Slashdot Mirror


Qualcomm's Connected Car Reference Platform To Connect Smart Cars To Everything (networkworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Qualcomm wants to supply the next generation of autonomous and connected cars with networking to connect everything inside and outside of the cars. That means 5G, WiFi, Bluetooth, GNSS, DSRC, V2X, OABR, CAN, etc. ... [Networkworld reports: "Qualcomm today announced its Connected Car Reference Platform intended for the car industry to use to build prototypes of the next-generation connected car. Every category from economy to luxury car will be much smarter than the connected luxury car of today, creating a big opportunity for Qualcomm to supply semiconductors to automakers and suppliers. Qualcomm described the following features of the Connected Car Reference Platform in its release:

Scalability: Using a common framework that scales from a basic telematics control unit (TCU) up to a highly integrated wireless gateway, connecting multiple electronic control units (ECUs) within the car and supporting critical functions, such as over-the-air software upgrades and data collection and analytics.
Future-proofing: Allowing the vehicleâ(TM)s connectivity hardware and software to be upgraded through its life cycle, providing automakers with a migration path from Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) to hybrid/cellular V2X and from 4G LTE to 5G.
Wireless coexistence: Managing concurrent operation of multiple wireless technologies using the same spectrum frequencies, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy.
OEM and third-party applications support: Providing a secure framework for the development and execution of custom applications."]

110 comments

  1. connected cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What could possibly go wrong??

    1. Re:connected cars by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong??

      Now that a secure android app is available to control your car from your phone , nothing can go wrong. It's also available for download outside google play!

    2. Re:connected cars by davester666 · · Score: 2

      But you must click this link using your car's computer to get it free!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:connected cars by Quzak · · Score: 1

      100kv passed through the circuits to remove that pesky internet of crap BS.

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    4. Re:connected cars by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Just read the next post: Russian Hacker Selling Information of 32 Million Twitter Accounts, Report Says

      Now replace "32 Million Twitter Accounts" with "32 Million Automobile Access Codes". Since you car talks to your cellphone, all your personal data will be at risk, including payment system info, bank access, email, contacts, etc.

      Eventual headline: "Compromised Auto Password Database used to Loot Credit Accounts, Over $400 Million Missing".

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    5. Re:connected cars by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing if engineers that had some education were involved. Sadly most of the car makers do not hire Experts that have any education at all in security and stability.

      there is ZERO reason for a bidirectional interconnection from the car's ECM systems to the Infotainment system. a single direction serial data stream to report speed and other data to the Infotainment is all that is needed. No I dont need my FM radio readout on my tachometer, it can be over on the radio. if you really want a multi function HUD then the HUD is also a single direction receive only device and it get's it's own streams from the devices.

      100% hacker proof because even all the best hackers in the world combined can not write software that will make an optocoupler transmit data backwards.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re: connected cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just want ive aleays wanted! A way to drive my car just by tilting my phone around! With no feedback or security! Seriously, though, being an old school kinda guy who like physical controls and doesnt really like the way manufacturers are doing touch screens in cars, whats wrong with a simple bluetooth for audio and if you really really need a screen in your car just have it able to do mirroring. I mean the last thung I want us to be driving my family around, when, suddenly, my car turns into a 2 ton missile because some "hacker" wanted the lulz

    7. Re:connected cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you find out your car won't even start without phoning home.

    8. Re:connected cars by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      And after a few years they shut down the authentication server so you have to buy a new car.

    9. Re:connected cars by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's just money. How about "Hackers kill prime minister by taking over his car, accelerating it to 200 km/h and crashing it into a tree". Lulz!

    10. Re:connected cars by sudon't · · Score: 2

      What could possibly go wrong??

      If it's as fast, reliable, and intuitive as Qualcomm's systems in commercial vehicles, it'll propel the auto industry into the 1990's!

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    11. Re:connected cars by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      it get's it's own

      I think Joe_Dragon's hacked somebody's account.

      Oh hang on, it's Lumpy. Forget that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:connected cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still pissed he has far more up-voted posts than you? Just let it go man.

    13. Re:connected cars by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Guess what, Lumpy's also right.

  2. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Motor vehicles can be used as weapons. I prefer to be 100% in control of them at all times.

    1. Re:No thanks by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

      I prefer to be 100% in control of them at all times.

      I'm just the opposite. I let God be my designated driver.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a Hillary supporter, since those sheeple prefer to let the establishment decide who their leader will be instead of letting democracy decide.

    3. Re:No thanks by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      So can planes, but we still build new ones with auto-pilot....

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a pedestrian standing in the road, preventing your autonomous car from moving - who's really in control?

    5. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fine with autonomous cars if there is a paid pilot sitting in the drivers seat ready to take over at any moment. Otherwise, nope.

    6. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we've already had pilots get so involved playing games on their laptops that planes have gone off course

    7. Re: No thanks by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      The passenger can still go out of his autonomous car and hit the pedestrian pretending being in control with a baseball bat. Who is in control now?

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    8. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's only legal if the passenger is a police officer and the pedestrian black.

    9. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you sound like an idiot

    10. Re: No thanks by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      You are confused. The police shoot criminals, not hit them with baseball bats.

    11. Re: No thanks by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're not the slightest bit knowledgeable about the differences between aircraft autopiloting systems and automotive self-driving tech.

