Once Vehicles Are Connected To the Internet of Things, Who Guards Your Privacy? 130
Lucas123 (935744) writes Carmakers already remotely collect data from their vehicles, unbeknownst to most drivers, but once connected via in-car routers or mobile devices to the Internet, and to roadway infrastructure and other vehicles around them, that information would be accessible by the government or other undesired entities. Location data, which is routinely collected by GPS providers and makers of telematics systems, is among the most sensitive pieces of information that can be collected, according to Nate Cardozo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Not having knowledge that a third party is collecting that data on us and with whom they are sharing that data with is extremely troubling," Cardozo said. in-vehicle diagnostics data could also be used by government agencies to track driver behavior. Nightmare scenarios could include traffic violations being issued without law enforcement officers on the scene or federal agencies having the ability to track your every move in a car. That there could be useful data in all that personally identifiable bits made me think of Peter Wayner's "Translucent Databases."
The Cavalry (Score:4, Informative)
This is the reason the group I Am The Cavalry [iamthecavalry.org] was formed.
Cavalry my tired tail (Score:1)
Except They are the Cavalry — according to their own page [iamthecavalry.org] — are focusing on Cyber Safety, not privacy.
And our privacy — as far as cars are concerned anyway — has been shot for over a century already, when New York (always the Illiberal) mandated license plates [about.com] in 1901.
They could not think, of course, that some day automatic license-plate readers [vigilantsolutions.com] will be archiving our driving histories [washingtonpost.com]. But the move — targeting "the rich", of course — was just as invasive even back the
I have a phone in my pocket (Score:5, Insightful)
... all the time. It knows where I am. It knows how fast I'm going. It knows who I talk to. It listens. It sees.
And it's connected constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
true. your point?
Privacy is already dead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe for you but not for the rest of us. and there's no law to carry cell phones
Technically, there's no law saying have to drive a car either...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, but while there are no regulations on mandatory tracking equipment for phones, there are all sorts of regulations on cars. If we got legislation on the books to mandate this tech then it would be illegal to drive without letting the govt track you.
That's already the case in the US (and as I recall, we discussed it here a few years back). US law for some time has required that new auto tires contain an RFID tag. Granted, those can't be read at a distance, but they can be read by sensors under the roadway or in poles next to the street.
It's hard to believe that the purpose of this can be anything but tracking. Yeah, such tags might have other uses, but would any of those uses have resulted in laws mandating the tags?
Re: (Score:2)
Try being a productive member of society without a car..good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, don't drive on public roads.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
> I have a phone in my pocket
And like most people you are happy to trade your personal security in the future for convenience today.
But it does not have to be that way. Your phone does not need to indiscriminately produce a "data exhaust." It was just designed that way by people who want to capture as much of your data as possible.
Don't let your apathy and ignorance get in the way of the people working to make things better. One day you might decide that there work was actually useful to you after all
Re: (Score:3)
But it does not have to be that way. Your phone does not need to indiscriminately produce a "data exhaust." It was just designed that way by people who want to capture as much of your data as possible.
Don't let your apathy and ignorance get in the way of the people working to make things better. One day you might decide that there work was actually useful to you after all.
While that sounds great, it also sounds a lot like swimming upstream, pissing in the wind, etc...
Frankly, while I applaud your efforts, I think that you may not be accomplishing much.
Time will tell...
Re: (Score:1)
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Re: (Score:3)
Which one was Gandhi? :)
Keep in mind that for every successful Gandhi, a thousand more just like him were shot and forgotten about.
Re: (Score:2)
Many said that about the nazis, then about the communists. Freedom and liberty are important, and the ignorance of those who would take them from you is a large part of protecting them. Otherwise, a society with zero privacy would be defined solely by the limitations of the law and law enforcement technology. What a shithole that would be. History (and current events) have shown us there's no shortage of insecure, single issue blowhards who want to force their 'utopia' upon the rest of us, so the fight's
Re: (Score:3)
All true...
The question then becomes... does technology help or hurt the cause?
Throughout human history, it has always been possible to move to someplace new, to travel to the new world, so to speak.
That is quickly not becoming possible. To some extent it isn't possible now, but it can be depending on how far off the grid you care to live. But that time is ending.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.. we're rapidly approaching diminishing returns the same way a pressure cooker reaches the edge of its containment abilities.
Re:I have a phone in my pocket (Score:5, Informative)
... It knows where I am. It knows how fast I'm going. ...
Well, maybe, and maybe not.
