[fnordfnordfnord]

> I don't think they need to hack a vehicle to do it,

The CIA has multiple ways to cause a death. No doubt about that. They don't "need" to use any particular method, but if they want to kill someone, that have to choose at least one method.

>nor would they want to draw the unnecessary speculation and attention.

What unnecessary speculation and attention? Is LAPD going to bust out their JTAG debuggers, and compare the collection of firmwares in Hastings' car to a clean sample? Practically nobody believes that the CIA/US gov't killed Hastings by hacking his car. Given the propensity for most Americans to never even consider a thing once its been labeled as a conspiracy theory, I'd say that gives about as good a cover as the CIA (or whomever) would ever need. We already have people hypothesizing this as the manner of Hastings' death; but do we see any apparent effort to dispute/disprove it? No, simply chuckle and call it a conspiracy theory. It will go away on its own without regard to whether it was in fact a conspiracy.

>I would expect antics like that to be reserved for high-ranking foreign officials or other hard-to-reach people.

The spies have to perfect their craft somehow. Where is it written that a method of assassination must vary by the apparent importance of the proposed victim?

[digler999]

why would they resort to elaborate techniques to do so when they could have someone walk up and pick him off with a gun or poison or just have him "disappeared"? You're saying instead they chose a method that requires a sophisticated firmwmare hack that may not even work (just gunning the engine is no guarantee it will kill the man), installing it, and then finding an appropriate time and place to deploy it (while also putting other bystanders at risk). To me it seems quite a stretch. I would prefer Occam's razor on this. I think a more likely scenario is he was being surveilled (and possibly even intimidated) by feds, which led to his anxiety and paranoia (which has been established). Then he got spooked that night, thinking someone was following him (and he may have been right), and flipped out and overreacted. It's also possible his accelerator stuck and he didn't react correctly/in time. Look at my comment below: I'm not saying feds wouldn't kill a US citizen, I just dont think they chose to hack the firmware in this case.

As an aside, I"m not familiar with his car but I find it hard to believe that neither the ebreak, main break, ignition, nor transmission lever (assuming it was auto) could mitigate his situation. I think they would have to hack more than just firmware, since there are mechanical linkages and/or hardware interlocks on some of those components.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Read very closely. I'm not saying they did anything. I never said "they" did anything; but rather just that I don't find any of your reasoning convincing, for the reasons I mentioned. I do think it is a plausible attack.

>why would they resort to elaborate techniques

Spy agencies in general, and the CIA in particular are infamous for concocting and using elaborate sometimes down right goofy techniques to assassinate people, and also for periodically failing at the job. This isn't just hyperbole, or me reading too much spy fiction, it's in the public record if you care to look.

>I'm not saying feds wouldn't kill a US citizen, I just dont think they chose to hack the firmware in this case.

I don't really think they did either, it's extremely unlikely. But I won't rule it out because I haven't seen any convincing reason to do so.

>As an aside, I"m not familiar with his car but I find it hard to believe that neither the ebreak, main break, ignition, nor transmission lever (assuming it was auto) could mitigate his situation. I think they would have to hack more than just firmware, since there are mechanical linkages and/or hardware interlocks on some of those components.

If you care to look into it I think you'll find it to be plausible to take control of the car's accelerator, and steer it with the brakes. In principle it's possible with any car that has electronic ABS, and electronic fuel injection and throttle. On some models, advanced features could simplify the job quite a bit. That's not to say that a quick-thinking person couldn't survive the attempt either, by applying the brake, or shifting the transmission or something.

[digler999]

> Read very closely.

> If you care to look into it (x2)

comments like this really have no place on HN and don't strengthen your position.

[fnordfnordfnord]

I think the CIA's "heart attack weapon" which was exposed to the Church committee in 1975 qualifies well enough as an "elaborate technique". There's also the myriad utterly ridiculous ways that the CIA attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the Bay of Pigs incident. None of these things are secrets and I think any well informed US person is at least familiar with some of the above. Any of the above ought to put to rest your apparent assertion that the CIA has an aversion to elaborate or even dubious assassination schemes. There's enough in the public record to suggest that the CIA might even prefer wacky assassination schemes over the boring straightforward ones.

>comments like this really have no place on HN and don't strengthen your position.

In your own post you admit that you know none of the relevant details (and apparently can't be bothered to look) about some recent event A which was covered widely in the press. But nevertheless, you can't believe that event A could have occurred in some particular way because you think it implausible or because you like a simpler or more familiar explanation. In fact, there is nothing at all implausible about steering a four wheeled vehicle by applying left or right brakes, and the correct spelling is brakes, not breaks FYI. Nor is it implausible for an attacker to take control of a vehicle's accelerator in a modern automobile. No, I am not going to prove that for you. If you think that I or any other poster on HN is your paid technical or historical research assistant / spoon-feeder, you are mistaken.