Posted on 07/04/2015 2:18:46 PM PDT by upchuck
Federal government is currently crafting a mandate that would require all new vehicles to “talk” to each other continuously. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to submit their proposed “connected car” rule by the end of this year.
Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology has been developed by top automakers over the past decade and is ready for commercialization. It uses a combination of Wi-Fi, GPS data, and sensor data collected by the vehicle to transmit a signal on speed and position 10 times a second.
Like so many technologies, V2V is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it has great potential to reduce car crashes, which claim 37,000 lives a year in the U.S. It also means that your driving data will be broadcast openly, making it easy for interested parties to intercept this information.
“V2V ups privacy concerns because it essentially broadcasts a vehicle’s location and speed, as well as some information about where a vehicle has been previously, to anyone within range. And while Department of Transportation officials told the GAO that “V2V communication security system would contain multiple technical, physical, and organizational controls to minimize privacy risks—including the risk of vehicle tracking by individuals and government or commercial entities,” regulating who can use V2V data and for what would fall outside the Department of Transportation’s span of control. It would essentially require legislation by Congress.”
Considering the mass surveillance being carried out by the National Security Agency and other agencies, it is highly unlikely that authorities would ignore this potent source of information. Local governments could use the data to track those they consider “bad actors.”
“This isn’t being done to track you. None of us want that and we have the same privacy concerns. Security is taken very seriously, these are complex systems and security is considered at every level.”
You live in la la land if you think this won’t ultimately be used against the citizens of this country. Basically, you’re a Socialist who thinks the government has the “right” to do this for “some social purpose.” We got a FasTrak for bridge tolls. Now the tell us that “they are going to track our movements with it so they can figure out traffic patterns” Yeah, right. So if you want to “opt out,” you have to put the damned thing in an anti-stat bag so they can’t ping it. With this proposal, it’s unlikely that you will be able to “opt out.” As we are now told that the crash sensor that triggers your alr bag records any number of parameters like vehicle speed an g-forces prior to and “event,” and that information “belongs” not to you, but to the government and it can be used against you in a court of law. Somewhere, the’ve left the 5th Amendment out of their thinking. So much for Constitutional Government, when it’s out there with guys like you saving us from ourselves. So for what it’s worth, decent people need to expose people like you and your “do-gooder buddies” at NHTSA or whatever government bureaucratic $hit hole you hang your hat! You are part of the problem today, not a solution!
Nope, you’re wrong. You have a right to use the roads, as in using a bicycle or walking on the public paths. You don’t have a right, however, to operate a motor vehicle. It requires training and responsibility, the subsequent required license being subject to revocation. That is a privilege, not a right. Unless you’re saying that somebody that is in endless accidents should never have their license revoked (?). Is being required to renew your license, or having one to begin with, unconstitutional? With a vehicle having the potential to be such a deadly device, even in the hands of the incompetent (not necessarily criminal), we require you be trained and maintain a license - which I find perfectly reasonable.
As far as tracking is concerned. The protocols are anonymous and easily turned off/disabled. If made illegal to do so then I don’t see how it could be enforced. I find it strange that you’re using a computer, probably have a smartphone with GPS/4G/etc (with proprietary software), use ATM’s (with camera’s), use a credit card, etc. etc. etc. and THIS is where you draw the line? Something that has the potential to save 40,000 lives A YEAR????
Do you have any idea how connected you already are? If they want to “get you” you’re already making it easy for them. You do have the right, however, to rid yourself of all this technology and go and live in the woods and off the grid.
I’ll try to keep this civil, as an example, because you’re obviously unable to do so.
Yes, I’m guilty of being part of an industry that develops technology, one you benefit from. My software may well be in a device you use every day. I do not work for the government. When I see 40,000 people needlessly dying every year I’d like to do something about it if possible. Yet, to you, I need to be “exposed” and ridiculed for being an evil “do-gooder”. I assume you’ve never had a family member killed in an auto-accident (?).
These technologies are anonymous and easily disabled. Even if made illegal to do so it would be difficult to enforce. You have no objection to using a networked computer, or do you think your encrypted wifi protects you? You probably own a smartphone with GPS/4G and proprietary software on it. How about using credit-cards? Do you always use cash? What about using an ATM, those camera’s recording you, having the potential to be “plugged in” to big brother doing facial recognition? There’s OnStar, Bluetooth/vehicle hands free telephony, WiFi hot spots, etc. - I could go on all day about connected things you’re probably already doing/using that you should be equally, if not more so, paranoid about.
