[awalton]

Google's self-driving car platform is based on sensor fusion - it does use GPS, but if the GPS network goes down, it still has mountains of lidar, photographic (Street View cars aren't just for the heck of it), and even regular old street maps for dead-reckoning navigation.

Your $20 evil genius GPS blocking gadget is far more likely to cause the regular human beings in their cars to lose track of where they are going than the robot that has been designed with this exact constraint taken into consideration.

Furthermore, as of right now and the near and mid-term future, it's not legal for the car to drive itself without a human at the wheel. Which means the self-driving car still has to function as a human-drivable car. The final nail in your mustache twirling GPS-blocking evildoer's coffin.

Before we go to a complete driverless system, it's likely we'll need lots more sensor assistance, such as "active highways" with mile marker and lane-keeping RFIDs paved into the roads, and other similar technologies. But we're probably at least 30 years off from even having that conversation given the conservative climate and the love for personal driving in this country.

[maxerickson]

I think it is highly likely that the licensing process for self driving systems will require them to be environmentally aware and function without gps signal. What I mean by environmentally aware is that things like passing through an intersection and lane keeping will be fully guided by immediate sensor data, not from reference data looked up by position.

Maps and dead reckoning fall more under navigation than they do driving and that part of the problem is reasonably solved.

[qwerta]

I am just saying that GPS is not reliable and should not be used in high-risk cases. There is no "evil mustache twirling", any teenager will do it as a joke.