Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the car-talk dept.

Transportation 261

schwit1 sends word that the Dept. of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has given notice of a proposal (PDF) for a new car safety standard that would require vehicle-to-vehicle communication equipment in all new passenger cars and light trucks. The NHTSA thinks this will facilitate the development of new safety software for vehicles. They estimate it could prevent over 500,000 crashes (PDF) each year. "Some crash warning V2V applications, like Intersection Movement Assist and Left Turn Assist, rely on V2V-based messages to obtain information to detect and then warn drivers of possible safety risks in situations where other technologies have less capability. ... NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V." The submitter notes that this V2V communication would include transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh, really? (5, Funny)

chinton (151403) | about 2 months ago | (#47768287)

I'm already quite good at vehicle-to-vehicle communication.

Re:Oh, really? (5, Funny)

horm (2802801) | about 2 months ago | (#47768341)

It's amazing how much you can say with one finger.

Re:Oh, really? (1)

Badger Nadgers (2423622) | about 2 months ago | (#47768435)

Don't forget the handshake.

Re:Oh, really? (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47768349)

It makes me sad that you omitted the punchline.

There's so many good ones too, you could have implied that you're a jerk that honks your horn all the time at minor infractions, or any number of backhanded references to flipping the bird. Even "texting while driving" jokes would've been easy.

It's such an easy delivery, and nothing.

Re:Oh, really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768369)

He left it to the imagination of the reader... more subtle than you are apparently capable of.

Re:Oh, really? (0, Offtopic)

Knee Patch (2647703) | about 2 months ago | (#47768427)

subtlety is a noun. subtle is an adjective. You meant to say, "more subtlety than you are apparently capable of." See also: "Your advice on grammar lacks subtlety." versus "Your advice on grammar is not very subtle."

Re:Oh, really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768557)

It was meant to be an adjective. Now go away knee patch (obviously from how much time you spend on your knees).

Re:Oh, really? (1)

Knee Patch (2647703) | about 2 months ago | (#47768669)

Of course you meant it as an adjective. I'm sure you are extremely "capable of subtle" when you want to be.

Re:Oh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768743)

No, you dipshit. The intended comment was "it was more subtle than you are apparently capable of." Apparently you are too stupid to understand this and try to pretend you are being smart by being a pedant. You failed at that like you fail at life. Now get back on your knees where you belong.

Re:Oh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47769015)

No, you dipshit. The intended comment was "it was more subtle than you are apparently capable of." Apparently you are too stupid to understand this and try to pretend you are being smart by being a pedant. You failed at that like you fail at life. Now get back on your knees where you belong.

tu quoque.
pffft

Re:Oh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768647)

No. He meant to say "[It was] more subtle than you are apparently capable of." The subject and verb of the second clause were implied (colloquially). His use of subtle was valid.

His real crime was ending his sentence with a preposition.

Re:Oh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47769041)

That's a nice straw man you've constructed. He wasn't giving advice on grammar, you fucking idiot.

Re:Oh, really? (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47768467)

Yes, but a punchline is important, because, you know, the punchy bit. The sudden subversion of expectations. A witty play on words is just so much better than this lazy approach you're pretending is "subtle".

Re:Oh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768745)

Personally I'm a fan of "digital" communication myself! (Ba da bap ching!)

Re:Oh, really? (2)

creimer (824291) | about 2 months ago | (#47768493)

A friend of my was involved in a road rage incident while in standstill traffic at night. The guy up ahead pulled out a crowbar and started walking back. My friend took his camera out of the glovebox, took a picture of the guy and the license plate on his truck. The flash on the camera going off may have stunned the guy, as he backed away and got back into his truck without further incident.

Oh, really? (1)

mazda_corolla (456667) | about 2 months ago | (#47769017)

.. but only in binary.

Official Vehicles (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 2 months ago | (#47768319)

Official Vehicles should have a special V2V tag so we can be warned of firetrucks coming around blind corners and police hiding behind billboards.

Re:Official Vehicles (4, Interesting)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 2 months ago | (#47768377)

Instead they will configure the V2V so that cops can simply read your speedometer as you pass. No need for radar and no way to argue it in court.