But a technology that can actually save lives? NooOOOooo, that crosses the line with you. How dare I care! I should say, “no, we shouldn’t develop any of this technology to save lives because it could be used for evil!”. News flash, you past that milestone a long time ago. I don’t believe “decent people” want 40,000 avoidable deaths occurring each year, all so that you feel better.
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege(!) and we live in a CIVIL society (<—doesn’t mean socialist), you can choose not to drive if you wish but how dare you want so many continued deaths and call me a problem.
“But a technology that can actually save lives? NooOOOooo, that crosses the line with you.”
Yeah, there are tradeoffs when you have the specter of a technology that outwardly seems well-intentioned, but can be turned against the citizenry. What you fail to address is the other losses in your quest to save lives from auto accidents. Thanks to microelectronics and it’s allied technologies, we have the specter of giving government absolute control over us. I guess that’s not important to you.
BTW, I retired a few years ago from a senior management position in a well-known Silicon Valley company. I am also and PE and I have a decent background in electro optics. So while I love the technology, I am beginning to see that in the wrong hands, without safeguards, we may not ultimately like the outcome. But what the hell, just so long as we can use it to save lives on the highway and make a few buck doing so, that shouldn’t matter right? Now, it that civil enough for you?
With all due respect, if I want privacy I can put my smartphone in a shielded bag, but government is going to treat my car’s broadcast of its ID as a matter of safety and it will be a crime to disable it, just as it is a crime for the tire shop to leave out the TPM (tire pressure monitor) the next time the tires are changed.
Just take a simple issue like being able to disconnect your front passenger air bag. There is a government form with severe criminal sanction of 18 USC 1001 if you check the wrong box:
“Part F. Certification
I certify to the U.S. Department of Transportation that the information, certifications, and understandings given or indicated by me on this form are truthful, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I recognize that the statements I have made on this form concern a matter within the jurisdiction of a department of the United States and that making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement may render me subject to criminal prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.”
As to tracking, I don’t believe that is the motivation of the engineers or the auto companies, but that could be the very same thing we would expect the engineers at Motorola or AT & T to say when they were developing the cell phone. And we know how that turned out.
You don’t hesitate to use the government’s own destruction of the Fourth Amendment as the reason why I should not worry that someone very soon will not develop the “Stingray” cell phone spoofer equivalent of a Stingray for spoofing passing vehicles into spilling their guts to the device.
And recall that law enforcement has vigorous denied that there was such as thing as a Stingray.
Now with a cell phone, we could have preserved our privacy had the manufacturers not acceded to government’s demand that all phones be trackable all the time. We could have just had a “reveal location” button so disclosure would have been off by default. But no, disclosure of location is continuous and mandatory and now nobody can opt out.
I return to my original suggestion. If the designers of this new vehicle location system are being honest about preserving privacy, let us see the steps they are taking. Let us not make silly design mistakes that open gaping holes for Stingrays to penetrate. One way to do this is to give each vehicle’s ID only a limited lifetime, where it comes up with a new random number frequent enough to preclude government from tracking my drive down the interstate.
Let this device save lives, but not at the expense of liberty. Careful and honest engineers can design with both concerns in mind. I have options in my life. I can always rebuild my existing vehicles. Government is not going to destroy their utility. Too many poor illegal immigrants to pander to.
Name me a technology that can’t, in some manner, be “turned against the citizenry”. It can all be abused.
The development of this technology is intentioned to be anonymous and discrete - vehicle ID’s being dynamic and not tied to your VIN.
So because I believe this can be achieved without “giving government absolute control over us” I deserve ridicule in your eyes. When did I say I was ok with that? So instead of attacking me you might want to be grateful that people like me are involved, unless you prefer the development to include only “liberal progressives”?? Your disdain is misguided, you judge me without knowing any of my deeds. I assume you’re conservative but not Christian.
...I’m glad you’ve been successful and can retire. I suppose that means it’s time to sit back and criticize what the rest of us (engineers) do while you contributed to the same industry for an entire career. Must be nice to have such a high horse. I suppose you object to the military technology I’ve worked on too, as it increases our military capabilities that could be used against us.
