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."

Comments

They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[zbobet2012]

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.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[Velex]

DELETE FROM MyDamnedTripsTableWithGuids
WHERE DATEDIFF(hour, created_stamp, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) > 24)

Am I doin it rite?

O I forgot, this is corporate America (FUCK YEAH!)

INSERT INTO MyWaitingToBeDataminedArchivedTrips (GUID, created_stamp, lat, lng, protocol_vendor, protocol_version, odometer, font_left_tire_pressure, front_right_tire_pressure, rear_left_tire_pressure, rear_right_tire_pressure) -- note: HR 84732XYZ prevents us from storing the VIN and various other diagnostic codes and *snort* identifiable info for more than 48 hours
SELECT * FROM MyDamnedTripsTableWithGuids
WHERE DATEDIFF(hour, created_stamp, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) > 24

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[js33]

Yes that's possible in theory, but we all know in practice that never happens. There is absolutely no way on earth that a bunch of proprietary computerized networked gimmickry required to be in your car will ever be designed to protect your privacy. Money and power will inevitably demand unfettered corporate and government access to this data as well as extra restrictions on your own access to it.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[wvmarle]

For networking cars and collission avoidance, you don't need to know which individual car is where. Just like when you're driving now, you see "oh, there's a car", not "oh, there's car nr KW1234". Which car there is, doesn't matter. Just that there is a car.

Network communication can for sure also be set up in that manner. Using a random ID for each connection (of course you need something to identify a connection) should be good enough. No need to log which cars you encountered, it's not even needed to log that you encountered a car.

Ask a human driver about their trip, how many cars they enountered, and they don't know. No-one remembers, as it's totally unimportant. You often don't remember which traffic light was red, and which was green. Unless something out of the ordinary happens most people don't have any memory of a routine trip, other than that they did it.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[davester666]

Yay. Finally, we'll be able to get rid of all those license plate scanners in police cars and along roadways.

Doh, now they'll be replaced with smaller, cheaper, more accurate devices that log all the info your car is broadcasting.

Of course, it'll be easier for criminals to subvert, because now they won't have to have a fake license plate, they can just broadcast fake info.

Win-win-win for everyone!

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[mwvdlee]

One moment there are two cars near you; one to the left and on a long distance in front of you. A few seconds later there is a car to the left and one very closely in front of you. Does it make a difference if the car in front of you now has just overtaken you (soon to be followed by another car already on your left) or whether it was the car a long distance away that is standing still?

Traffic is dynamic, so you need to be able to track all it's dynamic components.

You may not read license plates, but you are identifying and remembering cars near you all the time.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[Tom]

(accident detection isn't that hard: hard breaking, impact, strange manoeuvring, etc)

It isn't hard until you try to actually write code that details what exactly counts as "strange maneuvering", for example. Then it becomes not only hard, but filled with legal trouble. If you record too little, people will whine. If you record too much, people will whine. Basically, no matter what you do, it'll be wrong.

I agree with the use of having a log of what happened just before an accident, but there is no need to keep all the data of all your trips at all times just because an accident might happen. And most people luckily can drive for many years without being involved in an accident.

Agreed on that, but here's a much simpler solution: Keep the data with the car. Encrypt it and store the recovery key with the car papers in your home. Law enforcement has the usual ways of forcing you to hand over the keys in case of an accident, but the data can't be accessed by data collectors just because they can.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[fractoid]

The thing is, unless we assume that it's still meant to be possible for individuals to band together and overthrow the government by force (which, let's face it, is unlikely these days) there's no reason to be upset about police or anyone else getting data on how you drive... Unless you feel entitled to speed (or otherwise break the road rules) sometimes. Generally, that's what 'privacy' comes down to; you want to break some rules (laws, road rules, social norms, whatever) or at least to have some chance of getting away with doing so. Take drug tests, for example - I couldn't care less if I get drug tested because I don't use them. If I did, I'd be all about the "privacy issues" surrounding drug testing. Take GPS tracking on vehicles - I'm strongly opposed to it because I feel entitled to at least a sporting chance of getting away with it if I ever do feel it worthwhile to break road rules. You do too, or you wouldn't object.

