Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation AI Government United States

U.S. Proposes Car-To-Car Data Sharing Standards (networkworld.com) 134

Posted by EditorDavid from the internet-of-cars dept.
Calling it "the next revolution in roadway safety," the U.S. Department of Transportation hopes to standardize "vehicle communications" technology. Slashdot reader coondoggie writes: The idea is to enable a multitude of new crash-avoidance applications that could save lives by preventing "hundreds of thousands of crashes every year by helping vehicles 'talk' to each other," the DOT stated... [D]evices would use the dedicated short range communications to transmit data, such as location, direction and speed, to nearby vehicles. That data would be updated and broadcast up to 10 times per second to nearby vehicles, and using that information, V2V-equipped vehicles can identify risks and provide warnings to drivers to avoid imminent crashes.
Self-driving cars (and human drivers) could be informed when it's safe to enter the passing lane (or when cars move into a vehicle's blind spot), for example, and "often in situations in which the driver and on-board sensors alone cannot detect the threat." Federal agencies estimate it will cost just $350 per vehicle by 2020 (and dropping over the decades to come), and they've also already issued guidelines about securing these systems from unauthorized access.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Proposes Car-To-Car Data Sharing Standards More

U.S. Proposes Car-To-Car Data Sharing Standards

Comments Filter:

  • Yes. Sounds VERY secure... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @04:40PM (#53504567) Homepage Journal

    "I am 6 inches away from you! Swerve hard!"

    • Sounds kinky.

    • http://www.safercar.gov/v2v/pd... [safercar.gov]

      The security discussion begins around page 128. The proposed public key rotation would use a bunch of public keys each week, requiring about 1K public keys per year. It also suggests quick expiration of certificates. Although the proposal does not say it, as a practical matter this sounds like it will become a great way for vehicle vendors to charge you a few hundred bucks a year for required certificates and to get you back to the dealer. It also makes it harder for anyone

    • Re:Yes. Sounds VERY secure... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @06:12PM (#53504979)

      also already issued guidelines about securing these systems from unauthorized access.

      Have we learned nothing from the internet and its IoT problem?

      At a fundamental level, it's incredibly difficult to prevent unauthorized access to a physical device someone owns, and I deeply dislike relying on a signals from other cars that can be jammed, interfered with, or abused. If the internet has taught us anything, it's that people will figure out how to crack damn near everything, and good things will be abused just because. Someone may try to get cars to react to a phantom obstacle just for the lulz, to be recorded and uploaded to YouTube.

      Finally... are we even certain such a system would be of any benefit? Before we start legislating or regulating these sorts of systems into existence, let's allow self-driving technology to mature on its own a bit first, and see if this would even be useful. Otherwise we'll pay an extra $350 (or more likely $1000, as someone else rightly observed) tax for hardware that has no practical purpose.

      • Have we learned nothing from the internet and its IoT problem?

        Sure we have. I've learned yet again that the government and manufacturers will only get serious about the security of these things only after something major happens. I'm actually surprised that they are this on the ball so early. Normally they wait until a couple competing standards get established which of course are inoperable.

      • Indeed, it is by nature almost useless since anything told to you by any car must be considered malicious and non-authoritative, meaning it can't be used for making any decisions. Anything you learn from other cars must be verified before it is used, but once you can verify that information, you are also capable of just detecting that information yourself.

        • While I agree with you generally that this government developed V2V system is a bad idea I will disagree on a point you made. While this V2V system does in fact provide information that cannot be trusted it does give more information than if it wasn't there. The information would have to be verified but the mere presence of the signal gives more information for the driver to work with.

          Imagine a foggy day and you are having difficulty seeing cars on the road. With this V2V system one might have a heads up

          • The main thing that concerns me with your analysis is that there is too much focus on what can be done if there is a well-behaved actor. In fact, there are no well-behaved actors: you must assume they are all malicious or incompetent.
            Your example suggests that the only thing that can be learned is "I am here!" messages. I will concede that these might be useful, but depending on them instead of radar (or vision) is foolish.

            • I make no claim that this V2V system should be depended upon instead of actually looking at the traffic ahead. I make the claim that if implemented correctly it would be much cheaper than any kind of radar system and provide additional information to the driver that the driver might not actually be able to see. One example given was being able to detect a driver braking in front of the car immediately ahead. This would give a driver additional time to slow down. A safe driver should always give ample ro

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dcw3 ( 649211 )

                "I make no claim that this V2V system should be depended upon instead of actually looking at the traffic ahead."