    12. Re: No thanks by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      As a pedestrian standing in the road, preventing your autonomous car from moving - who's really in control?

      You are assuming that the AI doesn't calculate that it is safer to run over you versus subjecting the driver to being overrun by the car behind him/her. There is no more guarantee that a person in the road will be protected by an autonomous vehicle than a non-autonomous one. For both it is a judgement call, either by the driver or the programmer.

      As such, my advice would be "Don't stand in the road when vehicles are coming at you."

    13. Re: No thanks by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Dog is my copilot.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they play flight simulators of more interesting flights during their boring cruises?

  3. What could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong....

  4. Something is missing... by Barny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am pretty sure 'Security' should be in that list as well, must have slipped the advertising drone's mind when they wrote it up. Let's hope the engineers designing it are not similarly deficient.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, everybody knows there's no such thing as wireless security.

    2. Re:Something is missing... by ITRambo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do not want a car that has wireless access to start it, or eventually hack into it. I don't believe I'll ever want one that can update OTA. I'll stick with my old fashioned 2014 car that only connects to my Bluetooth phone. A car that is part of the "Internet of things" seems like a disaster waiting to happen. If over the air updates to software are possible, things will go wrong. The car will be hacked. Accidents will happen. This makes me almost shudder.

    3. Re:Something is missing... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I want a more primitive, all appliance based. A brake chip that looks after brakes, a service chip that looks after servicing, a communications chip that looks after communications, a dash board chip that looks after the control GUI, a throttle chip that looks after the throttle etc. and maybe, just maybe a chip that ties it all together, this chip with a big red button that switches it off and allows those others chips to be individually manually controlled.

      No way in fucking hell, I want a wireless computer that looks after the entire vehicle and can drive me off a cliff, or into a train or into a river. Just no way, no thank you. Well, at least without an off switch that enables the car to keep going whilst that chip is shut down and cut off. Three letter agencies with laws that allow hacking of that chip, fuck I'll be a seventies car thank you very much.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes to everything you say. Problem: almost everyone will throw money at these things, meaning before too long ALL cars will be like that.

      Sure, you can stick with your 2014 car. But think what it'd be like to stick with say a 1970 car today. The safety, reliability, and interior quality, and economy of today's cars is leagues better. Sure, the 1970 car can still work, but you give up a lot. The 2014 model will be like that in time. Maybe even worse, due to forced obsolescence - there could come a time when you simply can't use it any more.

      Fighting the masses means a heavy cost.

    5. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is such a thing.. just much harder to achieve with standards-based systems.

    6. Re:Something is missing... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      ...This makes me almost shudder.

      That comes with the first firmware update... and you can get used to shudder.
      The third update enables yaw... that's when things get interesting...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Something is missing... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I'm sticking with my 1982 car. Maybe someday I'll buy another (similar age) car as backup, but I will not give up my current car unless it is completely destroyed or the government passes a law that forbids the use of my car. However, if the law only concerns the fuel (my car runs on gasoline or LPG), then I'll look for someone to replace the engine with electric motor (assuming such modifications would be allowed by the law). Even then, the car would not be connected to the internet and all controls (except throttle) would be mechanical.

    8. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is such a thing.. just much harder to achieve with standards-based systems.

      Ignorance is a helluva drug.

    9. Re:Something is missing... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      I do not want a car that has wireless access to start it, or eventually hack into it. I don't believe I'll ever want one that can update OTA. I'll stick with my old fashioned 2014 car that only connects to my Bluetooth phone.

      What is with all the Luddites on SlashDot?

      Where did the people who embrace and understand Tech go?

      Side note: You can not want it all you like, you will simply have no cars to pick from in the next few years.

    10. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars aren't TVs, there are still people that fix cars. Especially the old ones. There are still people that buy broke cars to fix. At least not this or next decade.

    11. Re:Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "...must have slipped the advertising drone's mind when they wrote it up."

      Given the level of Gibberish, it must have been an MBA:
      "“With the Connected Car Reference Platform, Qualcomm Technologies has developed a platform for automakers, module OEM customers, and developers that emphasizes scalability, modularity and security for integrating and managing multiple cutting-edge wireless technologies inside vehicles,” said Nakul Duggal, vice president, product management, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. “We are pleased to introduce this platform to help enable best-in-class advanced connectivity solutions and services in upcoming vehicle designs.”

      Sure enough, Mr. Duggan has an MBA from UCLA. And nobody uses "best-in-class" when they were worst in Class; Haas School Of Business rejects go to UCLA.

      Now about that alphabet soup:
      "Platform Integrates Wireless Technologies Including 3G/4G LTE, GNSS, Wi-Fi®, DSRC, and Bluetooth®; Extensible to Support Cellular V2X and 5G"
      Hey, they left out AN-ARC/5, LS3/5A, and LS/MFT, ("It's Toasted!")

      Captcha: horrid

    12. Re:Something is missing... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they'll add the phrase "security is ensured by military grade encryption" to marketing material.

    13. Re:Something is missing... by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      They understand tech alright, we get reports every week of a manufacturer making a complete arse of security and or remote updates. Even if it works, we cant trust them not to monetise our private info or remove already paid features.

      DO NOT WANT.

    14. Re:Something is missing... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      So on the one hand we seem to think that driveless cars will be safer than human driven cars, but on the other hand cars with high tech driver aids are more dangerous.