What I think will be interesting is, once ubiquitous data is available on all peoples' behaviour at all times (and it will be, sooner or later), whether public pressure builds to change some of our stupider laws. There are a great number of laws which in principle are not always what the average person would call 'just' - but we tolerate them because 'they're only applied to bad people'. Once automated law enforcement is implemented, people will start realising just how important discretion is, or alternately, just how many laws should be fixed or repealed.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you feel entitled to speed (or otherwise break the road rules) sometimes.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear! Just let the government install surveillance cameras in every room of your house. What are you hiding? And because it's theoretically possible (but highly unlikely) for individuals to overthrow the government, the government is made up of perfect beings who could never harm you and could never make mistakes.

I couldn't care less if I get drug tested because I don't use them.

I don't use them, but I care for other people. It's bad because it punishes people who don't do drugs simply because there are people that do. Much like the TSA.

You do too, or you wouldn't object.

No, I just like privacy. I don't have to break social norms or laws to want to not want to be spied on; that's silly.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[shentino]

128 bits ought to be enough for everyone.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[shentino]

There's this thing called "probable cause" that nicely balances the state's need to prevent crime with my need for privacy.

If they want to search my trip logs they can go to a judge and get a fucking warrant first.

Otherwise they can keep their nose out of my business and let me join the pursuit of happiness without government interference.

Government snooping is interference no matter how benign its intentions. The TSA holding up the line for searches is just one example of many of government paranoia turning into a hassle for me.

If the feds can't come up with a good reason to mess with my life they need to stay the hell out of my way so I can go on about my business.

Because even if I have nothing to hide, putting my own life on hold to satiate their curiosity is a waste of my time.

And that's assuming a rogue hacker doesn't bust through the government's firewalls and scoop up my personal information.

Even a well meaning government that is incompetent can cause trouble if my information falls into the wrong hands.

All the more reason for the government not to possess it in the first place unless they actually need it. Fewer ways to fail, and it keeps my tax dollars from being wasted on precious man hours diverted to rummaging through personal lives that are better off left alone.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[drinkypoo]

I couldn't care less if I get drug tested because I don't use them. If I did, I'd be all about the "privacy issues" surrounding drug testing.

We live in a world where you can be fired for eating a poppyseed muffin, if it suits HR. You should care, this is about basic personal rights. I guess you never read the poem about how there being no one left to stand up for you when they come to get you. You are a sorry excuse for a citizen.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[js33]

Generally, that's what 'privacy' comes down to; you want to break some rules (laws, road rules, social norms, whatever) or at least to have some chance of getting away with doing so.

That's the tired old something-to-hide argument against privacy. Way too many powerful corporate and government entities know each one of us in way too intimate detail, and we know next to nothing about these entities. Nor do we need to violate any laws or social norms in order to accumulate vast quantities of private information which could easily be used against us maliciously if misappropriated. Then there is the problem that the supposedly well-meaning people or entities who snoop almost invariably meddle in some way with what they are snooping into, because such people simply aren't going to "look but not touch," (which all goes back to money and power,) and consequently the only way to avoid the meddling is to not let these busybodies know about your private affairs in the first place.

Once automated law enforcement is implemented, people will start realising just how important discretion is, or alternately, just how many laws should be fixed or repealed.

By that time it will be far too late. Try a slightly different situation on for size: do you think the people of, say, North Korea realize "how many laws should be fixed or repealed"? and would it do them any good if they did?

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[cayenne8]

Why not just go the easy route...and disable it in your vehicles if you don't want it...I know I sure will.

Re:They don't have to be (just generate a GUID)

[Thorodin]

I really doubt that. Once it gets rolled out to all new vehicles, it will probably be illegal for a licensed mechanic to disable the device. They do that with ABS brakes now. As to the owner, that may be different.

i don't know ...

[giampy]

... what you are doing, but you better start looking for a lawyer :-)

Re:i don't know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is one reason why the police usually pull over one of the lead drivers as everybody else is usually required to drive with the flow of traffic. And it's not random at all. As long as you're not the first driver and speeding, you're not going to be pulled over for speeding. What's more, the odds go up drastically when you're engaged in other dangerous practices like sudden starts and stops and weaving between lanes. If you're just going with the flow of traffic you're not going to get a ticket.

By the same token, you can get a ticket for driving too slowly. This is something a lot of people don't know, but if you're impeding the flow of traffic that is also an offense that can lead to a ticket.

Unfortunately, the police generally opt not to cite cyclists for that even when it applies.

Worse?

[Dan East]

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.

Re:Worse?

[ThorGod]

So make vehicles only identify where they are (and how fast they're moving, etc). You don't have to put an ID to every vehicle...just like a you don't have to identify individual electrons to direct electron flow competently.

Re:Worse?

