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
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.
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.
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 ?
Every driver already has a tracking device...
Plus, California uses electronic toll transponders to track cars on the freeways to determine traffic flows.
I thought they used to be more up front about this use, but the only reference I could find on the Bay Area Fastrak site is buried in the terms of use:
http://www.bayareafastrak.com/dynamic/signup/terms.html
You agree that the Toll Tag may be read to provide anonymous traffic flow data to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's '511' project, a real time traffic information service. No information identifying a FasTrak account, person or vehicle using the Toll Tag will be collected by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission or '511'. If you do not want your Toll Tag's presence to be noted by '511', remove the Toll Tag from your windshield and place it in the special bag you received with the Toll Tag. Be sure to replace the Toll Tag on your windshield before you enter a FasTrak lane in order to avoid toll violation charges. If you would like additional information about '511', please visit www.511.org.
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.
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.
No, no they don't
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
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.
You can also buy FasTrak using cash and stay somewhat anonymous (though most people do register with their car number plates).
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.
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.
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 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.
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
... 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.
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)
It'll probably need to be computer controlled, therefore, loggable.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
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.
How is it unjust for bad driving habits to be well known to all?
How is it unjust to have your crimes known to all? Allowing the government to have surveillance cameras installed in every room of everyone's houses could save lives. Isn't not allowing that a way to cheat society and deceive others?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
4) Facebook maintains a network of spies even if you don't happen to be on it yourself.
What?
8) Your ISP knows your IP number.
I'd be far more worried about the content (and you can use encryption for that).
Given all of that what possible concern would networked cars be.
The fact that things are bad now doesn't mean we should make them even worse!
I used to worry about privacy, when I still had any.
Will you say the same if the government takes away all other rights? It's time to fight for it, not give up.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The future is going to be nothing but a Rush song http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta.
Was making the exact same post as parent. Many people are thinking about privacy in vehicular networks. For example, most systems for aggregating data from cars for showing traffic speed anonymize the data in various ways to try to protect privacy. Here are some details:
A project at the University of Illinois preserves privacy when reconstructing global maps based on data collected from cars: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h545111k4g217374/
Abstract: "The proliferation of sensors in devices of frequent use, such as mobile phones, offers unprecedented opportunities for forming self-selected communities around shared sensory data pools that enable community specific applications of mutual interest. Such applications have recently been termed participatory sensing. An important category of participatory sensing applications is one that construct maps of different phenomena (e.g., traffic speed, pollution) using vehicular participatory sensing. An example is sharing data from GPS-enabled cell-phones to map traffic or noise patterns. Concerns with data privacy are a key impediment to the proliferation of such applications. This paper presents theoretical foundations, a system implementation, and an experimental evaluation of a perturbation-based mechanism for ensuring privacy of location-tagged participatory sensing data while allowing correct reconstruction of community statistics of interest (computed from shared perturbed data). The system is applied to construct accurate traffic speed maps in a small campus town from shared GPS data of participating vehicles, where the individual vehicles are allowed to “lie” about their actual location and speed at all times. An extensive evaluation demonstrates the efficacy of the approach in concealing multi-dimensional, correlated, time-series data while allowing for accurate reconstruction of spatial statistics."
The Mobile Millennium project ( http://traffic.berkeley.edu/ ) from Berkeley uses "virtual trip lines": http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5871633
Abstract: "Traffic monitoring using probe vehicles with GPS receivers promises significant improvements in cost, coverage, and accuracy over dedicated infrastructure systems. Current approaches, however, raise privacy concerns because they require participants to reveal their positions to an external traffic monitoring server. To address this challenge, we describe a system based on virtual trip lines and an associated cloaking technique, followed by another system design in which we relax the privacy requirements to maximize the accuracy of real-time traffic estimation. We introduce virtual trip lines which are geographic markers that indicate where vehicles should provide speed updates. These markers are placed to avoid specific privacy sensitive locations. They also allow aggregating and cloaking several location updates based on trip line identifiers, without knowing the actual geographic locations of these trip lines. Thus, they facilitate the design of a distributed architecture, in which no single entity has a complete knowledge of probe identities and fine-grained location information. We have implemented the system with GPS smartphone clients and conducted a controlled experiment with 100 phone-equipped drivers circling a highway segment, which was later extended into a year-long public deployment."
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.
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...
My FasTrak provider offers RF shielding bags. IIRC, the traffic flow tracking was mentioned in the mounting instructions, with suggestions on how to properly use the shielding bags.
yeah, it's implanted in their heads at birth!
The government tracks everyone to make sure they don't get near the grid! The truth is out there!
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
No.
If the government was perfect and also impervious to infiltration I wouldn't mind. Fact is government is made of fallible humans, and there are malicious humans who are also competent that would be happy to steal the footage for their own ends.
Which is one reason I support the fourth amendment. Unless the government can prove a need to know by getting a search warrant, the risk/reward balance is in my favor and they have no business wasting my tax dollars by snooping in my life when they aren't likely to find anything they'd need to do their job.
Police payroll for investigating me comes out of my pocket, so unless there's a need for it, I don't want the cops wasting their time on my dime investigating me.
If I was a crook I'd say the same thing, but if I was a crook, then the police could probably get a warrant anyway. If I'm innocent, getting a search warrant rightly should be more difficult.
If the government was perfect and also impervious to infiltration I wouldn't mind.
I'd still mind, actually. The idea of someone constantly watching over you and recording your actions is rather unsettling to me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"that no one knows about
.....
He says it used to be a farm
before the Motor Law"