Slashdot Mirror
Networked Cars: Good For Safety, Bad For Privacy
jfruh writes "Networked cars — cars that can identify each other's location and prevent collisions — are coming soon, and will be a boon for safety, with one estimate having them cut accidents by 70 percent. But what happens to all the data the car will collect — about your location and driving behavior? It's worrisome that nobody seems to be thinking seriously about the privacy side of the equation."
They don't have to be, if you just generate a guid for each trip rather than for a single car for its life time the problem is solved.
We'll be lucky if they drop 10% with tracking data enabled.
... what you are doing, but you better start looking for a lawyer :-)
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
...since I won't be able to actually drive anymore, I'll just say the car took me to X, Y, and Z. It's its own Accord.
Um, considering that more than likely, every person in the car is already being tracked at a personal level via their cell phone (and other devices, such as tablets, etc), I don't see this as being all that much worse than the de facto privacy of the modern digital world.
Better known as 318230.
Every driver already has a tracking device...
Just invent teleportation.
There's a giant plate identifying me or the driver on the back of the car(and in most states, front too).
Given the chance of damage I don't know if privacy is something I want in a car.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Privacy campaigners have been trying to tell people that, absent their awareness and action, the future would be one where people were regarded as cattle.
Nobody listened.
Now here it is.
The forces working against privacy have too much intertia.
Now be a good little consumer and do what's best for them.
And the outcome doesn't look positive. Police/Feds/DHS/TSA are all salivating over this - they're thinking exactly how to collect, store and use this information.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I know our entire world is built against it, at the moment. But I hope that, sometime in my life, robotic systems replace humans in the driver's seat. Driving is one task we humans seem inept at safely executing. It makes sense, most of the time in a car is uneventful. It's the 5% of the time where something really bizarre happens that we have to be prepared for the rest of the time. But human attention span doesn't work that way and so people get lazy, start slurping sodas (or worse), and people wind up dead. So, I hope to see the human driver become a thing of the past in my lifetime. It may not happen, but it is worthy of working toward.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
I don't want ANY networked system trying to prevent accidents, unless all it is going to do is warn me.
Just wait until some script kiddie with a laptop starts sending out fake IDs showing a vehicle suddenly right in front of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah's_Children
He even has a part where someone modifies the chip in the car to hide their ID as they slip off a monitored road onto an illegal side road...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
If the car was fully automated (self-driving), why would it need to store information on where the owner (or occupant) is? It's basically just personalized mass transit at that point - buses and subways don't report the names of their passengers so why should an automated car?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I personally see these as being devoted more to rentals and group car ownership. Similar to how some cities are doing bicycle rentals throughout the city. You swipe a card, take a bike, drop it at another bike rack, move on about your business. Similarly, swipe a card, get a networked/self-driving car, it'll ensure that you fill the tank before you return it, and you'll not need to own a vehicle.
More likely, you think your attention is totally devoted. Every person I've ever met who claimed to be some great, attentive driver that never makes mistakes, wasn't.
All things considered, I'd rather have my privacy invaded than be wrapped around a telephone pole and dead.
Paranoid people start wondering about what if and maybes, quick derail the project before all of civilization falls.
While there are instances where privacy concerns are legitimate, in cases like this it is my opinion (yes I'm entitled to it, no you dont have to like it or agree with it, and so what if you dont) that the only people concerned with the what if's and maybe's are those who do not abide the law.
Because it can be done.
Governments and others aready harvest data from cell phones, automated toll systems and the like, why would you expect this to be different ?.
People are. Like my wife (but that was years and a career change ago now.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_infrastructure_integration#Privacy
Instead of trying to hold onto our vanishing privacy, which is already a losing battle, we need to shift focus onto shining the light on corporate and government officials' activities. Honestly, they mostly don't care what we're up to, most people lead boring lives, but we all know that they mega-rich don't want us knowing what they are doing behind closed doors to the rest of us.
Currently hooked on AMP
it doesn't 'have' to, but you can be the government (and marketers) will want it to..and they'll want remote control as well.
Autonomous cars will likely store their license plate numbers. That would be enough for certain agencies to track you.
If the car was fully automated (self-driving), why would it need to store information on where the owner (or occupant) is? It's basically just personalized mass transit at that point - buses and subways don't report the names of their passengers so why should an automated car?
IANAL, but I believe "personalized" would be the trigger word here. Legally it is likely a matter of ownership, which may be all a lawyer needs to hold anything and everything against YOU, because of the simple fact that it is YOUR car. The burden is now likely upon YOU to prove that it wasn't you driving. Open your checkbook and have fun with that.
In the last ten years alone I have driven two million miles incident free. That is around four times the average American drives in their lifetime. I have three million miles to go before I get a fancy safety bonus. This is normal for professional drivers.