Re:Official Vehicles (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768463)

They will, or you assume they will? There's a difference...

Besides, who cares how your speeding is detected? If you're speeding you're speeding. There's no "it's ok as long as I don't get caught"-clause.

Re:Official Vehicles (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 months ago | (#47768555)

Well, duh. Once they have mandatory tracking of all vehicles, you really think they won't use it?

Re:Official Vehicles (1, Troll)

digsbo (1292334) | about 2 months ago | (#47768665)

As long as you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Now bend over.

Re:Official Vehicles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768671)

8:01:32 AM - speeding 0.41 km over limit - fine $100
8:03:32 AM - speeding 0.21 km over limit - fine $100
8:05:32 AM - speeding 0.73 km over limit - fine $100
8:06:32 AM - speeding 0.76 km over limit - fine $100
8:09:32 AM - speeding 1.94 km over limit - fine $200
8:10:32 AM - speeding 2.01 km over limit - fine $300
8:10:59 AM - speeding 1.12 km over limit - fine $100
8:11:32 AM - speeding 5.21 km over limit - fine $500


Here's a view into a typical drive to work in the morning in your future. You were speeding. There was proof. Pay up.

Re:Official Vehicles (1, Insightful)

laie_techie (883464) | about 2 months ago | (#47768733)

Besides, who cares how your speeding is detected? If you're speeding you're speeding. There's no "it's ok as long as I don't get caught"-clause.

I agree with you 98%. The system must detect if it's on public roads or private property, and also the flow of traffic (if traffic is going fast, you probably should go fast, too). I agree that our laws need to be obeyed even if there's little chance of getting caught.

Re:Official Vehicles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768737)

Besides, who cares how your speeding is detected? If you're speeding you're speeding. There's no "it's ok as long as I don't get caught"-clause.

because that amounts to surveillance. The closest thing to current system would be a detector placed at certain locations and would only ticket vehicles within 50meter radius. This would be similar to traffic cameras.

Also there was a statistic which I can't find anymore that claimed that the speedometers could be off by up to 3%. So relying on the traveling vehicle to give you correct speed is not going to be ideal. It's better to use physical markers on the path and do the simple d/t calculation.

Re:Official Vehicles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768977)

They will. To assume they won't is folly at this point.
Unfortunately they will also be setting the sensitivity to whatever the hell they want. Your speeding, like "that broken taillight" can be retroactive after all.

Re:Official Vehicles (2)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 months ago | (#47768481)

Instead they will configure the V2V so that cops can simply read your speedometer as you pass. No need for radar and no way to argue it in court.

...and they will have a field in the protocol that will MASK the display of cops, so they can hide, even when they want you to NOT be able to hide...

Hacking the Protocol in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Official Vehicles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768485)

It must be nice to have such a bright and cheery vision of the world. It's gone far beyond mere money when the government comes to beat down your door.
 
The Two Party Lie has its dick planted firmly in your ass.

Re:Official Vehicles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768775)

Of course there will be an incentive now to hack it so that it reports the wrong speed, and then accidents actually increase.

Re:Official Vehicles (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 months ago | (#47768777)

Or just have the V2V set to check if the speed limit was exceeded in "x" amount of time and automatically send the ticket. Or have it log if someone stopped with the tip 1-2 cm past a stop line, and send another citation, etc.

Unless it is implemented right, it will be ripe for abuse, just like the red light cameras which have no yellow, or will briefly flash red, enough to pop a picture, then go back to green.

Of course, when the bad guys start messing around with V2V, it will be even worse, especially when someone starts transmitting "rear-end collision is imminent, slam brakes on NOW" on the highway to vehicles" at random times.

Re:Official Vehicles (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47768387)

followed shortly by cops(and hackers) having the ability to shut down any car it chooses? no thanks

Ah, this will be fun (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47768325)

Let's trigger all the cars to slam on their brakes with the Gameboy.

Just wait (5, Funny)

halivar (535827) | about 2 months ago | (#47768327)

Soon there will be a mod so you tell the guy who just cut you off, "fuck you, you fucking fuck, right in the fucking fuck-fuck-fuck" at max volume using their cabin speakers. I'll probably hear it a lot.

