Car Manufacturers Want To Monitor Drivers Inside Their Cars (reuters.com)

Startups are demonstrating "sensor technology that watches and analyzes drivers, passengers and objects in cars" reports Reuters -- a technology that "will mean enhanced safety in the short-term, and revenue opportunities in the future."

SonicSpike shares their report: Whether by generating alerts about drowsiness, unfastened seat belts or wallets left in the backseat, the emerging technology aims not only to cut back on distracted driving and other undesirable behavior, but eventually help automakers and ride-hailing companies make money from data generated inside the vehicle... Data from the cameras is analyzed with image recognition software to determine whether a driver is looking at his cellphone or the dashboard, turned away, or getting sleepy, to cite a few examples... European car safety rating program Euro NCAP has proposed that cars with driver monitoring for 2020 should earn higher ratings...

But automakers are more excited by the revenue possibilities when vehicle-generated data creates a more customized experience for riders, generating higher premiums, and lucrative tie-ins with third parties, such as retailers. "The reason (the camera) is going to sweep across the cabin is not because of distraction ... but because of all the side benefits," said Mike Ramsey, Gartner's automotive research director. "I promise you that companies that are trying to monetize data from the connected car are investigating ways to use eye-tracking technology...." Carmakers could gather anonymized data and sell it. A billboard advertiser might be eager to know how many commuters look at his sign, Ramsey said. Tracking the gaze of a passenger toward a store or restaurant could, fused with mapping and other software, result in a discount offered to that person.
The Cadillac CT6 already has interior-facing cameras, Reuters reports, while Audi and Tesla "have developed systems but they are not currently activated." And this year Mazda, Subaru and Byton plan to introduce cameras that watch for inattentive drivers.

But where will it end? One company's product combines five 2D cameras with AI technology to provide "in-vehicle scene understanding" which includes each passenger's height, weight, gender and posture. And while low on specifics, Reuters reports that several companies that sell driver-watching technologies "have already signed undisclosed deals for production year 2020 and beyond."

Comments

No One Has Respect For Consumers

[DewDude]

You sell us a car and spy on us to make money?

Fuck you. I can't wait to see the industry that pops up having to protect us from THE SHIT WE OWN!

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[sinij]

Exactly. Now someone explain to me how ignoring consumer needs and wants is market forces at work. Such top down diktat is something one would expect from a communist central planners.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Fly Swatter]

Counterpoint: Consumers have no respect for themselves. Just because they make it doesn't mean you have to buy it. We brought this on ourselves because not enough of us say no as each new product takes more personal freedom and privacy away.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[DewDude]

I mean..I'd go along with this if they weren't charging insane amounts for a car. Sure..I'll buy the car with the spy-on-me-technology; but I'm not going to pay more than $100 for it. The rest you'll make selling my personal information.

They just want their cake and to steal our ice cream.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[fluffernutter]

It's simple, all manufacturers will do this, and the customer can walk or ride a bicycle if they don't like it. Isn't that how all "progressive" technology works?

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryriver]

What makes you think that you'll even be able to OWN a car made by these motherfuckers in the future? How long before these douchebags go Adobe/Autodesk on us, and cars become FORCED RENTALS that you can RENT and not BUY, just like some software today? Because THAT is how they can actually force 24/7 in-car-surveillance on people. Its a RENTAL, so you can't take any of their electronics out of the car you drive. And yes I agree, these are COMMUNIST MOTHERFUCKERS at heart. No self-respecting capitalist or industrialist would have dared put REMOTE SURVEILLANCE inside a production car.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

Consumers have no understanding of technology. Most of them won't realize how much data the automakers offload. They'll only think: "It will keep my cheeeeeeellllldddreeeen saaaaaafe." Cowardice 101.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

No. They're corporatist filth -- corporate paternalism dates back to Henry Ford (rot in hell), who used private investigators to catch his employees drinking off the job and fire them. Unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[alvinrod]

Market forces aren’t some conscious entity that makes decisions any more than the tide. It’s metely an observation of how economies tend to function. The unfortunate and ugly truth is that most consumers place a very low monetary value on their privacy and as a result we see them willingly trade privacy for lower prices.

The market is merely delivering what consumers want. You and I may not like that, but that doesn’t mean that market forces aren’t working. I just hope there are enough of us privacy minded consumers that there’s room for some companies to carve out a part of the market to cater to our wants and desires.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

One of many reasons why I hope for economic and social collapse in the very near future -- if it sets tech back a few decades and puts us in a new dark age, this might actually be a good thing for humanity.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[DewDude]

I have said that...for the most part, the average consumer is too stupid to know what they're buying most of the time.

I've had people ask me why their Spotify or some online thing doesn't work "when the internet is down".

The collective dumbing-down of consumers has been a boon for business though. People who actually think are the ones who are getting ignored and insulted by everyone else.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[DewDude]

Know a guy who does CANBUS hacking. He showed me a log from a rental car. It kept track of every time the car was started, how many miles, how hard the acceleration, how many times the doors were open, sometimes it had GPS stamps, how hard you stopped. It basically knew everything except your name, age, sex, email, and phone number....which it usually extracted when you connected your phone via bluetooth. So then it knows your name, your friends' names, their phone numbers, who you've called, who has called you, every text message. The amount of data it was storing was STAGGERING and scary.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryriver]

You do realize you can sue a company for Deliberate Violations Of Your Human Rights, don't you? A scanning 3D camera staring at you, your wife, your kids, and personal belongings in the car with a realtime data-uplink to a remote datacenter is a SEVERE violation of your basic right to privacy. There is NO WAY car manufacturers can get away with this one without either a) 77% of consumers not wanting a new car anymore or b) getting sued to hell in 10 digit class-action lawsuits.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[JaredOfEuropa]

It will probably be like this:
Today - Normal car €25,000
Tomorrow - Car with Spyware €24,000, Car without Spyware €30,000 and a double insurance premium.

