Ford Demonstrates Networked Cars 115
An anonymous reader writes "Ford is touring U.S. cities demonstrating a technology that appears to closely resemble a private dynamic network among multiple cars. The cars connect to each other via short-range Wi-Fi (which actually has a reach of half a mile) and enables vehicles to exchange location and movement data. Being aware of each other's location and movement direction enables them to help drivers avoid collisions, especially in situations where obstacles cannot be identified fast enough. The technology could be available for consumers as soon as 2013."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but you'll be aware of the people spoofing police in order to get everyone else out of their way.
Re: (Score:2)
Faking a policy identity will probably be highly illegal if policy do have a unique identifier they could broadcast. Just like even having possession of a box that can change a red stoplight to be green is illegal [wired.com]. Or maybe it would be considered impersonating an officer, which is probably worse if you get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
So any laptop with an ir port is now illegal?
Or only if I install software that lets me send arbitrary ir signals?
Or only if I Install software that sends that signal?
Where is the line?
Re: (Score:2)
But then, all this stuff about the involvement of law enforcement and such is all speculation (best I can tell), so I guess it's not worth worrying about too much just yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like even having possession of a box that can change a red stoplight to be green is illegal.
The article you linked to does not support your assertion.
It says selling and using are illegal but makes no mention of possession.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they use PKI to identify police cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but you'll be aware of the people spoofing police in order to get everyone else out of their way.
Why? Are you going to drive around with the blast shields down?
Re: (Score:2)
Your GPS can deceive you. Don't trust it.
Re:Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Will we be able to use this to be aware of police within a half mile radius?
No, but they will probably be aware of you and your data (including speed and how far you've travel over the last X minutes).
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, if the cars know where they are, there's no reason for people to be driving, and thus no legitimate reason for any absolute speed limits to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they will be aware of the phony accident report that you injected into the network and they'll all divert to that location (and away from you).
Automated traffic congestion reports can also display a nonexistent tie-up on your preferred route to work and suggest that other traffic divert to alternative routes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Police (Score:4, Funny)
Make sure you install a HOSTS file, then the police won't ever be able to install malware in your car!!!
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter, apk? Don't know what hyperbole is?
Taking the untenable position of your debate opponent to ridiculous extremes to show the lunacy of it is a perfectly valid debate method.
You don't even astroturf well, because all your sock puppet accounts get banned for posting the same illogical claptrap that your AC posts do.
Re: (Score:2)
Counselling? Therapy? For poking fun at a belligerent idiot?
Yeah....you're definitely apk.
Although it is unusual that you're able to make a short post without all sorts of bizarre formatting....
Why do you feel the need to astroturf your own posts, apk? Is that the only way you can get a post to agree with your insane viewpoint?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, you're broadcasting your speed and location to every officer within 1/2 mile. They no longer need a radar/laser gun. Only now the ticket can't be disputed because you incriminated/testified against yourself. The police officer only wrote the ticket based on your confession.
Re: (Score:2)
[/s] You're approximately a million billion bajillion times more likely to die in a random traffic accident than at the hands of hitmen unless you are a mob boss. Maybe avoid naming your car's wifi network things like "witnessprotectionprogram."
Re: (Score:2)
For every good idea.( forcing disparate government agencies to actually talk to each other) you get really bad side effects(DHS, TSA, unlimited wiretaps, etc)
If you look not at what you want the law to do, but instead look at how can it be exploited for/profit, personal gain, etc then you can adjust the law to be reasonable.
It is why it is never done.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look not at what you want the law to do, but instead look at how can it be exploited for/profit, personal gain, etc then you can adjust the law to be reasonable. It is why it is never done.
Also because it's nearly impossible to think up every downstream consequence of any law. And I mean impossible even for smart, informed people, let alone your average voters and politicians.
Anyway, what law are we talking about here? I think it's unlikely this will be legally mandated for every car in the US anytime soon. Every -new- car maybe in 10 years.
I think "hitmen OMG!!!" is not a real concern regardless of the time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not thinking OMG hitman. I am thinking TSA OMG that person drove by a chemical factory let's scan them.
Re: (Score:2)
exploit what? I guess a hacker could send out a false signal, giving bad information to the cars on the road.
As long as there is not a uniquely identifiable value for your car that is persistent from day to day, I do not see a problem with knowing if a car a half mile ahead is stopped and what direction that traffic ripple is going.
If the data is scrubbed and not executable and the security system of the car is not tied to this network, then there is not really any exploitability
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of exploitation will vary based on how stupid the engineers are when they design it. if the mesh network is separate from direct control of the car then there is little that could be done to affect the driver of a car directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is now way 'they' can track your CC purchases every couple of hours.
Re: (Score:1)
Worst Bruce Almighty ever.
