop more than a spoiled batch of milk, and layoffs would ensue. Furthermore, the public’s safety would never be considered. The company was entire focused on their efficiency, that they lost track of who their clients. They strayed away from being user centered and ended self-centered.
