Slashdot Mirror
Government Won't Pursue Talking Car Mandate (apnews.com)
An anonymous reader shares an AP report: The Trump administration has quietly set aside plans to require new cars to be able to wirelessly talk to each other, auto industry officials said, jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths. The Obama administration proposed last December that all new cars and light trucks come equipped with technology known as vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or V2V. It would enable vehicles to transmit their location, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second. That lets cars detect, for example, when another vehicle is about to run a red light or coming around a blind turn in time to prevent a crash. The administration has decided not to pursue a final V2V mandate, said two auto industry officials who have spoken with White House and Transportation Department officials and two others whose organizations have spoken to the administration.
Yes, let's just have cars broadcasting their speed. If you thought red light cameras were bad, this would have been worse.
is now ...my Car, the Spy
May as well just put cameras in the cars too. If your going to fuck over privacy, might as well go all the way.
And don't talk about Safety because when this was proposed...and even now, there is no system that would mitigate impending wrecks.
Nope, I think they had something completely different in mind than Safety.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Right, because no one ever died in car accidents before the invention of the cell phone.
Now mind you, I don't know that I liked the idea of V2V communication anyway. It sounds cool in theory, but the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm. If self-driving cars depend on such technology, then messing with it could cause as many problems as it solves. I'd prefer that each self-driving car be able to do its job without inter-car communication, which seems doable given the way that tech is evolving today.
William George
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...
Here I was hoping for my own talking K.A.R.R. Oh well, there's always privacy breaching telemetry.
They'd never hire anyone capable of actually securing it anyway. They'd just hire Microsoft, who would backdoor it then outsource it to someplace in India, who would take money on the side to put backdoors in for China and Russia too, in the mean time accidentally leaking all 3 backdoors to the world, enraging NZ and the UK, who'd both paid for what they thought were exclusive backdoors, and while they're all fighting about it, someone will find a REAL vulnerability and exploit it unnoticed for decades.
People who live in rural areas would have little or no need for this. Think of driving ten or fifty miles on a two lane road to go to the store or visit a friend. I have stood in the middle of a road for twenty minutes eating a sandwich and didn't see a car or truck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Several billion 2 input OR gates refute your statement.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
What I think we really need is better driver education/driver training, and reforms on driver testing -- more rigorous, and more often, to keep people on their toes and weed out the really bad ones, or at least force them to become competent. Just because you can pass a basic knowledge and skills test doesn't mean you're truly competent, all it means is you can pass a test. I actually fear for a future world where there's more technology, making people dumber and lazier and less competent when they really need to be, and I don't think so-called 'self driving cars' are the answer either.
For preventing traffic accidents, the technology to let cars talk to each other is far behind self-driving car tech. Self driving cars will have a lot better sensors and reaction times than humans would, so they are already ahead... having cars talk each other only helps if EVERY car around is talking to each other, which may not happen for 20+ years even if it was mandated. In-between what happens to the poor cars around when the linked cars blindly decide to take some action?
Nothing beats proper spacing between cars to prevent accidents.
Cars can still talk to each other, just the thought it should be a mandate is absurd and is yet another cost that every car must include...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You'll note this decision doesn't prevent car manufacturers from implementing this or a similar system, it just doesn't throw people who build cars in jail if they decide their customers will want something different, like lower costs, or a different style of safety feature, or even a similar system which is more advanced later on.
When the government mandates something like this, it creates legal lock-in of that specific solution, preventing better things for customers from occurring. Imagine if every car built was required to implement the 802.11a standard at the time it became a standard, for example. Sure, it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to explain what a disaster that would've been, but at the time people would've been claiming the government needed to ensure every car used the same protocol. All a similar regulation really does is prevent alternate solutions, lower costs options and future different forms of innovation.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Several billion 2 input NOR gates refute your statement.
FTFY. As any computer scientist should know, although it is possible to construct arbitrary logic out of NOR gates, it's really hard to construct most logic simply out of OR gates (even if you have several billion of them).
The idea behind V2V was, and always been convivence. Safety was a perk that statistically would improve with additional data, even if a low double digit percentage of modules were abused. It would take a significant # of people abusing the modules for the data not to be an improvement.
Any sensor your network is not totally authoritative for is assumed to be untrusted and its weight in safety sensitive calculation is almost insignificantly low.
V2V lets you plan routes around traffic congestion (accident ahead, alternate route provides data indicating it's faster), gives data to city planners to help improve road capacity calculations (vehicles per hour is great for simple use, but planning additional lanes or alternate access to areas needs more data!), provide location specific information more efficiently (construction ahead, reduce speed) , and happens to help in terms of autonomous vehicles (as long as the actual data is untrusted)
I've seen a few proposals including TPM's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module which I'm not a huge fan of, but if done correctly provides significant value to the actual data on the wire. (There was a prototype drawn up that included a PGP like implementation where vehicles that saw each other often could build trust through signed handshakes and non-shared but burned RSA keys.)
