Connecting To Unsecured Bluetooth Car Systems To Monitor Traffic Flow

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Connecting To Unsecured Bluetooth Car Systems To Monitor Traffic Flow

Posted by Unknown on Monday October 21, 2013 @05:17AM from the drive-slowly-for-maximum-confusion dept.

New submitter TheTerseOne writes "The Columbian, the local newspaper of Vancouver (not BC), Washington (not DC) is reporting that local county traffic officials plan on spending $540k of government money to monitor traffic by connecting to vehicles' Bluetooth systems (whose owners/drivers have left them discoverable). The county claims that, although this sounds 'creepy' and 'like Big Brother,' there is no cause for concern. The specific brand of the system is not mentioned, but similar systems have already been the subject of security alerts." County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC, and the system is intentionally designed not to be useful for law enforcement to locate specific devices.

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Halifax just did the same thing (though only spent 43k). Only release was the tender process, and no acknowledgement after repeated requests for information.
1. Re:Halifax too! by cayenne8 · 2013-10-21 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  In other news....
  Smart people start turning off the fscking bluetooth systems in their cars....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
2. Re:Halifax too! by scream+at+the+sky · 2013-10-21 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  Calgary (Alberta, not Texas) has been doing this along major routes for a while, and it's fantastic. Road side signs give very accurate updates on the fly as to how long it will take to get to the next major landmark.
  Fantastic.
  
  --
  I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
3. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  In most recent news, people need to revert back to cards that don't have computers.
4. Re:Halifax too! by rwa2 · 2013-10-21 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is this a bad thing? I suppose they could just get all their data from the Google:
  http://www.theconnectivist.com/2013/07/how-google-tracks-traffic/
  Sounds like the bluetooth-based system is just sniffing bluetooth IDs, not exactly "connecting" any more than when your phone sniffs out discoverable Wi-fi access points but doesn't really try to register with any of them.
  I blame poor article word choice. You can start worrying when they make it illegal to disable your car's bluetooth so they can use the system to issue speeding tickets.
5. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  So in every area, they have a good estimate of how many cars have Bluetooth and have it turned on? For example, our household (HS senior, college sophomore, my wife and I) have 4 cars total and only one of them has Bluetooth. It is turned on. But, the rest of us have BT headsets - which are not in pairing / discoverable mode. So I guess they only "see" one of us on the road?
6. Re:Halifax too! by scream+at+the+sky · 2013-10-21 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, I don't know exactly how it works, I suspect that it looks for *any* BT MAC, not just a headset. Phone, PDA, Laptop, Tablet, iPod and then uses that for the calculation.
  
  --
  I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
7. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I like all of the computers in my car. If someone wants to gather anonymous data to make traffic better, I'm fine with that.
8. Re:Halifax too! by amRadioHed · 2013-10-21 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  Why would they need to know statistics about bluetooth devices in cards? They see a bluetooth device at point A, then a little later see the same device at point B. d=rt, the distance and time are known so the rate of traffic can be easily determined.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
9. Re:Halifax too! by chinton · 2013-10-21 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Does it tell you how long it will take to get out of the cone of snooping?
10. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  You can always dream, i guess
11. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I like all of the computers in my car. If someone wants to gather anonymous data to make traffic better, I'm fine with that.
  Right, because just like every other government tracking program, there's absolutely no way it will ever have its scope expanded to include warrant-less tracking/searches.
  Ever. Nothing to worry about, citizen, Big Brother loves you.
  Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast of Everyone Loves Hypnotoad.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
12. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they need to know statistics about bluetooth devices in cards? They see a bluetooth device at point A, then a little later see the same device at point B. d=rt, the distance and time are known so the rate of traffic can be easily determined.
  A couple license plate readers would accomplish the same feat, without having to port-scan my personal property*. Probably a lot cheaper to do it that way, too.
  * Contrary to popular misconception, your license plates are property of the state, not the individual they are issued to.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
13. Re:Halifax too! by aggles · 2013-10-21 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  So in every area, they have a good estimate of how many cars have Bluetooth and have it turned on? For example, our household (HS senior, college sophomore, my wife and I) have 4 cars total and only one of them has Bluetooth. It is turned on. But, the rest of us have BT headsets - which are not in pairing / discoverable mode. So I guess they only "see" one of us on the road?
  They don't need many samples to determine road speed conditions. On a busy highway, even if only 1% of the cars have bluetooth discovery enabled, there will be valid data. More valid as the sample size increases. Similar technology is used in airports to understand the speed of the people moving thorugh the security line.
14. Re:Halifax too! by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  A couple license plate readers would accomplish the same feat, without having to port-scan my personal property*. Probably a lot cheaper to do it that way, too.
  Nope, computer-vision-based vehicle detection systems are more expensive -- in fact, the only reason why DOTs bother with bluetooth is that it's cheaper (it is not better).
  By the way: vision-based VDS detects the whole vehicle (in the sense of "are the pixels in this rectangle we've superimposed on the image of the lane changing?"). One VDS camera can cover the whole width of the freeway (in each direction). Detecting license plates (let alone reading them) would probably be even more expensive because it would require either higher-resolution cameras, a camera for each lane, or both.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
15. Re:Halifax too! by bws111 · 2013-10-21 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  They aren't 'port scanning' anything. They don't know your 'personal property' even exists. They are simply standing on a corner yelling 'anybody want to identify themselves'. If you don't want to identify yourself, don't answer. If you don't want your personal property to identiffy itself, instruct it not to answer.
16. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  How about we deal with problems as they occur, instead of throwing away huge advancements because of your paranoia.
17. Re:Halifax too! by NatasRevol · 2013-10-21 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  How are they going to identify it if they're stripping out the MAC address?
  "Mom's Car" might not be unique enough.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
18. Re:Halifax too! by Falkentyne · 2013-10-21 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  How do we know when they occur? Will there be a Snowden-like person to leak things on a city, county, state etc.. level to let us know when our rights/privacy have been compromised? Please do tell when we're supposed to deal with a problem we don't know exists?
19. Re:Halifax too! by amRadioHed · 2013-10-21 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  They said "they are stripping out part of the MAC". They can strip off enough that it is not a globally unique ID, but it could still be useful to identify the same vehicle twice on the same road segment.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
20. Re:Halifax too! by suutar · 2013-10-21 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  me too. The trick is being sure that it stays anonymous, which if they're storing much beyond "there were N cars here at this time" gets difficult.
21. Re:Halifax too! by NatasRevol · 2013-10-21 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. Missed the 'part of' part.
  Makes more sense now.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
22. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  How about we deal with problems as they occur
  I am - it is a problem because of the inevitability of scope-creep. Waiting until it's too late would be absolutely fucking stupid, because as we've all seen with legislation such as the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, once the government takes a kind of power they will not fucking surrender it.
  I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it adds nothing useful to the conversation (other than letting the rest of us know how unreasonable a person you are).
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
23. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't 'port scanning' anything. They don't know your 'personal property' even exists. They are simply standing on a corner yelling 'anybody want to identify themselves'. If you don't want to identify yourself, don't answer.
  They might not today, but all that data adds up.
  MAC 00:00:86:FF:2B:C4 might not personally identify you on the first pass, but as we've learned from Google and Facebook, with enough data points you can identify anybody. What happens when LEO Bluetooth scanners are ubiquitous? Defacto universal tracking system, that's what.
  