I'm not against this sort of technology on principal grounds, but what scares me is that we'll end up in a situation where we will have no choice but to have them invade our privacy, either because all products do it or they make the non spying ones prohibitively expensive. I'd be in favour of beefing up the GDPR a little, so that any data collection and transmission of data to the mothership is strictly opt-in after purchase, with the companies being allowed to offer a monetary reward for opting in but not exceeding a certain (smallish) % of the purchase price. And with a strict separation of features, so you can't bundle them in order to force them to buy them ("Sorry, you cannot get the autopilot feature without the in-cab cameras and rectal thermometers")

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[geekmux]

You sell us a car and spy on us to make money? Fuck you. I can't wait to see the industry that pops up having to protect us from THE SHIT WE OWN!

(Circa today) There will still be no such industry. You have to have demand for privacy, and that is obviously evaporating quickly from society based on the products being shoved down our throats. The 0.01% of us who still give a shit about privacy don't stand a chance. Ownership is dying.

(Circa 2035) Automated cars are now everywhere. Human-powered cars have been regulated off the roads due to safety concerns and liability of a human behind the wheel. All car maintenance is now strictly regulated and controlled by the government for the same reason. Only the mega-rich will be able to afford the liability insurance to own or drive a car on private roads. Car ownership is dead. Everything is subscription-based. You WON'T OWN SHIT.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[GrumpySteen]

Your personal info is probably only worth about $250, unless you're wealthy, so the only $100 car you're getting is a Power Wheels model.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

Anyone who connects their cell phone to a rental car and allows it to access contacts is pretty dumb. Bonus points for the people who don't even erase Bluetooth settings and logs before returning the car.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryriver]

The solution is simple - create 3D printers large, fast & sophisticated enough to let a few hundred consumers band together and create their own mini-car-manufacturing plant. I mean, what is sooo special about a car's chassis, engine, drivetrain or other components that a truly advanced 3D printer couldn't metal-print these components on-demand and in a highly customized way? It may be as simple as going on a website, answering two dozen questions about how you want your car to look and handle, and presto - a 3D printer equipped mini-factory 50 miles away 3D prints and assembles your fully customized dream-car. If you don't want surveillance gear in your car, then the mini-factory won't put it IN your car. =)

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

Maybe in Europe, where privacy is considered by the EU to be a civil right. Not in the US, where a lot of judges read the Constitution literally and would laugh at UN authority over anything.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

(Circa 2035) -- Developing countries with less money for stupid tech, a generally lower respect for rule of law, and a lower value on human life still exist. I'd say that the idea of moving to parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America would be awfully appealing for me right about then...

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Alypius]

The maxim "even it saves only one life" is being (ab)used to justify every kind of evil behavior.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryriver]

The trouble is that 80% of smartphone users are not tech-savvy enough to even REALIZE what sort of data can be scraped from their phone, or through what mechanisms. Apple fanboys and girls, I'm looking at you...

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Rick Schumann]

You're not wrong. There has been for quite some time now a quiet movement by The Rich to put barriers in the way of everyone who is not The Rich from owning anything of significant value, like homes and cars, and force rental/leasing instead, so you PAY PAY PAY continually. Streaming video/music, Microsoft and their 'X as a service' bullshit (want you to rent your gods-be-damned OS, FFS). Everyone must fight all this as hard as they can or be trapped.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[fahrbot-bot]

Okay. No more coffee for you this weekend.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[twdorris]

I can't wait to see the industry that pops up having to protect us from THE SHIT WE OWN!

Electrical tape already exists.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

That's one possible outcome -- the other is a French Revolutionary style leveling.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryriver]

So you think a large 3D printer capable of printing a fully functioning state-of-the-art production car in 20 minutes is completely out of reach? Not technically possible? Even 10 years from now in 2029? LMAO! It will be TODAY'S dumb mass-manufacturing methods that will be laughed at as "archaic" 10 years from now, not superfast, supercheap 3D printers capable of printing everything from cars to airliners to cruiseliners zip zip zip. =)

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryriver]

Until the snake finally bites its tail and goes "OUCH!"? =)

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[fluffernutter]

Yellow vests are the new French Revolution, maybe we need more over here. Heck I bet if they tried hard enough they could even shut the government down.... oh wait.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[dryeo]

You're confusing the free market with capitalism. The free market is about competition whereas capitalism is about getting rid of competition. The goal of the capitalist is to use his capital to have a monopoly on the world. Pragmatically the capitalist realizes they do have to share with a few other capitalists.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[markdavis]

>"Unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin."

You don't need to imagine extremes to describe the existing and ever-growing nanny state we have RIGHT NOW that tells us what we can put in our bodies, that we have to wear seat belts, that we must have 1,000 restrictions on Constitutional rights, what words we are allowed to say, that we aren't allowed to use plastic straws, etc.

I am certainly not in favor of anarchy, but there is a line we crossed, sometime, a long time ago. And each generation is more than willing to allow more government intrusion into their lives for "safety" or "convenience". Generation after generation, it is rapidly adding up. My great, great grandparents would be utterly shocked what the "land of the free" has become, especially people's lack of responsibility for their own actions and lack of respect for one another.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[b0s0z0ku]

I see your point, but I also see that you're throwing out some false equivalences.

Having restaurants not give out straws unless a patron asks for one is good policy -- no one is losing anything, and straws that people don't use don't end up polluting the environment.

It's a real reach to compare such a policy with cameras inside homes and cars.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[93 Escort Wagon]

You sell us a car and spy on us to make money?