Everyone that can't concentrate for 14 hours straight can't get a professional license. I guess they are more than human.
FTFA:
Because the cars in the Ann Arbor test only need to know the location of other vehicles within 300 meters, there’s no need to connect to the Internet or record your car’s location, says van der Jagt. And since the system doesn’t collect any data from the car’s registration or VIN, there’s no way for Ford or anyone else to know who you are and where you’re going, he adds.
You're right, and came to the same conclusion the car makers did. The article writer is assuming that they'll start recording and sharing this data, and explains why it would be bad if that happens. (Kinda tautological.) It's similar to arguing that we should have never invented tabulating machines (and later computers) because they could be used by someone like the Nazis. That's a very regressive argument, but the author expands it. His point is that the privacy invading features could later be added, not that they exist now. (So we shouldn't develop anything at all, because everything is a prerequisite technology for something evil.)
I work on in-vehicle systems and the servers that talk to them. There are plenty of existing, deployed services that combine external information with the location of your vehicle (e.g. concierge, route planning with points of interest, vehicle locator, charge station finder for EVs, geo-fencing, insurance scoring, and many more). For all of these, your location data must be sent to a server. And any in-vehicle system that provides at least some services that need vehicle location, will make a habit of sending the vehicle location along whether the owner is using those services or not, provided some kind of account activation has occured. Generally, the automotive manufacturers consider vehicle location data great for providing attractive services to their customers.
I've noticed restraint from auto OEMs on taking the data and using it for things other than the services offered to the users. And unlike webbish companies like Facebook, Google, or Twitter, the auto OEMs are focused on selling vehicles, not data. But that can all change if you fall asleep.
The networked collision detection stuff is interesting, but doesn't change the nature of the problem. The data is already being collected for boring old services from three years back.
I just got Waze on my Pioneer AppRadio.. Looks pretty cool... I can see and report accidents, police, and more.. This is the flipping future. And I care that the Feds know I'm driving to down Main Street because???? Unless someone uses the info to rob my house when I'm not there, I don't see the harm. I can always turn it off.
I hope the protocol is free and open source. The worst thing that could happen is if users can't control such a system.
I've felt pretty strongly in the past that governments around the world do not respect the privacy of individuals enough. But the lives of others are more important to me than my personal privacy. We started putting tracking devices in our pockets just for the convenience of text messaging. We pay ISPs for internet service even though we know they'll sell our records in a heartbeat.
We sacrifice our personal privacy all the time for very stupid reasons. This feels like the first time there's actually a good one. So I'm OK with this, even if this is the first step down a slippery slope towards living in a Phillip K. Dick novel. Not that we even have a choice. People have an insatiable addiction to convenience these days.
and do as I say.
Driverless cars would only work if all cars within an area are driverless and the road network is isolated from pedestrians of whatever shape and size. Such a setup would effectively turn a car into a track-less personal train system. I think I saw an example of this in Minority Report or some other dark-toned sci-fi movie.
Drivers make sense where the probability of unforseen obstructions are great. You don't want your driverless car crashing into some bumpkin or a cow too stupid to know the difference between the road and the sidewalk.
How is it unjust for bad driving habits to be well known to all? Isn't it simply a way to cheat insurance companies and deceive passengers?
And as for the historic location of where my car has been five minutes ago or where it is now, just why should that be hidden from others? Why is it that those who wish to live by deceit somehow classify that as a privacy issue?
Isn't it time for all of us, without exception, to be known just as we are?
Do you drive 5 pmh over the limit all the time? You're more of a risk and your premiums go up.
Did you slow down and then just blow off a stop sign at 3AM? You're more of a risk and your premiums go up.
You might not have a DUI, but if your car always goes to the parkling lot of ChiChi's Boom Boom Room? You're more of a risk and your premiums go up.
etc.
That's who really wants this data. They want to strangle every last dime out of the consumer before automated cars take over and put them out of business.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Every car will have data in it like aircraft do. It will know what your actions were, were you were and what you were doing. It's comforting to know my ex wife, the insurance company, the police and the rest of government won't get access to that data. Uh huh. Sure.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
They may not need to, but they already do store a lot of that data. Do you really think that as they start to collect more data about where you are and where you go they are not going to store that data as well?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This is actually being considered by those making the networking systems, and has been from the start. In fact, the US government specified that all of the wifi devices are required to take privacy into account. This means that no data is stored locally, and any data that your own device sends out is randomized such as device IDs. And for those concerned that the government may be putting backdoors into the software, they have no hand in the actual development. They just set the guidelines for the devices. (And no, those guidelines do not include requirements for backdoors either.)
Similarly, measures are being taken to ensure that the devices aren't susceptible to outside interference, such as spoofing or broadcasting false locations.