What about unequipped participants? (was Re:NO!) (Score:2)
The heck with hacking, does this mean we're going to equip deer with WiFi, and fine children who ride near the street on tricycles that aren't equipped?
Cooperative communication can be used for things like platooning and adaptive cruise control, but it has to be augmented by enough situational awareness to understand what's happening without cooperation. So the "safety" thing doesn't make any sense to me: If you're depending on inter-vehicle communication for safety, all it takes is an unequipped roadway pa
Re: (Score:2)
If you're depending on inter-vehicle communication for safety, all it takes is an unequipped roadway participant, or a failed transceiver, to create a dangerous situation.
Yes; except that computer vision is finally reaching the point of usefulness - because the computer chips are finally reaching a significant fraction of the brainpower of a typical animal - so you can simply divide the world to objects that are responding and those that aren't, and use some basic avoidance ruleset for the latter - while te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally aspirated, live axle, made of outdated materials, and only came in automatic transmission, do you hate driving? Or just really like driving only in straight lines?
In 2003 it at least got a 1970s state of the art suspension.
So when this gets hacked... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like hacking this means you don't get warned, how is that creating collisions?
It doesn't. He's mugging for an 'Insightful' mod.
Re: (Score:1)
I think if if you can hack the system so it says to another driver:
"Vehicle approaching from left...change lanes to avoid vehicle...warning...collision warning...turn left now to avoid collision...turn left now to avoid collision..."
you will get a fair number of people who would turn left regardless of whether there is someplace to turn left to or there is something in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if if you can hack the system so it says to another driver:
"Vehicle approaching from left...change lanes to avoid vehicle...warning...collision warning...turn left now to avoid collision...turn left now to avoid collision..."
you will get a fair number of people who would turn left regardless of whether there is someplace to turn left to or there is something in the way.
You watch too much TV.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. News reports of people following directions from their GPS navigators turning into ditches, going the wrong way down one-ways, etc...
And I would think people would be even more likely to blindly follow whatever directions this 'safety' system would provide versus the directions from GPS navigators.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. News reports of people following directions from their GPS navigators turning into ditches, going the wrong way down one-ways, etc...
Not due to hacking.
Re: (Score:1)
I think I have to go with both "whoosh" and you, sir, are an idiot.
1) My original reply started with "I think if if you can hack the system"
2) I refer to examples where people blindly follow directions from a device in their car. If they follow the faulty directions of a device in their car, it makes no difference if those directions are a result of hacking, incorrect data, or a butterfly flapping it's wings in the final pangs of death on the other side of Mars.
3) The software industry does not have a gr
Re: (Score:2)
1) My original reply started with "I think if if you can hack the system"
Speaking of whoosh, you're not just talking about hacking the system, you're talking about completely pwning it in a way that, so far, hasn't even been managed with cell phones in the way you're describing. So were you inspired by Eureka or Smallville?
3) The software industry does not have a great record of producing software that cannot be hacked.
Enhance!!!
Re: (Score:1)
> Speaking of whoosh, you're not just talking about hacking the system, you're talking about completely pwning it in a way that, so far, hasn't even been managed with cell phones in the way you're describing. So were you inspired by Eureka or Smallville?
Actually, this kind of thing has happened repeatedly. For example, there have been several jailbreaks for iOS devices simply by surfing to a specific website. And since this system, as described, involves the cars actively communicating with one another
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this kind of thing has happened repeatedly. For example, there have been several jailbreaks for iOS devices simply by surfing to a specific website. And since this system, as described, involves the cars actively communicating with one another, it certainly is possible.
Not really. The reason it worked on iOS is that it had a malformed file (PDF I think?) that the USER had to DIRECT the phone to go open. How are you going to get two cars, that are talking to each other automatically, to do that? Are cars even going to have PDF support? Okay I'm being facetious, but there's no indication in the article that these cars are sending anything binary to each other. In fact, they go into numbers about what these things send to each other and it's comically small . You'd h
Re: (Score:1)
Ugh, this is pointless.
You have exhibited a:
-lack of awareness of history of issues with software (namely their vulnerabilities and how they have been exploited by others)
-lack of the ability to extrapolate a scenario that has happened repeatedly in the past to a new situation
-lack of a basic understanding of inter-computer communication (in particular, you have some bizarre belief that it makes a difference if the communication is initiated by an end-user versus a computer)
-lack the awareness of how good s
Re: (Score:2)
You have exhibited a:
-lack of awareness of how the exploits you've mentioned actually work.
-lack of a basic understanding of how this sort network would actually work.
-lack of an understanding how how one would actually get into a network
-lack of awareness of how fictional TV really is.
-lack of a good rebuttal.
-lack of humility because you think reading a bunch of Slashdot headlines makes you well informed.
It's not possible to you because the door is open for it to happen, it's possible to you because you d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but you're still the one operating the car and presumably won't follow instructions to drive into another car.