Re:Just wait (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 months ago | (#47768419)

Soon there will be a mod so you tell the guy who just cut you off, "fuck you, you fucking fuck, right in the fucking fuck-fuck-fuck" at max volume using their cabin speakers. I'll probably hear it a lot.

I used to have the perfect bumper sticker for situations like this, it read, "I'm not deaf! I'm ignoring you!"

Re:Just wait (1)

Badger Nadgers (2423622) | about 2 months ago | (#47768545)

Or use a scrolling LED message display sign in the back window.

Turn them all on (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 months ago | (#47768339)

the day all the traffic laws are repealed.

what could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768345)

no vehicle or onlooker would ever transmit incorrect/invalid/corrupted location, direction or speed information. and no driver would jam on the brakes the moment the warning system issues an alert. right?

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47768373)

Is that harm/risk equal or greater than the benefit to automated systems' safety?

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 2 months ago | (#47768411)

And no government official would every request a kill switch option.

Coming to a cell phone near you next year and in your car just a few years from now. lol

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (3, Interesting)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 months ago | (#47768639)

And no government official would every request a kill switch option.

Coming to a cell phone near you next year and in your car just a few years from now. lol

According to this [switched.com] , it is already a "feature" of OnStar, just like the LEO ability to SILENTLY turn on the cabin microphone, which was (supposedly) outlawed by a Court decision [cnet.com] , NOT because of privacy concerns, of course, (afterall, why should there be an "expectation of privacy" when having a conversation in your car with the windows up and the doors locked?), but because the designers of OnStar were so stupid they couldn't make the system do a manual override by the occupants in an emergency...

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47768787)

OnStar is not a mandated feature in all vehicles.

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (1)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 months ago | (#47768881)

OnStar is not a mandated feature in all vehicles.

So?

I was simply pointing out what LEO (and OnStar themselves) is ALREADY doing with automatic (not user-controlled) "vehicle communications"..

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768975)

The difference is that I can choose to buy a vehicle without OnStar. This is a government mandate for all vehicle manufacturers. I no longer have a choice.

Re:what could possibly go wrong? (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#47768727)

What's wrong with hitting the brakes in an unexpected emergency to assess the actual danger, exactly? If the person behind collides with them, they were following too closely for the speed the person behind was going in the first place. That's not the fault of the person who slowed down or stopped their car.

Motorcyclists rejoice! (1)

envelope (317893) | about 2 months ago | (#47768355)

This will be a great safety boon for motorcyclists. If that inattentive driver's car will let him know I'm coming, then he won't turn directly into my path.

Re:Motorcyclists rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768405)

Except if your motorbike doesn't have the V2V protocol.. then you're just a speed bump that his sensors didn't warn him about.

Re:Motorcyclists rejoice! (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47768421)

That would be good, but just make sure you remember to stop weaving in and out of traffic with no blinker, or drive between cars in their lanes because they are going to slow for you.

I know this sounds like a knock at bike riders but its not, i ride myself, but far to many bikers (more often than not on crotch rockets) tend to ignore traffic laws just as much

Re:Motorcyclists rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768477)

I simply do not make left turns except at controlled intersections (left arrow or stop sign). Otherwise, I plan my routes so I am always turning right.

Re:Motorcyclists rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768585)

And, we will have a better chance noticing that lunatic on a motorcycle splitting lanes at 50 mph through standstill traffic. It works both ways...

All new passenger cars and light trucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768363)

They estimate it could prevent over 500,000 crashes each year.

How many years from now? I'm driving a 1994 truck. I don't personally know anyone who has ever purchased a new vehicle.

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (0)

penix1 (722987) | about 2 months ago | (#47768573)

My biggest problem is with this line...

NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V."

So in short, the government is going to mandate yet another thing that nobody wants and that even the manufacturers don't want to make. Brilliant!

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#47768685)

That's not the point at all. It's a chicken or egg problem - it makes no sense for me to spend $ to have V2V in my car if nobody else has it. So, nobody would get it, so there's never a critical mass, so nobody gets it, etc. etc.

Mandating it avoids that problem.

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47768825)

Similar reasoning can help along the process of mandating all sorts of stuff.

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (0)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 months ago | (#47769003)

Similar reasoning can help along the process of mandating all sorts of stuff.