1) Warrant less GPS trackers. (Possibly planted by your boss or soon to be ex-wife.)
2) Cell phone already tracks you for big corp and big government.
3) Face recognition software is becoming common.
4) Facebook maintains a network of spies even if you don't happen to be on it yourself.
5) License plate cameras are coming to all major cities in the near future.
6) Cars will soon have black boxes just like aeroplanes.
7) Cameras are built into phones, and anyone might take your picture at any time, even in your Los Vegas hotel room naked.
8) Your ISP knows your IP number.
Given all of that what possible concern would networked cars be. Least the cops could do is warn me when I am going to go over the speed limit before their licence plate cameras send me a ticket in the mail.
I used to worry about privacy, when I still had any.
This isn't going to erode privacy much more than a phone in your pocket is.
After I parked my flying car, which had been promised to me well over 40 years ago as the transportation of now, I look forward to my robotic car that will safely transport me via the cloud.
My only worry is how many monkeys will fly out of my ass before the self driving car that is available to the middle class or poorer - with of course all the new laws and stuff.
And I am counting on how many monkeys will be flying out of my dead ass - so let your kids know I will still be counting.
So far I am at zero - and I will update accordingly.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Just make it so you can edit the car's trip memory. I think every user would want a "Remember this Destination" button and an editable destination list. But remember, the first company past the post looks like it's going to be Google and they never delete a byte. Everything goes in your permanent profile.
Seriously, I'm even sure someone could find out who I am
Remember when they told us that traffic light cameras wouldn't be used for anything but managing traffic jams at that intersection?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't car if it has to be self-driving, networked, and tracks when and where I go: my commute is long, dangerous, and happens predictably.
I want my personal flying machine!
I'll take my old-school ground vehicle when I want control.
Jhyrryl
The same problem was thinking with the social network, and now seems to be a rule to publish even the position when you are in the bathroom
Everyone is working on this. This article blatantly contradicts a decade of VANET research. Even the car industry is involved in providing privacy-preserving protocols of all kinds. Here is a sample of papers covering this topic:
Privacy and identity management for vehicular communication systems: a position paper (2006)
A tutorial survey on vehicular ad hoc networks (2008)
Support of Anonymity in VANETs - Putting Pseudonymity into Practice (2007)
Towards a security architecture for vehicular ad hoc networks (2006)
Anonymity Analysis on Social Spot Based Pseudonym Changing for Location Privacy in VANETs (2011)
A Robust Conditional Privacy-Preserving Authentication Protocol in VANET (2009)
Also, the sevecom project and the preserve project just some examples of projects that work on this topic. In the US, pseudonyms have been standardized by IEEE 1609.2.
In other words, the claim that no-one works on it is bullcrap. Is it still bad for privacy? Maybe. With the right choices, we can build a secure and privacy-preserving system that is a lot safer than what we see on the road now. Recall the discussion on vaccination from yesterday? There, the /. hivemind tells us how the good of the community comes first if my right to choose harms others. This is the same here. Your privacy is important, and we try to protect it, but if there's a small decrease in privacy for a huge gain in safety, then you're out of luck.
And get off my lawn!!
... unless they're going to mandate only robotically controlled cars on the roads. What good does it do for a car to keep track of its environment if it's being driven by an idiot? Will it make it safer for the woman putting her makeup on while trying to drive and eat a donut/bagel/whatever? Or will it help out the teenager driving while sexting? I don't see this as happening...
Now, if all the vehicles on the road were controlled by robots, then this makes sense. Fact is, I can see a case of not allowing manually controlled cars on the interstate, for example. And this would be a perfect application for this kind of tech.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Get a bicycle. Get fit, stay private, don't emit co2.
Yet another blogger begging for an audience.
Information want to be free, that includes the information we previously consider personal.
Even if they did store that data over a long time, it would only be stored inside your car, so anyone who wanted access would have to get inside the car, by force or by law.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Automated monitoring systems like OnStar probably report FAR more information that you need be concerned about than a glorified proximity detector.
On the other hand, I DO see a considerable safety issue. It is already well-established that the protocols used in "intelligent" cars can be broken and that false instructions can be injected into critical systems (brakes, door locks, etc), that many of the newer cars use ethernet (which means adding a wireless network device would not be hard) and some have wireless built into this internal network (which means driving one near a Black Hat convention is a really bad idea, even if you are insured with Geiko). Adding yet more wireless components to this, where data can (and will) be spoofed - that is asking for trouble.
Even if the wireless is nothing more than a primitive radar setup, there's plenty of paranoid nutters out there who have worked hard on screwing up radar bouncing off cars for years. It is impossible to predict what some of these modifications will do, beyond putting totally inaccurate information into other people's navigation systems. Systems that will be directly hard-wired to brakes and other controls.