  If you don't want your personal property to identiffy itself, instruct it not to answer.
  Many cars do not give the owners that option; if the car is on, then the BT is on and broadcasting.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
24. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  A couple license plate readers would accomplish the same feat, without having to port-scan my personal property*. Probably a lot cheaper to do it that way, too.
  Nope, computer-vision-based vehicle detection systems are more expensive -- in fact, the only reason why DOTs bother with bluetooth is that it's cheaper (it is not better).
  By the way: vision-based VDS detects the whole vehicle (in the sense of "are the pixels in this rectangle we've superimposed on the image of the lane changing?"). One VDS camera can cover the whole width of the freeway (in each direction). Detecting license plates (let alone reading them) would probably be even more expensive because it would require either higher-resolution cameras, a camera for each lane, or both.
  So put an RFID tag in the registration tag. Granted, that doesn't do much to assuage my paranoia about having my travel patterns logged, but at least they'd be tracking their own stuff instead of mine. Plus, no need to worry about scope creep (other than the aforementioned ubiquitous logging of individual travel).
  Where there's a will, there's a way.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
25. Re:Halifax too! by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  One thing you should know is that I'm probably just as paranoid as you, but have also worked in the ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) field. I feel a lot more comfortable with Bluetooth-based vehicle detection systems (VDS) than I would with any of the alternatives you've proposed, from a privacy standpoint. (I still like "traditional-vision" or EM loop detection better, though.)
  First of all, for the implementation of Bluetooth VDS I worked with, all we at the DOT had access to was the end-result vehicle speed data. I don't think any MAC addresses even got out of the vendor's systems.
  Second, DOTs country-wide are chronically underfunded. It takes literally years to get simple things done, like replacing burnt-out projector screens in the monitoring center, let alone anything complicated like setting up a huge nefarious tracking database.
  Third, beyond simply not caring about tracking individual cars (except maybe for origin-destination analysis), DOTs actively avoid retaining that kind of data. Even though the regular traffic cameras can record, it was policy not to use that function except for specific limited purposes (e.g. recording an exceptionally severe accident to analyze emergency response performance) because the DOT didn't want to have to process subpoenas for it later. And even if that were okay, if they routinely retained data but somehow lost the particular piece that was subpoenaed it'd be even worse.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
26. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  How about we deal with this problem NOW because - as the Snowden leaks show - the paranoid have good reason for their wariness.
  The NSA, CIA, FBI etc. (not to mention the whole of the corporate sector) are on almost a daily basis being shown as people not only WILLING to abuse our privacy and rights for their own personal goals, but are actually doing it.
  Waiting for the /proof/ of them utilizing yet another channel to monitor our daily activities just seems like willful blindness at this point.
  The Powers-That-Be have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Taking this into account beforehand is not paranoia, it is prudence.
27. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like the bluetooth-based system is just sniffing bluetooth IDs, not exactly "connecting" any more than when your phone sniffs out discoverable Wi-fi access points but doesn't really try to register with any of them.
  That's exactly why it's illegal to do.
  Ever since Google did just that (watch what SSIDs were broadcast, without connecting to any of them) that action has been a crime according to the 9th circuit courts.
  Since this is doing the same thing with Bluetooth, it's pretty much the same crime.
  The only real difference is that it's law enforcement doing it, and not Google. Which is why it's not illegal in this case.
  Google can't shoot black kids in the back legally either, but law enforcement sure can!
28. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  If the system doesn't collect individual data, then it's impossible to get the scope creep you're afraid of.
  Your whole premise is that the big evil Man will secretly collect individual data. Maybe they'll secretly implant tracking chips in our molars. Maybe the Pod People will reveal themselves. If you want to worry about every possible outcome of everything, go for it. I actually have a life that I like to enjoy.
29. Re:Halifax too! by jittles · 2013-10-21 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  If the system doesn't collect individual data, then it's impossible to get the scope creep you're afraid of.
  Your whole premise is that the big evil Man will secretly collect individual data. Maybe they'll secretly implant tracking chips in our molars. Maybe the Pod People will reveal themselves. If you want to worry about every possible outcome of everything, go for it. I actually have a life that I like to enjoy.
  THe GP made the mistake of assuming that you knew how BT works. You do know that each BT device has a globally unique serial number, correct? And that they could, through vehicle registration and manufacturing info potentially know exactly where you are on the roads at any given moment? Sure you may not have BT built into your car, or you could spoof your MAC but the average person will have no way of knowing that they are not anonymous, as you just demonstrated.
30. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  I don't expect you to read the article. But I do expect you to read the entire submission.
  "County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC".
31. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  OK, since you've worked in the field and are apparently concerned about privacy, I'll take your word for it. I can always spoof my MAC addys, I suppose.
  One caveat:
  