...and almost all of it Unconstitutional.

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47768735)

Yes. I totally agree. We should get rid of all those things that governments mandated but car companies did not want to make. I suggest we start with your personal seatbelts and your personal airbag.

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47768853)

Well, yes, if I want to cut the weight out of my vehicle (and also cut some of the cost), at great risk to my own safety, I should be allowed to do so. Would I? Well, if I'm buying a car for the track, I'll be ripping out the airbags and seatbelts anyway, in favor of a roll cage and a harness, the lot of which actually costs less than 2 airbags; in that instance, yes, please. And let's face it, most people who drive like shit and cause the majority of accidents are the same people who would drop prefer to drop that weight and cost on a street vehicle, as well, making the problem essentially self-solving.

Re:All new passenger cars and light trucks (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 months ago | (#47768867)

And 20 year old cars will be using 20 year old encryption, the system will get cracked, and then there will be problems.

The future is autonomous cars that rely on their own data to see what's going on, and that will prevent accidents.

great ... new attack surfaces (3, Insightful)

arit (1338477) | about 2 months ago | (#47768365)

This will simply open up new attack surfaces on unsuspecting vehicles [blackhat.com] .

Sounds good... (1)

terbo (307578) | about 2 months ago | (#47768367)

But also sounds like the bridge that connects one of the major avenues of exploitation from the movie Dragon Day ...

I thought that ... (0)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 2 months ago | (#47768393)

talking on a mobile 'phone while driving was supposed to be dangerous ... so now we will all have to do it ???

Privacy Concerns? (2)

brentonboy (1067468) | about 2 months ago | (#47768399)

> transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns.

We already had this debate when they mandated installing lights on vehicles, which also transmits the location of a vehicle and raised privacy concerns. In the end, the ability to not crash into invisible cars beat out the privacy concerns, IIRC.

Re:Privacy Concerns? (2)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 months ago | (#47768811)

> transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns.

We already had this debate when they mandated installing lights on vehicles, which also transmits the location of a vehicle and raised privacy concerns. In the end, the ability to not crash into invisible cars beat out the privacy concerns, IIRC.

Quite a bit different, depending on how far the transmission can be received.

For example, if your vehicle is equipped with OnStar, your location is Tracked [time.com] and possibly SOLD, even if you have elected to NOT subscribe to the OnStar "Service".

Apparently, only pulling the fuse (or chopping the antenna wire), stops this ridiculous intrusion.

And worse yet, since OnStar isn't a Governmental Agency, by definition, it (technically) CANNOT abuse your Constitutional Rights [npr.org] , PERIOD.

Oh look, Protesters.. (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 2 months ago | (#47768451)

Oh look, Protesters. Let's brick their car with V2V.

I'm sorry. I have ZERO confidence that V2V will not have a back door for abuse by authorities, never mind the hacker/crook people.

It would have to be passive and have an OFF switch.

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47768501)

This conclusion you have is because you're paranoid.

Modern cars already have wireless communication attached to their security systems. Government mandated backdoors wouldn't require a wide-ranging communications network to work.

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 months ago | (#47768709)

This conclusion you have is because you're paranoid.

Modern cars already have wireless communication attached to their security systems. Government mandated backdoors wouldn't require a wide-ranging communications network to work.

Actually you probably mean backdoors wouldn't require a *new* wide-ranging communications network to work... The OnStar system (and others like it) already have their own nationwide communication system (the cellular phone network) to allow law enforcement access to vehicle data, AND the ability to disable the vehicle remotely. And you know what? It's because people *want* that feature:

"Stolen Vehicle Slowdown is a prime example of a safety service that our customers rely on us to provide,” said George Baker, emergency services outreach manager, OnStar. “We have a strong relationship with law enforcement that has allowed us to refine our processes, promote teamwork and more quickly recover stolen vehicles for our subscribers.”

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47768731)

How scary.

Law enforcement officers, able to help enforce the law and return stolen property. Oh! Why didn't we listen?!

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768855)

Law enforcement officers never do anything bad, despite the fact that history proves the opposite many millions of times over. Ignore and give them the ability to break into any houses they want without even a warrant. Hey, it's to help enforce the law and catch Bad Guys, so all is well!

