Waymo Sues State DMV To Keep Robotaxi Safety Details Secret (latimes.com) 58
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Los Angeles Times: Waymo, the driverless car company operating an autonomous taxi fleet in San Francisco, is suing the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The immediate issue: whether the company, owned by Google parent Alphabet, can hide from the public safety-related information by designating it as a trade secret. The topics Waymo wants to keep hidden include how it plans to handle driverless car emergencies, what it would do if a robot taxi started driving itself where it wasn't supposed to go, and what constraints there are on the car's ability to traverse San Francisco's tunnels, tight curves and steep hills. Waymo also wants to keep secret descriptions of crashes involving its driverless cars.
That's among the information the DMV requires to determine whether to issue permits to deploy robot vehicles on public roads. The permit was issued last year. Waymo is focusing on San Francisco, where, for the time being, its robotaxis operate under the supervision of trained human drivers. The wider issue: how to handle the explosion in trade secret claims in an age of artificial intelligence, robot technology, the internet of things and pervasive data collection. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on Jan. 21, contends that Waymo would lose out against other driverless car companies if full permit information were shared with the public. "Every autonomous vehicle company has an obligation to demonstrate the safety of its technology, which is why we've transparently and consistently shared data on our safety readiness with the public," Waymo spokesperson Nicholas Smith said via email when asked about the suit. "We will continue to work with the CA DMV to determine what is appropriate for us to share publicly and hope to find a resolution soon."
Where the DMV stands on the issue remains unclear. The agency has yet to file a response to the suit and told The Times it won't discuss ongoing legal matters.
That's among the information the DMV requires to determine whether to issue permits to deploy robot vehicles on public roads. The permit was issued last year. Waymo is focusing on San Francisco, where, for the time being, its robotaxis operate under the supervision of trained human drivers. The wider issue: how to handle the explosion in trade secret claims in an age of artificial intelligence, robot technology, the internet of things and pervasive data collection. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on Jan. 21, contends that Waymo would lose out against other driverless car companies if full permit information were shared with the public. "Every autonomous vehicle company has an obligation to demonstrate the safety of its technology, which is why we've transparently and consistently shared data on our safety readiness with the public," Waymo spokesperson Nicholas Smith said via email when asked about the suit. "We will continue to work with the CA DMV to determine what is appropriate for us to share publicly and hope to find a resolution soon."
Where the DMV stands on the issue remains unclear. The agency has yet to file a response to the suit and told The Times it won't discuss ongoing legal matters.
Private (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they should be able to keep their company information private.
Just as long as they don't want a permit to operate on public streets, that's their right,
Re:Private (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a free country. Alphabet can buy some land, and pay to build a road on it. Then run any number of autonomous vehicles at any speed they wish. Without telling the CA DMV jack about any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Google already have for private testings before doing public testings?
Re:Private (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they should be able to keep their company information private.
Just as long as they don't want a permit to operate on public streets, that's their right,
And, like with Google Fiber, they're free to build their own roads and drive all over them and keep that data secret ...
Waymo also wants to keep secret descriptions of crashes involving its driverless cars.
I'm sure a LOT of people would like to keep info about their crashes secret too, but that's not how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure a LOT of people would like to keep info about their crashes secret too, but that's not how it works.
That's true. I got in a minor fender-bender a few years back. I wish it had remained secret, but somehow my insurance company found out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure a LOT of people would like to keep info about their crashes secret too, but that's not how it works.
Actually it is. The details of multivehicle accidents are rarely published in full. They certainly aren't aggregated and searchable by driver name.
Re: Private (Score:2)
If they can keep Johny Cab crashes private, my cousin should be able to keep his DUI a secret.
BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS
Re: (Score:3)
That is how it works if you have enough money and influence.
Pfizer was doing the same on vaccine data WITH the assistance of the FDA until a court got involved.
Money talks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a *huge* difference between wanting to keep crash data private at the one end and keeping contingency plans for dealing with hostile actors (terrorist, hacker, whatever) secret.
The former would be insane to keep private, while the latter would be insane to expose, increasing the risk by helping such agents plan.
Should we be able to FOIA the pentagon's plans for retaking San Francisco if it is invaded?
Re: (Score:3)
You're the only one who brought up terrorists/hackers, but security by obscurity is not security.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>The topics Waymo wants to keep hidden include >how it plans to handle driverless car emergencies,
>what it would do if a robot taxi started driving itself
>where it wasn't supposed to go,
both things that a hostile actor would likely target.
And knowing where the ninja bunnies on standby are deployed, or how many there are, is critical planning data for the hostile actors.
Re: (Score:3)
For normal cars, that information is all public. And don't say they can't be hacked.