  DOTs actively avoid retaining that kind of data.
  That's not universal - hell, here in MO the DOR (who runs the DOT) just got their asses handed to them for illegally retaining records of CCW permit holders, then illegally turning them over to the IRS.
  I've learned better than to rely on bureaucratic incompetence.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
32. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't expect you to read the article. But I do expect you to read the entire submission.
  "County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC".
  Which will always happen, universally; the policy will never change, and there's no way clandestine Three-Letter-Agencies will present NSL's demanding the logs and records for them to compare against their massive haystack databases. Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help!
  I sometimes wonder what it's like to be so naively trusting of authority... but only until I remember that I have a brain, and remember that it does function properly.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
33. Re:Halifax too! by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  If the system doesn't collect individual data, then it's impossible to get the scope creep you're afraid of.
  Your whole premise is that the big evil Man will secretly collect individual data. Maybe they'll secretly implant tracking chips in our molars. Maybe the Pod People will reveal themselves. If you want to worry about every possible outcome of everything, go for it. I actually have a life that I like to enjoy.
  THe GP made the mistake of assuming that you knew how BT works.
  Yes, curse this altruistic sense of giving the benefit of the doubt!
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
34. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  If the complete MACs are never recorded, then those logs have no use to the "Three Letter Agencies" that you're so terrified of.
35. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  So, turning this around, since there would be a benefit to having this system in place, could you state your acceptable conditions for its implementation? Is there anything to reduce the risks you perceive to an acceptable level, or is this just something you think we'll have to miss out on, for the greater good?
36. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Because tracking "their own stuff" is a meaningful in any way when "their stuff" is mandated by law to be attached to your stuff.
37. Re:Halifax too! by adolf · 2013-10-21 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You know what?
  I don't care.
  I really do not care. At all.
  Not a bit.
  I have nothing to hide in my daily travels, and I welcome this advancement in the field of traffic study. It is my hope that such technology can be used to make my driving experience better.
  I don't see the problem here. I normally don't give a hoot what they do with their data about what my radios broadcast on public ISM bands, nor how personalized it might be. If I do care, then I can always, you know, stop shouting to anyone in earshot at 2.4GHz about my whereabouts.
  And you know what? If you care all the time, you can elect to not shout your whereabouts as well: Stop traveling with active, transmitting 2-way radios. Done.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
38. Re:Halifax too! by adolf · 2013-10-21 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  If incomplete MACs are recorded, then those logs can still be useful to TLAs if you can figure out how to shove the following into an SQL statement:
  "Which MACs are in our vehicular bluetooth database that contain 0E:5A:B2? Which ones of those those are associated with vehicles registered within 20 miles of Vancouver? Which of those belong to a grey Buick?
  Oh, look! It looks like one of them might be Joe Smith's grey Buick.
  Let's keep an eye on Joe."
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
39. Re:Halifax too! by adolf · 2013-10-21 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Every car owner has the option: There is no security threat here that cannot be solved by a pair of diagonal cutters in skilled hands, or a Sawzall in less-skilled hands.
  The problem, if there is a problem to begin with (and I'm not convinced that there is), is that folks are increasingly blind to the way that radios work, and remain blissfully unaware that this could ever be a problem.
  I think my great grandpa probably knew more about radios than most folks today, and all he was trying to do was pick up an AM radio station on a tube set.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
40. Re:Halifax too! by adolf · 2013-10-21 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Around large-ish cities in Ohio, I see similar signage. It is normally spot-on.
  However, in Ohio, these seem to work on data provided by little solar-powered Doppler units mounted on poles and signs along the highway, not Bluetooth. This gives a perfectly reasonable picture of average traffic speed, while remaining completely anonymous and requiring zero end-user hardware except for a large enough vehicle to generate an echo.
  (The results from these Doppler units are available, presumably with additional data mixed in, at ohgo.com.)
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
41. Re:Halifax too! by davester666 · 2013-10-21 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  "If the complete MACs are never recorded"
  That is the most important part of your statement, and it is answered by people who have very little technical knowledge and know that there is no penalty if they answer incorrectly [or even knowingly lie].
  For example, it would be just as likely that their database for tracking traffic would only have part of the Bluetooth MAC address in it, because that was customized for this particular client by the vendor, but the syslog would have the complete time and Bluetooth MAC address in it, logged from the kernel.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
42. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  so how are you going to feel when someone spoofs your Bluetooth ID at the scene of a crime and you don't, have an alibi?
43. Re:Halifax too! by Dare+nMc · 2013-10-21 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  In general my opposition to tracking, isn't that they are tracking me. Like you I could care less. The concern about tracking is more about the tracking in mass for the wrong reason. The officer who is stalking a woman. Do they use this data to intimidate others into being a false witness, or use it to track who Michael Dell is dealing with to gain some insider trading knowledge. Are they tracking reporters, to track down a leak (like Snowden.) Putting too much data into one database without having solid controls on access is asking for trouble, however in this case it seams that has at least someone has put thought into it. But don't just say well "Stop traveling with active, transmitting 2-way radios" If this system was in place for the police surveillance, you can bet they would add such a transmitter to your car.
44. Re:Halifax too! by GauteL · 2013-10-21 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  so how are you going to feel if someone spoofs your Bluetooth ID at the scene of a crime and you don't, have an alibi?
  There, fixed it for you. If you're going to make that argument you may as well do it honestly. The difference between if and when is probably more than 99.999% in terms of probability. For many, this would completely change their position in an argument.
45. Re:Halifax too! by jittles · 2013-10-22 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't expect you to read the article. But I do expect you to read the entire submission.
  "County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC".
  Yes but what part of the MAC? That is not enough to guarantee that you have become annonymous. First of all, the MAC has a vendor specific code. So potentially they could know exactly what kind of car it is, down to the make and model, just from the MAC. Secondly, depending on just how many sensors they have networked, they could track all of your trips daily from start to finish and use the aggregate data to determine exactly where you live and work. Finally, how do you actually know that they are being honest with you when they say they are stripping part of the MAC out? Why do they even need to store the MAC at all? They don't. They only need the MAC address kept in memory for a few minutes while they determine how long it took you to get from point A to point B. So if they are storing the MAC at all, there are already privacy implications.
46. Re:Halifax too! by cayenne8 · 2013-10-22 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  If the complete MACs are never recorded, then those logs have no use to the "Three Letter Agencies" that you're so terrified of.
  And...what is to stop them from changing their minds a year or so down the road to start gathering the MACs from the bluetooth devices and then make it valuable?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
47. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-22 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  What's to stop the Obama administration from rounding up all the redheads and forcing them to work in salt mines?
48. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-22 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Where did this grey Buick info come from?
49. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-22 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  it is answered by people who have very little technical knowledge and know that there is no penalty if they answer incorrectly [or even knowingly lie]
  So people exactly like you?
50. Re:Halifax too! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-22 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  You think that you would be convicted solely on that evidence?
51. Re:Halifax too! by rwa2 · 2013-10-22 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the issue with the google wifi map was that they "accidentally" had their packet captures configured to save user data packets in addition to the relatively benign publicly-accessible SSID handshaking info.
52. Re:Halifax too! by cayenne8 · 2013-10-22 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  What's to stop the Obama administration from rounding up all the redheads and forcing them to work in salt mines?
  Well, I think anyone with common sense could see the difference in this...your example would be covered by the constitution with regard to 'people'.
  However, we've very often seen laws extended well past the laws intended use, much less extended the law further.
  Remember the seatbelt laws? I know in my state, they advertised them specifically as NOT being a primary reason they could pull you over...they had to pull you over for something else, and only then could they cite you for not having a seatbelt on too.
  Now? Pretty much every state is boldly advertising click-it-or-ticket...where not wearing a seat belt is a primary reason to be pulled over.
  What about the girl that killed herself over harrasement by another girls mother. There was no law against that, but it didn't stop the Atty from trying to charge the lady with crimes that didn't even truly apply to the crime.
  Hell, RICO is being stretched these modern days to apply to actions it was never intended to....
  With this in mind, I see no problem with the govt type quickly changing to gather MAC attacks because of some 'good' reason, say like aiding with Amber alerts...
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
53. Re:Halifax too! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  of course that is a stupid argument because you have no way of telling if you are the one who is the victim of a frame job until it is too late.
  as for the other guy with his head in the sand - people go to jail on circumstantial evidence all the time, sucks to be poor and even if you don't go to jail, fighting it is still a massive pain in the ass, life destroying
Of course by ArcadeMan · 2013-10-21 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC (of course they will), and the system is intentionally designed not to be useful for law enforcement to locate specific devices (of course it won't).

