Slashdot Mirror
Feds Unveil Rule Requiring Cars To 'Talk' To Each Other (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The Obama administration released a long-awaited rule on Tuesday requiring all new vehicles to have communication technology that allows them to "talk" to each another, which officials say could prevent tens of thousands of crashes each year. The proposal calls for all new light-duty cars and trucks to eventually be equipped with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology, a safety system that enables cars to send wireless signals to each other, anticipate each other's moves and thus avoid crashes. The rule would require 100 percent of new vehicle fleets to have V2V technology within four years of the final rule's enactment. The proposal will be open for public comment for 90 days. The connected vehicle rule builds on previous work by the outgoing administration to accelerate the deployment of innovative safety technology. The Department of Transportation released the first-ever federal guidelines for driverless cars in September. "We are carrying the ball as far as we can to realize the potential of transportation technology to save lives," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "This long-promised V2V rule is the next step in that progression. Once deployed, V2V will provide 360-degree situational awareness on the road and will help us enhance vehicle safety." Officials say V2V has the potential to mitigate 80 percent of non-impaired crashes and can interact with other crash avoidance systems, like automatic braking. V2V uses dedicated short-range radio communications to exchange messages about a car's speed, direction and location. The system uses that information from other vehicles to identify potentials risks and warn its driver. A pair of Democratic senators called on the agency to ensure that vehicles have "robust" cybersecurity and privacy protections in place before automakers deploy V2V.
Let's attach a unique ID transmitter to every car in America!
But I sure don't want a self-driving car that pays more than the most cursory attention to V2V data. Using it to determine whether the freeway is blocked ahead is fine. Using it for much of anything else is a horrible idea.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is going to be abused. People will have so much fun with this, it'll be unreal. Imagine a little box you can buy/build that spoofs a vehicle system and tricks all the cars in a 100 meter radius into executing an emergency stop...
So much for privacy - your car will be beaming "Hey, this guy is going 2 mph over the speed limit!" to every cop in 20 miles.
Bow down to your masters in Washington DC!
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
This is going to be abused. People will have so much fun with this, it'll be unreal. Imagine a little box you can buy/build that spoofs a vehicle system and tricks all the cars in a 100 meter radius into executing an emergency stop...
Yea, that won't be difficult to extract from a rolled vehicle at all...
Spoof V2V data, trick car into thinking car in front is braking. Kidnap/rob from target vehicle. Profit.
Silence is a state of mime.
You can see where this is going. 300-car pileups.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
You can build an emitter to force change stop lights that ambulances use, you can throw nails in the road, you can steal stop signs, you can build a short range emp to disable nearby cars, and so on. Everything can be abused. It is a good idea to build safe guards against such but most people don't go out of their way to distrupt traffic for the 'Lulz'. Plus if someone did attempt to use such a device then the near ambiguous presence of cameras even in vehicles could help identify someone that performed that kind of stunt.
Yeah - maybe my age / lameness quotient is starting to show, but this sounds like a horrible idea.
The potential for abuse is staggering.
Maybe people could just pay attention when they drive?
Pandering to the lowest common denominator would be less frequent if more people were prime numbers.
I guess there will be lots of swearing and honking
I don't know anyone has any concrete proposals for how this would work, what each car would transmit, what it would receive, or what it's expected to do with the data.
The problem, as I think about it, is we've got a chicken and the egg problem. I'd love to say that the manufacturers should experiment, try some stuff out, and converge on some recommendations. Problem is, it's kind of useless to have all that expensive gear in my car if no one else does. There'd be no one listening and no one talking to me. So how to get the ball rolling?
Maybe this is the way. Mandate that by 2020 (or whatever) every car must transmit some minimal data. Ignore the tinfoil hat theories about your every move being tracked (it probably is already anyway, thanks to toll bridge transponders and license plate scanners). That will make it much more reasonable to add receivers to cars a few years later, now that a substantial portion of cars are transmitting.
Oh, all this presumes that V2V communication is actually a good thing and worth the cost. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It could be a solution looking for a problem. Do we have any reason to believe this is a better way to spend our money instead of making stronger bumpers?
I am extremely worried about this.
1) It will be abused. Period. You know it will contain the VIN or other unique ID. So readers on the side of the road will be monitoring everyone everywhere- where you go, how fast you were going, etc. Endless tickets in the mail.
2) It will be hacked. Period. And once it is, it could cause chaos and devastation on the roads- causing other vehicles to panic and brake, others to swerve, etc. It would be one thing if this data were read-only, but we all know it will be linked into active controls. Road rage weapon. Stupid teenager prank. Whatever.