Fuck you. I can't wait to see the industry that pops up having to protect us from THE SHIT WE OWN!

It’s particularly annoying because a camera which monitors a driver for alertness could be a useful addition to a car... if all the information it collected stayed in the car. But no, even after we’ve given them tens of thousands of dollars, they still want to treat us like chattel.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Powercntrl]

Apple fanboys and girls, I'm looking at you...

Uh, Android didn't even have an app permissions manager until Marshmallow. By default, Android still sends all kinds of information back to Google.

Granted, any smartphone is going to be a privacy trade-off, but especially so when the OS is maintained by an advertising company.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Oligonicella]

Does no one understand the function of dark nail polish?

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Oligonicella]

There are cars tooling around this very day that were manufactured well onto a century ago. More usable ones half a century and later, but still. Cars are extremely durable and easy to craft replacement parts for. The era of 'only subscription automobiles' is easily a full half century away.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[ctilsie242]

I would say that "subscription autos" is closer than people think. M2M IoT is dirt cheap via 3G SIM cards. It is trivial to create a system where the vehicle sends a data stream and on occasion gets a signed certificate to continue operating. If that cert expires, the vehicle won't start, and perhaps the doors will not open from the inside until the user pays the subscription fee.

This can be done by forcing people to purchase the car, but the license for the ECM/TCM firmware be something that has to be licensed. No license, vehicle doesn't start. Jailbreaking and reverse engineering this firmware is trivial to block (look at how latest-gen consoles have not had a single meaningful attack since they have been released), and the DMCA would shut down people writing their own firmware.

What we are likely going to see is something we are seeing with tractors, because of the Draconian things pushed on farmers by vehicle makers. Sooner or later, people will buy junked cars, or even just a crushed frame with a VIN on it, adding crate engines, populating with seats and an interior, and selling them as homemade vehicles, or the make/model with the VIN, even though the body is completely different. A former motorhome can be turned into a pickup truck, or a sedan winds up with a custom sports car body.

I can see a market for used, popular models, even if the vehicle is completely shot. Older engines are relatively inexpensive, so a Camaro that has nothing except an intact VIN can be turned into a very useful ride, just so people don't have to deal with "subscriptions", and the constant invasions of privacy.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[ctilsie242]

That's the problem. Every bigwig views constant and invasive data collection as a money source. Standing in the way of that would be like a software company not charging for service contracts... it just wouldn't be done, because no CxO doesn't want to deny themselves, and their VCs the revenue stream.

I have worked on a startup. VCs will refuse to do business with you unless you can provide them with unstoppable analytics. With the fact that M2M cellular is dirt cheap, having a device to provide this info 24/7 to sell is trivial. Plus, with EULAs, that info capture is protected by law, as the user agreed to it.

It would be nice if there were some pushback, but few consumers care about their privacy, governments hop behind business, and business makes lots of cash from it.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[turbidostato]

"The solution is simple - create 3D printers large, fast & sophisticated enough to let a few hundred consumers band together and create their own mini-car-manufacturing plant"

OK. Let's forget for a moment how astoundingly stupid your idea is and let's imagine that it works.

There: here's the car, at the factory's door. Now, what? You don't expect to put it on a public road, right? Where's the crash safeness approval for it? and the anti-pollution one? and the other few dozens you will need?

What the industry is doing is for a (two-fold) reason: because it benefits them and because they can -and you don't.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Darinbob]

I understand that these companies want to make more money, but at this point it's just creepy that they are so open about their desire to extract more money from customers. This would seem to be something that normally they'd be quiet about because could scare away customers and definitely be alarming. But I think so many people now just don't care anymore, and so many who actively want to share data with strangers, that these companies can get away with divulging their evil plans in public.

Time for everyone to watch Fifteen Million Merits on Black Mirror for an extrapolation of where we go from here.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[turbidostato]

"So you think a large 3D printer capable of printing a fully functioning state-of-the-art production car in 20 minutes is completely out of reach? Not technically possible?"

It's certainly not technically possible, neither now, nor in ten years. And even if it were technically possible, it would be financially stupid.

But the real problem is not that 3D printing a car is not technically possible, but that it is irrelevant: the key is not *how* a car is built but *who* does build the car. You can build a (kit) car in your garage right now but you will need to jump trough loops to legally put it on the road -and the only reason it's not outright forbidden is the pathetically low numbers involved.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Darinbob]

The autos will be cloud based in the future!

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Darinbob]

A good nanny state doesn't prevent what you put in your body, but instead stops companies from selling you poison while labeling it as food. This is what starts nanny states, cracking down on crackpot devices that hurt, maim, or even kill customers. Why do we test cosmetics on animals? Because in the past cosmetic products could be dangerous, and people used them because there was no indication that they were dangerous, and there would be several people hospitalized before there was enough public pressure for the company to stop selling their snake oil.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Darinbob]

Or they think "ooh, this app is free!", or "wow, I can use an expensive ride sharing service just by tapping a screen!", or "the food hear looks and smells good, but I have to look at Yelp first before I go inside", and so forth.

I mentioned to a coworker that I use ad blockers. He thought it was stupid, and even said that he *wanted* to see ads because that way he knows what new products are out there. Which was pretty dumb, there are so many other ways to know what new products are out there without a barrage of Bud Lite and Chrysler commercials. (he also said this at work, and I was his boss, and I pointed out that he really should be looking at those websites at home)

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[turbidostato]

"You're not wrong. There has been for quite some time now a quiet movement by The Rich to put barriers in the way of everyone who is not The Rich from [becoming The Rich]"

What a surprise!!!