I recall a couple years ago, when I was traveling south on a street in a nearby town, but when I glanced at the GPS gadget, it showed me about a block north of where I was -- and headed north. Traffic was light, so I looked at it frequently, to see what it did, and it showed me continuing north, until my actual location was nearly a mile south of what it showed. Then it decided I'd made a U-turn, and was proceeding south at a rather high speed. Finally, the little You-Are-Here icon reached my actual position, and slowed down to match me. A bit later, I checked its records of that trip, and it showed a max speed somewhat over 250 mph.
So if the police had access to that data, I'd have got a ticket for going about 8 times the legal speed limit. I sorta suspect that most judges would laugh and toss it out. But if it'd been only twice the speed limit, I'd probably have had a large fine to pay.
And note that the position was credible, though it was roughly a mile off. A couple of months ago, however, I noticed that, while my bearing and speed seemed accurate, my GPS position was roughly 100 miles SE of my actual position, which put me maybe 10 or 20 miles east of Cape Cod, driving along in the ocean. It stayed that way for at least 15 minutes, and then suddenly popped over to a local street a few blocks from my actual position.
I've also seen it showing my position as being in north-central Canada, and somewhere in Nevada, when I was actually in the Boston metro area.
So if the police are tracking our GPS position and speed, we have no defense. Yes, maybe the judges will dismiss the tickets that are obviously so badly wrong. But if they're only off by a few miles or mph, we'll all be getting completely bogus tickets that we'll have to pay.
Of course, they may still dismiss them for people who "look right" and "talk right", as they do with claimed drug offenses. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Your phone was probably also using cell tower triangulation and getting confused/tripped up by a stingray device. I have noticed similar behavior on my phones, but not pure GPS devices, on the east coast. The place where it was worst was Washington D.C. Out west seems to be mostly trouble free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you say may well be correct, but not necessarily relevant. You always have a choice to turn off your phone, or at least turn off GPS and other location services.
These insidious "connected" vehicles will not give a choice. Want to travel by car? Get tracked or get out.
No thanks.
Corrected link (Score:2, Informative)
Just wait 'til the Insurance Companies get it! (Score:5, Insightful)
The rates will likely skyrocket to near-Canadian rate levels, and there might be a change in Speeding Ticket-Issuing technologies that could (conceivably) issue live warnings and even Tickets based on telemetry and other live info...
Imagine getting caught up in a construction or accident re-direct, and their being a batch of auto-tickets issued for using the wrong lane(s) or traveling on a closed section of road! People won't really be able to fight a live-issued ticked based on in-vehicle speed data after all because it's going to come form your own speedometer and correlated with satellite tracking for accuracy.
Talk about a Revenue Stream! Who needs a Speed Trap, when your Vehicle will issue you a ticket directly.
Government will simply mandate it, and it Will Be So.
Mark my words...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just wait 'til the Insurance Companies get it! (Score:4, Funny)
As long as Milla Jovovich comes crashing through my roof, you can send me as many tickets as you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Your insurance company could introduce a clause (if it's not already there) suspending your insurance coverage for a short period of time (say a minute or two) after the telemetry indicates that you violated a motor vehicle law. They could claim it was introduced to prevent a carjacker from getting paid for injuries related to the sudden and violent end of his or her high-speed chase, but it could also apply if you went 0.1 MPH over the speed limit just before an accident (trying to prevent the accident by
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine getting caught up in a construction or accident re-direct, and their being a batch of auto-tickets issued for using the wrong lane(s) or traveling on a closed section of road!
That happened in LA this week. Thousands of people were diverted onto the 110's Express lanes because of a gun battle, causing many of them to get automated tickets. But the tickets were quickly canceled and any money already paid is being refunded.
As much as we hear about technology run amok and mindless government bureaucrats, there are still plenty of sensible human being in the world and in most cases they can overrule any stupid things the machines do.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-metro
Not just cars ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true of your thermostat, your fridge, and pretty much anything else which is a part of this "internet of things".
Every aspect about what these devices does will be analyzed, used for marketing information, handed over to law enforcement, or your insurance company, or anybody who hacks into it.
For some of us, this whole IoT is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen, and we have no interest whatsoever in it.
Unfortunately, a lot of people like to see that as a sign that you're paranoid and getting alarmist about things which will never happen.
And then, like the widespread surveillance being misused (which they swore would never happen), parallel construction (which is perjury in my books), or the scope creep we see all around us ... almost inevitably this comes true and people act surprised.
Sorry, but I for one will not be enabling this crap. It just seems like technology for the sake of it, and by the time people realize that those among us who have been saying this will be a problem were right, it's too damned late.
Unless there are laws governing how a company can use the information, and some controls over law enforcement to prevent them from getting this and misusing it ... the internet of things is a terrible idea, and will not make your life better. The sheer amount of information about every aspect of your life which will be in someone else's hands is staggering.