You have a lot more faith in drivers than I have...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/29/swiss-van-driver-gets-stuck-up-a-glorified-goat-track-blames/ [engadget.com]
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20101006/gps-swamp-101006/ [www.ctv.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/03/nb-gps-driver-speaks.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.switched.com/2009/02/27/gps-Lihttp://www.switched.com/2009/02/27/gps-leads-truck-to-impassable-road-for-5-days/?icid=200100397x1219177496x1201334806 [switched.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You might get phony alerts, but this doesn't take control of the car. You're still driving it. Bored teenage "hackerz" might break the system, cause it to cry wolf too often, but you're still the one operating the car and presumably won't follow instructions to drive into another car.
So, I spoof my location data, and all of a sudden your carputer takes control to avoid the accident you apparently didn't see coming. I'll LOVE it. Finally, I'll be able to get that tailgating asshole off my 6 without having to break-check 'em.
The tech that takes over and slams on the brakes is already in cars today. Hooking it up to a wireless network will be buckets of fun for everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I get to weld feet-long hardened steel spikes fitted with explosive heads on my rear bumber first, I'm all for it.
And, just for good measure, on the front bumber as well. Just in case some fucker going under the speed limit brakes needlesly.
Re: (Score:2)
and hackers become murderers.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic jam avoidance (Score:2)
That management center would then help you avoid a traffic jam by sending traffic information to your car via a cellular signal. However, such a system is even further out in the future and it is unclear who would even pay for the technology. Consider the fact that Ford says that the combined technology could reduce gasoline consumption by 4 billion gallons a year, which could cost the government upwards of $1 billion in tax revenue. Would or could the government pay for such a system? I doubt it.
Odd reasoning. For one thing, GPS systems already can do this. For another, "Could the government pay" for the tax cut? Since we're talking about politics, that doesn't make sense. Taxes get cut if the politicians can sell it, not because of silly things like numbers, or because tax revenue is higher than spending.
Silly journalists...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the real problems in rerouting around traffic jams is that there really isn't anything great in alternatives. Maybe there is an alternate expressway, but you need to know so far in advance that the traffic problem you were avoiding has disappeared by the time you get there. And getting off the expressway onto surface streets usually doesn't help. You may not be as frustrated sitting parked on the road, but you do not get where you are going any faster.
Then there is the traffic management problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of dumping too much traffic onto city streets is avoided by setting the exit toll to the market equilibrium rate.
Similarly, the problem of congestion on adjacent freeways is also avoided by setting the per-mile toll to the market equilibrium rate.
Allowed to work, the market actually does a pretty good job of avoiding shortages, including the kind known as "traffic congestion."
Re: (Score:2)
So instead, you drive when traffic congestion, and therefore also the tolls, are lower. Or you carpool, splitting the cost with someone else. Or you take mass transit. Or you ride a bike. Or you walk.
The great thing about variable tolls is that not only do they permanently eliminate traffic congestion (saving a LOT of money on freeway expansions), they also give people the opportunity to pay less for
traffic jams? (Score:1)
Avoiding traffic jams and saving money is is great! But how about creating convoys for long drives? IT would be nice to hook up to a network of cars going from City A to City B and go driverless and maybe be able to drag - yeah, I know the lead car will take a huge hit in miles/km per gallon/liter but still, you see where I'm going.
Good grief, along I-20 from Atlanta to Myrtle Beach could use that during the Summer - or even Birmingham to Myrtle Beach!
Re: (Score:2)
That's better than today where pretty much every car is the lead car. I imagine the networked cars can ride about 24 inches between one another too.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, I know the lead car will take a huge hit in miles/km per gallon/liter but still, you see where I'm going.
Actually, it won't. Unless the rear cars shut off their engines and physically connect up to the lead car, it can even make the lead car more efficient.
Spoilers on cars (not ricer 6 foot high plywood ones, but the little lip molded into the trunk lid) improve fuel efficiency by breaking up the vacuum behind the car with turbulence. The alternative is the vacuum tries to suck the car backwards.
If another car is 2 feet behind you, powering itself into your vacuum, then the compression of air in front of it
Re: (Score:2)
the vacuum tries to suck the car backwards
Hand in your geek card. Vacuums do not "suck". They (non-perfect vacuums) push; they just push less hard.
yes, and when in, for instance, a planetary atmosphere, that causes a pressure by the outside atmosphere to be higher than the pressure inside the region holding the partial vacuum. Thus, a net force inward, i.e. "suck".
range may be to long and overload (Score:2)
range may be to long
and overload
on the wifi
on the cpu
on the software.
may happen in a area with a lot of cars
also how will older non wifi cars work with the new wifi ones.
Re: (Score:2)
range may be to long
and overload
on the wifi
on the cpu
on the software.