3) It will be hijacked. With active controls tieins, police cars could use spoofed info as one way to kinda remotely-control other cars. And, of course, if they can do it, so can criminals. It will give a new meaning to the word "carjacking"....
4) It will often be non-upgradable. Car manufacturers have a proven dismal track record on keeping ANYTHING updated on their cars. Once it is sold, they couldn't care less about the vehicle, unless they can somehow turn it into an endless stream of revenue.
Like any technology, there are good things and bad things with each "improvement".
There will be rolled vehicles, but good luck finding the culprit, assuming the perp tosses their device as soon as they can. It is like cellphone jammers, which can be almost impossible to catch unless someone leaves it running long enough for LEOs to get a good fix on.
...his name was Appleby, not Applegate.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The cops will have this "Car stop now!" box FIRST!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Unless it transmits a cryptographically-signed VIN as part of the broadcast, and receivers log that VIN to some kind of persistent storage if they rely on its data. It wouldn't necessarily prove that a specific INDIVIDUAL is guilty, but it could ABSOLUTELY pin financial liability on the owner of the vehicle associated with that VIN for negligently allowing a car he owns to spoof bad data.
I know that in Florida, you can't get license plates without registering the VIN, and I'd be shocked if any state DIDN'T require VIN-registration as a condition of getting license plates.
Since realtime certificate lookups are obviously out of the question, they'd probably issue certs good for a year at a time simultaneously with license plate renewal, and cars would be programmed to either ignore, or at least seriously question the validity of, expired certs.
Such as tinder requests.
Imagine a metro crippled for days by a car to car worm. Or, how about an entire city's autonomous automobile population commanded to layer 1 DDoS a business... "This drive thru line is ridiculous."
Luckily, the peer to peer signaling code will be secure. Especially if the industry rolls their own protocol from scratch. Phew!
"Life is life." --Laibach
Trump doesn't personally approve the requirements; his appointees do.
That said, if federal agencies don't follow the rules for making new regulations, those regulations can be tossed in court.
If DOT policy requires a 90-day comment period and a 4-year "warning" period before the rules take effect, they need to adhere to that schedule regardless of who is shuffling in and out of the White House.
The new models for the next several years are already in various stages of design, so rules realistically need to be finalized years in advance unless we are willing to derail automotive engineering with constant short-notice spec changes.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
It is like cellphone jammers
Oh good, I was worried for a minute. If it'll be as harmless and rare as cellphone jammers, then I'm not concerned. I've yet to have my cell phone suddenly not work, or have personally heard of this happening to someone.
Now, if it were a problem like spray paint and those asshole taggers, then I'd be concerned.
I was in a pub in the UK with no cell signal, absolutely none inside. Go just outside the door, signals totally fine. Could not call a cab from inside the pub. It was an old Tudor building, I doubt it was originally a faraday cage.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Its actually a very good idea. In theory.
In actual practice it will be full of easily exploitable security holes, due to the fact that doing actual QA and actually giving two shits about security would cut into profits (ie, the CEO's bonus).
Thank goodness there are no turnpikes in my state...
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Every year, older cars get more an more attractive. Seriously considering a restored 80s BMW with an LS1 swap to make it more reliable.
Radio devices can be invisible when concealed in a pocket or trunk. Can you look at a camera and point out the bloke with a cellphone jammer in his pocket in a crowd?
How are the Feds able to mandate this? Seems a large stretch to see how this is associated with interstate commerce, which is about the only mechanism that the Feds can use to make US wide laws.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm sure the vehicle speed will be among the telemetry data, which will be so useful to LEOs - who will undoubtedly record your data. Why rely on radar when your vehicle will simply narc on you. Maybe some historical data will be available too, so they can nail you for speeding earlier.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
> Unless it transmits a cryptographically-signed VIN as part of the broadcast, and receivers log that VIN to some kind of persistent storage if they rely on its data.
And in this day and age, people can clone your car's wireless fob when you use it to open a door. Or clone your SIM card, RFID payment card, and others. Seeing as these boxes would probably be highly illegal to begin with, the users of such will have no problems with the morality of cloning an innocent bystander's vehicle VIN signature.
Same here, I've been wanting to for years and it looks like might be my year to do it....
I want to get a '75-'76 Trans Am, 455 4-speed, last year of the big block, and of the round headlights.
You can get almost frame off restore for the low to mid $20's.
