Feds Unveil Rule Requiring Cars To 'Talk' To Each Other (thehill.com) 292
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The Obama administration released a long-awaited rule on Tuesday requiring all new vehicles to have communication technology that allows them to "talk" to each another, which officials say could prevent tens of thousands of crashes each year. The proposal calls for all new light-duty cars and trucks to eventually be equipped with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology, a safety system that enables cars to send wireless signals to each other, anticipate each other's moves and thus avoid crashes. The rule would require 100 percent of new vehicle fleets to have V2V technology within four years of the final rule's enactment. The proposal will be open for public comment for 90 days. The connected vehicle rule builds on previous work by the outgoing administration to accelerate the deployment of innovative safety technology. The Department of Transportation released the first-ever federal guidelines for driverless cars in September. "We are carrying the ball as far as we can to realize the potential of transportation technology to save lives," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "This long-promised V2V rule is the next step in that progression. Once deployed, V2V will provide 360-degree situational awareness on the road and will help us enhance vehicle safety." Officials say V2V has the potential to mitigate 80 percent of non-impaired crashes and can interact with other crash avoidance systems, like automatic braking. V2V uses dedicated short-range radio communications to exchange messages about a car's speed, direction and location. The system uses that information from other vehicles to identify potentials risks and warn its driver. A pair of Democratic senators called on the agency to ensure that vehicles have "robust" cybersecurity and privacy protections in place before automakers deploy V2V.
Alterterior Motives... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It uses short range radio. You could gain the same information as a camera reading license plate numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Alterterior Motives... (Score:2)
No, the op mentioned transmitter not recievers. That is a different issue.
tracking (Score:2, Informative)
Let's attach a unique ID transmitter to every car in America!
Does it matter? Most people have cell phones on them, so are tracked anyway. When was the last time your phone was more than a metre from you?
Besides, if your car has tire pressure monitors then they emit a radio signal with a unique ID already:
* https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/tracking_vehicl.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire-pressure_monitoring_system#Privacy_concerns_with_direct_TPMS
* http://www.rtl-sdr.com/receiving-decoding-tire-pressure-monitor-systems-using-rtl-sdr/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're above it all!
hahaha
Re: (Score:2)
Chemtrails man! ;)
It's all in chemtrails!
Re: (Score:2)
I have two words.....FUCK THIS...
Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score:4, Insightful)
Two words is no where near enough in this case. The whole idea is icredibly dangerously insane stupid, it's like what the fuck, Which shit head lobbyist managed to get this idea pushed through so their pet caimpagn contributor could believe they would make billions upon billions of dollars, fucking morons. This system is one hundred percent hackable right from the get go, seriously, it's design function is inherently hackable, it is designed to be hacked, at it's core. How, so fucking easy, just put those communications devices in all sorts of places with set transmissions, indicate of false current state for imaginary vehicle to induce dangerous evasive action in other vehicle which will trigger a real accident based up avoided the greater imaginary risk and there is nothing what so ever you can do to stop it. Absolutely fucking nuts.
Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your colorfully-worded argument has convinced me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Essentially, you argument is that the system can be used to tell vehicles false information. However, that's entirely possible today with the existing information systems. You can turn your blinker on without turning. You can randomly apply the brakes and slow down. You can weave through traffic, and disobey lane markings.
No, V2V is not going to replace common sense, or the algorithms in self-driving vehicles. If a car announces a planned path, it's not going to be trusted outright. Rather, it will be corroborated with reports from the receiving vehicle's sensor suite, other vehicles, and even fixed landmarks.
To illustrate, let's consider some example scenarios, where I will play the bad guy, with a significant technical ability, no morality whatsoever, and a strong desire to keep noisy traffic off of my quiet little street. For ease, we'll assume no functioning cryptography, focusing only on algorithmic security.
It would be pretty easy for me to make a little beacon to announce that my road's under construction. However, with no construction cones nearby, no proper roadsigns, and no road crew, vehicles would have little reason to trust my beacon. They might put a little more weight into their road sensors looking for potholes, but that's about the extent of my influence. Of course, I could post some fake construction signs, but that's illegal under current law, and the only difference is that I would be adding a radio announcing to the police that I've put up fake signs.
