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)

[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]

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.

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.

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.

[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?

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

[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.

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

[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: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?