                Yes, but people do become dependent and lazy. They get lulled into that sense of security that the system will save their ass, so they can keep looking away at their cell phone, doing their makeup, etc. Case in point...blind spot warning systems. They're great, but not perfect, and you see it all the time where people don't look over their shoulders anymore.

    • ...if he's measuring more than six inches, you're already fucked.

  • The thing with all this data is... (Score:3)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @04:56PM (#53504641) Homepage

    All good intentions get corrupted. As well as the data could be used, it should not be available to companies or the government. The consequences are too high.

    • Of course. All these good intentions from the government could pave us a new interstate highway system, the problem is that there would be only one possible destination once the paving is complete.

  • "Only $350 per vehicle"

    So, at least $1000 per vehicle, and probably a lot more?

    And then they'll be able to put up a bunch of sensors along the streets to keep track of where anyone goes at any particular time, and do things like monitor adherence to traffic laws.

    Of course, they'll say "we would never do that," but we all know how that sort of thing works out in the long run.

    • Re:Federal Estimates? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @05:35PM (#53504817) Journal

      "Only $350 per vehicle"

      So, at least $1000 per vehicle, and probably a lot more?

      And then they'll be able to put up a bunch of sensors along the streets to keep track of where anyone goes at any particular time, and do things like monitor adherence to traffic laws.

      Of course, they'll say "we would never do that," but we all know how that sort of thing works out in the long run.

      Its truly astounding but on this one they actually worked closely with security researchers to make the technology not useful for tracking. The identification number is randomized every 5 minutes and it contains no information that can tie it to the vehicle's VIN. Hopefully the standard will also specify the minimum uncertainty for the randomize routine so we don't end up in the unfortunate situation we have today with many devices that use very predictable randomize functions to generate insecure keys.

      • Its truly astounding but on this one they actually worked closely with security researchers to make the technology not useful for tracking. The identification number is randomized every 5 minutes and it contains no information that can tie it to the vehicle's VIN.

        This isn't real. You can't have a secure system without knowing who (basis of trust) you are talking to regardless of technology or algorithms employed.

        It is either secure + privacy invasion or insecure. It is physically impossible to do both. You can create a knob and adjust from one extreme to the other yet it is always a tradeoff between the two.

        You could for example create group keys that prevent individual vehicles from being discernible yet this also means any group member can emulate any other mem

        • This isn't real. You can't have a secure system without knowing who (basis of trust) you are talking to regardless of technology or algorithms employed

          In this case, all other cars are shunted into the category of "lowest level of trust," essentially equivalent to the open internet.

  • While this has clear utility and in the long run it may save lives, it has a large cost in privacy which is obvious to almost everyone reading this.

    • It doesn't need to share anything but speed, speed changes, and monitor relative position and spacing to be useful. I would welcome a technology that kept all the cars in the passing lane going an appropriate speed and eliminated left lane laggards who cause traffic to bunch up which inevitably leads to frustrated drivers and constantly changing speeds.

      If everyone went as fast and the fastest person wanted to, and could opt out of the lane if they wanted to slow down, driving would be much more pleasing,

    • Why? It can say "Hey, I'm three inches behind you and ten to the right" without saying who you are.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by davidwr ( 791652 )

        ? It can say "Hey, I'm three inches behind you and ten to the right" without saying who you are.

        I don't see how it can be hack-proof and anonymous at the same time.

        To reject bogus messages, you need to know:
        * That the person sending the message is "vouched for" somehow
        * That the "vouching" hasn't been revoked

        The most obvious way is for each car to "sign" its message, and have each car's "signing key" be counter-signed by the manufacturer or other trusted entity. Copies and counterfiets can be "revoked" as needed.

        While such a system isn't foolproof, it's less game-able than an anonymous system that sa

    • While this has clear utility and in the long run it may save lives

      In my view there is no basis upon which to concluded V2V is in any meaningful way helpful or necessary to improve public safety.

      Sensor/CV based technologies such as AEB/CTA significantly overlap with stated benefits of V2V. There is no public information available which provides information on safety gains from V2V compared to deployment of sensors.

      Government V2V literature and estimates assume V2V is evaluated in a vacuum against a 70's pinto. They don't consider alternatives already deployed commerciall

  • it might make rush hour traffic jams less stressful if some music can be shared among drivers in their cars in some sort of mesh network

  • Another Day, Another Dupe? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Striek ( 1811980 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @05:02PM (#53504685)

    Is this the same story as Feds Unveil Rule Requiring Cars To 'Talk' To Each Other [slashdot.org], or am I missing something?

  • As a motorcyclist, I'm both thrilled and terrified by this tech. On one hand, maybe a sensor-laden car will do a better job of detecting me than the driver alone. On the other hand, if the sensors are only tuned to detect the average Buick, I'm toast. I hope to hell the folks in the testing labs realize that their sensors need to see _all_ road users.