      There must be a name for this fallacy. People think that if they have even a bit of control, they should have full control to override everything instantly and don't trust the machine. But if they have absolutely no control, like Google's cars where there isn't even a steering wheel, it's all fine and the machine is better than a human anyway.

      Statistically the number of injuries and deaths in vehicle accidents has been going down. Some is due to improved roads, but a lot of it is due to high tech safety features. People crapped their pants about seatbelts strangling them, airbags exploding in their faces, ABS cutting the brake lines, traction control turning a slightly wet road into an ice rink, sat nav driving them into the middle of the desert... And occasionally those things did fail, but overall they made things safer and better for the vast majority of people.

      IoT is a bit different because it's clear that the manufacturers are like Microsoft in the 90s, totally clueless about network security. But that's not a reason to give up on it, it's a reason to build better systems.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Something is missing... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Problem is matey, I have bought so much high tech junk over the last few decades that has routinely fucked up, in fact software programmers claim it as the norm and seriously, what do you expect perfect software. Well, yeah, when going 100km an hour down a road I expect perfect software, you can't deliver, well then, no thanks. Generally I have found appliance based application to be more software reliable but sometimes of questionable engineering quality. Now I have no problem with automated vehicles in a subway tunnel system with a controlled environment so in the event of system failure, high hazard risks are very limited, but out in the open air, with trees, rivers, cliffs, buildings and vehicles going in all directions, typical software warranties scare the crap out of me, when my life would be dependent upon them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Something is missing... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Okay, but let's look at the technical issues rather than wildly speculating.

      Cars have a CAN bus. Well, multiple busses usually, connected and firewalled. The hacks have all involved getting in to the CAN bus by physical access or hacking the connected dashboard computer. In other words, the firewalls aren't good enough. That is fixable.

      Let's not pretend this is some bullshit movie where an ace hacker can get through 17 firewalls a minute. We are talking fixed function hardware firewalls that can't be reprogrammed.

      Beyond that there are issues like the one with the Nissan Leaf, where someone noticed that the server that sends commands to turn the AC on remotely didn't do proper authentication. The worst that it could do is flatten your battery. Stuff like that is ridiculous but not all that serious. Fortunately Nissan were not dumb enough to add the ability to unlock or start the car remotely.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Something is missing... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      There is nothing contradictory or fallacious about believing a system can have a lower risk of a failure occurring overall, yet still be more vulnerable to certain types of failure.

      Automated vehicle control systems have obvious advantages over human drivers when they are working properly. They don't get fatigued or distracted or irritated by someone else's bad driving. They can look everywhere at once, with much better sensors than human vision. They can respond much faster to the changing environment. In time, when the control algorithms are sufficiently developed, you would expect vehicles using these systems to be safer in terms of accidents.

      Automated vehicle control systems also have obvious disadvantages over human drivers if they are not working properly, particularly because many vehicles will potentially be running the same software and that software will lack common sense. An OTA update can't cause 100,000 human drivers to start running red lights because the new image recognition algorithm had a bug, or cause 100,000 human drivers not to brake properly on corners because a buggy sensor response said the surface was slippery and the brakes should be disabled on all four wheels to prevent a skid. The next big terrorist attack is not going to be someone sitting in a motel room and remotely causing 100,000 human drivers to suddenly brake to a halt in the middle of crowded roads for no good reason and cause 100,000 pile-ups. The sheer scale of the potential damage if these sorts of events do happen, combined with the very small number of people who have to make a mistake or act with hostile intent to cause such an event, makes the risk a lot higher than some of us are comfortable with.

      Perhaps we shouldn't give up on the idea of a more connected world, but we should acknowledge the reality that there is a very long way to go before we know how to build secure and robust systems. Among typical privately owned and operated products, cars might be literally the worst place that such technologies could be introduced at their current level of development. Can you think of any other industry where the equipment is as ubiquitous and as potentially dangerous and that equipment is built by businesses with such a poor track record for prioritising safety over profits?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So on the one hand we seem to think that driveless cars will be safer than human driven cars, but on the other hand cars with high tech driver aids are more dangerous.

      No, cars with high tech driver aids that are being tampered with are more dangerous. And it is 100% sure that assholes, criminals and governments will want to tamper with it.

      Therefore defensive design, inherent safety and guaranteed control by the owner are must have properties for such a system, otherwise mayhem is guaranteed to ensue.
      The way things are going it does not appear the Industry shares these concerns. It appears that they are perfectly happy to use inherently risky concepts and bolted on 'security' mechanisms to 'make sure' bad things do not happen, because that gives other benefits.
      How well that works has Microsoft been showing us for the last 25 years.

    19. Re:Something is missing... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is nothing contradictory or fallacious about believing a system can have a lower risk of a failure occurring overall, yet still be more vulnerable to certain types of failure.

      I agree, but then why do people here, a tech sites fully of supposedly technically mided people, keep saying they want a 1970s level of technology in their cars? That was my point.

      An OTA update can't cause 100,000 human drivers to start running red lights because the new image recognition algorithm had a bug, or cause 100,000 human drivers not to brake properly on corners because a buggy sensor response said the surface was slippery and the brakes should be disabled on all four wheels to prevent a skid.

      True, but those are things that are actually relatively easy to test for. We should expect car manufacturers to do it, just like the tested their ABS systems on different surfaces. And in any case, computer drivers will be more cautious anyway and unlikely to end up in a situation where one mis-application of the brakes results in death, or for that matter move through a red light without paying careful attention to on-coming traffic that may have a human driver who decided to do the same.