Let's get a little more malicious. I could spoof two vehicle transmitters, announcing an accident. Surely, traffic will route around it for a while, but eventually something will come down my road anyway, and notice that my transmitters' announced locations don't actually correspond to vehicles. In fact, it sees the road is clear, and announces that observation on the network. That causes another vehicle (which would really prefer my road anyway) to try driving past, and it corroborates the report, announcing that my transmitters are liars. Their spoofed vehicle IDs, then get flagged as fraudulent, and I have police coming to my door.
If I'm going to end up with a visit from the police eventually, I can at least make it interesting, and get the FCC involved. I can just jam all V2V traffic in my area, making my road an unknown compared to the safer routes around me. That may work for a while, but it doesn't deter any traffic that would have normally gone down my road. Without V2V communication, the vehicles fall back to their normal radar and vision sensors.
Now let's suppose I get really angry, and head out on the highway to wreak havoc. I can announce that I'm moving perfectly fine, going straight ahead. I can announce that my brakes are in great condition, that I have a full sensor suite, and all my data is trustworthy. I can announce a few spoofed vehicles just out of sight that trust my data. Everything says it's safe to come close to me, and nothing will go wrong... until I slam on my brakes. Then, the car behind me slams on his brakes automatically, because it rightly knows not to absolutely trust anything coming from V2V, and it's still watching my car with forward sensors. It also announces to the network that we're stopping, so all the cars for a mile behind me brake, too, and the ones that can shift lanes will escape. Even if there is a collision, the damage will be minimized by the slower speed and rapid self-preserving coordination. The flood of messages about the delays will be weighed more heavily than my fake announcement of clear conditions, so the affected lane will be avoided, and vehicles will move away as they're able. I've disrupted a few folks' smooth sailing, but it's not catastrophic.
No, the system isn't perfect, and it's not designed to require perfection. The people actually doing V2V work are well aware of the limitations of network communications, and are designing systems to work around malicious actors. In the worst cases, it's still better than human drivers or isolated automatons, so it's still a net benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey..sounds like a good thing to me!!
Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score:5, Insightful)
It IS a good thing. Not the unique ID part which is a bit scary. But cars communicating their intentions to each other. It should make roads considerably safer. HOWEVER, I suspect that implementing it is not as easy as it sounds.
It's the corner of 1st and Main in most any big US city. Or its foreign equivalent. And there are maybe 200 cars, buses, trucks, carts, mopeds, bicycles, horsecarts, etc, etc,etc in the area. And they are all squawking endlessly something like "Hi, I'm a mostly blue 2031 VW Hedgehog at latitude xx.xxxx,longitude yyy.yyyy proceeding NorthEast toward an intersection where I plan to turn left. If you need to talk to me, my friends call me $%34XQC1" And the vehicles are all using the same RF frequency band. And there are three other blue 2031 Hedgehogs in the area. And two 2032s which are visually identical except for the shape of the passenger side mirror. And, thanks to multipath GPS reception, most of the vehicles are a bit uncertain about the last three digits of their coordinates. And half those who aren't uncertain should be. And maybe it's raining. Or snowing. And there's an ambulance or fire engine that's trying to get vehicles out of its way.
Just exactly how does this nifty vehicle communication scheme sort all that out?
What useful information (Score:2)
What useful information could this V2V actually provide that is more than provided by blinkers and brake lights?
I cannot think of anything.
Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score:5, Funny)
"Hi, I'm a mostly blue 2031 VW Hedgehog at latitude xx.xxxx,longitude yyy.yyyy proceeding NorthEast toward an intersection where I plan to turn left. If you need to talk to me, my friends call me $%34XQC1"
It's an older code, sir, but it checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno.
I'm getting a kick out of imagining Bush trying to pronounce it and it sounds like he's saying "Alterterior" to me.
sorry, that's a cheap shot at a guy who is no longer president, but I can't resist.
Re: (Score:2)
unique ID? It's called a license plate number.
One that takes more then 2 screws to change... And one you can not "barrow" from any parking lot.