They were getting horribly air restricted at the end of the muscle car era, but with a few bucks, can do a resto-mod on it, slightly more aggressive cam, and turn the shaker hood functional again and your already close to 500+ HP.
A little work on the suspension, and you've got modern handling.
Between that and my current car, I could last without a super "modern" car with all this crap on it easily.
And I make enough money to support a habit like I describe above that gets 10 gallons to the mile on a good day.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I thought we already had too many lives, and need to give people basic income instead of jobs. I bet there's some other reason behind the push for dirverless cars. I reckon inorganic slaves will be much easier to manage than the meat versions - initially, at least.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
Let's attach a unique ID transmitter to every car in America!
Does it matter? Most people have cell phones on them, so are tracked anyway. When was the last time your phone was more than a metre from you?
Besides, if your car has tire pressure monitors then they emit a radio signal with a unique ID already:
* https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/tracking_vehicl.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire-pressure_monitoring_system#Privacy_concerns_with_direct_TPMS
* http://www.rtl-sdr.com/receiving-decoding-tire-pressure-monitor-systems-using-rtl-sdr/
Man, lately I've been having a hard time imagining the thought process of feds, government administrators, and people in charge of proposing policies like that.
How can they extol the supposed advantages of a system like that so much without giving a single thought - or thinking that people won't - of all the horrible potential dangers of it?
Like, dang dude, I could have a very nice adrenaline surge in my system which would feel nice and be potentially benefitial to my health if I jumped out of my balcony right now from the 20th floor or something... *silence*
I mean, let's all ignore how regular non connected car systems were already hacked, how dangerous it'd be to make it obligatory for car companies to have a system in place, the track record of car systems' security and then overall IoT, the history of unwarranted fed tracking and spying... let's save lives by forcing everyone to wear short choke chains to be controled remotely by proprietary closed software no one has access to and hackers would eventually find a way of taking control. It's not like we have weekly reminders on how badly companies handle security.
The LS1 swap won't make it more reliable than an engine rebuild, but it will be a hell of a lot cheaper.
If all goes well I am about to have a spare Audi ABZ 4.2 V8 motor. Look that one up on motorgeek and prepare to shit yourself. They've got a fully forged bottom end, where the later motors have powder rods. (I think they stick with the forged/twisted crank for all Audi V8s though.) And you can get a complete one for five hundred bucks right now, although it might be wiser to spend more. Proven with VEMS. It's coming out of a running A8... with a quarter million miles on it. But I just did both head gaskets and the timing belt and the cylinders are purty and it has good compression on all cylinders, and no leaks. I only need the transmission out of the car, and I'm going to either swap the seats into my 300SD or make them into living room chairs, not sure which. Apparently the Volvo 740TD/750TD bell housing matches the motor for non-Audi swaps. (For Audi swaps, it mates to the 01E six-speed manual. In my car, it is mounted to the 01L five-speed tiptronic slush box.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So kind of like the Internet. Full of easily exploitable security holes. So obviously like the Internet we simply shouldn't do it right?
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
This argument is non-falsifiable.
Parent provided a specific scenario about spoofing signals that can be falsified and the merits of his specific argument weighed.
What you have done is discounted his specific scenario by saying "you can already abuse a ton of things" This concept cannot be falsified. The same argument can just as easily be used to justify giving a Windows XP computer with no services packs a public IP address.
It's adding more and more crap like this to new cars that keeps them from getting cheaper over time. The average new car (in constant dollars) has actually gotten about 30% more expensive since 1980, while the price of a new PC has plummeted.
How about instead they unveil a rule requiring vehicle computers and wireless electronics systems be secure first?
Why are pedestrians, pets, bikes, and wildlife being left out?
This is why I keep buying older cars and refurbishing them instead of buying new. You can build a truly awesome retro (or late model) vehicle for half the price of anything new with comparable specs. There is no "new car" feature you cannot add to an older vehicle with aftermarket equipment, and as regulations like this start coming out, all the more reason to drive an older sled. No state has succeeded (and few have even tried) to legislate older cars off the road because it disenfranchises the poor, so this tactic should work right up to the point when the Feds finally mandate next-generation vehicles (which do not exist yet, frankly).
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
How dare you bring technical discussion to fearmongering.
Once someone breaks the encryption on these things, they will make clones of the devices. Get the device small enough to fit on a drone and you have a recipe for mayhem, lol. You program your drone to fly around and cause havoc til the battery dies. If someone is looking to cause problems such that people may die, they won't worry about recovering the drone, so no controller to track it back to. Just make sure no fingerprints on the parts and you're good.