      The next big terrorist attack is not going to be someone sitting in a motel room and remotely causing 100,000 human drivers to suddenly brake to a halt in the middle of crowded roads for no good reason and cause 100,000 pile-ups.

      That's a movie plot threat. It's about as likely as them injecting malware into aircraft fly-by-wire systems or draining everyone's bank account. It might even be technically possible for someone with enough resources (a government), but if you look at the state of terrorist IT you will quickly see that they are more likely to simply get a gun and open fire in a crowded area or blow themselves up than to spend years developing and covertly deploying such an exploit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. If cars are to becon
      Me disposable within 12-18 months they need to com wayyyy down in price

    21. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont worry, they are printing a new brochure fot the "Connected Nuclear Plant Refence Platform" it'll be announced tomorrow.

    22. Re:Something is missing... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Cars have a CAN bus. Well, multiple busses usually, connected and firewalled. The hacks have all involved getting in to the CAN bus by physical access or hacking the connected dashboard computer. In other words, the firewalls aren't good enough. That is fixable.

      The problem is that the various modules have to talk to one another, and as soon as you do that, you open attack surface.

      Let's not pretend this is some bullshit movie where an ace hacker can get through 17 firewalls a minute. We are talking fixed function hardware firewalls that can't be reprogrammed.

      Sigh. First of all, there is no such thing. Nobody is building firewalls out of discrete components. They are making them out of computers, and computers have software. Second of all, a non-reprogrammable module is frightening to anyone with a lick of sense. That means recalls for failures, instead of field programming. So, you're not going to have non-reprogrammable firewalls anyway. They're going to be recodable so that you can use them in multiple vehicles.

      Beyond that there are issues like the one with the Nissan Leaf, where someone noticed that the server that sends commands to turn the AC on remotely didn't do proper authentication. The worst that it could do is flatten your battery. Stuff like that is ridiculous but not all that serious.

      It's serious if you can't use the vehicle when you need it. For example, evacuations happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Something is missing... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree, but then why do people here, a tech sites fully of supposedly technically mided people, keep saying they want a 1970s level of technology in their cars? That was my point.

      A lot of people have made the decision that they would rather do the driving than expose themselves to early adopter risks when their life is at stake. Why does that seem unreasonable to you? Full-fat, modern driving aids are very good, but lots of cars are still being built with older, cheaper systems. Really good ABS can brake better than any human in any conditions, but mediocre ABS is still being sold and will still fail completely to brake if the road surface is torn up well enough; going over a pothole can cause it to detect lock-up and release the brake on that wheel. By the same token, do you really trust that automakers are going to get self-driving right to start? Lots of AEB tests have failed, for example.

      The next big terrorist attack is not going to be someone sitting in a motel room and remotely causing 100,000 human drivers to suddenly brake to a halt in the middle of crowded roads for no good reason and cause 100,000 pile-ups.

      That's a movie plot threat. It's about as likely as them injecting malware into aircraft fly-by-wire systems or draining everyone's bank account. It might even be technically possible for someone with enough resources (a government),

      All it takes is one good hack, and twiddling one little bit of code before it gets distributed. It's not outside the realm of possibility.

      if you look at the state of terrorist IT you will quickly see that they are more likely to simply get a gun and open fire in a crowded area or blow themselves up than to spend years developing and covertly deploying such an exploit.

      It doesn't take years to develop a bug. You can do it very quickly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re: Something is missing... by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Cars aren't TVs, there are still people that fix cars.

      That's kind of a problem to my mind. The fact that we still have such a huge car repair industry is a bug, not a feature. If someone wants to buy and repair old junky cars they aren't going away any time soon. But looking forward I'd prefer cars that don't actually need to be repaired or rebuilt because doing so is largely a wasteful activity.

    25. Re: Something is missing... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      MOD THE FUCK UP.

    26. Re:Something is missing... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      First of all, there is no such thing. Nobody is building firewalls out of discrete components. They are making them out of computers, and computers have software.

      That's not what a fixed function hardware firewall is. It's a single IC that does have software, but it's stored in ROM and non-reprogramable or reconfigurable. It passes a fixed set of packets, and nothing else. They are commonly used on OBD-II ports, for example, so that diagnostics are possible but reprogramming functions are not available.

      Also, these chips are not computers. They are not even microcontrollers. They are ASICs, designed using a hardware description language like VHDL. They usually don't have soft CPUs in them, and the only programability is via mask ROM.

      That means recalls for failures, instead of field programming.

      Which is a good thing, because otherwise anyone could reprogram them, possibly remotely.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Something is missing... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There must be a name for this fallacy.

      You mean the one where you aggregated every comment about technology in cars, and made a universal Slashdotter?

      No matter what technology is put in vehicles, there will be some people against it. That doesn't mean all of us.

      Conversely, all of the technology available for vehicles does not mean every bit of technology is a good thing.

      I generally like the improvements so far. Seat belts? Worn them since I started driving in the early 1970's. I want 5 point seatbelts, I want real roll cages, I want fire suppression systems.

      ABS is great - how is it supposed to cut the lines? Traction control is damn awesome, so much so that any vehicle that has it darn well better have ABS, as you can go on some seriously slick surfaces.