    • In some ways - this can be enormously powerful - there is no reason motorbikes and cycles can't be in this network, and just as 'visible' as a car.

  • https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

    Wasn't the article posted just 4 days ago about this good enough? And as I said there....

    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 pa

    • Make not toll roads track people and they don't send speed tickets based on time or even enforce the 55 limit that much.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      1- Automated speed traps can already send you tickets in the mail. Legislation is the only reason it doesn't happen in the US, because the technology is here and is actively used in Europe.
      2- You don't need to hack V2V systems tu cause chaos and devastation. How about the stupid teenager prank of cutting a break line or dropping a large brick on a busy highway. This is very easy to do. The reason it doesn't happen is because normal people don't want to do stuff that can kill. Because they tend to have some

  • pertinent questions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @05:23PM (#53504761)

    A) What kind of measures does this system take to mitigate the propagation of false information?
    B) What would prevent data collection by third parties?

    From everything I've read, there are no intrinsic defenses that ensure accuracy or privacy.

    • Practically speaking, there are very limited things that this can do that a camera pointed at the road can't, for a broadly equivalent amount of money - from a snooping point of view.

    • A) What kind of measures does this system take to mitigate the propagation of false information?

      Given enough processing power and/or a kind of challenge/response the receiver can do some sanity checking on the data. Directional antennas would be quite helpful in this too.

      If operated much like aircraft radar the car could transmit a simple code, such as it's own location and speed with a randomly generated number. A similar system in another car could then respond with it's own position, speed, random number, and the random number it received. The time delay between transmit and reply sets limits on

    • A) What kind of measures does this system take to mitigate the propagation of false information? B) What would prevent data collection by third parties?

      From everything I've read, there are no intrinsic defenses that ensure accuracy or privacy.

      A) A Public Key Infrastructure systems (PKI) with a A Root Certificate Authority and a chain of trust system very similar to SSL and TLS.

      B) To communicate with each other the car's use their certified key to generate short-term certificates or "pseudonyms" every 5 minutes. The certificates or the data don't contain any identifiable information such as VIN numbers.

      Unbelievable as it may be, it really looks like they had security-experts really think this through and implement "best-practices" in terms of

  • Just like aircraft? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@@@earthlink...net> on Saturday December 17, 2016 @06:13PM (#53504991)

    We see things like this already in aircraft. They are very expensive, quite delicate, and not something I expect to see in the common passenger vehicle any time soon. Expense is one reason why people might not like it, the potential for government abuse is another.

    It seem that whenever I turn on local talk radio there is almost always a mention of red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, and other ways the government wants to turn traffic enforcement into a revenue system. The government wants people to put electronics into their cars that transmits location, speed, brake light status, and perhaps other information so that government owned and controlled traffic signals can pick them up. I expect a lot of resistance to this.

    The article claims the information would not be personally identifiable. My immediate response was, "bullshit!" Even if the V2V communication did not identify the vehicle over the air we still have license plates on cars and license plate reader technology, this will be abused.

    What if a person that disables the transmitter? Is this in itself going to be considered "suspicious" behavior? You have nothing to hide, citizen, therefore you have nothing to fear, right?

    I am fully expecting at some point a widespread level of civil disobedience on this, and soon. If taken too far people will rip the license plates off their cars and keep driving. What are the police going to do, arrest us all? The government governs with the permission of the people. People have license plates on their cars only because they permit it. This permission can be revoked.

    • We see things like this already in aircraft. They are very expensive, quite delicate, and not something I expect to see in the common passenger vehicle any time soon.

      We see things like this already in UAVs. They are quite cheap, quite robust, and quite reasonable to install in an automobile. We're talking about a low-power digital radio transmitting some telemetry here, it's not rocket science. I mean, it was rocket science, but that was decades ago. Now it's toy technology.

      It seem that whenever I turn on local talk radio there is almost always a mention of red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, and other ways the government wants to turn traffic enforcement into a revenue system. [...] I expect a lot of resistance to this.

      So uh, in spite of "a lot of resistance" we actually have red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, etc. So why do you expect this resistance to be of relevant quantity?

      What if a person that disables the transmitter? Is this in itself going to be considered "suspicious" behavior?

      No, it'

      • So uh, in spite of "a lot of resistance" we actually have red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, etc. So why do you expect this resistance to be of relevant quantity?

        It seems I was not clear. There is a near universal disdain for these automated traffic enforcement mechanisms. We are seeing them declared illegal and/or unconstitutional all the time. The voting public don't want this and they are voting out the petty tyrants that put them in place.