Burma Shave!
Mesh networking? (Score:2)
I'd be very interested to see this used for some kind of mesh networking. I suspect it'd be way cheaper to equip every car on the road with some kind of repeater, than it would be to build out a nationwide set of cell towers. Assuming they could address the security (some kind of encrypted tunnelling, maybe), it could be a way for a smaller operator to get into the ISP business.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to develop mesh networking for all sorts of reasons.
1) This will be the only way to have affordable networking over roads
2) This is the only way to compete with ATT and Verizon over the long haul
3) We need actual privacy. We can build encryption into the protocols and avoid "checkpoints" as we have in our ISP based access
4) The more devices on the network, the higher its capacity
5) As storage continues to fall in costs, such mesh networks can be increasingly important in storing data in distributed
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an insane amount of hops and ultra-high latency to pass packets from your car down a few streets/miles to a node on a landline somewhere.
Would be sweeter to use this network to "chat" with cars around you. Like "D-bag in the red truck, get off my ass!" or "milf in yellow sports car!", or even the intended action of real-time and local traffic information. (E.g. congestion ahead for next 2 miles, then clears after that (near exit 14))
Re: (Score:2)
The moment the Police have that the criminals will too. At least car jacking will now be convenient for the criminals I guess
Why wait on Corp America to provide this? (Score:3)
Why are we waiting for Ford to build these kinds of systems?
What do you need? A radio? A computer? A display?
Sounds like an android app. Then I can use it in any car.
Re: (Score:1)
1. we're too lazy to even spell out 'corporate'
2. it is more fun do other things when tinkering/hacking than make cars 'talk' to each other
3. have you seen transformers? this is how it started.
4. I know how to drive and not hit things.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably because Ford owns patents that cover much of the technology and will sue anyone else who tries to do it into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Ford is using Microsoft for their systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sync [wikipedia.org]
But my computer said I was safe! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing I worry about is people becoming reliant on the technology to warn them of danger and becoming less observant. Sort of like when my brother couldn't figure out which way was West until the GPS told him despite many very obvious indicators (mountains, sun, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
I have known people like that from well before GPS.
If people aren't trained in it the won't know. Often in cities there is no reason to know.
Doesn't matter, soon cars will not have drivers. As much as I love driving, I can't wait for that day to get here.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither can the lawyers, which is why it'll never become. And it it does, well... it'll give a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death!
Which, in turn, means that the lawyers were actually saving human lives. That kinda boggles the mind.
Hmm, I wonder about wi-fi congestion (Score:4, Interesting)
There are several cars on my street that have wi-fi. Whenever they go buy, it impacts the signal. now it's just a couple of cars, but what about when its 30 cars, most of which will be on the same channel? Or hundreds of cars going buy n the free way?
Re: (Score:2)
There are several cars on my street that have wi-fi. Whenever they go buy, it impacts the signal. now it's just a couple of cars, but what about when its 30 cars, most of which will be on the same channel? Or hundreds of cars going buy n the free way?
Cars that have wifi?
In what capacity, pray tell? I'm honestly curious. Wifi syncing for music (can't be that bad, just another client on the periphery of your network)? Or do they take your cell phone and make it a wifi network? If so, wouldn't that need to be turned on?
Dodge and I think it was BMW made lots of noise about this being a built-in option a few years ago. I know I could get a module in my Ram that made it a wifi hotspot for a cell phone on data, just like my Thunderbolt does today. I'm sure others have quitely added it as well since then.
This was a big deal for people that had too much expendable income a few years ago, but now you can just do it with your own Droid/iPhone probably for less than the car data option. Add in the Verizon MiFi (and if anyone els
I can see it now... (Score:1)
First Step in government controlling your car (Score:1)
Hackers of this system.... (Score:1)
Where is the "Station Wagon Full of Tapes" ? (Score:1)
"Hi I'm Stanley the Speed Limit Sign..." (Score:1)
"... and you are exceeding the posted speed on this highway. Your vehicle ID has been logged, and your vehicle is now being rerouted to McDonalds indicated here, "where America is lovin' it", and you will be served with a notice of infraction as well as a discount on a cup of McCoffee (limit one per violator)."
The US DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program has been going on for a very long time. It's taken at least half a decade just to get to the point where there are some practical standards.
Stick to cars (Score:2)
Based on the scathing reviews of My Touch and Synch, I'd suggest Ford stick to just making cars and leaving the tech to somebody else.
re: networked cars (Score:1)
I had this idea many years ago, but only for car-to-car communications.. some kind of short range WiFi, text and voice communication between cars. I think it would be kind of cool, like having a CB radio, but geekier.
Supporting Idiot Drivers (Score:2)
When did that go out the winddow?
Credits where credits are due (Score:1)