[drrilll]

Not to mention they advertise their every move on Facebook or Twitter

Re:Worse?

[malignant_minded]

Agreed. I am more interested if it means I don't need insurance. I figure the car company can cover all of it to ensure they make the safest product.

Re:Worse?

[tooyoung]

Exactly - the location of your driving is already trackable, whether by cell phone or a combination of license plate and traffic camera. The real difference here is that a networked car could provide more information on how you're driving. Now, I'm no fan of the "if you've go nothing to hide..." argument, but I could see convincing arguments that this may be a positive thing.

Consider the following situation - you get into an accident with another person. Records show that you generally stay within the speed limit and obey traffic laws, such as signaling while changing lanes and coming to a full stop at traffic signs. The guy that hit you has a very different record - speeds, weaves in and out of traffic, never signals, runs stop signs, etc. That wouldn't exactly be bad information to have. In fact, from a public safety perspective, that might make a case for a stronger fine or a revoked license.

Now, realize, I'm not saying "come into my house and sift through my drawers and file system". More like, "if you get into an accident on a public road, it is reasonable that information about your driving record would be available for court review."

Re:Worse?

[cheater512]

Yep you are basically saying that the information is only viewable in specific instances.
Its only when someone has access to it without a specific reason when you get privacy implications.

Re:Worse?

[Immerman]

In the absence of "smart infrastructure" (which has far more dramatic "Big Brother" concerns), to get the dramatic traffic-flow benefits cars need to "discuss" what's going on around/ahead of them, which is simplified by giving each car a unique "name" (ID), not to mention that networked communication typically requires a unique ID such as a MAC address, which provides a convenient ready-made name.

Your vehicle can probably only directly detect the vehicles immediately adjacent to it, to build a picture large enough to get benefits beyond immediate crash-avoidance many vehicles will have to combine their views. Once consideration that may contribute to privacy is that for quite a while only a small minority of vehicles will have this capability, so there will be incentive to develop a dynamic naming system (positional? size-based?) so the "smart" cars can discuss what's happening among their traditional peers, and a robust enough implementation might well reduce/remove the benefits of using unique identifiers among each other.

Also, as someone else already mentioned even with a "unique" ID there's no particular reason you couldn't change the ID every time you started your car, or for that matter every time you entered a parking lot, drive-through, or other traffic eddy that is subject to more chaotic behaviors - in such situations I would guess that there's little benefit to discussion beyond "hey, I'm backing up here!" or "pedestrians over here" - essentially giving every vehicle noisy safety beepers that can only be heard by other cars.

An interesting question to investigate would be what percentage of smart cars are necessary in a traffic flow before intelligent flow control begins to yield clear benefits to everyone. I recall reading many years ago that many problem behaviors such as traffic jams are traceable to specific sub-optimal human behaviors such as the tendency to drive faster when there's open road in front of you, which causes traffic to "clump up", increasing the risk of accidents and reducing the rate at which different flows can merge and separate. If that is indeed the case I would guess that even a small percentage of smart cars could potentially make a dramatic difference - assuming of course the drivers listened to their advice.

Not worried.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Re:Not worried.

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

You're not thinking long or deep enough.
Yes, everyone could theoretically be followed and logged today. Currently, that is far too time consuming. But this type of thing, and ANPR, has the potential to store everyones movements, forever.

You are not interesting enough to worry about today. But a decade from now, when you decide to run for school board or state congress...you will be interesting to your opponent.
For the price of a case of beer to his brother in law the cop....your opponent can delve into all of your movements for the last decade with a simple SQL statement. "Oh look... RyuuzakiTetsuya frequented a gay bar back in 2013!"
(Yes, you were just there with some college buddies, no big deal. But now you have to defend against the increasingly negative political ads - and in some areas of the country, that type of thing matters)

All of your movements, everyone you hang out with...on someone else's server, forever.

Re:Not worried.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I openly frequent gay bars now. Your point?

I mean, yes, my movements could be tracked and blah blah blah. On foot, bad idea. Sure, I'll grant that. But right now I don't have a car. I live in Brooklyn, I take mass transit everywhere. My metro card identifies me and tracks me.

Re:Not worried.

[geekmux]

I'm sorry, but isn't transparency something we'd like more from politicians???

Yes, and because it is something we would like to have, they will be the first group to become exceptions to the law.

And yes, this is EXACTLY how it will play out, under the guise of "protecting our public servants" or some other bullshit excuse to protect THEIR privacy and NOT yours.