I prefer freedom, privacy, and control over safety. Especially after Snowden's leaks, everyone intelligent should agree. If I don't have 100% control over the car and all the software on it, then it's utterly worthless to me. It's why I use such an old car.

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47768891)

You're right, anarchy for all!

No one has ever brought up the "people are corrupt sometimes" problem before.

Thank you for your insight.

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47769021)

You're right, anarchy for all!

You're right, police state for all!

My argument is that this gives them (and others who will try to exploit these systems) too much control over you and your vehicle, not that there should be anarchy. Someone already pointed out in an above comment that law enforcement was using OnStar's systems to spy on people's conversations, and the courts had to stop them. Only ignorant fools would disagree with me, which is the same as disagreeing with history.

This isn't the same as, "Well, they might, maybe abuse their power." This is, "You're giving massive amounts of power to people who have shown they will abuse their power as much as possible if given the opportunity, so don't fucking give them the opportunity when it's not necessary."

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47769049)

And we get another 1 dimensional anarcho-whatever-bullshit-volounteerist-fantasy-suits-them who concludes that because someone sees the utility of applying technology to law enforcement, they're in favor of the "police state".

It's almost childlike naivete, but even children can recognize taking an idea to an irrational extreme.

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768815)

I can't fathom why people want safety over freedom and control. If I can't control my car, then into the scrap yard it goes. It's part of why I'm so big on free software.

Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (1)

macs4all (973270) | about 2 months ago | (#47768833)

Oh look, Protesters. Let's brick their car with V2V.

I'm sorry. I have ZERO confidence that V2V will not have a back door for abuse by authorities, never mind the hacker/crook people.

It would have to be passive and have an OFF switch.

I have a nice pair of wire cutters that says "OFF"...

What privacy concern? (1)

Badger Nadgers (2423622) | about 2 months ago | (#47768475)

"The submitter notes that this V2V communication would include transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns" Hardly a secret is it? It's the chuffing big bit of metal about to slam into your vehicle. Look out the windows and there it is.

Re:What privacy concern? (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 months ago | (#47768771)

"The submitter notes that this V2V communication would include transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns"

Hardly a secret is it? It's the chuffing big bit of metal about to slam into your vehicle. Look out the windows and there it is.

But presently, it becomes a secret again after the impact (a secret that can only be coaxed out of the skidmarks and dents) that apparently 33,000 people a year are worth dying to keep... There are many concerns with this (like how to keep it secure and reliable) but privacy, as you note, is pretty close to the bottom since your car location is most certainly other people's business as soon as you take it on a public road.

Terrible idea (1)

a4r6 (978521) | about 2 months ago | (#47768479)

Cars cannot trust communications coming from other cars. It doesn't matter how many signed certificates and whatever bullshit you throw at the problem, there is no way that a car I'm driving should ever trust any information coming over the airwaves.

Re:Terrible idea (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#47768819)

Of course... and pilots should never trust their electronic guidance to get them where they need to go... they should only ever use visual confirmation near the ground and dead reckoning while at altitude.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 months ago | (#47768889)

Bingo. That certificate and signature only means the data was sent by a certified V2V device, it does not authenticate the data as having been fed to the V2V device by the vehicle; there is nothing stopping someone from feeding their V2V device bad telemetry, which it will happily sign and broadcast.

Oh, I get it... (4, Funny)

seven of five (578993) | about 2 months ago | (#47768483)

I can't text and drive but my car can....

First Hack is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768491)

Send a false (true once it actually is transmitted) message I am not stopping so you'd better stop.

Second hack is... Police car is coming so pull over and stop.

I can finally get where I am going in Seattle. Yay!

UDP/broadcast only (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 months ago | (#47768541)

It's not a bad idea, provided that there's no concept of a conversation. There's no negotiating or acknowledgement that needs to happen, simply a car announcing what it's doing.

Baking in more than this to the spec or implementation will only fuck it up.

Re:UDP/broadcast only (1)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#47768723)

It's not a bad idea

Anything, that is "not a bad idea" for a personal vehicle, is also not a bad idea for a person. The argument for mandatory license plates (which we have accepted so long ago, freaks like me objecting appear as, well, freaks), for example, would apply just as convincingly to mandating people not only carry identification at all times, but also keep it visible from distance [aclu.org] .

