Slashdot Mirror
Once Vehicles Are Connected To the Internet of Things, Who Guards Your Privacy?
Lucas123 (935744) writes Carmakers already remotely collect data from their vehicles, unbeknownst to most drivers, but once connected via in-car routers or mobile devices to the Internet, and to roadway infrastructure and other vehicles around them, that information would be accessible by the government or other undesired entities. Location data, which is routinely collected by GPS providers and makers of telematics systems, is among the most sensitive pieces of information that can be collected, according to Nate Cardozo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Not having knowledge that a third party is collecting that data on us and with whom they are sharing that data with is extremely troubling," Cardozo said. in-vehicle diagnostics data could also be used by government agencies to track driver behavior. Nightmare scenarios could include traffic violations being issued without law enforcement officers on the scene or federal agencies having the ability to track your every move in a car. That there could be useful data in all that personally identifiable bits made me think of Peter Wayner's "Translucent Databases."
Nobody.
Next topic?
This is the reason the group I Am The Cavalry was formed.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
... all the time. It knows where I am. It knows how fast I'm going. It knows who I talk to. It listens. It sees.
And it's connected constantly.
Corrected Translucent Databases link. Was previously pointing to the beta site.
The rates will likely skyrocket to near-Canadian rate levels, and there might be a change in Speeding Ticket-Issuing technologies that could (conceivably) issue live warnings and even Tickets based on telemetry and other live info...
Imagine getting caught up in a construction or accident re-direct, and their being a batch of auto-tickets issued for using the wrong lane(s) or traveling on a closed section of road! People won't really be able to fight a live-issued ticked based on in-vehicle speed data after all because it's going to come form your own speedometer and correlated with satellite tracking for accuracy.
Talk about a Revenue Stream! Who needs a Speed Trap, when your Vehicle will issue you a ticket directly.
Government will simply mandate it, and it Will Be So.
Mark my words...
This is true of your thermostat, your fridge, and pretty much anything else which is a part of this "internet of things".
Every aspect about what these devices does will be analyzed, used for marketing information, handed over to law enforcement, or your insurance company, or anybody who hacks into it.
For some of us, this whole IoT is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen, and we have no interest whatsoever in it.
Unfortunately, a lot of people like to see that as a sign that you're paranoid and getting alarmist about things which will never happen.
And then, like the widespread surveillance being misused (which they swore would never happen), parallel construction (which is perjury in my books), or the scope creep we see all around us ... almost inevitably this comes true and people act surprised.
Sorry, but I for one will not be enabling this crap. It just seems like technology for the sake of it, and by the time people realize that those among us who have been saying this will be a problem were right, it's too damned late.
Unless there are laws governing how a company can use the information, and some controls over law enforcement to prevent them from getting this and misusing it ... the internet of things is a terrible idea, and will not make your life better. The sheer amount of information about every aspect of your life which will be in someone else's hands is staggering.
In the end, I predict it will make our lives far worse, and usher in even more of this surveillance society we've been seeing.
We can't trust them with the information they have now, let alone from another bunch of sources in your life.
You really think the government won't insist on getting all this data without a warrant? And they won't claim you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and that they should be entitled to know where everybody is at all times? Or that corporations won't sell this for marketing purposes? Or to deny you service?
Hell no. Now, pass the tin foil please.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Anyone who believes the government shouldn't be tracking their every move is probably a godless communist and sympathetic with the former Soviet Union.
segways will finally find a purpose?
All the data that they are afraid cars will give out are already given out by people's phones.
So, basically exactly the same situation that we already have.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
My 1968 Plymouth is certainly going to gain in value over the years, it has a lot going for it. No onboard spyware and being it uses a points distributor, EMP proof as well. w00t!
I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant blue Barracuda
From a better vanished time
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
The same people who are guarding your privacy on other Internet-connected devices today.
It's the Internet of Everything. Get with the program.
things don't have their own internet...its the same one we use for everything else
so please just say cars are connected to the internet
...it's your charging cable!!!
Given that we know automobiles are insecure and that demonstrations exist where an outside party has taken over control of a vehicle, who is going to protect our safety?
I will guard my privacy just as I already do: by physically disabling the GPS and communications systems in the car.
The issue is not that dark forces will be able to monitor your vehicle without your knowledge, it's that once the capability is common, you simply won't be able to get a license (car or driver) or insurance, without clicking "YES" to ALLOW MONITORING on the contractual EULAs. So you can't object - you agreed to it.
Mother: Who ate the last piece of cake?
Fridge: Gary ate the last piece of cake.
Wife: Where was Gary last night?
Car: Gary was at the strip club with Larry and Moe.
Police Officer: How fast were you going?
Gary:I don't know.
Chevy: Gary was going 57 miles per hour. He was 7 miles over the limit.
Police Officer: Have you had anything to drink?
Gary: No officer.
Chevy: Gary was tailgating with Larry and Moe. The cooler says they have consumed 3 cases of beer.
FEAR the technology! Its' gunna getcha! It might invade ten privacy you don't actually have on public roads!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Except They are the Cavalry — according to their own page — are focusing on Cyber Safety, not privacy.