Buy a new car each 2-3 years as updates will stop after 2-3 years and the car manufacturers will say want to keep legal buy a new car or an 2-3K computer upgrade each 2-3 years.
As long as there is no data roaming or overages fees.
If you treat cars like a swarm system, yes, vehicles need v2v. We do it on our drone system (p2p mesh network) since jamming and RF bandwidth limitations don't allow functional safety to work if it was centralized (which is very common on wired systems).
If device maneuver errors occur. and I do have and accident, I feel the burden of proof of innocence will be on me, Or what if the software prevents me from evasive action even though I'm right in judgement, and I crash? Also what if someone tampers with the software and causes a chain of accidents for fun??
Oh boy. I can't wait to start hacking other vehicles to order them to get out of my way. A nice side benefit to this is that eventually (and likely sooner rather than later) there will be a lot less vehicles on the roads.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If I ever purchase a car with this capabiility, I will immediately physically disable it. This whole concept is stupid. No one should rely on the other vehicles telemetry to operate. In fact, there are self-driving prototypes right now that operate without any telemetry. Another case where the government is way too late and too stupid.
GPG is pretty solid right? Why not have every vehicle sign every message it sends with its private key?
PGP doesn't really help when you're dealing with transient anonymous actors. Sure they can sign the message, but where do you get the public key to verify, and how do you know the car in front of you was the originator of the message? Short range radio could be anyone within hundreds of feet -- or farther if someone's using a directed or high power transmitter.
And if a hacker starts using multiple disposable generated signatures, the vehicles could use a web of trust to exclude signals from rogue actors, or at least take them with a progressively larger grain of salt.
How do you build a web of trust from vehicles which come and go? It's not like you can have a signing party with everyone in your major metropolitan area -- not to mention people traveling through the area. And what kind of grain of salt can you take in a binary situation like this? When an EMERGENCY_BRAKE message is received the only options are to act on it or not.
PGP just doesn't really work with nothing but a big web of anonymous actors. Even a big signed vehicle database wouldn't help because new VINs hit the road every day and cars are privately bought and sold for cash.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
it hates other cars.
Is there a standard protocol for V2V? Or is there a given protocol backed by the feds? Otherwise it seems rather useless.
requiring all new vehicles to have communication technology that allows them to "talk" to each another
To each "another"?
Here's what they might say:
Car 1: Lookout, I have an idiot controlling me.
Car 2: Yeah, steer clear of me too, the fool at the wheel is on their damned phone.
Car 3: My driver is drunk again.
Car 4: My driver is texting. I say F-it! Let's get them all together and let them all crash. Darwinism at its finest.
So if you're cruising along at 50 miles an hour, and someone goes flying by you at 120 miles an hour, cuts in front of you and slams on their brakes, the car should ignore it?
I dont see them, where is the nobody may track monitor other otherwise watch you via this. Till then it's antenna is getting clipped, hell after then it's getting clipped.
No sir I dont like it.
What useful information could this V2V actually provide that is more than provided by blinkers and brake lights?
I cannot think of anything.
Hopefully someone doesn't pass a semi on the right and then cut in front of you across four lanes because there's three car lengths between you and the car in front of you in the left lane, because that never happens.
People are stupid, just look at all the drivers that race in the lane that's closed in 1000 feet because of construction, and cut their way in front of those last few cars while narrowly avoiding the orange barrels.
> How much computing power would you need to make this all happen?
Tightly programmed by folks who know what they are about? Surprisingly little. The US Air Defense system deployed in the late 1950s had regional computers that each covered several states and processed radar data from a dozen sites each, tracked several hundred aircraft, talked to adjacent regions, controlled fighters and air defense missiles, talked to manual AA sites, etc. All on computers comparable in processing power to an IBM PC-XT.
Programmed with modern technology on an Intel CPU? A hell of a lot I should think. But probably doable if you don't mind an occasional BSOD.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
The 120 and slamming on the brakes was the hacked signal. Does the car respond or not was the question.
We're on the same page, just different verbage. Once you have varying sensors with differing capabilities, multiple fields of view, on multiple cars, with the possibility of radio blind spots, the FMEA will dictate the car stops.
By the time the computers agree. It'll be too late.
The hackers have to win.
It's been thoroughly modeled using the same type of computer modeling that proves CAGW is an imminent threat that requires immediate action that cripples Western economies through exorbitantly-high energy costs.