Re: (Score:1)
Just as long as they don't want a permit to operate on public streets, that's their right,
Sounds like an admirable plan. But you should really apply it equally. There's a lot of companies using public streets without fully disclosing to the entire world internal information.
Level the playing field.
Oh but I guess this is "with a computer" and the DMV is like the new patent office?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, they should be able to keep their company information private. Just as long as they don't want a permit to operate on public streets, that's their right
Sounds like an admirable plan. But you should really apply it equally. There's a lot of companies using public streets without fully disclosing to the entire world internal information.
If their internal information is related to them killing people on the public streets, yes, I agree that that information should be shared if they are to use public streets.
Re: (Score:3)
If their internal information is related to them killing people on the public streets, yes, I agree that that information should be shared if they are to use public streets.
It's a public street. Please do us a favour and share your real name, real drivers license number, and give us a complete itemised list of every near miss and accident so we can judge whether you're "killing people".
You don't want to share that information now do you? It's "private". Something to be discussed between you, your DMV record, the police, and the insurance company right?
Think about what is being asked here and apply it equally to public use of public infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
If that private information is a danger to others, they do have to disclose various information. Carrying toxic chemicals, there's signs you need to be visible. Likewise for carrying explosives or potentially explosive stuff. Shit even new drivers here have to advertise the fact.
Then there are those license plates, which advertise that the vehicle is insured here as well as the motor vehicle branch knowing who registered the plates and often the principal driver. It's illegal for me to drive anonymously as
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I'm just asking you to be on a level playing field for the public use of infrastructure. If the DMV came and asked you for complete details of absolutely everything related to crashes or near misses, would you answer? Of course not. You're not an idiot. Some information is private for a reason and is left up to external investigations to ascertain.
Carrying toxic chemicals, there's signs you need to be visible. Likewise for carrying explosives or potentially explosive stuff. Shit even new drivers here have to advertise the fact.
That's whataboutism that has nothing to do with the question at hand.
It's illegal for me to drive anonymously as well, a cop can demand to see my license under the slimmest pretense.
That's all good and fine. A cop can come and see if you're licensed to drive on the r
Re: (Score:2)
That's all good and fine. A cop can come and see if you're licensed to drive on the road. Now on the flip side does some random government bureaucrat have the right to come and ask you about specific details of a crash? That's what is being discussed here. The DMV complaining that Google responded with only partial details of an accident.
Well, not random bureaucrat but yes, certain government bureaucrats can ask about specific details of a crash and even put me in court under oaf and ask. The difference perhaps is that the government runs the auto insurance here.
My guess is you would if asked offer up only the barest of minimum information. Nothing in your post here is anything that Google is arguing against.
The one time I had an accident (fender bender), I offered up all the information I could as I wanted to show I was not at fault. I'd think that if Google is not at fault, they too would want to offer up the information and if they at fault, the other road users have a right to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, just wow (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
GM, Ford, Toyota, etc have been running or leasing their own test tracks for decades. But that's the old-fashioned loser way of doing business for the titans of the tech industry.
Re: (Score:2)
GM, Ford, Toyota, etc have been running or leasing their own test tracks for decades. But that's the old-fashioned loser way of doing business for the titans of the tech industry.
Your post is stupid. Literally none of the company's you mention do any kind of real world modelling on a test track, and for what they have used a test track for Waymo has too.
There's only so much you can simulate artificially. I'm sure you won't be too happy lying on a hospital bed when the company comes up with the excuse "we couldn't simulate you walking out behind a blind spot in an inner city alley way on our test track, tough luck".
Incidentally you also didn't get your drivers license purely by circl
Re: Wow, just wow (Score:1)
While what you stated is true, all of those events that happened on in a public venue were a matter of record held by the motor vehicles department of your state, unless it went unreported, which in most cases is illegal.
Waymo operate on a public street, the accidents should be a reported to the state. Since the CVC does not directly address autonomous vehicles, it does state vehicles and operators. Until the CVC is updated this lawsuit is necessary to challenge the law (and hopefully lose) so that these a
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally you also didn't get your drivers license purely by circling around a parking lot either did you. At some point you and your instructor dared to use public infrastructure.
Isn't that how motorcycle license exams work? Well with cones and more complex routes around that parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Do you test your motorcyclists so poorly? The way they work here is that you use a parking lot (test track) to prove you can do basic manoeuvring without falling off the bike and then you head out onto the public road for your certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really sure. Had a friend who tried for his license and failed the parking lot stage and left me with the impression that was the test. Perhaps different depending whether a license upgrade or not.
OK, looking, here (BC) you need to pass the skills (parking lot) test to get your learners license. For the actual license there's the road test.
Sorry I can't disclose the amount of arsenic (Score:5, Funny)
The amount of arsenic in these muffins is a trade secret!
trade secret for my massive profits (Score:4, Interesting)
The amount of child labor I use to sew footballs is none of the government's god damn business.