You know, they call it "capitalism" for a reason: capital is the goal and capital is the way to make it happen, so those that control the capital use the capital to make more capital and avoid others to get to the capital (as capital ownership is a relative measure: if everybody had a million, nobody would be millionaire).

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Darinbob]

A lot of this data is stored locally, and can be used to determine the cause of an accident and so forth. But is this data being shared? Anyone who voluntarily uses their phone to let the car send the data to the company servers is being naive. And yes, I know we have an epidemic of naive people...

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[Darinbob]

Ha, I arrived at a customer's site once and my boss was flying home from there. He handed me a loaner phone to use. After he left I looked at it and it still had all his texts on there, all of them salacious and which I am positive he would never have wanted me or anyone else to see.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[turbidostato]

"Sooner or later, people will buy junked cars, or even just a crushed frame with a VIN on it, adding crate engines, populating with seats and an interior, and selling them as homemade vehicles, or the make/model with the VIN, even though the body is completely different."

So, on one hand you think corporatism is so in control of government as to allow auto industry to move to a rent-only model against consumer's rights but, at the same time, it won't ban unsafe/polluting/non compliant/uninsurable cars?

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[turbidostato]

"The market is merely delivering what consumers want"

That's not the case, and it never was.

Market delivers what profits the producers the most.

Sometimes that involves producing something the consumer wants; sometimes making the consumer think he wants what they offer; sometimes colluding so there's nothing else at the market so the consumer is forced to buy what he can get; sometimes bribing governments so consumers are forced to buy what they produce... and with the optimization of capitalism, the first option is becoming less and less relevant.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[markdavis]

>"A good nanny state doesn't prevent what you put in your body, but instead stops companies from selling you poison while labeling it as food. This is what starts nanny states"

Exactly. I am all for the government testing things and providing information and warnings. But then it inevitably goes a step too far and the banning starts. Warn and educate, but citizens should be adults, responsible for their own actions.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[angel'o'sphere]

A combustion engine with pistons?
Yes, close to impossible. You can 3D print the parts and then assemble them.
Same for the rest of the car, perhaps you could 3D print it in zero gravity, or with some fancy tricks in plastic foil under water.
I doubt you even can 3D print an electric engine ... and honestly, for many things that makes no sense anyway. How to 3D print a wheel with tire and air valve, the glass of the windshield, the wiring to the lights etc. or do you want to 3D print bluetooth and a solar cell and a battery into each blinker? What about the furniture, the seats, the steering wheel, the instruments, the suspension?

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[angel'o'sphere]

Which "land of the free" do you mean? Thailand?

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[ctilsie242]

I'm sure bans would be the first thing they would try, but I'm hoping that the fact that people still drive 30+ year old cars on a daily basis will at least get states to slow down on the Draconian auto laws.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[angel'o'sphere]

Apple fanboys and girls, I'm looking at you...
Yeah ... and how should a bluetooth device scrap data from an iPhone without being prior authorized to do exactly that, e.g. accessing the phonebook to call one?

Re: No One Has Respect For Consumers

[astrofurter]

If our kangaroo courts gave a damn about the Constitution we would still have the right to trial by jury, and consequently we would not have the world's largest gulag.

Re: No One Has Respect For Consumers

[astrofurter]

They have "agreed" to be snooped, for certain values of "agree" that include "vehement disagreement".

Re: No One Has Respect For Consumers

[astrofurter]

It's not capitalism anymore. At you say, capitalists care about building up capital. Yet for decades our levels of productive capital have been in sharp decline.

Now it's financialism. Financialists care about finance - about building up debt. And boy oh boy have they succeeded at making the whole of the People in debt to a handful of smug usurers.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[AlwinBarni]

... I can't wait to see the industry that pops up having to protect us from THE SHIT WE OWN!

What if you cannot buy a car anymore, the fine print will say that you lease it indefinitely, thus you will not be allowed to modify it?
What if insurance premiums will be double for not spying cars?
What if there will be a massive public campaign about superior safety of such cars and if one has nothing to hide one should not oppose such "safety improvements"?
How about driver sleep alert system?
How about a device with microphone, camera, GPS, fingerprint, retina detection you have no actual control of what it's doing or over the data it collects?
Do you think people will choose wisely - considering historical evidence, I doubt.

Re:No One Has Respect For Consumers

[q4Fry]

How well does that work on microphones?

Carmakers could gather "anonymized" data...

[Anonymous Coward]

Carmakers could gather "anonymized" data and sell it. Sure they could. They could also NOT SPY ON THEIR GOD DAMN CUSTOMERS! What a thought. Recognizing things like objects left in the car or unfastened belts doesn't require a lot of intelligence -- the data doesn't need to be offloaded from the car. This is just auto CEOs and marketing types being assholes. May their children all get leukemia and wither away before their eyes.

Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[TimothyHollins]

But where will it end? One company's product combines five 2D cameras with AI technology to provide "in-vehicle scene understanding" which includes each passenger's height, weight, gender and posture.

How exactly will they "understand" the gender of the passenger? Check for pink hair and Tumblr stickers?

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[dryriver]

By analyzing a few simple ratios/indicators like shoulder width, neck width, head size, head-to-body proportions, jawline, nose length, forehead curvature and so forth. The fact that they want to do this is a dead giveaway that they are using 3D CAMERAS. You'll be surveilled not 1990s 2D CCTV style, but with an effective realtime 3D SCANNER that can also read things like your expression, mood, wakeness/tiredness and so on. Horrible shit to have inside your car, staring at you.

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[PolygamousRanchKid]

How exactly will they "understand" the gender of the passenger? Check for pink hair and Tumblr stickers?

Well, with me, they will see me doing a line of coke off the dashboard, while drinking some gulps from a bottle of Jack to take the edge off the coke, while fingering my girlfriend next to me, while listening extremely loud to:

My pappy said, "Son, you're gonna' drive me to drinkin' If you don't stop drivin' that Hot Rod Lincoln."