Would you support a law mandating, that people carry personal beacons at all times? Those can be made small enough to make it practical already... In fact, if you aren't careful, your cellphone is already acting as just such a device [express.co.uk] — should a law prohibit you from turning it off?

Just another exploit vector... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47768551)

Let's start a pool to guess when the first accident due to a hacked communications system will occur.....

Re:Just another exploit vector... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768653)

I will set the over under for 3 months depending on what encryption is used it may only be 3 days though.

Fucking retards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768553)

Seriously

Kill switch (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47768583)

Make sure the police kill switch is implemented without any meaningful security.

Idiots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768591)

One could easily be forgiven for thinking that niggers were in charge of the decision making processes in the government. Hi, Obama ;)

Re: Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768921)

Comments like yours piss me off so much. You ignorant motherfucking white people all need to fucking die.

WRONG (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47768631)

This is the wrong way to go about it. The government should not be involved in this at all.

Mandate the standard not the use of the technology. i.e. "IF you are going to implement this safety feature, communication with the other vehicle must happen via RF (or whatever) on X frequency. Pulse Y indicates speed, pulse Z indicates direction..." etc...

The most open and tech-savvy Administration (1)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#47768637)

Thankfully, we have the most open and technologically-savvy Administration in history. He uses e-mail like, OMG, daily (!!11!) and has, like, the most Twitter-followers of any US President too [guinnessworldrecords.com] . Seriously, like, ever!..

Nothing to worry about... Our lives, rights, and freedoms are in good hands. Please, don't hate.

Provisionally, I'm OK with this: (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47768643)

A 'warning system' to supplement the drivers' own sense of situational awareness would be fine. However: No 'taking control of the vehicle from the driver' for any reason. Anything that facilitates drivers to drive more safely is good thing. Similarly I'm all for better driver training and better driver testing.

Re:Provisionally, I'm OK with this: (2, Interesting)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#47768711)

If we could snap our fingers, and migrate every car in America to a driverless system with no driver interaction, we'd save thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Want the enjoyment of driving? Go to a track. Public roads are for transportation from A to B.

Re:Provisionally, I'm OK with this: (3, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about 2 months ago | (#47768935)

Democracy demands that at least 50% plus one agree with you.

This is going to make vehicles even more expensive. It's not clear how effective these systems will be. It's not clear how exploitable these systems will be. I don't want the authorities to have a simple way of ordering vehicles to do things that the driver does not agree to. I don't trust software to take control away from the driver. Then you're still going to have older vehicles (which will suddenly be worth a lot more money), bicycles, motorcycles, equestrians, etc that won't be participating in this V2V conversation.

Then, is this going to encourage drivers to be even more inattentive? I already cringe at the commercials that show drivers futzing with things in the back seat or picking stuff off the floor and the collision avoidance saves them. Great, but that doesn't mean you're now free to be inattentive! If anything, cars should be less safe and speed limits higher to force people to pay attention, or else.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768651)

I will be jamming any communications I did not configure and authorize

For it if it's not server based (1)

Pro923 (1447307) | about 2 months ago | (#47768691)

I actually have always thought that vehicles should all have a protocol such that they talk to other vehicles within a certain range - so I'm all for this technology as long as it isn't server based. That is, i'll be pissed if all the cars communicate to some server that is a go-between. It should work as a direct link to whatever the signal range is, and then i have no privacy concerns, as anyone around you already knows that you're there.

Just info (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768755)

Just info could be acceptable, although unfortunately even that can get horrifyingly exploited, whether used by cops to slam your brakes when going at highway speeds to avoid an illusory incoming truck.

But that won't be how it's used, will it. No, the potential for abuse is so great here that NSA, CIA and police everywhere in the united states are turning their offices into that southpark scene with randy marsh at the end of the "no internet" episode, when he finally sneaks himself some porno, just thinking about how they're going to fuck people up with impunity through this.

I cannot imagine this technology resulting in any sort of good when compared to what will be done TO people through it.