Don't mark my words. Feel free to bet on them. Any moron can see it's a guaranteed winning bet. All you have to do is open a history book.

Re:Not worried.

[Tom]

has the potential to store everyones movements, forever.

*sigh* People who know nothing about privacy worrying about privacy...

No, it does not store anyones' movements. It stores an ID chips movements. Ten years ago there was a panel discussion about the coupon cards (or whatever you call them in your part of the world) that were just emerging. You know, these PayBack and whatever "customer cards" that give you a few % off if you put them down when shopping? And which, of course, log your shopping habbits and send them back to some big database to be datamined? I'm fairly confident (and said so) that the company doesn't give a flying fuck about you, they are looking for large patterns - e.g. x% of people who buy A are also buying B so maybe we should move the locations of A and B in the shop around.

However, there was a simple solution to the privacy problem that I suggested and that was immediately executed by a few people in the audience: Stand up and exchange your card with someone else. Repeat every now and then.

So you are worried that someone is tracking your car? Talk to your neighbour. Drive his car for a week while he drives yours. Borrow a car from a friend for your trip down to the local strip club. Switch cars with your wife more often. Of stop owning a car and rent one every now and then.

Sure, it isn't as simple as exchanging a card, but do you really care about privacy or are you just whining?

Re:Not worried.

[quintus_horatius]

You've already given up and rolled over. Why should i have to choose between reasonable convenience and reasonable privacy? In the case of your supermarket savings card scenario, why should i have to choose between privacy and saving a couple of bucks? Collecting the marketing data should pay for the savings, the opportunity to investigate my non-anonymized shopping habits is the problem.

Re:Not worried.

[Tom]

I understand that, as you can see if you finish reading my post. I simply don't see why allowing a peek into my shopping profile should automatically lead to a dossier about me, a particular shopper, rather than an anonymous profile of a class of shopper.

Because that is the deal you sign when you sign up for that that discount card. If you don't like it, then don't do it. It really is that simple.

Now if you want to have your cake and it it, too - then that's what I consider whining. Either your privacy is worth the few bucks you pay more than the guy who does a virtual strip every shopping trip, or it isn't.

Good for you. I assume that you feel you don't need to worry about your privacy right now because of your particular situation, so you don't care about other's privacy or what will happen when your own particular circumstances change.

I maintain that you have a choice. Sure, sometimes that choice is more difficult (like when you don't have much money, those few bucks might really matter), but as long as it isn't a law, you can still decide this way or that.

What I consider dishonest is wanting to get the discount without disclosing your data. You can dislike the deal, but then don't make it.

So you're already modifying your behavior instead of pushing back. You've already given up.

On the contrary, I am one of the few people who have not modified their shopping behaviour at all after the discount cards have been introduced. I still shop the same way I did 10 or 15 years ago.

You're just trying to win cookie points by insisting on an argument you can't maintain.

You may not realize how many other ways you are tracked and measured every day.

Assumptions again. I've been prosecuted for standing up for my rights, I own an EFF T-Shirt that I didn't pay for but got as a present from them for some things I did for them. I've had my share in founding a european online civil rights movement. I think I am pretty aware of what's going on in regards to privacy and monitoring.

But I don't worry about the ridiculous stuff. I don't worry about NFC chips because I know what the "N" stands for. I pay attention to where I use my credit card and where I pay cash, making a conscious decision of the advantages and disadvantages. I buy music on iTunes, but I only started doing so after they dropped the DRM crap.

You see, the world is not black and white, it's not a heroic fight vs. rolling over. It's making decisions about your life.

They are thinking VERY seriously about it

[Gothmolly]

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.

make human drivers illegal

[ThorGod]

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.

Re:make human drivers illegal

[The MAZZTer]

I am sure you will find that comforting when despite your perfect driving some OTHER driver crashes into you. My dad got rear ended once when he was at a FULL STOP, waiting to safely turn. Just because you drive safe doesn't mean everyone else will.

Re:make human drivers illegal

[ThorGod]

Yes, and the vitriol the AC expresses proves my point better than a thousand words could. People get emotionally clouded, distracted, or even just fail to register all information (because we only have 2 eyes after all). It's best if they're not in charge of piloting thousands of pounds of metal at speed.

Re:make human drivers illegal

[epyT-R]

..and of course machines will be perfect right? where have I heard this before? With computer driven cars, you're one blocked/failed sensor away from a computer that will happily drive you and everyone else in that area off a cliff with no ability to override because 'computers never lie.' ..and of course the state and corporates won't want to use that power to dictate when and where you may travel, right??

