[gherkin0]

Realistically, you handle such things via deterrence. When an accident happens, the car's software can be dumped (in some cases), and criminal/civil liability can be assessed based on the results. The risk of heavy fines or jail will probably keep most people from hacking their self-driving cars to be more aggressive.

[sokoloff]

Because that threat today keeps people from modifying their cars by cutting springs, installing lift kits, putting on ridiculous wheel/tire packages, and changing to poorly "engineered" HID retrofit lighting kits.

I see unsafe modified cars almost every week right now.

[lotu]

Realistically, the simple fact that it will be hard to modify in fashion that doesn't break the car completely is a huge deterrent. Of course it is possible for a single individual or small group to hack the software and then distribute it like consoles hacking

The economic case for hacking them is much different, the hacker risks prenablently bricking their device, in fact it might be nessacary to destroy a couple to learn about them. It is going to be harder to do this to a $20,000 device you rely on to go to work/school. Secondly the varsity of car models is going to dwarf the number of console versions. These two factor combine to make the hacking much more expensive and riskier.

It feels more prudent to wait and see if this becomes a problem and from that poin look at how/if to solve it. After all if a hack modifies a car's software to dive faster, accelerate faster, or something similar. You can do as the OP suggested and set up cammeras to record traffic and see who is driving a car that behaves out of spec and go arrest them.

[gherkin0]

Those kinds of modifications are of a completely different category than modifications to an autonomous driving system. There aren't serious civil or criminal penalties to deter "ridiculous wheel/tire packages" because they don't really have the same potential to cause serious problems.