I think he meant C# scum and their CIL assemblies.
Ezekiel 23:20
TCAS technology is different, radar based. Larger planes have radar and look for other objects. Planes do not broadcast their position.
Most planes (even gliders these days) have transponders that respond with a ping to being hit with radar. But they do not broadcast a position.
Many pilots consider TCAS to be a nuisance because they are obliged to follow its instructions even though they can see the other plane and know that it is safe. This can actually lead to more dangerous behaviour. For example when taking off a pilot may avoid a steep (safer) climb if he sees another aircraft above because the TCAS will extrapolate his position and issue a directive, so they make a shallower climb that keeps them nearer to the ground.
But because he proposed it, the left will scream that he is wrong.
I looked into some of the leading designs, and there is zero protection against surveillance or even consideration for privacy. You could literally set up passive beacon, collect IDs and speed readings, and connect it to a mailer to issue speeding tickets.
No, but it does prevent it from being very useful. For that technology to be useful in preventing accidents probably well over half the cars on the road would need to use it. Possibly over 3/4. So even if it were enforced it would take several years before it would do much good. And it mainly helps the vehicles avoiding someone else behaving illegally...and possibly mainly helps vehicles under automatic control. That would depend on implementation details.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I 100% agree about the fact that while in theory, V2V could be great, but in reality, we all know it would be buggy/security hole ridden/hackable as hell. You would absolutely see people spoofing other vehicles and sending bad information which will lead to accidents and fatalities.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
Well, baby, black and white come and touched my groove again!
Gonna write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55! Oh No!
Uh!
So I signed my name on number 24, hey!
Yeah the judge said, "Boy, just one more...
We're gonna throw your ass in the city joint"
Looked me in the eye, said, "You get my point?"
I said Yea!, Oh yea!
Write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55!
Oh, yea!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
Uh!
When I drive that slow, you know it's hard to steer.
And I can't get get my care out of second gear.
What used to take two hours now takes all day. Huh!
It took me 16 hours to get to L.A.
Gonna write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55!
No, no no,
I can't drive...
(I can't drive 55!)
I can't drive...
(I can't drive 55!)
I can't drive 55!
OR It isn't a binary statement.
Several billion 2 input NOR gates refute your statement.
FTFY. As any computer scientist should know, although it is possible to construct arbitrary logic out of NOR gates, it's really hard to construct most logic simply out of OR gates (even if you have several billion of them).
Be careful. You might get mugged by a roving band of NAND gates.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
>> jeopardizing one of the most promising technologies for preventing traffic deaths.
Using technology to get around the fact that Americans can and do get a driving licence despite being an awful, clueless driver is a shit idea that can't and doesn't address the core problem at all.
The government needs to address the problem directly by mandating much stricter driving tests that include demonstrating an ability to actually be able to drive, such as controlling and handling a car well in all conditions, especially at the edge of performance. Just memorizing all the traffic signs/laws which is what they currently test for, in no way automatically makes anyone a good driver.
At least here in AZ, the amount of distracted drivers texting while driving, and people that think its ok to never indicate even when very much cutting you off is a serious problem,
The cops never seem to focus on stopping those people though, they only seem to penalize people that are actually driving safely other than exceeding the speed limit by a few mph.
We've had it available to us. We haven't put it into effect - if anything we've lowered the bar over time. It costs money to implement things - and it takes more money to implement things well - so we don't.
I don't know that I liked the idea of V2V communication anyway. It sounds cool in theory, but the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm. If self-driving cars depend on such technology, then messing with it could cause as many problems as it solves. I'd prefer that each self-driving car be able to do its job without inter-car communication, which seems doable given the way that tech is evolving today.
In the scenario where all cars are autonomous, they will have to talk to each other, otherwise gridlock will result. Its not much of an issue when there is one car among non AVs, but the constant communication has to be there when all or most of them drive themselves.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.
I 100% agree about the fact that while in theory, V2V could be great, but in reality, we all know it would be buggy/security hole ridden/hackable as hell. You would absolutely see people spoofing other vehicles and sending bad information which will lead to accidents and fatalities.
If they are all AVs, there will have to be a lot of communication. I think that the future of AVs is going to be a niche, where small numbers co-exist among a vast majority of assisted vehicles. Think buses and taxis. Maybe limos.
With lane assist, augmented braking, and anti-tailgating radar, you can achieve probably 99 percent of the safety promised by fully Autonomous Vehicles. It would also eliminate some of the impossible to avoid problems of having to program the routes, and what happens if you decide to stop off somewhere or just decide partway through the drive to take a different route. I don't know how many people drive the exact same route home and back every day. It's like having the good parts of the technologies without the pain in the ass parts. And if I decide to have a nice ride in the country to relax, I don't have tp program the route. Because I don't know the route, and I don't feel like spending my time giving voice commands.
With assisted technology, I can have the very best of both worlds.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
so ur god is mammon?
skimming comments i havent noticed any mention of the fact that telecons covet the transport-dedicated 5.9ghz band
obviously trump values cash over human life
see my comment re: telecons
follow the money
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
>It would enable vehicles to transmit their location, speed, direction and other information 10 times per second.
