Skip to content
Naked Security Naked Security

US government eyes car-to-car data sharing to improve safety

Safeguards to be required to protect drivers' privacy

The US Department of Transportation hopes a proposed rule to standardize development and deployment of vehicle communications technology will go far to bolster safety.

The specific plan is for passenger cars and light trucks to stream data about their movements via wireless connection and to monitor other vehicles, to keep them from smashing into each other.

“The primary focus of the policy is on highly automated vehicles (HAVs), or those in which the vehicle can take full control of the driving task in at least some circumstances,” the DOT says on its website. “Portions of the policy also apply to lower levels of automation, including some of the driver-assistance systems already being deployed by automakers today.”

The specifics of the policy are as follows:

  • Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles: The guidance for manufacturers, developers and other organizations outlines a 15-point “Safety Assessment” for the safe design, development, testing and deployment of automated vehicles.
  • Model State Policy: This section presents a clear distinction between Federal and State responsibilities for regulation of HAVs, and suggests recommended policy areas for states to consider with a goal of generating a consistent national framework for the testing and deployment of highly automated vehicles.
  • Current Regulatory Tools: This outlines DOT’s existing regulatory tools that can be used to accelerate the safe development of HAVs, such as interpreting current rules to allow for greater flexibility in design and providing limited exemptions to allow for testing of nontraditional vehicle designs in a more timely fashion.
  • Modern Regulatory Tools: This identifies potential new regulatory tools and statutory authorities that may aid the safe and efficient deployment of new lifesaving technologies.

According to the automotive website Driving, all new light-duty vehicles would have to be equipped with so-called vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems within four years. “The technology will work hand-in-hand with new automated safety devices, such as automatic braking, in another step toward making driverless vehicles a reality,” the Driving website notes. “The proposal, which would also require cyber protections on the data stream and include privacy protections so drivers couldn’t be tracked, is one of the most ambitious attempts in history at using technology to cut crashes and deaths on the nation’s roadways.”

Michael Cooney of Network World wrote that the agency’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates vehicle-to-vehicle enabled safety applications could eliminate or lessen the severity of up to 80% of non-impaired crashes, including crashes at intersections or while changing lanes.

On Slashdot, reader coondoggie wrote that “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.”

The agency estimates that the cost of compliance will be cheap – just $350 per vehicle by 2020. Beyond 2020, costs are expected to drop as the technology becomes more standardized and ubiquitous.


7 Comments

Hacks that will happen: False data sent to get cars to brake, turn, and anything else that bad data can cause. Tracking will happen if it can happen, just like phones – there will be no privacy.
Just like you can buy (on the black market in the US, but legal some places) a phone jammer, you will be able to get a car jammer – maybe emulate emergency vehicles. I see a big can of risk issues being created by cars that can talk to each other.

Agreed. I can’t be the only one to first conceive intra-car communications years ago while watching Minority Report. I rationalized the self-driving cars must have cooperated to make smooth lane changes and such…and I actually expected DOJ/PreCrime poisoning in that system to interrupt his escape before he bounced to safety. Well, I failed to predict that scene anyway.

AI driving is a neat idea on the surface, but the thought of my vehicle seizing control from me without warning is highly disconcerting. Then again I’ve witnessed some drivers whose cars I wouldn’t mind having remote control of…

“The agency estimates that the cost of compliance will be cheap – just $350 per vehicle by 2020. Beyond 2020, costs are expected to drop as the technology becomes more standardized and ubiquitous.”

We’re supposed to accept an estimate like that from an agency of a government that is infamous for historically and repeatedly having spent many billions of dollars on various projects that went far, far beyond their estimates?!?

Parameters need to built into the system so that not everyone is slamming on the brakes when they don’t need to. Integrating satellite navigation with car to car data sharing systems could limit the IoT warning only to the cars behind the vehicle. After all, the cars ahead of it will have already passed an accident the ice patch and wouldn’t need to take action. Traffic coming in an opposite direction on the other side of the meridian should not be alerted either. Parameters could also be applied via a clever real time geofencing implementation. I think it could work because the technology is already available.

Honestly, after the mirai bothnet and the countless instances of ransomware, any body that can sit there and think, “yep, this is a solid idea, there is absoloutely no way any one could ever, or would ever want to hack driverless cars!” should be in a mental institute!

I think it’s been well established by now, that Humanity is a messed up race and there will always be people that will want to tear things apart, either for financial gain or just because they can.

This…. this isn’t going to work. People WILL be tracked, goverment led plans = goverment gets full judgement. Cars WILL be hacked. People WILL crash and ultimately, where will be blame when people are hurt or dead and what happens then!? will the car go to court? Of course not don’t be daft, so maybe the car owner gets the blame? why, wasn’t his/her fault, the computer was driving! What about the goverment? well, they weren’t driving either, it was just their idea. so no blame can be placed, no compensation or closure for the people affected.

The idea is nice, but this world isn’t ready for this kind of thing. Just wait until the **** hits the fan

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to get the latest updates in your inbox.
Which categories are you interested in?