Re:Alterterior Motives... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information. There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further. They claim to not transmit any specific identifying information, but if it broadcasts 10x/second, then it's pretty trivial to follow if you can receive real time. Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
Yes, the police probably will want that capability. But let's make sure they need to get a warrant before they can use it on an individual.
It's not like they can't put a lojack on a suspect's car. Or track the old-fashioned way without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to commute and in the winter I always wanted to know which highways where cleared of snow before I left. There are weather cameras at local bushinesses but none of them really helped me with knowing which highway was cleared then someone mentioned and much to my surprise the DOT makes publicly available highway intersection cameras.
If you scraped it and presented it well you could probably follow cars on all the cameras so long as they were on the highway or in the business district and I'm not sure
Re: (Score:2)
There are weather cameras at local bushinesses
Geez, can't even make it rain in the strip club without being on camera these days!
Re: (Score:2)
What century are you living in? Warrants are so 1900s.. at least if the direction basically every government in the world is going these days is anything indication.
Geez, next you'll be wanting them to respect the right to privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information. There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
From what I understand they are using PKI. Everyone has their own private key signed by a hierarchy of government authorities I presume.
The problem with the approach is the general idea trusting everyone is the same as trusting no one. Since all vehicles have the capability of transmitting messages seen by all other vehicles as valid "encryption" becomes a moot point.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further.
This is a massively important point. The bullshit we are hearing about 300 feet or whatever it is disappears the moment you switch to a big
Re: (Score:2)
not actually physically possible
Sure it is: By defining what "specific identifying" means. Typically, we don't consider things like tracking cookies to be "identifying" even though they can be used to create a profile of your actions (and can likely be trivially connected to identifying information if you have such laying around, as with Google.)
But its all about definitions -- following you and "identifying" you are treated as different actions and therefore their statement can be completely true in letter while at the same time being
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information.
The basis of any autonomous driving system will have to have all of the vehicles talking to each other. Because there is a difference between having one google car on the road, and having almost all of them.
There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
Oh hell yeah. Selling ads for you to watch while the car drives itself. You'll love it. Bad guys might want to jam the signals. That won't cause the cars to wreck, but might make for some traffic jams.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further.
It will have to be very short range stuff, because otherwise, you'll run into the same problems that Wi
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people...
Eh, sort of... There are parts that are broadcasts, and parts that are connections. It gets complicated.
it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it.
Wait, no, stop. Let's clear this up right now: The transmitter doesn't care what you do with the information. It has absolutely no benefit solely from transmitting, which is why the government is stepping in to say "transmit, dammit!" Unfortunately, that invisible hand of the free market works against us here.
Rather, the V2V transmission is advisory, providing other vehicles the option to act on the provi
How can the Feds do this? (Score:2)
How are the Feds able to mandate this? Seems a large stretch to see how this is associated with interstate commerce, which is about the only mechanism that the Feds can use to make US wide laws.
Re: (Score:2)
How are the Feds able to mandate this? Seems a large stretch to see how this is associated with interstate commerce,
A car sold in any state is registerable in any other state. Even, in fact, if you buy a car in a state which doesn't have California-like levels of emissions laws, and your PCM is programmed for another state! California simply performs the smog test with higher allowable numbers. It's also a safety issue, interstate highway, blah blah blah.
Stock up on old cars now, if you care. No computers and old tech, 1981-1985 MBZ 300SD or 1986-1991 300SDL (not 350SDL.) Or, no remotely accessible computers and new tech
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a large stretch to see how this is associated with interstate commerce
That large stretch started when growing wheat on your own farm for your own use [wikipedia.org] became interstate commerce. The Supremes really fucked us with that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Bluetooth does that already
WiFi does.
Bluetooth (at least "Bluetooth smart" / Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)) recognized that problem and lets a device use either the IEEE MAC unique-per-device address or one of three others. In bluetooth-ese:
- "public": MAC address
- "private static": 46 bit random number (stable between chip reboots but may change on reboot) Much like a MAC but you don't have to buy it from IEEE and can expect a collision in a random group of more than forty million devices
I'd like a HUD that tells me what it says (Score:2)
But I sure don't want a self-driving car that pays more than the most cursory attention to V2V data. Using it to determine whether the freeway is blocked ahead is fine. Using it for much of anything else is a horrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine someone randomly giving "my vehicle is braking hard" just to cause vehicles behind to actually do just that, to cause traffic jams, or deal with yet another tailgater. That or giving fake "this road is congested with cars at a standstill" to get people to go to other routes.