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
1. Re:Of course by silas_moeckel · 2013-10-21 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Until presented with a court order to preserve this information along with a gag order not to mention it. There is no inherent technical or legal protection of this data. The technical side can fix historical data but it trivial to bypass from the point of being served. Legal protection pretty much requires an amendment.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
2. Re:Of course by mlts · 2013-10-21 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Depends what part they strip out. If they drop the manufacturer ID, whoop-de-do, that can be guessed later on.
  Instead of just dropping a chunk that can be possibly rebuilt, how about at the minimum, using a hash of the ID? The ideal would be a salted hash, with the salt a secret (so someone later on can't grab a list of MACs and convert/correlate them with the hashed versions.)
  All that is needed is a unique identifier. The detector for BT devices can just create a salt it stores internally and changes every 12-24 hours, hashes the MACs it sees with the salt, and passes a list of the hashes up as unique IDs to check if there are any traffic jams.
  Of course, even this can easily lead to devices to make speed traps, but at least after the internal salt changes, it would be hard to find what device made what hash.
3. Re:Of course by MiniMike · 2013-10-21 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  They will (initially) remove "about half" of the MAC address. I'm guessing they will be removing the first half, which only identifies the manufacturer. Practically this does almost nothing to reduce the ability to uniquely identify cars. If they remove more bytes it would reduce this ability without much reduction to their ability to monitor traffic flow..
4. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't matter what part they strip out. The fact that they have to 'strip it out' means it will be recorded and saved by some organization. The bottle has already been opened.
You know, until it is useful for law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:25 · Score: 0

Traffic Officials: Don't worry, we designed it so it won't be useful to Law Enforcement.
Law Enforcement: Traffic Officials, make it useful to Law Enforcement.
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:29 · Score: 0

"County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC, and the system is intentionally designed not to be useful for law enforcement to locate specific devices. "
Yea. Until they pay extra for it....
1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  "County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC, and the system is intentionally designed not to be useful for law enforcement to locate specific devices. "
  Yea. Until they pay extra for it....
  Pay extra? "It's unfortunate that your jurisdiction's federal funding has run into a snag. Don't worry, we'll get this straightened out by 2018. However, we do have a fast-track funding system for those who ..."
CFAA? by cob666 · 2013-10-21 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Connecting to a computer system without the consent of the owner is still a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a felony the last time I checked.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
1. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  It's only a crime if The Man wants to come down on you. The Man would never do something criminal, no-siree.
2. Re:CFAA? by Mitsoid · 2013-10-21 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for Canada
  Also, it's difficult to charge government organizations for a felony... Its even more so difficult to charge a law enforcement official of doing any wrongdoing unless there's a 100:1 outcry against the officer, and it's on tape, and the officer loses support from his peers.
3. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Laws are for the peons, not the masters.
4. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  And making your computer actively broadcast its name, address and that it is looking for connections doesn't count as consent? That's like shouting your bank details on a train and then trying to have the people who heard prosecuted for wire fraud. No, wait, this needs to be a car analogy. That's like prosecuting someone for reading a bumper sticker that you put on your car (but in this case, they didn't look at the rest of the car).
5. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I know that's the kind of logic that gets used in prosecutions and lawsuits, but it's stupid. "Discovery" in a protocol like Bluetooth is specifically designed to allow anybody to use it. That's the point.
6. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  And making your computer actively broadcast its name, address and that it is looking for connections doesn't count as consent?
  Google made the same claim regarding their "accidental" open WiFi data gathering but somehow the government said they were wrong.
7. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Read the summary. It was clear that it was Vancouver, WA (USA). The CFAA certainly applies in Vancouver, WA.
8. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  This is in Washington State, not Canada.
9. Re:CFAA? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  How are these systems "connecting" to the car's computer system? They are passively monitoring broadcasts from the car.
10. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think detecting the MAC can be considered a "connection"
11. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  But then again, is bluetooth discovery active or passive?
12. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  "terrorism". Done, we've used the root password to the law...
13. Re:CFAA? by SirGarlon · 2013-10-21 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for Canada
  The city of Vancouver, Washington is in the state of Washington. TFS gives a strong hint to that effect.
  
  Also, it's difficult to charge government organizations for a felony...
  That, I think, is GP's point. As a practical matter, the county government doesn't have to worry about complying with the CFAA. We Americans like to think of our country as a nation of laws, but the application of those laws seems increasingly capricious and one-sided.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
14. Re:CFAA? by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  The same kinds of systems are used all over, in many states. Georgia, for example, uses it for vehicle detection in most of the Interstates outside of Metro Atlanta. (In Atlanta they use traditional computer-vision-based detection instead, because it was put in before Bluetooth detection became available and because it gives more detailed data (namely, lane-by-lane vehicle counts).)
  I can only assume the reason the CFAA doesn't apply is that these systems don't "connect" to the vehicles' devices is any meaningful way, but rather merely passively listen to them as they go by.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
15. Re:CFAA? by houghi · 2013-10-21 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  And your problem is? Just because something is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral or unwanted does not mean the government can't do it.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
16. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who thinks that connecting to an unsecured system should be illegal solely based on the intent of the owner of said unsecured system has no clue, at best. As with open wireless networks, nobody has a way of knowing the intent of the system owner, except that the system is broadcasting its existence and unsecured status. If you don't want anyone else to connect to your wireless system, secure it. In the case of Bluetooth, disable discoverability. There is no need for a Bluetooth device to be discoverable except for pairing. Once paired, both devices will find each other without either of them being discoverable.
  If you really want to be angry about something, be angry at the people who design wireless devices to use fixed unique IDs on the air.
17. Re:CFAA? by Richard_at_work · 2013-10-21 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Merely connecting to a discover-able service is a violation of the CFAA? Could you care to cite the exact part which backs that up?
18. Re:CFAA? by Kalriath · 2013-10-21 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Google was actively capturing and keeping payload data (though they claimed this was a misconfiguration). A lot different.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
19. Re:CFAA? by silas_moeckel · 2013-10-21 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Any different than Google collecting wifi SSID's?
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
20. Re:CFAA? by Gr8Apes · 2013-10-21 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Nope - not even allowing you to login anonymous is consent.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
21. Re:CFAA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  I can only assume the reason the CFAA doesn't apply is that these systems don't "connect" to the vehicles' devices is any meaningful way, but rather merely passively listen to them as they go by.
  Naa, even "receiving" passive unencrypted broadcast signals that are intended to be sent to everyone around is illegal. Remember Google doing the exact same thing?
  