In the end, I predict it will make our lives far worse, and usher in even more of this surveillance society we've been seeing.
We can't trust them with the information they have now, let alone from another bunch of sources in your life.
You really think the government won't insist on getting all this data without a warrant? And they won't claim you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and that they should be entitled to know where everybody is at all times? Or that corporations won't sell this for marketing purposes? Or to deny you service?
Hell no. Now, pass the tin foil please.
The good news is (Score:2)
I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant blue Barracuda
From a better vanished time
Re: (Score:1)
My 1968 Plymouth is certainly going to gain in value over the years
Certainly? ... Certainly?!
Sure, and maybe I shouldn't have junked my '84 T-bird (which was the worst piece of shit I've ever had the pleasure of driving: it was also EMP-proof until the engine seized and the distributor housing melted).
Odd poem. Needs more rhyme.
Re:The good news is (Score:4, Informative)
Your '84 T-bird was fuel-injected and had electronic ignition. It was in no way EMP-proof.
Re: (Score:2)
The ignition I know nothing about. I turned the key, it started. Is a '68 Plymouth usually crank-started?
Re: (Score:3)
The T-Bird's ignition is timed a solid-state electronic ignition control module that reads the timing from a sensor and grounds the coil causing the high-voltage burst of electricity that fires the spark plug. The role of the distributor is to select which spark plug should spark. Prior to the invention of electronic ignition, gasoline engines used a set of mechanical points that rode on a cam lobe under the distributor. When it came time to fire a spark plug, the points would come in to contact with eac
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite true. There were mechanical fuel injection systems for petrol cars, e.g. the Lucas system in some of the Triumphs. They weren't known for being particularly reliable - EMP resistance would be the least of your worries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So to clarify, the distributor only sparked the plugs while the ECU still controlled the fuel injectors?
For the record, my '84 T-bird was a piece of shit. I bought it for $500 and it lasted me for one whole summer. The engine kept stalling at the most fantastic times, usually as soon as the throttle was opened up from idle. People must've thought I was learning to drive a stick, though the car was automatic. Over the course of those few months, I managed to collide with countle
Re: (Score:2)
Your '84 T-bird was fuel-injected and had electronic ignition. It was in no way EMP-proof.
My '81 GMC had electronic ignition, too... until I ripped out the drivetrain and put in a good ol' fashioned carburated setup.
Re: (Score:2)
A) EMP impact on vehicles is highy over rated. In testing the worse case was some erroneous dash lights. Which went away after restarting the car.
B) When you're the only one on the road, you will be trivial to watch and find.
C) You should probably learn about cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. .they'll force you to install a tracking device for registration..or they'll just ban it out right.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet of things will make my life better. It will make everyones life better.
The data will allow you to improve everything you do.
Its not the tech, it's the usage.
Re: Not just cars ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not the tech, it's the usage.
That's why I plan to stick to a private intranet of things.
finally (Score:3)
segways will finally find a purpose?
PHONES YOU IDIOTS (Score:2, Insightful)
All the data that they are afraid cars will give out are already given out by people's phones.
So, basically exactly the same situation that we already have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You see those cameras on the freeway? yeah. Anyone you hang out with got a smart phone? Use plastic anywhere?
Instead of railing against the inevitable, spend that time and energy for protection on what, when, who, why, where and how it can be used?
I want a spy car [vimeo.com], but that's probably not what you meant. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb cellphones give away your triangulated location to within a few dozen yards, too.
If you really don't want to be tracked, you can't even use a pager.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not true, also you can turn off /leave behind your cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving your cell at home doesn't cost you your career or income.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because my phone is traveling in a vehicle, does not mean that I am driving or even IN said vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because my phone is traveling in a vehicle, does not mean that I am driving or even IN said vehicle.
It doesn't mean you are "for sure" but it does mean you are "most likely" and "within x [very high] certainty."
The vast majority of times people who own cell phones don't have it with them, they either left it at home, or forgot it somewhere in a stationary location.
If it is usually where They think it is, that is more than good enough that they can be "pretty sure" where you are.
Privacy is not retained by there being a small chance that the invasion of privacy is rarely and temporarily incorrect.
Wrong Slogan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to put the SCO in CISCO.
why do you let your world be shaped by marketing? (Score:2, Insightful)
things don't have their own internet...its the same one we use for everything else
so please just say cars are connected to the internet
Privacy? What about my safety? (Score:1)
I will guard my privacy (Score:3)
I will guard my privacy just as I already do: by physically disabling the GPS and communications systems in the car.