      Lane assist? Check. Anti-tailgating radar? Double check. Collision avoidance? Check. So much of the new technology is simply unarguably tremendous.

      But does that mean that connecting the total vehicle to the internet is likewise great? That's a technological non-sequitar.

      Two problems with that. Life critical applications should not be on the internet. And our vehicles hurtling at each other on the road certainly appears to be life critical. Hospital hacking shows us the future, even worse since hackers will have direct control

      In addition, we need to look at the present day internet to see exactly why the second reason this isn't a good idea kinda trumps all.

      Inherent insecurity. As well, the attack vectors will be interesting. System hacked, and you're locked in your vehicle until you donate a few hundred bitcoins. Serious blackmail where you send money lest your car's lane assist might just accidentally malfunction, and drive you off a cliff, or head on with some other fool that didn't pay up.

      Kids just fooling around for the lulz, lots of other possibilities, and you'll notice I stayed away from the tinfoil hat possibilities, just exploits that already exist, and are happening today.

      It seems foolish to head down the path where we are forced to buy antivirus software for our refrigerators, commodes, and cars. The internet is inherently insecure, and we are supposed to trust our life to it? Considering how safety culture rules our existence any more, that would be the real red queen outlook to support both.

      IoT is a bit different because it's clear that the manufacturers are like Microsoft in the 90s, totally clueless about network security. But that's not a reason to give up on it, it's a reason to build better systems.

      Your better system includes what? Technology is awesome, but the internet attached version of automobile technology is like a top fuel dragster with bicycle wheels. You might have 5000 horsepower, but it's all for naught once the weak point fails.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re: Something is missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See I wouldn't mind it if there was an internal system, an external system, and some api's that pass information from the internal system to the external one.

      At that point you are free to make my external system the interconnected technological revolution you want!

    29. Re:Something is missing... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      True, but those are things that are actually relatively easy to test for.

      I'm not sure how true that is; the image recognition problems involved in my red light example are not trivial, after all.

      In any case, this still relies on someone thinking to test for all relevant failure cases and writing those tests properly. Unfortunately, almost no-one else in the software industry manages testing so reliably.

      With the control software for modern cars being as large and complex as it is, it's hard to imagine that nothing serious will slip through. And with cars, it only takes one sufficiently nasty bug for "fatal error" to become all too literal.

      That's a movie plot threat.

      Not so much, unfortunately. I picked that specific example precisely because a proof of concept already exists.

      It would be nice to think that terrorists are too dumb with IT to actually pull something like that off, but that's like assuming that a 15-year-old script kiddie is too dumb to install ransomware on someone else's system. In reality, the tools to do so are a few clicks away from any number of dubious sites, and they require no great skill or understanding to use.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  5. OEM and third-party applications support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing the CIA will be signing up for that wireless API with special interest in the get_gps_location(), lock_brake_single_wheel(), set_steering_angle(), set_throttle_position_override() functions.

  6. All the nerds have been replaced by luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we fucking get it, security matters. But gone are the nerds who might find creative and interesting things to do with the technology or at least discuss how it works. Now it's just a bunch of losers wearing tin foil hats. We fucking get it and don't need 50 redundant ass comments about security. Want to get modded up on crapdot? Find any article about technology and post your paranoid ramblings. It's the new karma whoring.

    1. Re:All the nerds have been replaced by luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your car just got hacked .

  7. Think Of The Cash Saved On Spike Strips by zenlessyank · · Score: 2

    And PIT maneuvers. Just turn off perps car. Talk to him over his car speakers and plead for the children. Upload bieber virus to your ECM. Turn your heated seats on high and sweat your ass out. I'm sure I can think up some more good points given a few more shots of Jager.

    1. Re:Think Of The Cash Saved On Spike Strips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And PIT maneuvers. Just turn off perps car. Talk to him over his car speakers and plead for the children. Upload bieber virus to your ECM. Turn your heated seats on high and sweat your ass out. I'm sure I can think up some more good points given a few more shots of Jager.

      (takes another shot)

      You forgot about all those terrorists who steal cars to drive into buildings.

  8. custom applications? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

    OEM and third-party applications support:
    Providing a secure framework for the development and execution of custom applications.
    Will be updated to:
    Providing a secure framework for the development and application of custom executions.

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  9. Data roaming fees by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Data roaming fees just say 1-2GB download / update / software push / can cost you up to about $30K in data roaming fees at $15 a meg.

    1. Re: Data roaming fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends where you are though. Roaming fees are coming down dramatically in some places. I'm on O2 UK and pay £0.04/MB roaming in the EU. Three UK gives you roaming data for free up to a cap of around 12GB a month. EU plans to remove roaming fees entirely in the next couple of years.

  10. Critical functions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So OTA upgrades are seen as a critical function now? WTF

  11. security/reliability by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    If you're building a wireless car, you better have security and reliability as your number one bullet point. (even better, you don't need OTA upgrades because you get it right the first time)

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. Valet Car-jacking by Aereus · · Score: 2

    In the near future they won't even need to go out and steal the car, it will just drive itself to you. What a country!

    1. Re: Valet Car-jacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, just stand in the road and demand $50 to move.

    2. Re: Valet Car-jacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But riders won't be able to remove their seat belts or get out of a running car and the car isn't going to turn off while its in the middle of a road. I guess you'll have to hold up a large sign and hope the people can throw the money out the window. Assuming windows can still be opened and aren't digital screens.

