Yes, what about the safety benefits of proposed technology? As in, what are they? Until that paragraph I didn't even know this was supposed to be a safety system, just a surveillance system. How is this supposed to increase safety?
Also, who is going to pay for these boxes and what will be the penalty for not installing one?
This makes spying by Google and FB look mild by comparison.
I guess the idea is to make it easier to build fully autonomous vehicles.
I think it's pointless, though. It will take decades to equip the entire US auto fleet with these transmitters, and by that point, the vision and scene analysis problems that currently give autonomous vehicles trouble will have long since been solved anyway.
ETA: the PDF linked from the article [0] supplies a rationale. But it also says that under the proposal, only new light vehicles would be required to have the transmitter. I think my argument stands: by the time even 50% of the cars have this, autonomous driving will be a solved problem.
[0] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p...
Car2: "hey I'm a botnet"
Car3: "hey I'm a botnet"
Car4: "hey I'm a botnet"
...
Car9998: "hey I'm a botnet"
Car9999: "did you say xyz? check out these hot singles near xyz"
> This document proposes to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 150, to mandate vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications for new light vehicles and to standardize the message and format of V2V transmissions. This will create an information environment in which vehicle and device manufacturers can create and implement applications to improve safety, mobility, and the environment. Without a mandate to require and standardize V2V communications, the agency believes that manufacturers will not be able to move forward in an efficient way and that a critical mass of equipped vehicles would take many years to develop, if ever. Implementation of the new standard will enable vehicle manufacturers to develop safety applications that employ V2V communications as an input, two of which are estimated to prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes and prevent over one thousand fatalities annually.
As to your questions,
> what about the safety benefits of [the] proposed technology? ... How's this supposed to increase safety?
From the executive summary, the benefit of this is that it provides more information without requiring line of sight to other vehicles. It can "see" through cars allowing it to perceive dangerous situations around corners and behind other cars. It provides more information like breaking force and path prediction so that more corrective action can be taken. If vehicles are updating each other with steering inputs and break inputs along with path prediction its hard to not envision how this could increase safety. A car can react to emergency breaking far far faster than a human can.
From the linked proposal, there's a whole section VII Estimated costs and Benefits. Section D there is Estimated Benefits with subsections 1. Assumptions and Overview 2. Injury and Property Damage Benefits 3. Monetized Benefits 4. Non-Quantified Benefits. From the monitized annual benefits section,
> Table VII–38 provides the undiscounted annual fatal equivalents, monetized benefits, and property damage and congestion savings of the proposed rule from the year 2021 to 2060. As shown, by Year 5 the proposed rule is estimated to save 129 to 169 fatal equivalents totaling approximately $1.3 to $1.6 billion annually. Approximately 12 percent of the monetized savings, $176 to $237 million, are from the estimated reduction of property damage and congestion. By the year 2060, with V2V fully deployed, the proposed rule is estimated to save approximately 5,631 to 7,613 fatal equivalents annually. Finally, the total associated monetized annual savings would range from $54.7 to $73.9 billion. Of these savings, $7.7 to $10.6 billion is estimated to be property damage and congestion savings.
> Also, who is going to pay for these boxes
Section VII (Estimated Costs and Benefits) B (Quantified Costs) 1. (Component Costs) has your answers! Physical hardware is estimated to add $245.79 for one radio and $347.18 for two radios with an estimated $17.80 installation fee. The added weight is expected to add $0.19 - $6.97 in fuel costs per year. Summarizing "The cost per new vehicle would range from $135 to $301...". As to the who, presumably the consumer.
> What is the penalty for not installing one?
From Section I (Executive Summary) the wording is that "to require all new light vehicles to be capable of Vehicle-to-Vehicle ("V2V") communications, such that they will send and receive Basic Safety Messages to and from other vehicles. This seems to be a regulation aimed at manufacturers, and non-compliance would probably come from marking the fleet of manufactured cars as not road legal.
Would eliminating the ID component of the proposal satisfy the critics?
Sticking your head in the sand and pushing back against a system that is necessary to protect the safety of the driving public as automated vehicles become a thing is shortsighted.
Image recognition technology is such that you likely have a dozen or more government and private entities noticing you. You can buy data from cell carriers to know the average income of travelers on a road at a given time for 45 minute drive in urban and suburban areas.
Hell, I built a parking gate system for somebody with a raspberry pi and an outdoor security camera sourced from EBay -- and I'm a dope with no unique skill in these areas.
In the US, I'm sure the FBI and DEA have realtime feeds of phone movements for thousands or millions of phones. They had pervasive LPR surveillance a decade ago.
None of these things are remotely similar to legally mandated broadcasting of your location multiple times per second. They do not constitute a reason to sacrifice privacy for some nebulous safety gains.
The rest of your comment is just FUD.
This won't be widespread for 20 years and the data quality coming out of cars will be very mixed.
It seems pretty ridiculous to invest in this rather than allocating funds to things that are both useful immediately and in the long term, like actually painting lane markings everywhere.
You provide no reason not to fight things getting even worse.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p...
Without identity, how is this a massive invasion of privacy on the order of Google and Facebook?
So for 5 minutes you know precisely which car it is and then when the changeover happens you just look for which certificate has disappeared and which has newly appeared and do some fuzzy matching based on position and heading. That is not remotely anonymous.
Other Big Auto Exec... "Oh don't worry we'll just use our political influence to change the rules to dramatically simplify the problem."
Also, on the subject of Tesla/Google, you do know they already do collect the same information the article describes, right?
Other Engineer: "just have the other car tell us. I know you like solving hard general case problems, but come on. This solution is super obvious."
See an interesting DefCon talk from a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXv1j3GbgLk
>The basic summary of the proposal, known as Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC), is as follows. From the moment a car turns on and every tenth of a second until it shuts off, it will broadcast a so-called “basic safety message” (BSM) to within a minimum distance of 300m. The message will include position (with accuracy of 1.5m), speed, heading, acceleration, yaw rate, path history for the past 300m, predicted path curvature, steering wheel angle, car length and width rounded to 20cm precision, and a few other indicators. Each message will also include a temporary vehicle id (randomly generated and changed every five minutes), to enable receivers to tell whether they are hearing from the same car or from different cars.
Ok this could be useful, especially with autonomous vehicles hitting the road.
>Under the proposal, each message will be digitally signed. Each car will be provisioned with 20 certificates (and corresponding secret keys) per week, and will cycle through these certificates during the week, using each one for five minutes at a time. Certificates will be revocable; revocation is meant to guard against incorrect (malicious or erroneous) information in the broadcast messages, though there is no concrete proposal for how to detect such incorrect information.
Ugh, why do they need to be provisioned by a third party. Just let each car generate its own random ephemeral keypairs per some time interval and sign with those. You already said "Each message will also include a temporary vehicle id (randomly generated and changed every five minutes)", so what's the need for third party certificate provisioning.
So the authorities know where to send the speeding tickets.
Under the proposal, each message will be digitally signed. Each car
will be provisioned with 20 certificates (and corresponding secret keys)
per week, and will cycle through these certificates during the week,
using each one for five minutes at a time. Certificates will be revocable;
revocation is meant to guard against incorrect (malicious or erroneous)
information in the broadcast messages, though there is no concrete proposal
for how to detect such incorrect information.
This is a theme. Large swathes of privacy have been eroded simply because technology allowed the Government to use principally legal methods on a much greater and automated scale. And with the past an current government, there is no particular push to reverse this.
The only help here has been the Supreme Court decision on warrantless GPS trackers.