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine someone randomly giving "my vehicle is braking hard" just to cause vehicles behind to actually do just that, to cause traffic jams, or deal with yet another tailgater. That or giving fake "this road is congested with cars at a standstill" to get people to go to other routes.
I knew a guy who'd connected his brake lights to a button on the dashboard for this exact purpose. Ie press the button, brake lights go on.
Scared the hell out of tailgaters!
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a guy who rigged his windshield washer fluid to spray rearward out of a nozzle on the trunk, and kept it filled with water and red food coloring, to much the same effect. People backed off pretty quickly after a squirt or two of red liquid.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this varies by state I am sure. Someday I will make a bumper sticker in tiny letters saying " If you can read this while driving go back to New Jersey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can do this now by tapping the break pedal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying this is going to be abused, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is going to be abused. People will have so much fun with this, it'll be unreal. Imagine a little box you can buy/build that spoofs a vehicle system and tricks all the cars in a 100 meter radius into executing an emergency stop...
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to be abused. People will have so much fun with this, it'll be unreal. Imagine a little box you can buy/build that spoofs a vehicle system and tricks all the cars in a 100 meter radius into executing an emergency stop...
Yea, that won't be difficult to extract from a rolled vehicle at all...
Re: (Score:2)
There will be rolled vehicles, but good luck finding the culprit, assuming the perp tosses their device as soon as they can. It is like cellphone jammers, which can be almost impossible to catch unless someone leaves it running long enough for LEOs to get a good fix on.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless it transmits a cryptographically-signed VIN as part of the broadcast, and receivers log that VIN to some kind of persistent storage if they rely on its data. It wouldn't necessarily prove that a specific INDIVIDUAL is guilty, but it could ABSOLUTELY pin financial liability on the owner of the vehicle associated with that VIN for negligently allowing a car he owns to spoof bad data.
I know that in Florida, you can't get license plates without registering the VIN, and I'd be shocked if any state DIDN'T
Re: (Score:2)
> Unless it transmits a cryptographically-signed VIN as part of the broadcast, and receivers log that VIN to some kind of persistent storage if they rely on its data.
And in this day and age, people can clone your car's wireless fob when you use it to open a door. Or clone your SIM card, RFID payment card, and others. Seeing as these boxes would probably be highly illegal to begin with, the users of such will have no problems with the morality of cloning an innocent bystander's vehicle VIN signature.
Re: (Score:2)
It is like cellphone jammers
Oh good, I was worried for a minute. If it'll be as harmless and rare as cellphone jammers, then I'm not concerned. I've yet to have my cell phone suddenly not work, or have personally heard of this happening to someone.
Now, if it were a problem like spray paint and those asshole taggers, then I'd be concerned.
I was in a pub in the UK with no cell signal, absolutely none inside. Go just outside the door, signals totally fine. Could not call a cab from inside the pub. It was an old Tudor building, I doubt it was originally a faraday cage.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
This argument is non-falsifiable.
Parent provided a specific scenario about spoofing signals that can be falsified and the merits of his specific argument weighed.
What you have done is discounted his specific scenario by saying "you can already abuse a ton of things" This concept cannot be falsified. The same argument can just as easily be used to justify giving a Windows XP computer with no services packs a public IP address.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you're cruising along at 50 miles an hour, and someone goes flying by you at 120 miles an hour, cuts in front of you and slams on their brakes, the car should ignore it?
Re: (Score:3)
The cops will have this "Car stop now!" box FIRST!
Re: (Score:2)
Its actually a very good idea. In theory.
In actual practice it will be full of easily exploitable security holes, due to the fact that doing actual QA and actually giving two shits about security would cut into profits (ie, the CEO's bonus).
Re: (Score:2)
So kind of like the Internet. Full of easily exploitable security holes. So obviously like the Internet we simply shouldn't do it right?
Re: (Score:2)
Radio devices can be invisible when concealed in a pocket or trunk. Can you look at a camera and point out the bloke with a cellphone jammer in his pocket in a crowd?