What, are you some sort of V2V-Denier whackjob? The Science is Settled!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"A little work on the suspension, and you've got modern handling." -- not with a '76 Trans Am. Those second gen Firebirds and Camaros had very twisty (opposite of stiff) bodies -- the front and rear suspensions were tied together through the not stiff body via rubber biscuit connectors. Especially if you get a T-Top car the body is weak. I had a hot rodder friend complain about that when he did drop a torquey big block Chevy into a t-top Trans-Am. You could do stuff like weld in subframe connectors, etc, but those rubber biscuits were put in there by the factory for a reason -- NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness). And that mid-20th century recirculating ball steering gear is not going to ever feel like a 21st century rack and pinon. There have been 40 years of very expensive engineering in automotive bodies and suspensions since 1976 -- it shows. I'm a big fan of 2nd gen Firebirds and owned three of them -- a '70 Formula 400, a '78 WS-6 T/A 400 Trans Am, and a '81 Turbo Trans-Am, but they are outclassed in every way now (except their awesome styling, but the '73 was the best for that).
And no carbureted engine will provide the throttle response and street flexibility that a 21st century fuel injected, computer engine does, but that's a different story.
I saw a story in one of the enthusiast magazines a couple of years back where they spent some real money and took a '70 Challenger T/A (the best one) and tried to get it up to the performance spec of a new Challenger R/T -- they couldn't.
Dude, do you have *any* idea how robust encryption schemes like AES, and hashes like SHA are?
Not even the NSA has the resources to bruteforce 128+ bit AES or 256+ bit SHA. If the NSA worked hand-in-hand with their Russian, Chinese, and Israeli counterparts and threw literally every computer resource at their disposal at bruteforcing AES or SHA, they MIGHT have ~50% likelihood of success after 10-25 years IF they managed to discover some as-yet undiscovered weakness. Not even organized crime, buying 100% of Amazon's on-demand computing power, could hope to bruteforce either scheme within any viable timeframe.
Modern encryption doesn't get cracked by bruteforcing keys... it gets cracked by bruteforcing people or devices with ACCESS to the keys (say, pointing a gun or court warrant at them, or obtaining physical control of a PKI hardware key's container).
This is NOT a trivial problem that script kiddies can defeat between classes and WoW tournaments. Even SHA-1 has been "compromised" only to the extent that someone with substantial resources and good luck could discover a meaningless pseudorandom chunk of data that produces the same hash as the original hashed data.
FPGAs (and GPUs) can radically compromise "Proof of Work" algorithms like Blowfish, but that's ONLY because those algorithms made assumptions about resource scarcity that Bitcoin miners have been highly-motivated to surpass. AES & SHA(-2) are entirely different beasts... THEIR hardware constraints & key length move the time scales to "longer than the Earth has existed... or with as-yet nonexistent hardware, maybe the length of recorded human civilization."
Gotcha, but that's not what I meant; I was referring to parent's "little box" and meant pulling the transponder and system out of the rolled vehicle to use nefariously. No need to build a device, when everything's already there. Just pull it apart, spoof some sensors, and it will tell vehicles whatever you want.
I can see VIN or MAC filtering, such that when a vehicle is taken out of service due to something like a rollover, its VIN/MAC is then ignored on the network...but big deal, spoof another VIN/MAC.
Yeah, but there's also the "fun" factor, I'm not thinking this thing will be up to modern performance stats.
But it WILL be different than most anything on the road, and in straight line will still be quite fun to mash the gas and go....stop light to stop light.
I'd rather have a fixed up 70's Trans Am, screaming chicken and all, at a stop light rather than a modern Camero, where you likely will have 2-3 of them that all look alike (even if they have different packages on them).
And, those old big 455's when tuned right, sound fun and cam at idle which is neat too...IMHO.
I've just wanted one since high school when my friend had one. Maybe now, I can get it and have a fun car to bounce around town in.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This is ripe for bored teenagers sitting by the highway and messing with random drivers.
My car will only say "Fuck you!" to all other cars.
After I hack my transponder to imitate an out of control 18-wheeler, that rush hour traffic will part for me like the Red Sea for Moses. Commuting will be a breeze. :)
- Necron69
I actually took a few minutes and skimmed some of the online training modules that USDOT put out for developers. There are problems, and they "sort of" admit to them. If I read this correctly, there are only ~105K possible keys, though I'd love to be wrong - otherwise this should fall to a brute-force attack in seconds. Just slam on your brakes, record the outgoing packets, and try every key until one decodes as "putting on my brakes, dude!" And now you have enough information to force any car to let you merge in, whether the driver wants to or not. Which, heck, might actually improve safety. I don't know. Could go either way.