What you should be most scared of is a government consisting of immoral people that are unaccountable. Unfortunately that is what we have and the outcome is already written on the wall. But what the hell, you’re retired, you’ve already got yours - now it’s our problem and we’re well aware of it. Maybe that’s the disconnect, I’m already VERY mindful of the possibilities for abuse and want technology to develop in the right direction. You should be thanking me, not looking down on me with self righteous condescension.
I don’t disagree with you. That is the direction many want. Some here harshly judge me because I want to help save lives while not giving up liberty - I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive. If I believed they were I wouldn’t want it.
Deaths have dropped a bit in the last few years but is still well over 30,000 - plus, that is ONLY in the USA. Prove to me otherwise, don’t just state “red herring” without facts.
“No, it won’t. That technology is irrelevant to most accidents.”. Ok, I’ll stop...you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
I will accept that. My beef is that it is all too easy to give in to the State’s craven lust for power over us.
You misread what I am saying. It is not condescension, but rather well-founded concern about the routine abuse of us all by our government by any means necessary (and that includes using systems designed for a completely different purpose for nefarious activities). I completely agree with your first sentence above. The almost complete lack of morality is the basis for my concern. When I watch the news (or more often, read it here on FR) I feel I am living in a parallel universe. The distrust and mistrust sewn by the current government (in my case, both state and federal) is most worrisome for someone like myself who understands how very easy these innocuous systems can be subverted. It simply isn't not acceptable in my view to continue to provide ever more sophisticated technology to governments because they rarely are called to account for their abuses. But then as you note in your second sentence, it's already upon us. As to my being retired, thanks to Boosh II, and the Wall St. crooks, 30% of what we'd saved for retirement is gone, along with interest rates that allowed us to withdraw what we needed without going into principal. So now we are managing some real estate investments, which after the crash, are much better that they were before. But that still means that we have to work, and at our age, that isn't trivial. Lastly, I am not "looking down on you." Unless you consider that I think you are not squaring what you do with today's reality as "looking down on you." Science and engineering are powerful tools, and today, too many engaged in those activities are there ( as they likely were in Germany 60 years ago) developing new technologies and ignoring potential end uses.
Readers, that’s the attitude of a self-described “engineer” in the industry. A warning a fraction of second before you’re involved in an accident at an intersection will only be an added distraction.
That’s how most accidents happen. Warnings about other vehicles in your vicinity would be distractions. Warnings networked to central offices would have no purpose but surveillance against you.
But go right ahead, those of you who would buy new vehicles from the global corporates. The truly influential are really most afraid of you: the middle class.
If the global auto manufacturers were really concerned about your safety, you’d have good roll chassis and other superior safety features in those vehicles instead of heaps of complicated, overly expensive, anti-competition, killer garbage.
As you can see, the prideful effete are not only insulting, vain and incompetent. They’re dishonest while engaging in social pathologies and forcing you by law to pay homage to them (e.g., queer activism).
And what are they doing on your political discussion boards?
Well, at least one is revising downward his estimate of traffic deaths by 25% ;')
I implied no such thing. I am an embedded hardware/software engineer with 43 years of experience. (I'm 65) I've been around the block quite a few times.
My issue is with over-automation. Windows just crawls, stays busy picking its own butt, and has more bugs than the beach has grains of sand. There is too much RF in the ambient environment; and, there are a lot of cars to add to that tangle. I have seen many problems get much worse when a lot of software is thrown at them. Programmers really aren't bright enough to field woefully complex stuff when life safety is a primary issue.
Reliability will be a serious issue with automation, particularly in the beginning. I'm not wild about trusting my car or my neighbors car speed & direction to beta software. Also, now we'll have to wait for the car to boot up and gets its updates while sitting there twiddling our collective thumbs. Oh, did I mention how difficult it will be to get meaningful service for such systems? Will the service shops have simulators or test roads with lots of traffic on them in order to verify that service was performed correctly?
Why not make drivers' licenses actually mean that the driver was well trained and not just capable of bringing a thermometer to 98.6? That would be an intelligent approach to road safety. I don't think the expensive is going to be the best approach.
Many cars don’t have them. It is possible to tell if a tire is low by comparing rotational data from the ABS sensing rings among the wheels. Most cars today use this system.
As far as tracking is concerned. The protocols are anonymous and easily turned off/disabled.