Re:make human drivers illegal

[geekmux]

Everyone who puts their entire focus on driving is either OCD or driving WAY too fast for conditions.

And most who believe that controlling 3,000 pounds of steel down a narrow lane at 50+MPH somehow doesn't require serious focus and concentration usually end up being nothing but a number...to feed the "it'll never happen to me" death statistics.

We were ALL 110% focused the first few times behind the wheel. Comfort and ignorance changed that mentality, not logic.

Re:make human drivers illegal

[Immerman]

The alternative would be to assert that most people *are* injured in an auto accident at some point, which seems a less likely assertion - how many of your friends have been injured in an accident?

Most people being involved in a minor fender bender at some point in their lives I might believe, maybe even an average lifetime accident injury rate above 50% since it would be heavily skewed by repeat offenders. But if you're claiming a majority of people do get injured in an auto accident at some point, well that seems like the claim that demands evidence to me.

Nevertheless, I've had enough close calls from idiots that shouldn't have been behind the wheel (heck, I've even been that idiot a couple times when tired and distracted) that I would be willing to give up control under normal circumstances to an automated vehicle with driving skill in the 90th percentile or so of human drivers if it meant everyone else did so as well.

Re:make human drivers illegal

[BlueStrat]

So build your own fucking road and drive on it. But when you're on a public road - shove your 'responsibility' up your ass and use automatic system.

Because we for many prefer not to be driven into by an idiot who thinks that they can drive 'safely'.

No.

Go build your own fucking totalitarian country where you have no privacy and no freedom.

How dare you attempt to tell everyone they must all give up their privacy and freedom simply to ensure your safety, after so many have given their lives to give freedom to all of us. Trust me, you're not that important. It's not worth even a million just like you.

What hubris!

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Strat

Some saw this coming...

[Archfeld]

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...

Re:Cell Phone

[hawguy]

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.

Automation and identification are not codependent

[damn_registrars]

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?

This is why we cant have nice things

[insnprsn]

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.

Re:This is why we cant have nice things

[epyT-R]

This is why we can't seem to maintain free societies. Insecure people start demanding that safety take precedence over freedom over what if's and maybes, quick derail other's abilities to have a say in their fates before all of civilization falls. While there are instances where safety concerns are legitimate, in cases like this, the only people concerned with the what ifs and maybes are those who are control freaks or have some other agenda driven by unbelievable personal insecurity.

Re:This is why we cant have nice things

[PSVMOrnot]

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.

Privacy isn't always about hiding wrong-doing; it's about hiding things that some people are too narrow minded or ignorant to understand and accept.

So I believe it would be more accurate would be to say that those who are concerned with the what if's and the maybe's are those who understand that not everyone does - or even should - conform to societies idea of normal. These are the sort of people who understand that in any system there are edge cases, things which are not quite as they seem on the surface and actively try to design around such flaws. These are the programmers, the designers, the engineers of our society.

These are the people who try to make sure that you can pick up your drunken college buddy from a gay bar at 0-dark-30, and not have it bite you in the ass should you later try to run for public office. These are the people who try to prevent you from being labelled a terrorist simply because your club happens to share a community building with an unpopular religion. These are the people who try to to prevent pediatricians from being lynched because some idiots can't tell the difference between a Doctor specializing in children and a pedophile.

So, in future when you are about to call someone paranoid over issues such as this, please consider: it may be that they have realized that what may seem to be a simple system, when applied on a national or international scale, becomes a system in which even relatively small errors can destroy lives.

Re:This is why we cant have nice things

[Cyberax]

Privacy isn't always about hiding wrong-doing; it's about hiding things that some people are too narrow minded or ignorant to understand and accept.

And thus perpetrating the system where ignorant bigots have power.

Think about it, would have it been better if gay activists in 60-s used privacy protection to shield their private lives instead of openly admitting their sexual orientation and fighting for their rights?

Re:This is why we cant have nice things

[KGIII]

If they hesitate use that lull in the conversation to assert that you do so, regularly, with his wife. It won't win the argument but it will be hilarious which, really, is all that matters because life is short and we all need a black eye at some point.

Re:Automation and identification are not codepende

[epyT-R]

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.

Two million miles

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Automation and identification are not codepende

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Remember...

[Black Parrot]

Remember when they told us that traffic light cameras wouldn't be used for anything but managing traffic jams at that intersection?

Facebook car

[StripedCow]

Meet the new Facebook car! Get in, it's free!