        What we've seen in the UK is more than just people speaking out and voting against it. It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire f

        • It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire from the camera, fill the bottom with fuel, and put a match to it.

          You still have more unvandalized speed cameras than vandalized ones any day of the week. Get back to me when you make a dent.

          Part of the problem is that at first the systems would be rare, if it is present in the vehicles but disabled by the owner then how would anyone even know it was installed in the first place?

          It would be easy enough to query the V2V system during emissions time. It would also be easy to query it during a toll crossing, then match that to a license plate.

          Again, just how much of this do these government bureaucrats think the people will put up with this before these people in the government find themselves not in the government any more?

          A whole lot more. The average person says "Good, this will make me more safe".

          • It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire from the camera, fill the bottom with fuel, and put a match to it.

            You still have more unvandalized speed cameras than vandalized ones any day of the week. Get back to me when you make a dent.

            You seem to be missing the point. People are upset enough about these cameras that they risk arrest to destroy them. This is not random vandalism either, the people that do this tend to do so in a manner to minimize risk to people and private property. It's hard to make a political statement if the vandalism can be explained away as random destruction.

            Also, it's not that this is the only tactic that they are using. As I pointed out the people that oppose this have been very effective in getting them shu

            • It would be easy enough to query the V2V system during emissions time. It would also be easy to query it during a toll crossing, then match that to a license plate.

              How can one query a disabled device? I think you missed a big detail here.

              You don't understand how you could discover that the vehicle doesn't respond to queries? You must be new.

              • You don't understand how you could discover that the vehicle doesn't respond to queries? You must be new.

                I understand but the lack of a response proves nothing. Someone would have to query, see no response, but also know that the device was installed. If a government is checking every license plate to a database to see if a V2V device was installed then this is undeniable proof that the government is tracking the movements of people. That is the point I've been making. People are upset already over traffic enforcement cameras already to the point they will vandalize them to the point they don't function, v

                • I understand but the lack of a response proves nothing. Someone would have to query, see no response, but also know that the device was installed. If a government is checking every license plate to a database to see if a V2V device was installed then this is undeniable proof that the government is tracking the movements of people. That is the point I've been making.

                  Sigh. There is already undeniable proof that the government is tracking the movements of people. And there has been no great revolution. Wake up and realize that most people are not interested in waking up and realizing.

  • needs to have forced updates for at least 5-7 years at no cost to the end user even if an Computer swap is needed.

  • Just great. (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Saturday December 17, 2016 @06:16PM (#53505005)

    V2V-equipped vehicles can identify risks and provide warnings to drivers to avoid imminent crashes. Self-driving cars (and human drivers) could be informed when it's safe to enter the passing lane (or when cars move into a vehicle's blind spot), ...

    Then we can be fined if we ignore the safety advise/warnings from our cars.

  • What kills me about all this stuff is the assumption cars are replaced ever week. The AVERAGE age of a car on the road is over 10 years now. The AVERAGE age. So that means some people are driving 20 year old cars. Do we make everybody buy a new one, even if they cannot afford it? The first thing all these standard dips should think about is how is the new stuff going to interact with cars that don't have it for the next 20 years.

    • "The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now."

      Unless you own a time machine, when would you suggest starting? And what is the down side of covering people gradually instead of all at once?

      And I'm most curious about how this kills you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jrumney ( 197329 )
        This is the problem with the summary's claim that this system will be able to tell cars when something is safe. I would argue that even when all cars on the road are fitted with this, it still won't be able to tell you when it is safe to change lanes or whatever. It will only be able to tell you some of the times when it is certainly unsafe.

        • You misunderstand the summary. It will never tell you 100% safety, but it can say 100% unsafe, followed by the car reporting unsafe is clear. To alert and warn, not issue an all clear. Maybe read the article, or at least skip the editorializing, meditate, and understand.

      • Unless you own a time machine, when would you suggest starting?

        Never. We start doing this never. This is an intrusion into people's lives and the cost is imposed upon them at gunpoint.

        And what is the down side of covering people gradually instead of all at once?

        The down side of imposing technology like this on people is that it raises the costs of vehicles, making it more difficult for the poor to buy a new vehicle. We've already seen mandates like this in the US DOT mandate that all vehicles must have a backup camera by 2018. Here's the thing though, people already see the value in these and half of the cars sold in 2012 include these camer

        • When you get to the end of the long post, ask yourself how much is relevant to the thing you are replying to. In this case the answer is none at all.

          Which is a shame, because you made good points that might fit in well in other threads.

