Slashdot Mirror
Ford Building Cars That Talk To Other Cars
thecarchik writes "Ford's new system works over a dedicated short-range WiFi system on a secure channel allocated by the FCC. The company says the system one-ups radar safety systems by allowing full 360-degree coverage even when there's no direct line of sight. Scenarios where this could benefit safety or traffic? Predicting collision courses with unseen vehicles, seeing sudden stops before they're visible, and spotting traffic pattern changes on a busy highway. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in October that vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems could address nearly 80 percent of reported crashes not involving drunk drivers. As such, it could potentially save tens of thousands of lives per year."
In the sense of network architecture, the only way I would be even semi-okay with this would be if it really was completely decentralized and peer-to-peer. These types of systems which preach safety and security worry me, as they also could lead to large-scale privacy concerns decades down the road, since you know the various Traffic Management Authorities would jump head over heals for the ability to see real-time position of all cars on the expressway. Then a few years down the road, somebody commit's a crime in or with a car with one of these systems, a politician jumps on the new piece thinking it would make a great "brand item" for his campaign, and given a little bit of misguided legislation, BOOM. The main problem with centralizing management and data.
Though, I _am_ taking this a little far, I hope some of the things from Minority Report never come to be.
By the way, off-topic, but is the "There was an unknown error in the submission" just there for old-times sake, or did that whole thing get ignored again?
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
...about how many lives will be saved, is that they don't take into account that once in place, people rely on them, and change their behavior accordingly. So if I feel like my car is going to alert me if I am likely to hit something, I don't feel so obliged to pay close attention to my driving -- effectively canceling out much of their effect.
cant wait until this shit is hacked, then that guy riding my bumper will get whats coming to him.
Why? That's retarded. It's not like the stuff in Ford cars runs Windows....
Hey, I thought it was funny...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
... mod other divers down?
Have gnu, will travel.
as they also could lead to large-scale privacy concerns decades down the road, since you know the various Traffic Management Authorities would jump head over heals for the ability to see real-time position of all cars on the expressway.
Nothing says that a system like this would have to inform other cars of who you are, just that you are there. And as far as that goes, if you aren't broadcasting some sort of unique id to traffic control systems, they would only know you are say, a car traveling north at 20mph. How is this a problem?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It will be completely impossible for either hacked Ford computers, or any other Wifi device operated by somebody who knows hat "MAC spoofing" means, to present inaccurate, deceptive, or otherwise unhelpful information to these Ford vehicles. I, for one, take comfort in that.
FFS, dudes, trusting the client in a life-critical application? Srsly? Srsly?
Exploit 'em.
Crack 'em, hack 'em, exploit 'em...
Wipe 'em off, and do it again....
This will be a blackhat's paradise.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
the author (Nelson Ireson) is clueless. This isn't "Wi-Fi," which is a trademarked term referring to 802.11 technologies. Wi-Fi isn't "dedicated," and doesn't run on "a secure channel."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
breaks.sys has caused a system error!
Turn key to off and then back on to restart!
There's few things more irritating to me than waiting for a red light when there are no other vehicles at an intersection.
All I want is a simple way to communicate to the traffic light to let it know that I am approaching so I don't have to stop. It seems that most automatic lights I have encountered wait until I have come to a near full stop - which partially defeats the purpose.
Implement this and then BAM - instant time savings and 3+ Miles per gallon savings for every vehicle on the road.
More importantly to me, is whether or not these are implemented using open standards.
Car-to-Car communication isn't helpful when 10% of them use FORD wireless communications, 10% have GM brand Safety wireless etc. etc.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
..some way to represent my vehicle as being about 10 feet behind and in front of where it actually is. cut me off, ride my ass, and maybe your car will complain.
-Lod
And I would reply with "I cannot see around the truck and past the shrub, so I will not block the crosswalk out of consideration for the bicyclist you cannot see, that's why I am not turning right on red" and "I am going just under the speed limit, you do know that speed is illegal, do you not, please see under 'less than or equal to' -- Thanks"
Car makers have time and time again shown themselves incapable of writing secure code.