It can now in the current formulation. STASI 2.0 fixes those bugs.
If made illegal to do so then I don’t see how it could be enforced.
You're kidding, right? If you are in this business, and you know how this technology works, then what do you suppose will happen when your disabled car drives past a police car with a snooper? It will immediately be noticed because it did not register.
The penalty for disabling necessary "safety" equipment? I expect they'll make it as harsh as necessary. On top of that, they are already talking about using software intellectual property laws to prevent people from messing with their automobiles.
I find it strange that you’re using a computer, probably have a smartphone with GPS/4G/etc (with proprietary software), use ATM’s (with camera’s), use a credit card, etc. etc. etc. and THIS is where you draw the line?
I do not use a smartphone or anything else with GPS/4G/etc. I never use ATM's, and I use Credit cards for specific purchases and at places of my choosing. Ever so often when I am using my credit card, I often tell the clerk that it's time to let the "beast" see me again. The computer is linked wireless over a long haul RF link and could be anywhere in a several hundred square mile area.
I'm not particularly paranoid, but I don't need that crap and so I don't bother with it.
Something that has the potential to save 40,000 lives A YEAR????
Yes, this technology has the potential to save a lot of lives and that is it's upside. The question is, will it's eventual downside cost more?
I note the Nazis proposed their gun laws for "Safety" reasons, and to "save lives." 30 million dead people later...
ok, I’ll overlook, “Basically, you’re a Socialist...” and “...decent people need to expose people like you and your “do-gooder buddies” at NHTSA or whatever government bureaucratic $hit hole you hang your hat! You are part of the problem today, not a solution!” as not “looking down on me with self righteous condescension”. My misunderstanding apparently....
Look, we’re both FReepers for a reason. I have been a long time - I assume the same for you. Yes, your fears are not unfounded. I too feel the alternate reality in which we’re living. However, this is why it is important to be involved in the development, to be exposed to what is possible (and hopefully influence direction) with the technology. I hope to find a balance between making safer cars and not providing an avenue for government abuse. I’ll let you know if I don’t see it happening!
I truly hope your retirement situation works out well, I mean that. I’ve experience with my parents on that front. I have no idea when I’ll be able to, I just save what I can.
You mention Germany. I’ve always respected the Germans. They’re an intelligent and cultured people (I know many), which has always made me curious about how they allowed the atrocities to happen. I’ve read up on the subject (as well as listened to stories from those that lived through it) and see some frightening parallels today. Given the recent SC rulings I fear the next 5/10/20 years, I can only pray and hope to have enough faith to handle it. If you thought I had no idea about how things can be abused, well, don’t - I’m well aware but it is better for me to involved and know details (and as said, influence), as it will be developed regardless of whether I’m involved or not.
Lastly, lack of morality in government is something that was inevitable considering modern technology. While I love technology it has made us morally complacent. Ideally, if we can have technology AND moral people we’d be doing pretty good. I believe it is possible, although, all things must come to pass.
Hmm. First, all hail embedded computer engineers! At your age I can only imagine what you must think of modern OS’s, lol.
Modern IVI systems have stringent boot times (WIntel fail) and updates/testing is under the hawkish scrutiny of lawyers.
I get your concern. Improvements must be made to handle these challenges. That said, when the automated systems result with less deaths than with manual driving alone...what would you prefer? Just curious.
Manual driving. It is fun. It is life on the edge, like it is supposed to be. Freedom is not safe. If you are safe, you probably are not free. It is all about Freedom, just like with the ownership of firearms. Even if banning weapons would result in fewer deaths, it would be a death blow to Freedom to ban them. Think carefully about what your elder is telling you.
I do not want you or anyone else pretending to look out for my safety. That is exercising control over me under the pretense that you are protecting me. Only I am allowed to be in control of myself; and, I will not accept meddling. The Nanny-State is a grievous destroyer of Freedom.
Modern OSs are way too much gun for the job. Young-uns aught to be ashamed of themselves for accomplishing so little with so much software. The number of tasks that run on Windows platforms are just way over the line. Most of those automated gee-whiz trinkets are just unneeded and unwanted. Support libraries are too large to be manageable or even configurable.
Oh, I understand your need to write software and write software and write software. It is what software folks do. Just don't control your fellow citizens under the guise of "knowing what they need" or "for their safety". You strip them of freedom. Think "better drivers". It works all over Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.