So I guess I won't care, if they can "understand" my gender . . .

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[HiThere]

What you should have said is 3-D processing, through multiple 2-D cameras. They're talking about more than two cameras, and fixed camera locations, but mobile passenger positions.

P.S.: There *are* 3-D cameras that could be used. They used (last I read about them) internal mirrors and beam splitters to pick up the details of the wave forms received. They were too expensive for reasonable use. Multiple 2-D cameras are a lot cheaper.

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[thegarbz]

How exactly will they "understand" the gender of the passenger? Check for pink hair and Tumblr stickers?

How do you do it? Or do you walk through the city taking DNA swabs of everyone to get a biological opinion?

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[dryriver]

There are Stereo 3D cameras that cost around 200 Dollars. And that's only because they are manufactured in quantities of a few ten thousands at a time. Most smartphones of the next generation will have 3D cameras and 3D processing built in. So 3D cameras will get a lot cheaper soon.

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[HiThere]

I think you're still talking about paired 2-D cameras. The ones I'm talking about only use one lens (or none) and don't focus an image. They select raw wave forms and compute the 3-D object that the waves originate from. You can think of it as a dynamically simulated surface or lenses, though it's more like a reverse hologram computation. At the time I encountered the description of the device I don't think you could have gotten one for $100,000.

OTOH, eventually this should be a cheap way to capture images, since the light handling hardware is extremely simple. What's expensive is the computation. I suspect a se of specialized chips could really cut down the speed, and speed up the "frame rate" at very low cost in high enough volumes.

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[AmiMoJo]

Probably the same way you do - by looking at them and seeing how they present themselves. It's inexact but this is marketing, most of it is a wild stab in the dark.

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[Oligonicella]

I do believe the previous AC was being sarcastic.

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
I never had sex in a car. No idea what I miss ...
But the likelihood that it ever will happen seems rapidly dwindling ...

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[HiThere]

But the proper name for that kind of camera is the one you originally used: Stereo Camera. It has a subset of the capabilities of a real 3-D camera. Granted, you can massage the data produced by a stereo camera to get a large part of the data collected by a real 3-D camera, but since it discards the phase of the wave you lose many of the capabilities. (And I'm sorry, but I can't be more explicit, because I'm no expert in the field, but some people in Hollywood were quite excited about the real 3-D cameras. Haven't heard much since then, though, so I suspect that the computational costs make motion pictures unreasonable.)

Re:Highly advanced image recognition indeed

[DredJohn]

It's MA'AM!

Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[dryriver]

"Everybody is making money from people's most intimate sensitive private data! Hey! Lets do it to them realtime-cloud connected in the cramped interior of a car, 1984 style!!!" Fuck you and your 1980s technology metal cans on inflated rubber wheels. Call me when you figure out how to make a high-speed crash survivable, solve the aquaplaning problem, replace the decades old steering wheel with something better, or figure out how to make an actually usable flying car before I turn 77 and get Alzheimers... What a 3rd rate industry...

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[b0s0z0ku]

I rather like 80s-tech cars -- the NA Miata (designed in 1988 or so) is basically the pinnacle of automotive engineering. Give me an electric version without Tesla-style connected spyware crap, and I'd drive it forever. Even with an old-school steering wheel, aquaplaning, poor crash safety, and lack of ability to fly.

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[dryriver]

In a tricky driving situation where you need to swerve hard and fast, which has a better reaction time? A) An old fashioned steering wheel B) An analogue joystick?

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[b0s0z0ku]

Problem is that a "twitchy" car is more likely to run off the road if a driver is startled. Joysticks excel at FAST control, steering wheels work well for FINE control, which is what's needed when you're driving close to other vehicles and pedestrians.

Also, a wheel provides enough leverage to steer manually if the power assist system fails.

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!" :D

Re: Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[b0s0z0ku]

SAAB used to make cars, Airbus can too, apparently...

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[hackertourist]

Call me when you figure out how to make a high-speed crash survivable

Current cars are vastly better at that than their counterparts from 1984. Airbags. Finite element analysis to inform a crash structure that uses 10 types of steel in the same monocoque, making sure a car crumples in just the right way to minimize deceleration for the occupants. ABS, ESP and dozens of other safety systems. 30 years of advances in tires.
At a cost of a few hundred kg in extra weight, modern cars have made crashes survivable that were absolutely fatal in a 1984 vehicle.

solve the aquaplaning problem

ABS, ESP, vastly improved tire technology have done most of that. All that remains is a boxing glove that comes out of the dashboard to punch the driver in the face when he insists on keeping his foot down in torrential rain.

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[93 Escort Wagon]

All that remains is a boxing glove that comes out of the dashboard to punch the driver in the face when he insists on keeping his foot down in torrential rain.

If it can be triggered by a plurality of the other drivers in his immediate vicinity, all the better.

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[turbidostato]

"Airbags. Finite element analysis to inform a crash structure that uses 10 types of steel in the same monocoque, making sure a car crumples in just the right way to minimize deceleration for the occupants. ABS, ESP"

You are describing my 2000 car. From then on, evolution went for economy (not that that's a bad thing) and electronic-everything against consumers.

Is not that crazy to think that 30 years from now there will be more cars from the eighties in driving conditions than from 2019.

Re:Aaaand The Carmakers Finally Went Crazy Too...

[nasch]

and your 1980s technology metal cans

Here is an example that shows the difference between modern cars and 1980s tech: http://www.thedrive.com/news/5...

Black tape

[Anonymous Coward]

This will do wonders for black tape sales.