So my car is supposed to take another car's word about what it is doing? How long until someone else figures out how to make their car "lie" to watch the fun? It's guaranteed to happen. And will companies be continually updating these things, or are you just up a creek once your car is "obsolete" (aka when the warranty has expired and they want you to buy a new one).
There are already unauthorized traffic signal pre-emption systems that change red lights to green https://www.wired.com/2005/08/... The authorized versions are intended for fire/police/ambulance use. I could easily see somebody compromising the V2V system to broadcast a "get out of my way" message, to make their own commute faster. Even worse, overpower other cars' signals and cause accidents. Dumb computers, just following orders, could cause lots of deaths. Can I slip in a Godwin here?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
The average age of cars on the road is about 12 years. So a dozen years is probably a good approximation for your usefulness measure of adoption, reaching about 50% penetration.
How much technological advancement has there been in related car autonomous technology since 2005? Yeah, a lot.
Again, this decision doesn't stop anyone, just doesn't throw them in prison or fine them if they don't do it the government prescribed way. Now, if the major car companies got together and decided to adopt an open standard for intercar communication and began outfitting cars with transmitter/sensors and software modifiable systems for controlling them, maybe in a dozen years we'd have something useful which could be updated retrospectively to be of some use with the latest technology. That's still iffy, but it has a much better chance of long term success. In the meantime, hey, you could presumably use the built in sensors to double as a police radar/laser speed detection tool so that people would willingly spend the extra few hundred dollars on it. :)
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Then the idea is doomed from the start.
An AV has to be able to get around with a GPS, a map (about as detailed as you get with the nav system in your current car) and what the sensors tell it. If you can't make that work, the AVs will be limited to a rather small subset of roads and be easy to sabotage.
The present vision of millions of people travelling in unheard of safety in their AVs is surely doomed. The vehicles are too vulnerable. As much as we focus on the roadrage type activies that occasionally happen, driving on highways takes a lot of cooperation between people. Root level cooperation as it were.
So the cooperation has to extend to the autonomous vehicles as well. So we're going to turn over control of our vehicles to a system with the track record that exists now? Even if the in-car control system were somehow completely immune, you know that they will have internet access. I can see the headlines and stories:
50 thousand people were killed today when the Chevy Patriotism line of cars were hacked and their fully autonomous vehicles drove off the nearest cliff. General Motors and congress send thoughts and prayers.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
the more complex we make all these systems the more chances there are for people to manipulate things to cause harm
Given the amount of traffic deaths we currently have at all times, I doubt that would be much of a concern. Kind of like winning the lottery and saying "Oh, but I'll have to pay a bunch more in TAXES." Sure, if you don't take reasonable steps to prevent them, they could turn into huge problems.
I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.
That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.
Example: Car A is being followed by Car B.
Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.
Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
..I figured out why he wasn't able to get his vehicle up to 55 MPH. Get your fucking left foot off the brake pedal.
In other news, there are many ways rock.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The thing is, we already have most of the information that this gathers, and cars can't realistically sort through the volume of data required to make things like traffic data via V2V even slightly useful. That works much better when cars report their speed periodically to a centralized system that can filter signal from noise and determine whether it is just one car slowing down or an actual problem. When you're talking about data from potentially millions of cars on the roads at any given moment, there isn't any prayer of even being able to get that much data propagated to all the cars, much less for them to process it.
The only thing it could possibly do better than other solutions is reporting of unexpected hazards, such as road ice, water flows, etc., and even then, only if there are enough cars close enough together for the signals to actually reach you AND there isn't enough time for it to go to a central server and back before you reach the unexpected hazard. In other words, it has very, very, very limited utility compared with cellular-based or radio-based mechanisms. It really seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What evidence can you supply that these mandates are uniformly positive? Have you compared a no-mandate condition to the mandated condition?
You might be surprised to learn how many of the mandates you've mentioned have actually made things worse for most people over time.
Standards are important, but mandating them isn't the way to go. How about a mandate that all web browsers must support flash, back when that was the primary mechanism, ie. de facto standard, to ensure we have a shared standard? What could possibly go wrong? Who wouldn't want a browser with flash support? I mean, it'd be practically criminal if a browser developer didn't include flash as part of their standard offering, right? Besides, no one wants to use lync or fetch or wget, anyway.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.
I've heard this argument before...many times.
Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.
Worsening traffic congestion, which could potentially be very useful in a cyber-attack intended to disrupt the economy.
Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.
What if car B was traveling at a lower rate of speed than car A, and only changed to a higher speed because somebody spoofed a signal saying that car A is going faster? And what if they're moving around a blind curve or hill, meaning visual or radar sensors won't help?
What if car A was traveling at high speed in an intersection, and somebody spoofs a message telling car B that car A was breaking while car B is intending to take a right turn?
As you can see, there are many ways that this can be broken.