  Google, in seeking a dismissal, claimed it is was not illegal to intercept data from unencrypted, or non-password-protected Wi-Fi networks. Google said open Wi-Fi networks are "radio communications" like AM/FM radio, citizens' band and police and fire bands, and are "readily accessible" to the general public and exempt from the Wiretap Act - a position the appeals court rejected. Today's decision means that Google's main defense to wiretapping allegations is out the door.
  
  quote
  The only difference is if you work for law enforcement or not. If you don't, the CFAA applies and you committed a felony. If you do however, none of the laws apply and thus it is legal.
  Even the crime of out right murder is legal if you work for law enforcement. Of course the CFAA, which covers a lesser crime, won't apply either.
22. Re:CFAA? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-10-21 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  The heart of that case involved Google intercepting data sent over an unsecured wi-fi connection, which the sender (stupidly) expected to be private. This traffic system is intercepting data that your phone is intentionally broadcasting publicly.
  Also, the judge in that Google case is a complete moron.
  http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Court-Declares-Google-Liable-For-WiFi-Snooping-125745
  "So in summation, the court is arguing Wi-Fi isn't radio communications because you can't hear it, and unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots aren't publicly accessible."
23. Re:CFAA? by cgimusic · 2013-10-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  So, according to you, every time you scan for wireless networks on your computer you are violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
Business Opportunities by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:36 · Score: 0

Everyone should buy Yoyodyne's new "ToTheManSticker", a gadget that adheres to you bumper and broadcasts programmable disinformatzya to share your opinion of spying with the government.
Fortunately, all of this Orwellian behavior is only bad during Republican Administrations, or the Codpiece Media might be forced to, you know, ask "hahrd" questions.
"Not to be useful for law enforcement..." by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:36 · Score: 0

Yet.
They only need "just a bit more" of tax revenue from "the (little) people" and it will be...
I'm so confused. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:37 · Score: 0

So it's a crime to break into peoples unsecured bluetooth systems. But its NOT a crime to break into unsecured goverment computer systems..
Ok got it.
Quit ruining our fun by WaffleMonster · 2013-10-21 05:38 · Score: 1

Systems that broadcast to people nearby can be a lot of fun and useful. Game consoles "social" apps, WiFi, safety applications or just allowing passengers to pair to stereo with least amount of effort.
That is until some asshole tries inevitably tries to collect and aggregate everything. I don't care if it is useful or insecure or you take x measures to prevent y value judgment... you are still an asshole.
1. Re:Quit ruining our fun by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  There is no need for unique fixed IDs. Wireless devices which announce services should be more like anonymous cowards: Let the content speak for itself. Identification can be performed in private, after discovery.
Already being done in Vancouver, BC by Sean · 2013-10-21 05:38 · Score: 2

If you don't want to be discovered with Bluetooth, don't leave your devices in discoverable mode!
1. Re:Already being done in Vancouver, BC by Mr+D+from+63 · 2013-10-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I've know where you are Mr. "Sync", and I am watching you.
2. Re:Already being done in Vancouver, BC by slack_justyb · 2013-10-21 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's like saying, "if you don't want to get arrested, don't do anything illegal!" Or am I the only one that got that vibe?
3. Re: Already being done in Vancouver, BC by RafalLos · 2013-10-21 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Remember if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about.
4. Re:Already being done in Vancouver, BC by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't want to be discovered with Bluetooth, don't leave your devices in discoverable mode!
  Nice to know you also support the TSA, Patriot Act, and NSA spying on US citizens, right?
  After all, you're not doing anything illegal, right? So that's all OK.
5. Re:Already being done in Vancouver, BC by pla · 2013-10-21 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't want to be discovered with Bluetooth, don't leave your devices in discoverable mode!
  
  More to the point - What BT devices actually broadcast their availability continually? Both my cars actually pop up an on-demand 90 or 120 second countdown to show how long you have left to try to pair a device to them; all the devices I've tried pairing to them either do something similar, or even go so far as to do a single active sweep before giving up and going silent again.
  
  Even as an admitted privacy nut, it surprises me that this works at all. From what I've seen, BT systems actually seem to do a pretty good job of keeping their mouths shut when not in use.
  
  / Keyboards and mice notwithstanding - Yeah, they pretty much chatter along continually, but then, they don't tend to have any hijackable capabilities, purely passive "timing" attacks aside.
6. Re:Already being done in Vancouver, BC by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't want to be discovered with Bluetooth, don't leave your devices in discoverable mode!
  More to the point - What BT devices actually broadcast their availability continually?
  I know the Bluetooth in a VW Jetta will talk to anything within range, until a device actually pairs with it; I also know that when Ford started putting BT capabilities in cars they were notorious for being wide open and beaconing constantly, although I'd wager FoMoCo has done something about it since then (I found out about the issue pre-Sync).
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Slight misrepresentation... by Shoten · 2013-10-21 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