Re:Black tape

[dryriver]

Until they put video recording and wireless streaming capability in all black tape sold, har har har... =)

Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

[dryriver]

Because there was a car park full of 3D CCTV camera-equipped ORWELL CARS recording its every move on this side.

Re:Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

[HiThere]

"Orwell cars" is a good first try, but it doesn't have the reflex reaction that you get from "Glassholes". You need something tied into the reflex aversion to fecal material..or something equally reflexive.

(Also, unfortunately, those within the car are shielded from the reaction of those outside the car. So the term might need to be even more powerful. Something that would cause those who used the car to despise themselves for the action.)

Re:Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

[dryriver]

Truman-car (as in "The Truman Show") perhaps? Instagram-star-car? Douchecar? Snitchcar? Reality TV Wheels? Fanta-for-brains-wheels? =)

Re:Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

[sjritt00]

Call them Pornmobiles. After all, they'll be recording and transmitting backseat teenage sex, infant diaper changes, swinsuit changes, etc.

Re:No Fucking Way

[geekmux]

Any company that mas this system in their cars is one I will NOT buy from.

You probably had the same mentality about removable batteries in smartphones. Look what happened.

Resistance, is useless. People don't give a shit about privacy anymore, and industry is gonna continue to rape that mentality in any way they can, especially if there's profits to be wrung out.

Authoritarians & Capitalists

[eastjesus]

Chevrolet president William S. Knudsen said Nazism was the miracle of the 20th century and Hitler had a portrait of Henry Ford hanging in his office while the Union Banking Corporation headed by Sen. Prescott Bush (father of presidents Bush senior and grandfather of George W.) made millions funding his rise. GM’s wholly-owned Adam-Opal Co. was producing Nazi tanks, trucks and bomber engines while IBM tabulating equipment was used to select who lived and who died in concentration camps. James D. Mooney, GM’s vice-president for foreign operations, was proudly joined by Henry Ford and IBM chief Tom Watson in receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Hitler for their considerable efforts on behalf of the Third Reich.

just drive safely

[FudRucker]

dont make any moves that you could potentially regret, dont pull out in front of moving traffic if it means you impede their progress, it is safer to wait a minute for them to pass, and when you need to make a turn, dont rush ahead of anybody then pull in front of them only to slow down and make a turn, its better to slow down, get behind them and make your turn

Four little letters...

[Tomahawk]

G.D.P.R.

Wait for it...

[Alypius]

"You may cross this intersection after this ad..."

Spray paint ...

[CaptainDork]

... is one option.

Still-framing is another.

How about hacking?

Re:Spray paint ...

[b0s0z0ku]

How about just having a few kids and letting them have a food fight? FOOD! FIGHT! FOOD! FIGHT!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Simple Solution

[dryriver]

...and your insurance company goes bananas with its rates - you REMOVED A VITAL SAFETY FEATURE from your car. And then the REAL POLICE pull you over for violation of your car's END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT. You see, you only had LICENSE TO DRIVE THE CAR AS-IS, and not LICENSE TO MODIFY THE CAR - which by the way, per the EULA, REMAINS PROPERTY OF THE CAR MANUFACTURER. (More seriously, a few years ago someone had a Ferrari F40 converted to Diesel fuel in Europe after buying it. Ferrari successfully claimed in court that this conversion "damaged its high-end brand". The owner of the F40 was ordered by a European kangaroo-court to return the car to Ferrari. Nobody else I know of attempted a gasoline-to-diesel conversion of a high end sportscar ever again...)

Re:No Fucking Way

[dryriver]

A large enough, sophisticated enough 3D printer 10 years from now will have no problems whatsoever printing out a fully functioning production car. The party won't last long for the car manufacturers. By that time their reputation will be in the SEWER, and there will be a booming market for highly customized 3D printed cars created by much smaller outfits, which in turn will one day become bigger outfits...

Re:Forthcoming Panopticon

[dryriver]

cartube.com... like twitch live-streamed games, except that its people in their fucking cars...

Re:Fucn people

[dryriver]

What makes you think that Musk isn't part of the gang of Orwell Car manufacturers? That he won't be one of the first to put these interior cameras in Teslas?

EAT SHIT AND DIE, 'STARTUPS'!

[Rick Schumann]

All you fuckstain 'startups' who are talking about this shit? FUCK YOU SIDEWAYS WITH A RUSTY AIDS-INFESTED CHAINSAW, YOU FUCKING FUCKS. It's bad enough that there are gods-be-damned cameras everywhere you look, and peoples' gods-be-damned cellphones are nothing but mobile surveillance platforms, and that gods-be-damned ISPs are sifting through every gods-be-damned data packet, and that shithead companies like Amazon and Google are selling people so-called 'voice assistants' that are also just gods-be-damned surveillance devices, and so on, and so on, and so on, but now you motherfuckers want to spy on people in their gods-be-damned CARS, TOO? REALLY!?

Get fucked. Put all of you up against the wall and empty the gods-be-damned clip into your HEADS. YES, THIS MAKES ME VERY ANGRY. If it DOESN'T make you angry, then there is something WRONG WITH YOU.

Re:EAT SHIT AND DIE, 'STARTUPS'!

[dryriver]

Buuut... how will they sell your wife JUST THE RIGHT MAKEUP PRODUCT FOR HER if they can't see into you car in realtime? =)

Re:EAT SHIT AND DIE, 'STARTUPS'!

[Rick Schumann]

I wonder what it's going to take before the Common Person has had enough of this bullshit and says a resounding "HELL, NO!!!" to it? Are we going to have to wait until they start putting 'reality TV' shows on the air starring people on surveillance cameras who never explicitly consented to being on TV? Minority Report-level 'law enforcement', arresting people for crimes they MIGHT commit? Guilty-by-association of crimes just for being surveilled in the same area as a crime was committed? WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE?