      This is one reason I won't buy, rent, or use a car that doesn't have the ability for a rider to take over. Any car that always follows the law and can't be told to move in basic directions no matter what is simply a non-starter. Google is living in a fantasy world. A steering wheel isn't required, but there needs to be a backup joystick or something. Preferably something that still works after an EMP.

    3. Re:Valet Car-jacking by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      That'd be a fun virus. Infect cars. Give it a month to spread. When the clock hits the preset date, every self-driving car sets off simultaneously for one destination. Pick any business or organisation you dislike and watch as their headquarters and all the roads in the vicinity become inaccessible.

    4. Re:Valet Car-jacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destination = 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
      Horn = ON
      Remote Programming = DISABLED
      Start Time = NOW

  13. secure vehicle of the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My choice for a secure vehicle in the future ... increasingly resembles a 1960's VW.

  14. huh? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Are we posting ads as stories now?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. Two more words by aglider · · Score: 1

    Security

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  16. DISCONNECT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I want a UN-connected car, no transmit or receive abilities at all. Hard wire connections only to separate sub-systems. I heard an TV add touting connection to your smart watch. For what earthly purpose should your car talk to your watch. For all the techie nerds jonesing autonomous cars I suggest a dedicated expressway, for the Lemmings, to the cliff overlooking the ocean, God speed you to your destiny. For the companies fighting to climb on the band wagon you need to lead the pack on the new i666 road to infinity, you deserve the honor in spades.

    1. Re: DISCONNECT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably you could talk to your watch Dick Tracy style and summon your self-driving car.

    2. Re: DISCONNECT by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Damn fucking straight.

  17. But... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Does it run Linux?

  18. Slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meet the new owner same as the last owner.

  19. Guaranteed profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This connected car reference platform consists of many chips and there lies perfectly legitimate venue to make a killing

    Invent a chip which works just like one (or more) that is in the reference platform, engineer it in a way that it can become both a backdoor (containing a backdoor entry path) and a source for system jamming (totally scrambled up the communication pathway so nothing goes through) and wait

    Wait till your chip got installed in millions upon millions of cars worldwide and you sell the secret to one or more of the state-sponsored hacker groups

    Even if the shit hits the fan it's no longer your business as the genie has left the bottle

  20. they still dont fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i cant beleive cars still dont fly, im sorry but i dont care about computerized cars, the cheapest cars they sell in my country dont even have electric rolling fucking windows, its hard to believe they will put this on every car, in fact i dont beleive it at all. So people that say that all cars will be like this are going to be right, but only in certain countries, most of the planet will still have regular cars

  21. Now comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The connected hammer!
    Best for counting nails and measuring the amount of consumed calories!

  22. You missed the point about Luddites by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's plenty you can do with technology to make cars more interesting or useful. Look at all the modern driver aids, such as traction control or assisted braking. Look at modern navigation systems. Even the lights on modern cars are getting totally redesigned to be more effective.

    However, connecting cars wirelessly to anything and everything is foolish with today's technology. There was a story just yesterday about how an OTA update broke the radio and navigation systems on Lexus cars. A couple of days before that, there was a story about how the alarm on a Mitsubishi model could be remotely disabled due to poor wireless security. Paranoia is irrational distrust. It's hardly irrational to be concerned when we've had two major failures so far this week and plenty more before that.

    The point about the Luddites was that they were opposed to technological changes that would potentially make them redundant by doing their jobs better and more efficiently. Nothing about having hopelessly vulnerable control systems attached to vast numbers of heavy, fast-moving vehicles falls into that category.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  23. I need a crystal ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The brave new world 10 years or 20 years from now we will have

    * Driverless Cars
    * Connected Cars
    * Smart Bots
    * Deep Learning Computers in Everything
    * Smart Road
    * Smart Drones
    * Smart City
    * Smart Swarming of Drones
    * Smart Appliances with Embedded Deep Learning Capabilities

    Can anyone spare a crystal ball?

    I sure like to know how the brave new world might pan out

    1. Re:I need a crystal ball by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

      Easy. Everyone except the .01% will be drinking Brawndo and watching "Ouch My Balls!" all day.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    2. Re:I need a crystal ball by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      The brave new world 10 years or 20 years from now we will have

      * Driverless Cars
      * Connected Cars
      * Smart Bots
      * Deep Learning Computers in Everything
      * Smart Road
      * Smart Drones
      * Smart City
      * Smart Swarming of Drones
      * Smart Appliances with Embedded Deep Learning Capabilities

      Can anyone spare a crystal ball?

      I sure like to know how the brave new world might pan out

      Probably not. Such a scenario requires working capital to produce such things. Working capital requires the sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services requires consumers. Consumers require jobs with good wages. Average household income in most parts of the US is under $50,000. Most of that income is going towards housing, food and other basic necessities.

      If shareholders want to profit by producing these things, then they need to have their businesses pay wages that support the purchase of the products. Henry Ford paid is workers above the going rate at the time, so that they could afford to purchase the vehicles they were producing. This created an instant market for the vehicles and is one of the major reasons that Ford succeeded in the early days compared to its competition.

      It's basic economics. Economies rise and fall based on the ability of the middle class to purchase goods and services. Decimate the middle class and you ultimately decimate the economy.