Unless the FCC & NHTSA exert FAA levels of scrutiny over Ford's V2V software,
I can only see this ending poorly.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
In the sense of network architecture, the only way I would be even semi-okay with this would be if it really was completely decentralized and peer-to-peer.
The associated research area -- pretty old by now -- is called VANETs.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
In other words.. those drivers who, despite not being physically impaired, nevertheless engaged in activities such as, but not limited to: tailgaiting, failing to yield right-of-way, driving too slow with reference to the speed limit and conditions, and/or performing a "rolling roadblock" by both refusing to pass the traffic to your right AND refusing to merge into the right (slow) lane so faster drivers can get past you. Those are the four most dangeous behaviors in which any driver can possibly engage. The first two directly endanger others; the last two tempt other drivers to perform dangerous maneuvers to get around a driver who has voluntarily decided to become a bottleneck. You make something tempting enough, and right or wrong, legally or illegally, drivers WILL eventually try it.
... yet they wait until the last possible moment to actually get into the left lane, despite multiple opportunities. So they cut rudely in front of other drivers, or otherwise perform a poorly planned, poorly executed maneuver. All because they couldn't plan ahead a little.
... I wonder what good these ever-sophisticated machines really are, when most of society in general and its constitutents in particular seem to accept lower standards as a sign of progress.
I suppose a distant fifth would be those drivers who just refuse to plan ahead even a little bit. For example... those drivers who know their left turn is coming up within the next 1-2 miles
If a logic-based, computer-calculated system can prevent accidents, it's only because so many accidents are 100% preventable, foreseeable, thoughtless, stupid. negligent failures to account for the knowable circumstances.
In the long run
Absolutely. Intellidrive is the name for this in the US (previously VII, Vehicle Infrastructure Initiative). The plan is to specify an open protocol, some base DOT-specific applications, and then leave the field open for others to come up with creative uses for it.
And yes, the car manufacturers are on board with this. They've agreed to implement the minimum system necessary in new model cars, and anything above the minimum system is going to be how they differentiate themselves between products.
(The system is more than just car-to-car, it's car-to-car and car-to-infrastructure)
you know the various Traffic Management Authorities would jump head over heals for the ability to see real-time position of all cars on the expressway.
They will be getting that ability anyway.
Satellite technologies, navigation and video. Pilotless aircraft. RFID or something of that sort. There are many, many, ways of doing this. The railroads were working on the problem over a century ago.
There's few things more irritating to me than waiting for a red light when there are no other vehicles at an intersection. All I want is a simple way to communicate to the traffic light to let it know that I am approaching so I don't have to stop. It seems that most automatic lights I have encountered wait until I have come to a near full stop - which partially defeats the purpose.
Implement this and then BAM - instant time savings and 3+ Miles per gallon savings for every vehicle on the road.
The solution already been invented, and doesn't even require high-tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout
There are an excellent series of essays which I found through /.. They were written by Brad Templeton (EFF chairman). In the essays he outlines a lot of the objections to "robocars" (as he terms it) and many of the possible solutions. Centralized management of data need not be in place for such a system to work. His "school of fish" idea I found pretty interesting...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Which means it has the potential to be patched and hardened quickly over just a few years.
Since we are ranting:
Maybe Ford can be vehicles that work. Ford is legendary for its unreliability. I have owned 2 Ford vehicles.
1. The Ford Fairmont. I pushed that fucker all over the state looking someone to rebuild the Ford Windsor engine. This piece of garbage had a nasty and well deserved reputation of dying at 40000 miles and needing a complete rebuild.
2. The Ford Ranger. The transmission in that bastard died at 60000 miles while I was 10 miles between podunk and nowhere. The transmission was rebuilt and then the truck sold. Ford was supposed to produce good trucks. Another lie.
If Ford could produce a car that actually worked, like say Hyundai (100000 mile warranty), Honda (just works), and Toyota (also just works, unintended acceleration being more about the tools who bitch to a government that wanted to do Toyota in the eye) then it would do that. Otherwise, perhaps Ford should stop "innovating" (read wasting money) and start building vehicles that can last more than 5 years without visits to the auto mechanics 6 times a year.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Heh.
You still get spam in your inbox, don't you?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."