Re: (Score:3)
And your car will someday refuse to boot without them.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, but that's not today. And if that day ever comes, there are other ways of dealing with the issue. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And your car will someday refuse to boot without them.
Someday NEW cars might refuse to boot or whatever, but MY car, the carburated one with no electronics other than lights and a stereo, will never have that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, until they turn around and make using those cars on public roads illegal.
You know, they are unsafe/thinkofthechildren/onlycriminalsusethem/youhavenothingtohide/etc...
Or, just insurance companies will refuse to insure you. Here in the UK they are already making it harder and harder to own cars that are pre-90's. I can imagine it becoming even harder in future, until they become something you can only take on a trailer to show off at classic car shows.
Re: (Score:2)
And your car will someday refuse to boot without them.
And 5 minutes later it will be hacked to send false signals.
Car modding is the most prolific modding scene. Germany mandated limiters to 250 KPH decades ago, other countries have done similar but you still get cars flying down the deresticted parts of the autobahn at over 250 KPH. Limiters were easily removed or disabled, when the they started inspecting cars they made the modification so that the limiter can be easily connected to fool the tests and disconnected afterwards.
If police and insurance mar
The problem is compelled surveilance (Score:2)
The issue is not that dark forces will be able to monitor your vehicle without your knowledge, it's that once the capability is common, you simply won't be able to get a license (car or driver) or insurance, without clicking "YES" to ALLOW MONITORING on the contractual EULAs. So you can't object - you agreed to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your State is obviously badly in need of a "ballot measure" system. In most US States, the type of law you imagine would only last until the next election, when it would be repealed.
Here in Oregon, State politicians who vote "Yes" on a law later repealed have a 100% rate of being replaced by their own party in the next Primary Election. The result is that anything controversial, they don't even vote on the law; they only vote on referring it to the voters. Voters don't punish politicians for asking us to de
In the future (Score:5, Insightful)
Mother: Who ate the last piece of cake?
Fridge: Gary ate the last piece of cake.
Wife: Where was Gary last night?
Car: Gary was at the strip club with Larry and Moe.
Police Officer: How fast were you going?
Gary:I don't know.
Chevy: Gary was going 57 miles per hour. He was 7 miles over the limit.
Police Officer: Have you had anything to drink?
Gary: No officer.
Chevy: Gary was tailgating with Larry and Moe. The cooler says they have consumed 3 cases of beer.
Re: (Score:3)
Chevy: Gary was tailgating with Larry and Moe. The cooler says they have consumed 3 cases of beer.
This Chevy sounds like an arsehole, good thing I drive a Nissan. Japanese cars dont question the boss.
Italian cars should become more popular, they know what will happen if they break the omerta... either that or you'll see a lot of ad's for "pre loved Fiat 500, only one shotgun hole".
FEAR! (Score:1)
FEAR the technology! Its' gunna getcha! It might invade ten privacy you don't actually have on public roads!
Re: (Score:2)
FEAR the technology! Its' gunna getcha! It might invade ten privacy you don't actually have on public roads!
Yea, because the best response to extremist idiots is to become an extremist idiot yourself. Nothing bad ever comes of that *coughCrusadescoughcough*
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.. not the technology. the fucktards in charge who will use it..
Scam (Score:3)
The "Internet of Things" is a solution without a problem. There is nothing about the Internet of things that could not be accomplished without the built-in violation of privacy. When are people going to figure out that a large percentage, if not the majority of all new technical "solutions" are actually methods of taking something from you, instead of providing you with some service or improvement to a product? Once you get past the novelty, it's actually quite an ugly picture. From "smartphones" to mobile payments, "connected" appliances and all the rest, it's not meant to make your life better, but to alter your relationship to your possessions in order to enrich someone who does not have your best interests at heart. It's not enough that they've turned the Internet itself from a revolutionary platform for communication and the sharing of data into a shopping mall where the product is you. Now they have to turn your very life into a terrarium for their own enrichment.
And the worst part of the Internet of Things is that it's just not worth the price, no matter the price.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Internet of Things" is a solution without a problem.
Tools are not problems or solutions.
The problem is, and I'm using the example that was often cited in the 90s, you're 3 hours into your vacation and are worried you might have left the stove or coffee maker on. Being able to login to your home network and check the status could save your vacation! Otherwise you have to worry the whole time, or call somebody and beg them to visit your house, and probably have to give up the location of your spare key over an unsecure line. Networked coffee makers were, of co
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a radical idea: an automatic shutoff. You know, like those $10 electric water kettles have had for years that shut themselves off when they reach a boil? You could have a stove that simply shuts itself off if it fails a state check. Come on, your example sucks. A 50 cent circuit that does automatic shutoff is a hell of a lot less expensive and
Misplaced fear (Score:2)
Nor News (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it you're not in plain view of all, only the people around you at any given point along your journey. Also, your travels aren't being recorded for posterity and monday morning quarterbacking by desperate bureaucrats or law enforcement looking to justify their jobs.