In other words, once this technology reaches a significant number of people (so that the increase in accidents is statistically measurable), I expect the deaths from hijacked and/or misinformed computer systems to be far greater than the number of people saved. Early on, when the probability of encountering malicious geeks or paranoid schizos is low, the death toll will go down. If the subsequent rise takes long enough to occur, the new technology will be so "essential" that the "essentialness" of it will be considered more important than the safety aspect.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Insurance companies will love this. They will be able to analyze data concerning your style and manner of driving and claim recklessness or incompetence in order to deny claims.
Disclosure: I work for a company who is involved in the V2X (vehicle-to-x) tests in Ann Arbor which are referenced in the article.
The article first describes the benefits of V2X communication, i.e. reducing accidents. V2X refers to communication between cars and infrastructure and other cars _around the car_. This communication is broadcast-only, no actual communication between the cars takes place, which the article gets horribly wrong. V2X communication is specified in IEEE 1609 for those inclined to take a look.
The summary's claim that no one seems to think of the privacy is preposterous. In fact the next draft of the V2X standard will include further provisions which are exclusively designed to avoid any kind of tracking of vehicles (even by the authorities). The Ford representative cited is absolutely correct in this aspect.
TFA goes on to rant about online services _inside the car_ (which have absolutely nothing to do with V2X) and how they compromise privacy. Yes, this might be an issue but it depends on the online services which are provided by the car manufacturers, but again, these services are not related to the safety features or V2X at all (it is also ironic that the summary gets security and safety wrong),
tl;dr: TFA links the (standardized) safety features of car communication to (maker-specific) online and personalization services, but in fact these technologies are completely independent of each other. The claim that more safety requires to give up privacy is bogus.
Meet the new Facebook car! Get in, it's free!
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
People want things to be perfectly safe, with no chance of a an undesired outcome (think of the children etc.!). Given the instant communications available today, even one accident in a population of 300 million (US) will become known to everyone and is cause for worry. Safety will end up trumping every concern including privacy. See the Sept. 2012 issue of the IEEE Spectrum for an article about how smartphones will nanny us in the future.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
It's worrisome that nobody seems to be thinking seriously about the privacy side of the equation.
This is so far off from reality, it's actually insulting. It's insulting to the plethora of papers out there, to the researchers and engineers working to safeguard privacy in networked cars, those researchers identifying new forms of privacy and coming up with protocols and systems to safeguard those.
In this day and age, ignorance which is solved with the first Google query that pops in your head is no longer an excuse, it's an insult.
Just frakkin' Google it.
The future is going to be nothing but a Rush song http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta.
The first time there's an amber alert or a terrorist and they can track a car they will. Then the slippery slope will get formed. Pretty soon you'll be buying tracking from sleezy resellers on the internet and wikileaks will dump the government fleet travel. I'm just say'in...
And this is different from the serialized, proprietary transmitter in my pocket how exactly?
So what other part of my medical records do you feel you have a right to? My kidney function? Racial descent?
If you're worried about pilot performance, why not test that?
In my view, drug testing is an invasion of privacy and person, justifiable for nothing short of felonious acts. Even then I would prefer a court order, particularly describing the place to be searched.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
There are people looking into the privacy concerns. I was a grad student in the AI department at the University of Waterloo, working on networked cars. Traffic was the application domain but our work primarily focused on privacy and trust. Look up the recent work by Robin Cohen, my old supervisor.
Instead of incidental speeding tickets (for those that rarely speed) or hazardous driving in heavy traffic where cops aren't always free to pursue, the driving community could flag vehicles using some heads-up, windshield interface. After X amount of flags, the driver could be reviewed and disciplined. Speed snapshots could be taken at the time of a flag for cross-referencing purposes.
The point of this would be to eliminate the "I need to meet my end of the month ticket quota" tickets and get back to actually moderating bad drivers. So in my world, speeding could be more hazardous in some contexts and less in others and it would seem fair for the driving community to moderate that.
What do you think?
This all networked car thing is a disaster waiting to happen. The basic idea that your car will make important decisions based on information sent by random strangers can only lead to a catastrophic failure.
What happens when someone sends a signal saying that there is a car stopped just in front of you in the highway? Your own car will stop suddenly, and you might get hurt in the process!
Of course, there will be some kind of authentication of the messages, but everycar has to be trusted by default for the system to be usefull. And we all know how easy it will be to extract the signing key from a given car and to spoof messages...
I'm assuming these cars have the capability to automatically control the vehicle, including acceleration. People seem to forget that any networked system can, and most likely will, be compromised. So what happens when some spoiled, sadistic 13 year old finds something that lets him take remote control of random cars on the other side of the world?
"that no one knows about
.....
He says it used to be a farm
before the Motor Law"