It should be noted that they are not "connecting" to these devices, just cataloging the ones which announce their own presence. It's pretty fricking passive.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
1. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2013-10-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. They are really 'detecting' the BT presence, not connecting. Ignorant reporting is a much bigger problem these days.
2. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by omnichad · 2013-10-21 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't stop Google from getting a wiretapping charge when collecting AP data.
3. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-21 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  It should be noted that they are not "connecting" to these devices, just cataloging the ones which announce their own presence. It's pretty fricking passive.
  OK, so why not scan my license plate (which belongs to the state anyway), and not my personal property?
  I'll bet the license-plate-scanner equip is probably a lot cheaper to boot.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by adolf · 2013-10-21 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  That was different: The trouble Google had was that they were recording actual data packets of actual data transmissions, and that this data has no non-nefarious use.
  Had they been merely documenting the broadcast beacon sent by APs, it would not have been an issue. (Just as it has not been an issue for Wigle or Skyhook, both of whom collect geolocation data for APs based on BSSID.)
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
5. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  No. The computer vision equipment necessary to read a mobile license plate is likely an order of magnitude more expensive. Maybe 2 orders of magnitude.
  If does have more data, like per-lane information; but sometimes that's not needed and the BT readers are way way cheaper.
6. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is exactly how it works in the UK (http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/content/1/60/real-time-traffic-data.html)
7. Re:Slight misrepresentation... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  Your Bluetooth EUI-48 is not your personal property, it remains the property* of the IEEE, who issued it to the manufacturer of your car (or the OEM who built the multimedia connector).
  * To the extent that a sequential numeric identifier can even be considered property. I'd love to know what particular law actually requires a device manufacturer to use an assigned number and not just make it up at random.
Sampling Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Won't this introduce sampling bias, as non-Bluetooth cars are excluded from traffic monitoring? Highways with richer travelers will get more funding than the poor parts of town.
1. Re:Sampling Bias? by omnichad · 2013-10-21 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  It would track those cars' movement through the system - how long to get from position A to position B. I doubt it would be used to monitor traffic quantity - more intelligent people don't have their devices discoverable. So it would disproportionately benefit the stupid. Traffic jams don't usually happen in primarily residential areas. That is, unless your own residential street is being used as a bypass around traffic.
2. Re:Sampling Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's the idea...
its an invitation for disaster. by nimbius · 2013-10-21 05:46 · Score: 1, Offtopic

while many people will neither know nor care about the effort to smooth out traffic, Vancouver may be mistaken in their zeal. While my old 2001 crown victoria does not include bluetooth, the wireless laptop inside is programmed to dump millions of MAC's per second once a bluetooth connection is solicited, many of them malformed with negative integers, spaces and special characters...

Sometimes I collect the macs of vehicles in around me, and much like the towers of hanoi spoof them as i pass the readers on the highway to reduce traffic automagically shift the speed of traffic..

other times I collect the mac addresses of the scanners, and feed them to other scanners in a circular fashion.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by scream+at+the+sky · 2013-10-21 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  that seems like an awful lot of effort, for very little gain, other than to show that you can be an ass. What's the point?
  
  --
  I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
2. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by twotacocombo · 2013-10-21 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  that seems like an awful lot of effort, for very little gain, other than to show that you can be an ass. What's the point?
  His point is that it only takes one asshat to pollute the system, and it's guaranteed that there's more than one. I also remember reading something recently related to this, showing that false info can be fed to google to create non-existant traffic jams in Maps.
3. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by scream+at+the+sky · 2013-10-21 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  I guess as I get older I simply don't understand the psychology of the asshat as well as I used to.
  
  --
  I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
4. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2013-10-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  that seems like an awful lot of effort, for very little gain, other than to show that you can be an ass. What's the point?
  His point is that it only takes one asshat to pollute the system, and it's guaranteed that there's more than one. I also remember reading something recently related to this, showing that false info can be fed to google to create non-existant traffic jams in Maps.
  It would be trivial to detect and bitbucket the massive amounts of bad data described, and spamming thresholds low enough to not trigger detection would probably be statistically irrelevant.
  Most major highways and streets rely on hardware sensors embedded into the road anyway. Anything else is supplemental or for less important roads.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
5. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  and it's guaranteed that there's more than one
  In Vancouver? It's a pretty small town in the middle of nowhere. This isn't Jersey.
6. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently, it's to keep statisticians employed.
  I, for one, appreciate it. Keep breaking those windows, kids.
7. Re:its an invitation for disaster. by gl4ss · 2013-10-21 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  if the system thinks there's a jam it'll move everyone else off the road.
  so.. yeah, benefit right there.
  what I don't get is that obviously they're taking part of the mac out but why bother? in the region the bt device is in it's going to be unique enough or the system wouldn't work - so you could still trace it to that unique car.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
How will this help? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:46 · Score: 0

How will doing this help travel times decrease? Will the road get dynamically wider? That will cost a lot more than $540k. It doesn't take a fancy system to know when traffic is bad. The problem is building wider roads costs a lot. Of course, many places uses traffic cameras to take license plate shots (they say for tolls, but can be used to track all cars), so this is more of the same. Cameras work on most all cars even without BT.
1. Re:How will this help? by fullmetal55 · 2013-10-21 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  yes but for example on a 6 lane N/S Road, with lots of traffic northbound in the morning and lots of traffic southbound in the evening (rush hour), can be changed from 3/3 lanes both directions to 4/2 n/s morning and 2/4 n/s evening. should there be traffic at different times of the day, at say 6-8 PM and 10-12 PM, (say a hockey games traffic) it can automatically adjust the lanes depending on the amount of traffic. heck it could even go to 5/1 or 1/5 depending on volume at the time.
  How this is better than the current axle counters they have I don't know, in fact I see it as probably worse. since it's not quite as accurate. maybe easier to plug into the traffic control systems.
  it's probably to ease traffic to and from Canucks games.
2. Re:How will this help? by jomama717 · 2013-10-21 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they were already doing this in Boston, maybe not... In any case I always assumed this was a way for the states to make money. They own the highways, therefore the exclusive rights to put these sensors up, and therefore exclusive access to hyper-accurate realtime traffic data that they can license out to the likes of google and apple for their map applications. I suppose it could simply be used to provide information for the "X minutes to airport" signs they have on most highways now.
  
  All seems pretty harmless to me, they could just as easily hire human beings to stand along the highways with walkie talkies and monitor average traffic speeds, would people throw a shit fit then?
  