Finally the WW3 on roads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
Let's not even pretend this will suddenly end death related to car accidents. Sadly in today's landscape, this only opens up the door to even more nefarious hacking, with truly deadly results.
Re: (Score:2)
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
Let's not even pretend this will suddenly end death related to car accidents. Sadly in today's landscape, this only opens up the door to even more nefarious hacking, with truly deadly results.
Let's suppose that there is a collection of evil hackers out there who could make that happen when the technology arrives.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people would rack up a body-count that even approaches what humans do to themselves in cars right now? And that they won't be caught, or stopped as exploits are discovered and fixed?
Re: (Score:2)
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
Let's not even pretend this will suddenly end death related to car accidents. Sadly in today's landscape, this only opens up the door to even more nefarious hacking, with truly deadly results.
Let's suppose that there is a collection of evil hackers out there who could make that happen when the technology arrives.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people would rack up a body-count that even approaches what humans do to themselves in cars right now?
No, I'm implying that those who are selling the concept of automation are doing so under the guise that it is much safer while not properly mitigating the risks. And those who can hack this system may not think twice about racking up a considerable body count. Also, what happens when even 5,000 people are killed at once? The death toll isn't the killer. The lack of trust in the system is, which can affect entire economies and hundreds of millions of people reliant on it.
...And that they won't be caught, or stopped as exploits are discovered and fixed?
That is correct. They won't be c
Re: (Score:2)
Let's suppose that there is a collection of evil hackers out there who could make that happen when the technology arrives.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people would rack up a body-count that even approaches what humans do to themselves in cars right now? And that they won't be caught, or stopped as exploits are discovered and fixed?
We have seen cars getting hacked and attackers disabling steering controls, stopping cars, accelerating cars.. things that can easily get people killed under the right circumstances. If some terrorist outfit decided they were going to create self propagating worm and systematically enable this globally at a predetermined time you would certainly find and fix the exploit but not after massive carnage had been inflicted.
It is critically necessary to understand what it is your weighing these risks against. H
Re: (Score:2)
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
So what does 20 million have to do with V2V? Are you saying when V2V is rolled out nobody is going to die? If this is not your claim what are you saying?
What is the benefit of V2V specifically over other technologies in terms of lives saved? What does it prevent specifically that rollout of technologies based on sensors and CV does not already prevent?
Re: (Score:2)
More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone
And another 60 million in the century before [wikipedia.org].
Criminal uses.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Point gun at car, make car stop. Kidnap/rob from target vehicle. Profit.
Re: (Score:2)
A roadblock is stationary and presumes knowledge of the vehicle and its route as well as lack of witnesses at roadblock location.
A gun may not stop a vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha SO DUMB (Score:2)
You can see where this is going. 300-car pileups.
This seems really premature (Score:2)
I don't know anyone has any concrete proposals for how this would work, what each car would transmit, what it would receive, or what it's expected to do with the data.
The problem, as I think about it, is we've got a chicken and the egg problem. I'd love to say that the manufacturers should experiment, try some stuff out, and converge on some recommendations. Problem is, it's kind of useless to have all that expensive gear in my car if no one else does. There'd be no one listening and no one talking to me. S
Scary **** (Score:5, Insightful)
I am extremely worried about this.
1) It will be abused. Period. You know it will contain the VIN or other unique ID. So readers on the side of the road will be monitoring everyone everywhere- where you go, how fast you were going, etc. Endless tickets in the mail.
2) It will be hacked. Period. And once it is, it could cause chaos and devastation on the roads- causing other vehicles to panic and brake, others to swerve, etc. It would be one thing if this data were read-only, but we all know it will be linked into active controls. Road rage weapon. Stupid teenager prank. Whatever.
3) It will be hijacked. With active controls tieins, police cars could use spoofed info as one way to kinda remotely-control other cars. And, of course, if they can do it, so can criminals. It will give a new meaning to the word "carjacking"....
4) It will often be non-upgradable. Car manufacturers have a proven dismal track record on keeping ANYTHING updated on their cars. Once it is sold, they couldn't care less about the vehicle, unless they can somehow turn it into an endless stream of revenue.
