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."]

Comments

connected cars

[Anonymous Coward]

What could possibly go wrong??

Re:connected cars

[davester666]

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

Re:connected cars

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:connected cars

[michelcolman]

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

Re:connected cars

[sudon't]

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!

Something is missing...

[Barny]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[ITRambo]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[aXis100]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Something is missing...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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?

Think Of The Cash Saved On Spike Strips

[zenlessyank]

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.

custom applications?

[FatdogHaiku]

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.

Valet Car-jacking

[Aereus]

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!

Re:Valet Car-jacking

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re: No thanks

[AchilleTalon]

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?

You missed the point about Luddites

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Who would want that? Marketing People

[BrendaEM]

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?

where is security on the list?

[RichMan]

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".

Re:I need a crystal ball

[some old guy]

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

Re:I need a crystal ball

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

No mention of security

[ilsaloving]

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.

Uh Oh

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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

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