As far as privacy, it's still pretty weak (=totally cracked). They aren't recording the MAC addresses of the cars per se, or so they say, but you could from first principles tell what factory a car came from and its approximate date of manufacture. That's useful - narrows it down to a manageable number of vehicles. Or just passively monitor an intersection with a license plate reader and record every "putting on my brakes, dude!" message. Now you have a table of license plates and MAC addresses. I can't see, frankly, that licence plate reader vendors won't sell this as an optional feature for a modest additional charge.
A big problem, and one discussed elsewhere, is that re-keying this thing is going to be a pain. It doesn't support over-the-air keying, and the intent is that a dealer will periodically re-flash new certificates/keys. That's a tall order. For this to work, cars will have to accept some pretty old keys (insert stars wars joke about older codes but they check out, above), increasing the odds they'll have to accept previously compromised keys. Which will probably be had by dumping the flash.
Anyway, the layer 1 and 2 protocols over the air are 802.11p, and what looks like a quasi-layer-3 is IEEE 1609. So get started.
Another commenter has asked about GPS errors. Looks like the standards explicitly support a very-short-range form of differential GPS and I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of localizer used to reinitialize a Kalmann filter at some point. Pretty easy these days.
GPS fails or is not accurate enough for airplanes to rely on 100% of the time. The local Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) like the FAA have space based augmentation like WAAS in the US to make things better, but still not 100%. I could see cars going out of control when the GPS signals are no good. 5 cars are occupying 00'00.000" on this place in the freeway, they all jam on the brakes.
Who gets to program the kalman filters that predict the closing rates and such, they never fail. GPS only can tell you where you were when the signal came down, not where you are when it is done calculating. The Kalman filter tried to adjust to where you are when the calculations are done.
Too much Theory, and not enough Practical.
How about they just invest more money in better driver education and testing?
"Go just outside the door, signals totally fine."
That tells me your signal was being blocked, not jammed. Lots of old buildings will block signals - good solid walls, expanded metal lathe, metal-rich plaster, etc. And lots of things you can do to block a signal intentionally, mostly all completely legal. Lots of things are reasonably opaque to microwaves, not just Faraday cages.
Jamming is a completely different issue, precisely because it doesn't respect property boundaries. Turn on a jammer in your house, and it's going to interfere with phones in all the surrounding houses as well.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
http://this.deakin.edu.au/cult...
"I've just wanted one since high school when my friend had one. Maybe now, I can get it and have a fun car to bounce around town in." -- well, in that case go for it. I go to Ebay Motors from time to time and check out the 2nd gen Trans-Ams. The '73 (the first year of the screaming chicken) would be my personal favorite. On thing to consider, and it violates your wanting the round headlights, is that on the stock suspension, Pontiac really improved them with the WS6 package and 8 inch wheels starting in '78, then the four wheel disks came around in '79. You could drive one of those stock and it would feel fine, and with the T/A 400 engine wouldn't feel that down on power, but they are rare now. The last one I had was the '81 Turbo (in the mid-90s), which had no power but was a fun car with T-Tops. If it were me I'd get an '81 and put an LS-1 in it. But that is all a matter of taste. Good luck in your project and hurry up because I've noticed the number of nice ones on Ebay is noticeably less now than a few years ago.
Yeah, that won't last long. Setting a fake VIN will probably be easy.
If they're not, expect people to use junkyard parts. Who are you gonna cry to when the VIN is from a totaled car sitting in the east bumf*ck scrap yard and that part was never sold to anyone.
Expect criminals and terrorists to make full use of these capabilities.
And how fast does anyone think the hackers will usurp the technology to FORCE the cars to crash?
Maybe so, but is it worth the risk of being massively fined or possibly earn an extended vacation at Club Fed? Between signal triangulation and highway video surveillance, it would probably be trivial for law enforcement to catch someone doing this.
No, it'll be used to tax you first, then the cops will get their remote shut off.
Signal triangulation? That would require constant surveillance by multiple dozens of antennas per mile of road as the signal would only be on for a fraction of a second.
As for "is it worth the risk", bear in mind we live in a world where dumbasses shoot at cars from the ditch and throw cinder blocks off overpasses at cars for shits and grins. Those people aren't thinking about risk, just mischief or worse.