Re:EAT SHIT AND DIE, 'STARTUPS'!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Grandpa, it's past your naptime. You know how cranky you get when you don't have a nap.

Interior-facing cameras

[OneHundredAndTen]

Brilliant idea. This will result in a significant increase in the sales of opaque sticky tape. Not unexpected from Cadillac, a brand that is synonymous with OLD.

Re:bug you enough yet

[HiThere]

unh,,, To *claim* to disable the sensors.

Security?

[The Grim Reefer]

If there's one thing I've learned in the last few years, it's that car manufacturers sure take security of the systems in their cars seriously. (/s)

It's bad enough that bad people can remotely control all sorts of important systems in a new car, but now they can watch you as they slam you and your car into a tree. Maybe if the automotive manufacturers gave a damn, they'd work with companies that could help them to actually secure its stuff.

Also, does anyone else remember when we actually gave a damn about our own privacy? Not only are people recording and posting crap they do on Youtube, but they are buying televisions with cameras and microphones, paying for the privilege of having an always on mic in their house, and carrying one around that reports our location at all times. I'm strating to feel like I'm living in the world we all feared when I was young. But it's not being forced on us, we're actually gladly paying for it.

Re: Security?

[astrofurter]

We have become Stalin's Soviet Union. Except without any of the good points.

Conflict of interest

[Livius]

enhanced safety in the short-term, and revenue opportunities in the future

Only one of those is something manufacturers genuinely care about. The other one had to be imposed on them by governments.

Radical technology

[mrbester]

"Whether by generating alerts about ... unfastened seat belts"

That isn't a recent innovation. It was standard on decent model Volvos over 40 years ago in UK. At the time you didn't even have to wear one by law (though it was advised).

Or do they just mean "blab about it to the mothership in real time which then forwards it to the nearest traffic cop / your insurance provider"?

Re:Radical technology

[rnturn]

"Whether by generating alerts about ... unfastened seat belts"

Hell, my '73 Vega howled like a banshee if I put a stack of textbooks on the passenger seat on the way to class. I had to fasten the seat belt around them to shut the warning off. No effin' video camera needed.

Re:No Fucking Way

[TheRealMindChild]

The problem is a sound design for a vehicle. You can't just take one of something that already exists and every manufacturer pretty much ever new to the scene spent a decade+ working out the gremlins of their original designs

Consumers have no respect for themselves

[DogDude]

Smart phones.

Re:No Fucking Way

[dryriver]

So you couldn't have a few OPEN SOURCE car/vehicle platforms that - much like Linux - are created by hundreds of volunteer engineers around the world and are no less safe & reliable than large car maker platforms? Or have OPEN SOURCE VEHICLE-DESIGNING AI that lets you rattle down a list of "wishes" for your dream car, and then creates a ready-to-3D-print-and-drive-away version of just such a car? Even aerodynamic performance and virtual crash testing is within the reach of such an AI or machine learning system. So the idea of highly-customized-on-demand-3D-printed-cars is not airy-fairy fantasy. Very much technically doable even with today's technology.

Re: But where will it end?

[rnturn]

I predict that there will a healthy aftermarket for ways to defeat/disable these cameras. For DIYers, there's a piece--or pieces--of duct tape.

I'll probably be in the market for a new car in a few years and I will greatly enjoy explaining to the salescritter what a dumbass idea it is for the car I'm paying huge $$$ for to be spying on me so that they can sell data to third parties. And I'll be sure to point out that if they want to make this an optional feature--er, so sorry... they're not called "optional" any more they're called "available"--then I might be interested in their car. If new cars won't run without these interior cameras working then they're simply broken as designed and my response will be: No Sale.

You can be sure that law enforcement is drooling over the ability of gaining access to the cameras in your car.

Peopel will continue to give up on privacy

[joe_frisch]

There are so many attacks on privacy that the public can't resist them all. Its easy to suggest that people not purchase products that spy on them, but when it becomes common for an entire industry (cell phones, TVs, etc), eventually the consumers just give up.

I think we are heading toward 24/7 surveillance that is almost impossible to avoid. That date will then be sold to the highest bidder - or hacked. Companies will use machine learning to look for marketing opportunities. Governments will do the same looking for signs of disloyalty.

Its a rather scary future, but very difficult to avoid.

Re: Peopel will continue to give up on privacy

[astrofurter]

That's not the future. That's the present.

Re: But where will it end?

[dryriver]

What makes you think that these cameras CAN'T see through duct or black tape just fine? Unless the tape 100% blocks ALL photons going to the camera sensor, computer vision algorithms can still see through that tape and even de-distort the distortion caused by the tape. You might have better chances putting an inch-thick lead plate in front of those cameras in the car...

FORCED RENTALS = dealer only service so that will

[Joe_Dragon]

FORCED RENTALS = dealer only service so that will not be very likely.

Stuff like this is why I keep my older cars.

[Anonymous Coward]

My cars have no ECU that stores data that can be recalled after a crash.

My cars do not have any satellite link.

My cars do not have OBD-II.

And oddly enough, my cars all work just fine, thank you very much.

There have been times in the past that I wondered whether the time I spent learning how to work on my own vehicles was wasted time. I now know it was a very good investment of my time.

All the manufacturers of all the new cars can go fuck themselves with their endless greed, deliberate creation of faults which hinder reliability, and attempts to ram unnecessary features down the throats of new car buyers. If there's a better example of the downside of free market capitalism, I cannot think of what it might be.

End

[markdavis]

>"But where will it end?"

When consumers, like me, put black electric tape over the camera lenses. Of course, then expect that the car will "fail to start" or issue never-ending nag messages. Sometimes the future looks depressing.