  24. CARB Experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting AC for reasons to become apparent.

    I work for a company that does R&D that CARB uses to make decisions on new regulations for vehicles sold in California. For the past 6 months or so we have been testing a platform for real-time centralized monitoring of emission systems in both passenger and commercial vehicles.

    In this platform, connected vehicles send real-time diagnostic information from the OBD system to CARB via a GSM link. CARB can then identify vehicles that have emissions problems and notify owners, prevent the vehicles starting, and if necessary, automatically levy fines for non-compliant commercial vehicles.

    The system can also shut down commercial diesel vehicles that idle for too long, and we're working on tying the system to CARB's penalty system for commercial vehicles to enforce school zone idle regulations (yes, there are more strict rules for idling a diesel vehicle in a school zone - including one that says a diesel commercial vehicle must leave a school zone within 30 seconds of starting, or the driver faces a $1000 penalty), as well as other regulations on commercial vehicles.

    Overall this is a wonderful system that will help vehicle owners keep their cars and trucks compliant with CARB regulations, reduce health effects of fossil fuel use, keep our children healthier and safer, and capture lost noncompliance revenue, which is estimated to be millions of dollars every year.

    The current internal proposal is that all 2020 and newer commercial diesel vehicles sold or operated in California must have this system. But, there is also some fluidity there.

    1. Re:CARB Experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Hitler.

    2. Re:CARB Experiments by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      I work for a company that does R&D that CARB uses to make decisions on new regulations for vehicles sold in California. For the past 6 months or so we have been testing a platform for real-time centralized monitoring of emission systems in both passenger and commercial vehicles.

      In this platform, connected vehicles send real-time diagnostic information from the OBD system to CARB via a GSM link. CARB can then identify vehicles that have emissions problems and notify owners, prevent the vehicles starting, and if necessary, automatically levy fines for non-compliant commercial vehicles.

      Overall this is a wonderful system that will help vehicle owners keep their cars and trucks compliant with CARB regulations, reduce health effects of fossil fuel use, keep our children healthier and safer, and capture lost noncompliance revenue, which is estimated to be millions of dollars every year.

      Compliance is big business. From lobbying to get your shit mandated to massive windfall you and your supply chain makes when all of those dollars backed by the states monopoly on violence start rolling in.

      The use cases and cost benefit analysis in California particularly are sometimes laughably absurd because the goal is often not really public safety or helping everyone. The goal is the creation of new markets and self enrichment.

      You don't need a real-time data link to enable a check engine light or implement an effective vehicle emissions inspection regime. Single vehicles are irrelevant in terms of air quality and bulk emissions can be accurately predicted and managed with policy and statistical models but don't let that stop you from lobbying for mandates.

      The only peoples children this is going to help are the ones with parents involved in these schemes. Everyone else's will have less disposable income and reap the "benefits" of mass surveillance and omnipresent real-time policing.

  25. Er.. no thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks. I want a completely dumb car with zero computers built in. If I want to use a GPS I'll buy one that attaches to the dash.

    Not interested, not buying one.

  26. Where is the free access to the API? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Full platform docs, api, etc.... What? it's not 100% open.

    FAIL. Will not be adopted.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  27. Preferences vs data by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Motor vehicles can be used as weapons. I prefer to be 100% in control of them at all times.

    Well chances are that you aren't a particularly talented driver and there is ample evidence that you being "100% in control of them at all times" is almost certainly actually a safety hazard. Both to yourself and more importantly to the rest of us. Insisting on 100% control of a car is as ridiculous as insisting that you be the one to pilot the airplane or you being the train engineer. Just because you feel more comfortable doesn't actually make it a good idea. If technology can get better results and keep you (and more importantly me) safe from your control issues then I don't give a damn what your preferences are.

    1. Re:Preferences vs data by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I propose that we use that same logic for your reproduction. Since bringing more stupid people into the world is bad for everyone else the AI would sterilize you and make it impossible for you to ever have sex again as well so that you would not be able to spread STD's that way. It's only logical, using your logic.

  28. Who would want that? Marketing People by BrendaEM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just put an line-input jack on the stock radio, and make the radio opening is a standard replaceable size, and stop fucking around with it.

    It's a car--not a information center. Even GPS may be replaced someday. Are we just supposed to throw our car out because the some codec or protocol isn't supported in your stupid hackmagnet monstrosity of pointless obsolescence and seething complication?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re: Who would want that? Marketing People by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Just put an line-input jack on the stock radio

      How about optical S/PDIF input... and fucking 4.1 RCA outs so we have the option of connect amps that don't suck??

  29. People don't like change by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I agree, but then why do people here, a tech sites fully of supposedly technically mided people, keep saying they want a 1970s level of technology in their cars? That was my point.

    Because change is hard even for people who like technology. Furthermore just because someone reads slashdot doesn't mean they are necessarily progressive in their views on technology. Slashdot has a small contingent of idiots here arguing against vaccines for crying out loud.

    Once people get used to something a certain way it can be incredibly hard to get them to change, even if all the evidence indicates that the change will be for the better. Many people like to drive a manual transmission car even though the technology now under performs many forms of automatic and semi-automatic transmissions. There is no rational performance basis today to prefer a traditional manual transmission and yet they persist.