          I only care to correct someone who thinks that a ten year implementation is grounds for never starting. The privacy concerns were noted elsewhere and self identified as redundant.

    • Location, direction, and speed are all things that could be transmitted by an easily retrofitted $40 GPS tattletale device. They'll make everybody buy a device, and provide reimbursement vouchers for the poor. But, they'll get that reimbursement money back 700 fold in traffic infraction tickets issued to people who can't afford self-driving cars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Macdude ( 23507 )

      Why is it that so many people like yourself, expect that any new system must be perfect and completely solve the issue or it's unacceptable?

  • I like the security aspects.

    It drastically lowers the possibility of faking a transponder to cause accidents and shut down traffic, while at the same time make you require a subscription to the public key distribution network to be able to use your car.

    Instead, I will have to take two lantern batteries, and rip the transponder with the valid keys out of your new BMW, in order to cause accidents and shut down traffic.

  • (U//FOUO) 'Can You See Me Now?' - GPS Enabled Technologies
    FROM: Gary Davis
    Technical Director, Joint Proforma Center (S2J34)
    Run Date: 04/27/2004
    FROM: Gary Davis
    Technical Director, Joint Proforma Center (S2J34)
    (U//FOUO) Almost everyone is familiar with the cell phone catch phrase, "Can you hear me
    now?" The next era, "Can you see me now?", has arrived. Numerous devices using Global
    Positioning Systems (GPS) for determining their location have proliferated across every part of
    society. These devices are not only

  • Interoperability between car vendor will take decades to implement, not to mention the cost would be prohibitive.

    Instead, if cars implement just two, currently available features, we can eliminate most accidents:

    * Lank Keeping Assist - So cars don't swerve off the road (Distracted drivers, Incapacitated drivers, Drivers suffering from a heart attack, seizure, sleep deprivation)
    * Collision Avoidance System - So cars don't run into other stopped cars, pedestrians, cyclists

    Thats it. Make those featur

  • A device that shuts your phone off unless the vehicle is not running.

    • What should all my passengers be forced to have their phones off?
      What about my GPS app?

      Any phone to implement this feature will not sell well, for a million reasons.

  • So drivers can cuss each other out instead of just using hand signals.
  • Relative position, or absolute position? If the latter, then do they really think they can get centimeter accuracy out of GPS? If the former, do they really think they can get reliability out of whatever sensing system they plan to use? What about jamming, intentional or not intentional? What about vehicles that don't have this technology? What about motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians? Animals? Random inanimate objects? Will you be able to turn it off if it's causing problems? I see lots and lots of pro

  • V2V is trying to introduce laser disc in the era of Blu-ray/streaming video.

    V2V is teaching people to write in glyphs to make their scribbles readable by their palm pilots.

    When V2V push started the technology for computers to monitor and respond to the world as it is in real-time didn't exist at a cost or form that was practical or affordable.

    This is no longer the case. The world has moved while V2V is stubbornly stuck in the past. The only remaining benefits of V2V above CV based technologies which react

  • After all the obvious bases have been covered, here's a new wrinkle to consider as these systems get hacked. I'm sure car insurance fraudsters are licking their chops at the possibilities on offer with these car-to-car communications being hacked to give bad info and create accidents on demand.

  • Nothing to keep hobbyists from creating Arduino gadgets that do such a thing.

    First the range-sensing features, mounted in the front and rear license plate frames and connected to the gadget. Connect it into the car's diagnostic port to get speed and perhaps other information.

    Even without interacting with other cars' gadgets, it could still announce useful things, like "Yikes! That car's slowing down fast!" or "You're tailgating more than usual." or "You've been averaging 27 MPH in stop-and-go. You migh

  • I find the privacy concerns here overrated. If you are afraid of being tracked, disable your transmitter, or spoof your vehicle ID, etc. Go ahead, who cares. Hopefully you'll also have the ability to buy a third-party device (or build your own) which lets you do stuff like this, instead of depending on the original manufacturer who probably won't. While the Fords and GMs won't like alternate suppliers, they're also not likely to provide retrofits, so an aftermarket might spring up to handle older vehicles..

  • For some people that is a meaningful chunk of change. A couple extra months worth of car payments at the least.

    Also sounds like a bit much for a software package. Modern cars usually have the communications hardware and all the necessary processing power to handle this available if not standard, right?

  • So this article links to a story here, and on the very same page, NHTSA links to the remote exploits story below. Someone there needs to connect the dots.

    https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-re... [nhtsa.gov]

    Motor Vehicles Increasingly Vulnerable to Remote Exploits
    https://www.ic3.gov/media/2016... [ic3.gov]

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close