  --
  while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
3. Re:How will this help? by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 06:24 · Score: 1
  How will doing this help travel times decrease?
  This data, in aggregate, gets monitored in real time by DOT employees (some of which are engineers) at a centralized traffic management center. They can use it to:
  
  Clear accidents more quickly by noticing the backup and dispatching responders before it gets called in
  Post messages on electronic signs advising travelers to take alternate routes (or, more usually, post travel time messages so that travelers can better inform their own routing decisions)
  Use the 511 phone system to advise travelers
  Tell news organizations about the traffic conditions (you didn't really think they all collected their own data, right?)
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
4. Re:How will this help? by bws111 · 2013-10-21 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Axle counters can tell you the volume of traffic, but don't really tell you the speed of the traffic (does a count of zero axles in 30 seconds mean no traffic, or traffic at a dead stop?) Volume of traffic is important for long-range planning (ie increase number of lanes, etc). Speed reporting is much more useful for adjusting things like traffic light timing in real time. If you know traffic is moving at 40MPH and there is are 2 traffic lights x distance apart you can time the lights so the traffic does not have to stop. Of course, eventually you must stop the traffic (or there would be no point in having the lights). Now, when traffic restarts, it will of course be moving slower, so the lights should have a different timing.
5. Re:How will this help? by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  How this is better than the current axle counters they have I don't know, in fact I see it as probably worse. since it's not quite as accurate. maybe easier to plug into the traffic control systems.
  It's worse, but cheaper. I don't know about the relative accuracy for reporting speeds, but it has the substantial disadvantage of not being able to report vehicle counts (since you don't know how many vehicles are traveling without using Bluetooth).
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
6. Re:How will this help? by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Axle counters can tell you the volume of traffic, but don't really tell you the speed of the traffic (does a count of zero axles in 30 seconds mean no traffic, or traffic at a dead stop?)
  
  Axle counters (and magnetic field loop detection and computer-vision-based detection, both of which are more common for the application we're talking about) do tell you the speed of the vehicles in every situation except for a major accident with all lanes blocked. And you can tell when that happens because the map turned from green to yellow to red before the data stopped.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
7. Re:How will this help? by bws111 · 2013-10-21 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why is not knowing vehicle counts a 'substantial disadvantage'? If the purpose of the information (as it says in TFA) is to adjust traffic signals based on the speed of the traffic, then the volume doesn't matter.
8. Re:How will this help? by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Vehicle counts start to matter as soon as you want to do any kind of deeper engineering analysis or design. For example, you might want to be able to answer questions like "how do speeds correlate with volume -- do they drop linearly, or suddenly at some 'critical' volume?" or "how much excess capacity does my road have?" or "did this change I made to the road actually increase capacity, or did speeds just seem to improve because fewer people happen to be driving on it this week?"
  In general, it's a lot more fun (as a traffic engineer) to have real-time data than it is to send somebody out in the field count data for one day out of a year (especially when, for all you know, that one day might be an outlier).
  Not to mention, asking a traffic engineer to do anything without knowing vehicle counts is kind of like asking an electrical engineer to design a device without knowing how many amps it uses.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
9. Re:How will this help? by bws111 · 2013-10-21 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough, nobody made a claim that vehicle counts never matter. What I said (I thought rather clearly) was that IF the purpose is to adjust traffic signals based on the speed of traffic THEN vehicle counts do not matter.
  Obviously things like axle counters and induction loops have been around for decades. Yet for all those decades we (as drivers) still have precious little information to use on traffic conditions. Most traffic lights still seem to be either pure timers or change based on the fact that someone is waiting. If things like using BT ids can help fix that situation, I say do it. The 'best' solution is not the one that can theoretically provide the most information, it is the one that can practically provide the most useful information. That is engineering.
10. Re:How will this help? by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. Sorry, in that case the answer was "I don't really care what the purpose as expressed in TFA is, I care about what vehicle detection systems are good for in general."
  Besides, "mak[ing] traffic signal settings based on (the information)" as the article talks about is a flexible enough idea that it could encompass ad-hoc manual adjustments where speed-only data would be useful (although you'd still want to look at the cameras while you're doing it) as well as longer term design-and-engineer-a-better-default-timing kind of adjustments, where having the counts would be very helpful (particularly if you wanted to make them the input to a real-time signal adjustment algorithm -- in fact, in that case what I'd really want would be intersection movement counts, not just segment directional counts).
  Long term, I'd suggest that the best plan would be to take the induction loops (which you need anyway for actuated signal timing) and hook them up to the traffic management software.
  But then that makes me think... if he can already control the signals remotely, then the induction loop data should already be available too. I guess they haven't hooked the systems together yet (which was also the case where I worked: I could operate cameras and changeable message signs using the main application, but I had to fire up something else if I wanted to mess with a ramp meter).
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
eek, our jails will be full of police! by swschrad · 2013-10-21 05:52 · Score: 2

on the other hand, reading the daily newspapers, maybe it's about time.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You know what else broadcasts unique ID? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:54 · Score: 0

The reflected light from your car, ie - car paint color. They could've spent more money in tracking your car with color & shape recognition, and verify with the first 3 characters of your car tag.
Bluetooth is similarly broadcasting, albeit at different wavelengths. The only difference is that you can turn off your bluetooth. You can't put your car on stealth mode on visible light spectrum.
And for other critics, this is not the same as leaving your house unlocked == invitation to come in. This is more like leaving your doors and windows open, and blasting music outward so people can hear it from the street. Don't want them to listen? Lower your volume or close all your windows and doors.
Tin foil hat alert by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:57 · Score: 0

Perhaps this is the secret motivation behind requiring everyone to use a hands-free device.
Use for law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:58 · Score: 0

"County officials note that they are stripping out part of the MAC, and the system is intentionally designed not to be useful for law enforcement to locate specific devices."
What would be the problem in using it for law enforcement? Don't we go around showing around our license plate?
1. Re:Use for law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  oh, i don't know, twenty four seven surveilance on your where abouts? License plates only work when you are directly targeted for surveilance. Also when this kind of surveilance is in place, anyone who can access the data can falsify it, so you better not piss off someone with that access.
Inflammatory summary... "Government money" by Insightfill · 2013-10-21 06:11 · Score: 1

It seems like the phrase "government money" is dropped in here just to bait arguments. Was there any doubt it was government money? If it were private money, would that be a problem? Wouldn't it be a different problem? Wouldn't "public funds" or "a state/federal grant" have been the same or more accurate?
From TFA: "The program is being funded primarily through a $540,000 federal grant, with a small match from the local governments." TFA actually has a lot of other good 'geeky' detail, like "3-5% of traffic [is already] broadcasting in discoverable mode".
I feel like someone is trying to raise the "oh, the waste!" card.
Bluetooth, shmoothooth by psydeshow · 2013-10-21 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

This seems really complicated. Why not just track the RFID signature generated by the various parts of the car which are tagged? Tires, replacement parts, items in the trunk, ID badges on the passengers....
1. Re:Bluetooth, shmoothooth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  because bluetooth can be done passively, and is, in that sense, slightly less creepy than interrogating your car. Also, BT has much more power than the response from RFID, which gives better range and probability of detection.
Don't tell soccer moms by EmagGeek · 2013-10-21 06:32 · Score: 1

They'll be howling for government and law enforcement to have access to that information to catch bogeymen and child molesters and other big scary people in the name of their little snowflakes.
Isn't this explicitly illegal in the US? by qeveren · 2013-10-21 06:33 · Score: 1

I mean... legally speaking you can't for example connect to someone's open wi-fi and use it. Look at the shit Google got into with their mapping car...