Needs Specific Functionality (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about 2 months ago | (#47768773)

I have frequently wished there was a reliable way to tell somebody "your tail light's out," "your blinker's on," or best of all, "stop tailgating me, you stumpcock."

A "tattle on that vehicle" button would also be nice.

Short range transmission =! privacy concern (1)

spasm (79260) | about 2 months ago | (#47768781)

"The submitter notes that this V2V communication would include transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns. "

For the purposes of reducing accidents and facilitating things like lane changes, there's no reason for the location to be transmitted more broadly than a few hundred metres around the transmitting vehicle, nor for either the transmitting vehicle or receiving vehicles to store that location for more than 10 minutes or so. I'm not too worried about the impact on privacy if that were the case. And I'm expecting car manufacturers to go with the cheapest possible solution which meets regulation, so they certainly have no interest in installing the kind of equipment needed to broadcast location beyond 100m or so, and lost of interest in resisting regulation which goes beyond that.

The backup-camera rule (1)

snsh (968808) | about 2 months ago | (#47768789)

Is this the same DOT that for years defied US legislation mandating backup-cameras becoming standard equipment in vehicles?

In 2008, Congress passed a law (signed by GW Bush) requiring the DOT/NHTSA to put together rules requiring backup-cameras in cars. The law set a deadline of 2011 for the DOT. And 2011 was just a deadline, so they could have implemented the rule in 2009 if they wanted. Instead they put off the setting the rule until just about six months ago in 2014. It won't be finalized until 2015 and won't take effect until 2018.

The reason DOT dragged their feet? The stated reason was that they needed more time to calculate the cost-benefit ratio of prevented deaths caused by cars backing up. Never mind that Congress already decided that matter, and that most of the measurable benefit is not going to come from personal injury, but from property damage averted when you don't dent your car backing out a parking spot because you can see how much space is behind you in the video-monitor. The unstated reason is that mandatory backup cameras would cost PROFIT for Detroit auto manufacturers.

And keep in mind these are lousy backup cameras which are mature, uncontroversial, and easy-to-implement tech. This V2V tech is still under development.

So what's the deal with this rush to mandate V2V? Is this Obama trying to establish legacy?

I've always thought.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768791)

I've always thought it would be cool to have an open bi-directional sound channel where anyone within 500 ft could talk to, listen to, warn other drivers in other nearby cars etc. You don't have to tune in... but i bet many people would be on it.

Wishful thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47768933)

On the surface, it's not a bad idea. But you don't have to dig deep at all to bump into lots of smaller and bigger problems. One of the most trivial ones is that we'll start to rely on this V2V communication being available and that suddenly a burnt out vehicle right around the bend becomes that much more deadly, as in causing "easily preventable" loss of life, just because the beacon in the thing wasn't working. At the very least you have to discount that "lives saved" guesstimate (and it's a very wild one by necessity) for that, possibly considerably.

Then there's the problem that you already cannot trust state actors not to abuse the information. We know this because they already have repeatedly demonstrated to be entirely untrustworthy with loads and loads of wilfully collected data without warrant, "just in case". Next they'll mandate government-accessible remote shutoffs and like trickery. Sure, seems like a good idea, but it also opens up the door to abuse, and someone will go there. How many "potentially dangerous" car chases cut short to justify a remote-shutoff-caused deadly highway rear-ending? Go on, we're making trade-offs here, tell us your preferences in numbers. If you can't do that, you're not just paving the road to hell, you're insisting on doing it blindly.

And that again is before considering security measures, since LE presumably has legally-mandated access. That they'll never ever possibly will abuse cross their fingers honest, like how that is so totally true in everything they ever do. But suppose that's really true, the next stop is corporate fleet management access, personal remote access (vengeful ex-SO, anyone?) or unauthorized access combined with the automotive industry's track record (rfid tyre pressure sensors, anyone?), and so on. This really just scratching the surface.

In those, and more, senses, it's "because we can" starry-eyed wishful silver bullet thinking. We can no longer afford this, haven't been able to afford it for a while, and the price is getting steeper all the time. Yet we keep on going down the same path. Guess we'll have to learn the hard way, then.

i'm shocked (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 2 months ago | (#47769031)

shocked i tell you that California didn't think to mandate this first! we are slacking.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?