Like any technology, there are good things and bad things with each "improvement".
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that *right now* you can go get into a vehicle, drive it any direction at high rate of speed and cause as much damage as you want? No technology needed.
You can drive the wrong way on the highway. You can light a car on fire and roll it down a hill. You can put a brick on the accelerator and set it loose into a crowd of people. You can throw nails on the road to stop any vehicle you fancy. You can string up wire across the road for motorcycles.
No technology required.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you can. But those are higher risk of being discovered than doing it electronically. And they all require a physical presence to do such stuff. Hacking into systems can be done remotely and can affect far more people at once.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you know that *right now* you can go get into a vehicle, drive it any direction at high rate of speed and cause as much damage as you want? No technology needed.
You can drive the wrong way on the highway. You can light a car on fire and roll it down a hill. You can put a brick on the accelerator and set it loose into a crowd of people. You can throw nails on the road to stop any vehicle you fancy. You can string up wire across the road for motorcycles.
No technology required.
Sick and tired of these lame arguments.
You can already do X therefore concern Y is invalid.
Or the classic "BUT UR CELL PHONE!!" battle cry whenever someone has any privacy concern about anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Existence of one vulnerability does not excuse responsibility for piling on of new ones.
Convenience and stealth matter. If you can broadcast a signal that causes LOLz or havoc or renders wholesale cyber stalking trivial with minimal effort or risk to yourself this is to quote our out
Re: (Score:2)
No one is forcing you to buy these cars.
This clearly isn't true, since the entire point of the article is that the Federal government is enacting legislation which requires V2V features on new cars. Sure, that doesn't mean that everyone must immediately go out and buy a new car, but it does mean that over time as cars wear out you will eventually be forced into a vehicle with one of these devices.
When you disagree with a law you don't wait until it's too late to change it before protesting. If you don't agree with a proposed Soylent Green law r
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that *right now* you can go get into a vehicle, drive it any direction at high rate of speed and cause as much damage as you want? No technology needed.
You can drive the wrong way on the highway. You can light a car on fire and roll it down a hill. You can put a brick on the accelerator and set it loose into a crowd of people. You can throw nails on the road to stop any vehicle you fancy. You can string up wire across the road for motorcycles.
No technology required.
This technology will get hacked. No human required behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:3)
In the abstract, I think it could be done in a way that would be helpful but with minimal danger, but it wouldn't be easy.
The key would be to construct the system so that information coming from another vehicle is never trusted. The information might still be useful, but only in terms of refining estimates gathered from the car's own sensors.
Re: (Score:3)
>"The key would be to construct the system so that information coming from another vehicle is never trusted. The information might still be useful, but only in terms of refining estimates gathered from the car's own sensors."
Bingo, +1 to you
Ultimately, such outside information should always be untrusted AND able to be overridden by the driver in ALL cases. But will systems be designed that way? And even if so, hacking into them and presenting false information can still be dangerous, distracting, and v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2+3) Probably, but you also "hack" cars with spike strips or plain old rocks. These things are illegal in general.
4) It should have an option to upgrade it then. Pretty simple.
I'll only agree to it if it supports OOB data (Score:2)
"Need a tow... Mustang got a proximity worm..." (Score:2)
Imagine a metro crippled for days by a car to car worm. Or, how about an entire city's autonomous automobile population commanded to layer 1 DDoS a business... "This drive thru line is ridiculous."
Luckily, the peer to peer signaling code will be secure. Especially if the industry rolls their own protocol from scratch. Phew!
Telemetry data: speed (Score:2)
I'm sure the vehicle speed will be among the telemetry data, which will be so useful to LEOs - who will undoubtedly record your data. Why rely on radar when your vehicle will simply narc on you. Maybe some historical data will be available too, so they can nail you for speeding earlier.
Oh God why... (Score:3)
Man, lately I've been having a hard time imagining the thought process of feds, government administrators, and people in charge of proposing policies like that.
How can they extol the supposed advantages of a system like that so much without giving a single thought - or thinking that people won't - of all the horrible potential dangers of it?