Re:Musk Selling Your Info

[wolfheart111]

What makes me think that he wouldn't... I'm a good judge of Character. :)

No. Just...no

[Miles_O'Toole]

You would have to be fucking insane to allow corporations to get away with monitoring you in your car. Or your house.

Anybody who voluntarily allows this kind of invasion of privacy is an idiot. And they deserve a good, hard kick to the crotch, because their acceptance will make it easier to force those of us with some common sense and dignity into choosing between being monitored or not driving. Sometimes there really IS a slippery slope.

Re:No. Just...no

[JustNiz]

I agree, but no doubt they will sell this as some kind of safety feature so all the soccer moms will be all over it.

I'm hopeful

[Voyager529]

Yes, you read correctly. I'm hopeful.

See, there is a level where even the masses start to say "do not want". Placebo as it may be, look around and you'll see plenty of people putting tape over their laptop webcams. Amazon's "we can give delivery men the ability to open your door, which is totally safe because of the camera that goes along with it" initiative is one I have yet to meet literally anybody who said "I want that". I think "multiple cameras in my car, uploading video in realtime" might have a niche in Uber vehicles or driverless cars (keeps drivers safe and passengers accountable), but I think even the Alexa-owning masses will say "too far".

More to the point, I don't see how this technology won't pit the advertisers against the insurance companies. The crux of the issue hinges on what is truly meant by "revenue opportunities". How will these systems generate revenue? Consumers won't pay for the video footage. Law enforcement agencies won't pay for access proactively, especially because it would simply ensure none of their actual-suspects use those cars. Image or video ads are a guaranteed way to distract the driver (insurance companies will never allow it). Audio ads won't be okay; if nothing else ClearChannel won't want the competition. City planners won't pay for it; they can get that sort of aggregate data from Google Maps or those statistical boxes.

My point is that there is a point where even John Q. Public is going to care. Alexa provides entertainment and utility, smartphones the same, but a whole system dedicated to post-sale monetization while providing no utility to customers that Android Auto or the Apple equivalent can't also provide? Yeah, I think that even those people are going to have an uphill battle.

Re:I'm hopeful

[sad_]

they will market these things as safety devices, people might fall for it that way. could be that goverments make it a requirement, as they did with safety belts, and almost any other safety matter that came after that.
it wouldn't be a problem either if it was just doing those things without sending all the data to who ever wants it.

Nothing a little black tape can't fix

[TheRealQuestor]

Either black tape or Vaseline on the lenses could stop the video, my radio pumping out 1000 watts solves the microphone issue, and a few bags of sand solves the weight issues. Fuck them and their spying on me in my own car. let them try. Better yet make a video and make a loop and feed that to the camera of my family driving so they get a live feed but its a feedback loop. So many ways around this. plug in a raspberry pi into the ODB/2 and feed it false data and screw with them. Could actually be kind of fun when i think of all the ways to feed them false data :)

Yet another reason...

[Mnemennth]

... I love and maintain my grandmother's old Studebaker.

mnem
Analog still has a place in the digital world

Re:No Fucking Way

[Powercntrl]

A large enough, sophisticated enough 3D printer 10 years from now will have no problems whatsoever printing out a fully functioning production car.

In 10 years, we'll be too busy flying around in interstellar space ships to care about cars. /s

Re:Next it will be home builders

[b0s0z0ku]

Landlord-tenant laws and home privacy protections are generally extremely strong as compared to laws pertaining to privacy in cars.

This will be put in only one model-year of car ...

[sabt-pestnu]

... because people like me will go from dealer to dealer, saying that in-car espionage is a deal breaker for my purchase of a new car.

It happened with those motorized seat belts. It will happen with this.

Hammer and nail

[Chewbacon]

Use those and your car will be private again. Fuck these guys. I donâ(TM)t text or drink and drive. I donâ(TM)t want them videoing me picking my nose or singing to the radio.

Loserz

[backslashdot]

You guys so full of yourselves to think you can be worth all that money to anybody.
A car that wont spy on you will probably only cost about $100 more than a car that does. Just how much crap do you thibk can be sold to you?

Don't snort and drive ...

[CaptainDork]

... informants make a lot of money.

VC cabal

[astrofurter]

"VCs will refuse to do business with you unless you can provide them with unstoppable analytics"

Collusive domination of the software industry by the cabal of venture capitalists is why modern software is simultaneously shitty and evil. Not just shitty. Not just evil. Shitty and evil.

Welcome to Surveillance Valley, where our motto is "fuck you, proles, that's why".

Big Brother is hijacking your car ...

[MxMatrix]

... and next: car eula states you bought the right to drive the car, NOT OWN IT.

I sense a business opportunity here

[Kazymyr]

Soon to come to an Amazon store near you: customized opaque stickers for various models of cars with interior cameras.

Re:No. Just...no

[Miles_O'Toole]

My thoughts exactly, my friend. I keep wondering when so many people got used to living in a constant state of anxiety, ready to be stampeded toward whatever stupid, freedom-destroying "democratically reached" decision governments and their corporate masters want.

Heh...NO

[Ferretman]

Don't reckon I'm gonna allow that, nope.

Ferret

Cartapping

[thunderclees]

The Feds have been doing this for years. Not video, but audio through services like OnStar. There was a case in Texas where the FBI was caught listening in on a suspected drug lord using his OnStar microphone. The only reason it came to light was that a contractor for GM required to respond to OnStar within a window of time sued to stop the FBI from using the system since the taps would prevent them from responding within the contracted window of time. The implication of course being that the FBI was using the system so often that it was impacting the contractor.

Revenue opportunity

[codeButcher]

The one revenue opportunity that seems very likely is the one for sticky tape manufacturers.