Re: trade secret for my massive profits (Score:1)
The amount of piss-bottles stored up in that van with a smile on it's side, is none of the government's business./s
Breaking it up and selling it for parts (Score:1)
As political scientist Sarah Kendozier has observed the fundamental agenda of the New Gilded Age's oligarchy is to break the United States of America up and sell it for parts. Presumably they also believe they will be able to rule from their castles at the pinnacle of the ruins, although that's unlikely to work out for them IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
As political scientist Sarah Kendozier has observed the fundamental agenda of the New Gilded Age's oligarchy is to break the United States of America up and sell it for parts.
That doesn't sound right.
Re: Breaking it up and selling it for parts (Score:1)
Me thinks your tin foil hat is on too tight.
it may take an criminal trial to force the info to (Score:2)
it may take an criminal trial to force the info to jury to bad it make take something like an school bus full of kids being wiped out to make that happen.
Spill or Chill (Score:5, Interesting)
If they don't supply relevant info, then deny them a permit to drive. We shouldn't have to put up with dereg crashoids. Plus, the info could help other bot-car makers, improving the industry in general. It's not cat videos, it's a 2 ton machine moving among people. Good infrastructure requires coordination.
Automobiles are have a history of regulation (Score:2)
There are more regulations for driving an Automobile than there is for getting a Gun in the Untied States.
Every person who drives a car on public streets, will need to get a license or a permit to do so.
Every person will need to follow a set of laws and rules on what they can do on the streets.
Failure to follow the rules, and if you are consider an unsafe driver you could lose your license to drive.
Having your license revoked goes onto public record.
I fail to see why states should treat robots with such pre
Re: (Score:2)
There are more regulations for driving an Automobile than there is for getting a Gun in the Untied States.
On the contrary:
You don't need a license merely to own a car.
You don't need a license to drive a car on private property.
You don't need a license to display your car in a public place (e.g. moving it on an open trailer, with someone else driving).
You don't need a special permit to transport a car across state lines.
No background check is required to obtain a driver's license.
Almost anyone can pass the driving test and obtain a license with a trivial amount of effort.
Revoking someone's driver's licens
Good for California (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do we care if people in AZ and TX get slaughtered by driverless vehicles? If TX doesn't care about having a reliable power grid, why would they care about driverless cars taking out people? As for AZ, if they're willing to submit fake electoral college documents [cnbc.com], they can't be too concerned about deaths caused by driverless vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a lie (Score:2)
"which is why we've transparently and consistently shared data on our safety readiness with the public"
Well that's a PR lie. (They share the data that makes them look good.)
No data no permit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a driverless taxi handle a person without a smart phone? A person covered by ADA like blind or deaf or mute?
How does it handle a person who does not speak the local language?
If a smart phone is required for hailing a driverless-taxi then that is a severe enough limitation it should not be able to use public-taxi waiting areas or hailing areas, such as in front of airport or hotels or transit stations.
PR Speak (Score:4, Insightful)
We will continue to work with the CA DMV to determine what is appropriate for us to share publicly and hope to find a resolution soon.
CA DMV determined that and you sued them. Is that the new definition of "work with"?
Maybe I will "work with" my DMV to "resolve" my problem of the speed limit being lower than the speed at which I drive. They do not need to share that info with my insurance company.
Re: (Score:2)
CA DMV determined that and you sued them. Is that the new definition of "work with"?
To be fair this is a government agency we're talking about. Suing them is likely the only way to modify a standard operating procedure. Heck it may even have been the DMV's own suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably correct. DMV probably said "If you don't like it, sue us." That's because DMV will not even pay attention to google. Suing them is probably the only way to get their attention. Of course, google is wrong, but still.
WTF is the deal?! (Score:2)
Why aren't the DMV and the courts telling these people to go straight to hell? What kind of corrupt judge would ever hear such a case? The rule should be absolute, no transparency, no permits.. Done.. Bye...
Re: (Score:3)
FTFA:
Also, at some point, some judge will get assigned the case. He might just dismiss it.
Class action waymo (Score:2)
Why do the people of the USA tolerate this? (Score:2)
The blatant Double-Speak of these organisations is utterly revolting.
"which is why we've transparently and consistently shared data on our safety readiness with the public," Waymo spokesperson Nicholas Smith said via email when asked about the suit."
When asked about why they want to engage in a COMPLETE COVERUP they instead roll out some marketing bullshit about openness.
Why do you tolerate such pure evil?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the alternative? Are you saying European corporations aren't evil?
That is rich (Score:2)
So, in other words: (Score:3)
as has been said ... (Score:2)
If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.
The harder they fight to keep the information hidden the worse that information must be.