Like, dang dude, I could have a very nice adrenaline surge in my system which would feel nice and be potentially benefitial to my health if I jumped out of my balcony right now from the 20th floor or something... *silence*
I mean, let's all ignore how regular non connected car systems were already hacked, how dangerous it'd be to make it obligatory for car companies to have a system in place, the track record of car systems' security and then overall IoT, the history of unwarranted fed tracking and spying... let's save lives by forcing everyone to wear short choke chains to be controled remotely by proprietary closed software no one has access to and hackers would eventually find a way of taking control. It's not like we have weekly reminders on how badly companies handle security.
Re: (Score:2)
middle class stagnation (Score:2)
It's adding more and more crap like this to new cars that keeps them from getting cheaper over time. The average new car (in constant dollars) has actually gotten about 30% more expensive since 1980, while the price of a new PC has plummeted.
Pedestrians, Pets, Bikes, Wildlife? (Score:2)
Why are pedestrians, pets, bikes, and wildlife being left out?
Old School FTW (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy a new car each 2-3 years as updates will stop (Score:2)
Buy a new car each 2-3 years as updates will stop after 2-3 years and the car manufacturers will say want to keep legal buy a new car or an 2-3K computer upgrade each 2-3 years.
As long as there is no data roaming or overages fe (Score:2)
As long as there is no data roaming or overages fees.
Complexity AND safety (Score:2)
If you treat cars like a swarm system, yes, vehicles need v2v. We do it on our drone system (p2p mesh network) since jamming and RF bandwidth limitations don't allow functional safety to work if it was centralized (which is very common on wired systems).
Great (Score:3)
Not my car (Score:3)
Standard protocol? (Score:2)
What they will say to one another (Score:2)
requiring all new vehicles to have communication technology that allows them to "talk" to each another
To each "another"?
Here's what they might say:
Car 1: Lookout, I have an idiot controlling me.
Car 2: Yeah, steer clear of me too, the fool at the wheel is on their damned phone.
Car 3: My driver is drunk again.
Car 4: My driver is texting. I say F-it! Let's get them all together and let them all crash. Darwinism at its finest.
Protections (Score:2)
I dont see them, where is the nobody may track monitor other otherwise watch you via this. Till then it's antenna is getting clipped, hell after then it's getting clipped.
Actually... (Score:2)
...his name was Appleby, not Applegate.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't personally approve the requirements; his appointees do.
That said, if federal agencies don't follow the rules for making new regulations, those regulations can be tossed in court.
If DOT policy requires a 90-day comment period and a 4-year "warning" period before the rules take effect, they need to adhere to that schedule regardless of who is shuffling in and out of the White House.
The new models for the next several years are already in various stages of design, so rules realistically need to b
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness there are no turnpikes in my state...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Same here, I've been wanting to for years and it looks like might be my year to do it....
I want to get a '75-'76 Trans Am, 455 4-speed, last year of the big block, and of the round headlights.
You can get almost frame off restore for the low to mid $20's.
They were getting horribly air restricted at the end of the muscle car era, but with a few bucks, can do a resto-mod on
Re: (Score:2)
The LS1 swap won't make it more reliable than an engine rebuild, but it will be a hell of a lot cheaper.
If all goes well I am about to have a spare Audi ABZ 4.2 V8 motor. Look that one up on motorgeek and prepare to shit yourself. They've got a fully forged bottom end, where the later motors have powder rods. (I think they stick with the forged/twisted crank for all Audi V8s though.) And you can get a complete one for five hundred bucks right now, although it might be wiser to spend more. Proven with VEMS.
Re:GPG signatures (Score:4, Funny)
How dare you bring technical discussion to fearmongering.
Re: (Score:2)
GPG is pretty solid right? Why not have every vehicle sign every message it sends with its private key?
PGP doesn't really help when you're dealing with transient anonymous actors. Sure they can sign the message, but where do you get the public key to verify, and how do you know the car in front of you was the originator of the message? Short range radio could be anyone within hundreds of feet -- or farther if someone's using a directed or high power transmitter.
And if a hacker starts using multiple disposable generated signatures, the vehicles could use a web of trust to exclude signals from rogue actors, or at least take them with a progressively larger grain of salt.
How do you build a web of trust from vehicles which come and go? It's not like you can have a signing party with everyone in your major metropolit