    1. Re:People don't like change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The biggest reason I prefer my manual transmission is throttle-based engine braking. When I am driving down the road I expect to be pressing the accelerator pedal to maintain speed, and a sudden lift of the pedal (w/o cruise control engaged) should have the car immediately decelerating, not coasting and freewheeling as if there is no air, road, nor driveline friction. A clever automatic should be able to do this even better than my manual, automatically upshifting or downshifting to give just the right amount of engine braking as I lift the pedal different amounts.

      A close second is the clutch pedal as a way to quickly disconnect and reconnect the driveline. I know this is more habit based, but I like the control for coasting at low speeds such as rolling into parking spots with momentum or gravity without having to fight the torque converter into submission at stop lights etc. If there were another finesse control to let me do this easily and quickly with hand or foot control, I think I could get used to that instead of a clutch pedal. If the throttle control and engine braking could be made more precise than my manual, that would probably be even better. Gently moving into or out of parking while feathering the wheel torque, I could have finessed control even when parking on slopes, where using the clutch can be quite a dance number.

      A third is the way these manual torque inputs allow me to drive in snow and ice. I am happy I have ABS and traction control in my cars already, but having the above driveline control allows me to understand very intuitively what my wheels are doing. I almost never have the experience where my car is slipping on ice and snow due to inappropriate torque levels on the wheels, because my car never surprises me. I only have the ABS or traction control activating when I am doing truly aggressive things like emergency manoeuvres or power-sliding my all-wheel-drive sedan around a snowy back-road...

      Given the amount of computer control these days, it is frustrating that my desired control interface is not available on these new automatics. It should be trivial to have a calibration or customization setting for where the "maintain speed" set-point should be on the throttle, so I can have it deeper into the pedal travel and have room for analogue control of deceleration w/o moving my foot to the brake pedal. That they keep programming these things to emulate the ridiculous user experience of old torque-converter automatics is what bothers me most.

      My resistance to change is my resistance to being forced to accept an inferior control feedback loop that does not give me the extra control and precision that I expect. My concern with all these computerized and networked products is that they all seem to do the same mass-market simplification, and worse they do it retroactively through OTA updates and forced obsolescence. I am picky about the products I buy. I don't mind that other people can get products they want too, even when they are different than my desires. But when I am forced to accept those other products, or have mine secretly downgraded in the night, I get frustrated. I want a deeply engaging experience that evolves with my decades of experience. I don't want an appliance that never gets any easier or better because it is market-optimized for casual use and casual use alone.

  30. where is security on the list? by RichMan · · Score: 2

    I see "OEM and third-party applications support". That sounds like a "good idea"(tm) when every third party app will come with the required 400 page disclaimer and rights waiver "this app is not guaranteed in any way and you waive and damage claims against the supplier"

    Although I do see great promise in phone apps for the "real time driving experience you have always wanted" connected to the car app "leave the driving to us".

  31. not all tech is good tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not want a car that has wireless access to start it, or eventually hack into it. I don't believe I'll ever want one that can update OTA. I'll stick with my old fashioned 2014 car that only connects to my Bluetooth phone.

    What is with all the Luddites on SlashDot?

    Where did the people who embrace and understand Tech go?

    Side note: You can not want it all you like, you will simply have no cars to pick from in the next few years.

    There are plenty of people who "understand Tech", and know that it is not a panacea. Not all tech should be implemented, or not all people want all the tech. Some of us are happy with tech X, Y, and Z, but not with A, B, or C. I'm all for nuclear power (in addition to renewables), but could do without nuclear weapons.

    Then I'll simply pedal my bicycle and ride my motorcycle.

    Side note: some of us enjoy driving for the act of driving itself, and not for any practical outcomes. It's the reason why I own a motorcycle for example (though it is practical with regards to gas mileage and being nimble in urban traffic).

    1. Re:not all tech is good tech by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Side note: some of us enjoy driving for the act of driving itself, and not for any practical outcomes.

      That's fine, but it won't stop self-driving cars from taking over the roads in the next 20 years...

  32. No mention of security by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    It boggles my mind that with the constant stream of reports coming in about cars being hacked in one way or the other, not a single mention of the word 'security' appears anywhere.

    Car companies have clearly demonstrated that they don't know shit about security, and don't seem to care either. If Qualcomm is going to put together some kind of reference network design for car companies to use, that makes them equally culpable should the car get stolen, or if anything else happens that turns out to be network related.

  33. Uh Oh by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    "Qualcomm's Connected Car Reference Platform To Connect Smart Cars To Everything"

    Yes, and by "everything", they mean "ads and hackers". Yippee.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  34. What if I don't want any of this? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    What if I just want a car (or light pickup in my case) that's just a car, and not a rolling amusement park/lifestyle? What if I just want it to be as plain and simple as possible? What if, at the very minimum, I don't want my vehicle 'connected' to anything at all wirelessly, is there an 'Off' switch I can flip to kill all the transceivers? At least a fuse I can pull that will depower it all?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  35. Its already compromised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Future-proofing: Allowing the vehicleâ(TM)s connectivity hardware and software to be upgraded through its life cycle,

    Since the early 1200's we have seen again and again that anything which can be upgraded, can be compromised.
    Car computer should never be connected to anything.

    Actually, a car does not need computer and it should not have one.
    Cars with computers are orders of magnitude more complex than those without.
    But cars with and without computers all go down the road the same way.

  36. Error by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    s/cars/lawnmowers/

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  37. Welcome to Itchy and Scratchyland! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7trn91xkJ0w