And our privacy — as far as cars are concerned anyway — has been shot for over a century already, when New York (always the Illiberal) mandated license plates in 1901.
They could not think, of course, that some day automatic license-plate readers will be archiving our driving histories. But the move — targeting "the rich", of course — was just as invasive even back then, as mandating that people carry identification at all times would be. And not just carry, but keep it visible from distance too...
Cars' new electronics may make it easier for the State to track us, but it has not been that hard before...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
" (hint: public-key encryption)"
hint: won't work in any practical manner.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The "Internet of Things" is a solution without a problem. There is nothing about the Internet of things that could not be accomplished without the built-in violation of privacy. When are people going to figure out that a large percentage, if not the majority of all new technical "solutions" are actually methods of taking something from you, instead of providing you with some service or improvement to a product? Once you get past the novelty, it's actually quite an ugly picture. From "smartphones" to mobile payments, "connected" appliances and all the rest, it's not meant to make your life better, but to alter your relationship to your possessions in order to enrich someone who does not have your best interests at heart. It's not enough that they've turned the Internet itself from a revolutionary platform for communication and the sharing of data into a shopping mall where the product is you. Now they have to turn your very life into a terrarium for their own enrichment.
And the worst part of the Internet of Things is that it's just not worth the price, no matter the price.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It won't happen because our lives have been monetized for the benefit of a very few. It won't happen because now we are the consumables. The Internet has become a tool of tracking, behavior modification and political control.
You are welcome on my lawn.
..that information would be accessible by the government or other undesired entities
Shouldn't that read; '..that information would be accessible by the government and other undesired entities.' ?
You already have a privacy vanishing cellphone connected with privacy destroyer social networks. But cars are destructive in the real world. Can be used to kill you or others blaming you, or just put you in jail.
... I think we need to consolidate both the authentication and the data storage of all of these different services. Whether you use Google Docs or Microsoft Office Live or some other web-based document editor, you should be able to store and manage the documents in a consistent place, accessed through a standard API.
You seem to miss the fact that the companies could do that now, but don't want to. You're basically proposing to strip freedom from service companies, and have some sort of government regulator determine where their storage Must Be, and what API they're restricted to only using. Otherwise, you'd simply be proposing that companies stop wanting what they want, and everybody to agree on a common solution. Which is silly, because human traits are distributed according to a known distribution, and it is guaranteed that both individuals and companies will want things from the full range of possibilities.
What we already have is a system where those of us who are intolerant of platform lock and restrict ourselves to only certainly types of tools that support interoperability can already do this.
And, by-the-way, Google doesn't have a walled garden, they have an open API and other companies can already integrate and let their users keep backend data in a variety of google services such as google drive. You can remix or mashup the services of any company that has an open API. And you can go the other way in most cases, and import your data stored in other services to the google services. It is only the companies that don't, that instead have a walled garden, that deny this ability. The fact that you conflate walled gardens and open APIs suggests to me that you don't actually understand the technologies you're discussing.
I've been saying "no, never" to platform lock since 1998, and interoperability has only improved. It has only improved. You're not sharing and inter-operating because you're willing to use sucky services. That is the only reason. You can't save others from their sucky choices without stripping their Freedom, you can only save yourself by making better choices.
Electronic passes on our toll roads already collect our locations. Traffic cams and security cams track us as well. Frankly i see nothing wrong with that at all. How can i expect privacy on a public road in plain view of all? And these devices will cut down on crime as well.
As you don't have to go out side the usa to pick up Canada&Mexico towers that can cost you $15-$20 a meg
You seem to miss the fact that the companies could do that now, but don't want to.
No, actually, I comment at the end that we could do this now, but that companies don't want to.
You're basically proposing to strip freedom from service companies, and have some sort of government regulator determine where their storage Must Be, and what API they're restricted to only using.
No, I'm proposing that there be industry standards. There wasn't a government regulator necessary to determine that email providers must use SMTP to transfer email. It's just the standard, and it doesn't make sense for individual companies to go against the standard because it would cut themselves off from interoperability with everyone else.
And, by-the-way, Google doesn't have a walled garden, they have an open API and other companies can already integrate and let their users keep backend data in a variety of google services such as google drive.
Umm... bullshit? Ok, provide me with instructions on how to have Google Docs and Gmail store all my email and files on Dropbox in a way that's supported by Google. They may have some APIs for some things, but they aren't working with Apple and Microsoft to create a vendor agnostic platform for web storage. And why are you all defensive and butthurt over Google?
Public key encryption doesn't work?
Don't let your car tell on you. You can mod me down now.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"traffic violations being issued without law enforcement officers on the scene"
This happens thousands of times a month in most European countries already
Harley Fuckin' Davison!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Is that they also want the cars to be able to communicate with each other. And how much do you want to bet that these communication systems will be tied into the non-secured CAN bus on the car? Yeah - one scenario I can imagine is your car going rogue and telling all other cars to pull aside. That would be fun on the highway.