--
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
No need for concern? by Opportunist · 2013-10-21 06:35 · Score: 2

Great. Install it in every politician's car.
No need for concern, right? Or... got anything to hide?
Personally, every time someone comes up with some "no need for concern" bull, I say let the politicians in charge be the first to use it. No need to be concerned about the power plant? Great, have the town council move in next to it. No need to be concerned about food? Great, put it on the menu for them. No need to be concerned about surveillance? Great, move politicians to the front row to be under scrutiny.
If it was required to be used on them first, I'm pretty sure we'd have a lot fewer things not to be concerned about.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:No need for concern? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, leading by example? You first.
Re:hmmm. done. next. by omnichad · 2013-10-21 06:37 · Score: 1

That's not how bluetooth works.
Washington State Law disagrees... by Scutter · 2013-10-21 07:21 · Score: 2

Since it seems to meet the criteria of RCW 9A.52.110, I'd say every attempt to connect is a Class C Felony. However, at the very least, it's a misdemeanor.
RCW 9A.52.110
Computer trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the first degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another; and
(a) The access is made with the intent to commit another crime; or
(b) The violation involves a computer or database maintained by a government agency.
(2) Computer trespass in the first degree is a class C felony.
[1984 c 273 1.]
*****************
RCW 9A.52.120
Computer trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the second degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another under circumstances not constituting the offense in the first degree.
(2) Computer trespass in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
[1984 c 273 2.]
******************
RCW 9A.52.120
Computer trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the second degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another under circumstances not constituting the offense in the first degree.
(2) Computer trespass in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
[1984 c 273 2.]

--

"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
1. Re:Washington State Law disagrees... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  Funny how I am sure that RCW 9A.52.110 was meant to make it a felony to break into a government computer, but the way the law is stated, it is a felony to use a government computer to intentionally gain access to a computer system without authorization.
  I'm sure the lawmakers will get right on de-felonizing government hacking of computers.
2. Re:Washington State Law disagrees... by jratcliffe · 2013-10-21 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it's definitely not a felony, since there's no intention to commit another crime, and this isn't a gov't database. As for it being a misdemeanor, you'd have to argue that noting down which systems are broadcasting their identification information somehow constitutes "without authorization, intentionally gain[ing] access to a computer system or electronic database of another." If they tried to access the information in your car's system, that would be one thing, but this is no different than just writing down license plates.
3. Re:Washington State Law disagrees... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-21 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  They're not connecting or gaining access to anything. They're merely passively recording the information your device is broadcasting.
4. Re:Washington State Law disagrees... by bws111 · 2013-10-21 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell can you read that and come away with the conclusion that looking at information your device broadcasts is a violation? They're not 'gaining access' to anything, so that automatically rules out all three offenses. Worse yet, you come up with the brilliant conclusion that it is a FELONY. Is your BT a 'computer or database maintained by a goverment agency?' Is there any indication that this supposed 'access' is done with the intent to commit another crime?
  By your brilliant logic, every DHCP, ARP, etc broadcast would be 'unauthorized access' if something responded to them.
And CA and NYC and ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 07:30 · Score: 0

Doing the same thing by reading the RFID tags many carrying their cars is old hat and has come up in
2005 - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144771&cid=12124437
2002 - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=37712&cid=4041961
2003 - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53299&cid=5272198
and probably a bunch of other times, too.
The only surprising part this time is that they're going to the trouble of using specialized equipment to scan your Bluetooth instead of using commodity RFID readers.
I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:13 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
(Although I imagine you weren't saying that seriously, there are still some here who hold that view.)
How is this different from license plates by linuxguy · 2013-10-21 08:14 · Score: 1

Your vehicle already had a big bright license plates, in the front and the back, advertising your license plate number to anyone who cares to look. People, cameras etc. etc. And yes we have had automated readers of license plates for quite some time. What sort of *new* privacy concerns does the bluetooth device introduce?
1. Re:How is this different from license plates by mrchaotica · 2013-10-21 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  This is different from reading license plates in that it's a lot less effective for tracking people (since bluetooth MAC addresses aren't tied to people's identities in a government database from the get-go like license plates are). It's also likely much cheaper.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
2. Re:How is this different from license plates by linuxguy · 2013-10-21 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  My question was: "What sort of *new* privacy concerns does the bluetooth device introduce?"
  Your answer seems to imply that the older method of reading license plates is a more precise privacy busting tool. If that is correct then we are in agreement. The hoopla over bluetooth scanning of vehicles is unwarranted.
So 3-year-olds accessing my phone w/o permission? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:27 · Score: 0

Can I have them arrested?
Re:hmmm. done. next. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:29 · Score: 0

You could always turn the bloody radio off and use a USB cable.
Then they'll have to track you the old fashion way, via your cell.
In Medina, WA they record everyone. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:35 · Score: 0

I'm sure they're not alone, but they're the example I know of. They record every plate entering and leaving.
Nah, go old school. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:44 · Score: 1

Using the Satanic extraterrestrial technology recovered at Roswell, track him via the fillings in his teeth powered by the fluoride in the water and do so while facing towards Washington, D.C. with your human disguise off, lizard hands raised high all while praising the Jesus-hating future fuhrer Obama.
That or read his grandmother's email. It's better than reality television. You better do so quick too, because the death panels are going to get her and then AOL may close her account.
The county claims ... by NikeHerc · 2013-10-21 08:56 · Score: 1

FTS: The county claims that, although this sounds 'creepy' and 'like Big Brother,' there is no cause for concern.

Irrespective of what the county claims:

[1] this is creepy;
[2] this is Big Brotherish;
[3] there is cause for concern.

Citizens should always be concerned when any government has their hand in your pocket or, especially, when they say "there is no cause for concern." Consider our loss of rights and privacy due to the current and prior Federal administrations.

--
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
In Soviet Medina... by themushroom · 2013-10-21 09:34 · Score: 1

...Bill Gates lives in Medina. Do the math.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.