Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Proposes Car-To-Car Data Sharing Standards (networkworld.com)
Calling it "the next revolution in roadway safety," the U.S. Department of Transportation hopes to standardize "vehicle communications" technology. Slashdot reader coondoggie writes:
The idea is to enable a multitude of new crash-avoidance applications that could save lives by preventing "hundreds of thousands of crashes every year by helping vehicles 'talk' to each other," the DOT stated... [D]evices would use the dedicated short range communications to transmit data, such as location, direction and speed, to nearby vehicles. That data would be updated and broadcast up to 10 times per second to nearby vehicles, and using that information, V2V-equipped vehicles can identify risks and provide warnings to drivers to avoid imminent crashes.
Self-driving cars (and human drivers) could be informed when it's safe to enter the passing lane (or when cars move into a vehicle's blind spot), for example, and "often in situations in which the driver and on-board sensors alone cannot detect the threat." Federal agencies estimate it will cost just $350 per vehicle by 2020 (and dropping over the decades to come), and they've also already issued guidelines about securing these systems from unauthorized access.
Self-driving cars (and human drivers) could be informed when it's safe to enter the passing lane (or when cars move into a vehicle's blind spot), for example, and "often in situations in which the driver and on-board sensors alone cannot detect the threat." Federal agencies estimate it will cost just $350 per vehicle by 2020 (and dropping over the decades to come), and they've also already issued guidelines about securing these systems from unauthorized access.
"I am 6 inches away from you! Swerve hard!"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
All good intentions get corrupted. As well as the data could be used, it should not be available to companies or the government. The consequences are too high.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Since this is car to car instead of a centralized system, I find it less worrying in these respects than the efforts to shift from taxing gasoline to taxing road usage.
Is this the same story as Feds Unveil Rule Requiring Cars To 'Talk' To Each Other, or am I missing something?
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Let me give you a hint; this will be a proprietary standard that will make the politically appointed rich, absolutely destroy any anonyminity of movement you might have had, and give probably cause to arrest anyone, anytime.
This is why having the DOT, or any other government agency, create the standard is a terrible idea. The standard should be created by ISO, ANSI, IEEE or SAE. The result will still be politicized of course, but less so, and it will be more flexible, and extensible. The DOT should be setting broad regulatory guidelines, not micromanaging the details.
A) What kind of measures does this system take to mitigate the propagation of false information?
B) What would prevent data collection by third parties?
From everything I've read, there are no intrinsic defenses that ensure accuracy or privacy.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Just let Microsoft do it. What could possibly go wrong?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"Only $350 per vehicle"
So, at least $1000 per vehicle, and probably a lot more?
And then they'll be able to put up a bunch of sensors along the streets to keep track of where anyone goes at any particular time, and do things like monitor adherence to traffic laws.
Of course, they'll say "we would never do that," but we all know how that sort of thing works out in the long run.
Its truly astounding but on this one they actually worked closely with security researchers to make the technology not useful for tracking. The identification number is randomized every 5 minutes and it contains no information that can tie it to the vehicle's VIN. Hopefully the standard will also specify the minimum uncertainty for the randomize routine so we don't end up in the unfortunate situation we have today with many devices that use very predictable randomize functions to generate insecure keys.
also already issued guidelines about securing these systems from unauthorized access.
Have we learned nothing from the internet and its IoT problem?
At a fundamental level, it's incredibly difficult to prevent unauthorized access to a physical device someone owns, and I deeply dislike relying on a signals from other cars that can be jammed, interfered with, or abused. If the internet has taught us anything, it's that people will figure out how to crack damn near everything, and good things will be abused just because. Someone may try to get cars to react to a phantom obstacle just for the lulz, to be recorded and uploaded to YouTube.
Finally... are we even certain such a system would be of any benefit? Before we start legislating or regulating these sorts of systems into existence, let's allow self-driving technology to mature on its own a bit first, and see if this would even be useful. Otherwise we'll pay an extra $350 (or more likely $1000, as someone else rightly observed) tax for hardware that has no practical purpose.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
We see things like this already in aircraft. They are very expensive, quite delicate, and not something I expect to see in the common passenger vehicle any time soon. Expense is one reason why people might not like it, the potential for government abuse is another.
It seem that whenever I turn on local talk radio there is almost always a mention of red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, and other ways the government wants to turn traffic enforcement into a revenue system. The government wants people to put electronics into their cars that transmits location, speed, brake light status, and perhaps other information so that government owned and controlled traffic signals can pick them up. I expect a lot of resistance to this.
The article claims the information would not be personally identifiable. My immediate response was, "bullshit!" Even if the V2V communication did not identify the vehicle over the air we still have license plates on cars and license plate reader technology, this will be abused.
What if a person that disables the transmitter? Is this in itself going to be considered "suspicious" behavior? You have nothing to hide, citizen, therefore you have nothing to fear, right?
I am fully expecting at some point a widespread level of civil disobedience on this, and soon. If taken too far people will rip the license plates off their cars and keep driving. What are the police going to do, arrest us all? The government governs with the permission of the people. People have license plates on their cars only because they permit it. This permission can be revoked.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
V2V-equipped vehicles can identify risks and provide warnings to drivers to avoid imminent crashes. Self-driving cars (and human drivers) could be informed when it's safe to enter the passing lane (or when cars move into a vehicle's blind spot), ...
Then we can be fined if we ignore the safety advise/warnings from our cars.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No, because then everyone would stop speeding and the revenue source would dry up. The system depends on the chance of being caught so low that most people are willing to risk it.
? It can say "Hey, I'm three inches behind you and ten to the right" without saying who you are.
I don't see how it can be hack-proof and anonymous at the same time.
To reject bogus messages, you need to know:
* That the person sending the message is "vouched for" somehow
* That the "vouching" hasn't been revoked
The most obvious way is for each car to "sign" its message, and have each car's "signing key" be counter-signed by the manufacturer or other trusted entity. Copies and counterfiets can be "revoked" as needed.
While such a system isn't foolproof, it's less game-able than an anonymous system that says "hi, I'm a car, and I'm 3 inches behind you to the right" without any way to verify that data.
About the only way "anonymous" communication would work would be if each car took incoming messages as "advisory/double-check it or ask the driver to check it" and not "as fact."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
Unless you own a time machine, when would you suggest starting? And what is the down side of covering people gradually instead of all at once?
And I'm most curious about how this kills you.
You thought you could find the answers by Googling for them?
No, I thought he would fail to back his claims with a source.
Then why not do it in the first place?
Because I want to know what exact story he is referring to, instead of wasting time searching for a needle in a haystack.
Hint: the needle is a remote hack that doesn't require prior physical access/an already-compromised vehicle/cooperation by the driver, etc.
That, and part of my asking was rhetorical, because at least "turning off the brakes" is impossible, for cars permitted on EU roads at least.
So, I'm still waiting.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!