Traffic cams are also part of the problem.
Who will save you from fringe roaming (Score:2)
As you don't have to go out side the usa to pick up Canada&Mexico towers that can cost you $15-$20 a meg
What scares me much more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The only person who guards your privacy is YOU
Don't buy Connected Things
worst idea since the underwater toaster
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nail, head hit:
1: The government isn't going to guard privacy. The only way they would is if something really bad happened, similar to how in WWII, long distance bills were used to arrest and put to death French resistance fighters.
2: Companies have little interest in guarding it, as security has no ROI, and they can make money on the side by selling data.
3: LEOs are pressed to not guard privacy, especially with the fact that an entire industry is pushing on them 24/7 to keep the jails full.
4: Foreign
Re: (Score:2)
that doesn't protect you from the law, nor from others removing options from the market.
Re: (Score:1)
You won't be able to register your car if it doesn't have its snitchware.
That's a pretty idiotic proposal IMHO. I would vote "no."
That would never fly in my State (Oregon). If you think this could happen in your State, my advice, get a "ballot measure" system where you can exercise Direct Democracy. Then you don't have to worry about those kinds of idiotic conspiracy theories, because if they were to pass such a law, the People would simply revert it at the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
http://economics.about.com/od/taxesandeconomicgrowth/a/mileage_tax.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-you-have-to-pay-a-tax-for-every-mile-you-travel/
Re: (Score:3)
Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't some conspiracy theory, or secret program, and the actual law that that program is designed to study will involve odometer checks not GPS. GPS is being used for the study, because it allows quick results. Having to manually check the millage of all the vehicles would not only delay the information, it would balloon the cost of the study, and quite simply the study would not even happen.
The reason we're doing pilot studies on the feasibility of mileage-based t
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering the state (federal and local) taxes are getting close to 40% of working/middle class income, there ought to be enough fucking money to maintain the roads without more/new taxes. Perhaps state officials need to prioritize for a change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soccer moms would vote yes for the children, and they outnumber us.
FTW (Score:2)
Harley Fuckin' Davison!
Re: (Score:2)
" (hint: public-key encryption)"
hint: won't work in any practical manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't happen because our lives have been monetized for the benefit of a very few. It won't happen because now we are the consumables. The Internet has become a tool of tracking, behavior modification and political control.
Re: (Score:2)
... I think we need to consolidate both the authentication and the data storage of all of these different services. Whether you use Google Docs or Microsoft Office Live or some other web-based document editor, you should be able to store and manage the documents in a consistent place, accessed through a standard API.
You seem to miss the fact that the companies could do that now, but don't want to. You're basically proposing to strip freedom from service companies, and have some sort of government regulator determine where their storage Must Be, and what API they're restricted to only using. Otherwise, you'd simply be proposing that companies stop wanting what they want, and everybody to agree on a common solution. Which is silly, because human traits are distributed according to a known distribution, and it is guarante
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to miss the fact that the companies could do that now, but don't want to.
No, actually, I comment at the end that we could do this now, but that companies don't want to.
You're basically proposing to strip freedom from service companies, and have some sort of government regulator determine where their storage Must Be, and what API they're restricted to only using.
No, I'm proposing that there be industry standards. There wasn't a government regulator necessary to determine that email providers must use SMTP to transfer email. It's just the standard, and it doesn't make sense for individual companies to go against the standard because it would cut themselves off from interoperability with everyone else.
And, by-the-way, Google doesn't have a walled garden, they have an open API and other companies can already integrate and let their users keep backend data in a variety of google services such as google drive.
Umm... bullshit? Ok, provide me with instructions on how to have Googl
Re: (Score:2)
No, semantically we don't have any information about the views of the reader and who they view as undesirable, so it should be and/or.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts, correct or not, don't care what the reader 'views' or feels is undesirable.
Re: (Score:2)
You have that kinda backwards. It was soviet style governments who wanted to track their citizens. The USA is just the latest addition.
Fight the cartel! (Score:2)
Don't let your car tell on you. You can mod me down now.
Re: (Score:2)
People will need to rip these out and bypass them like seat belt alarms. But then that will be illegal of course. So, have them only transmit when in range of the cop (who will see you anyway). But then they will put a "cop receiver" on every corner. I just don't see how this will not been seen as violating expectation of privacy with any honest judges. Oh wait...