
US plans to require inter-vehicle communication technology in new cars - anigbrowl
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/NHTSA-issues-advanced-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-V2V-communications
======
phkahler
I feel nearly certain that this is just lobbying by companies that have
patents on certain aspects of the communication and would like to have a
mandated market for some electronic modules on the car.

Same thing happened with tire pressure monitoring. In-wheel systems were being
developed, but there was really no market until they were mandated. Meanwhile,
your ABS/traction-control system can passively detect low tire pressure with
no additional hardware.

~~~
SEJeff
For a govt mandated feature, FRAND rules would apply, so it wouldn't be any
different than all of the patents Samsung or Nokia hold on tech like LTE (for
instance)

~~~
phkahler
It still creates a market for more hardware, weather patents apply or not. For
the vehicle manufacturers it creates another barrier to entry in the market.

~~~
thrillgore
But the barriers for entry are already high due to regulatory concerns, safety
concerns, marketing, and the cartel-like nature of the automotive business.

------
ggreer
I really wish there were exceptions for low-volume production. Among other
things, a car sold in the US today must have anti-lock brakes, airbags, tire
pressure monitoring system, and electronic stability control. These are
required even if you want to make a total of 10 cars. This kills the
enthusiast market and makes it hard for car manufacturers to experiment with
low-volume models.

Meanwhile, anyone can buy a 1000cc superbike that can go from 0-60 in 2.8
seconds. (And it gets to use the carpool lane.)

~~~
untog
Those are requirements because you share the road with others - if you opt out
of anti-lock brakes you might slam into the side of my car and kill me. So
personally, I'm quite glad these things exist.

Want to make a car to take out on a test track? Go crazy. Want to drive it on
public roads? Follow rules.

~~~
saidajigumi
But the incredibly regulated market also has its costs. A great example exists
in China, which is currently experiencing a revolution in low-cost electric
vehicles[1].

 _The low-speed electric vehicle revolution has exploded in China 's
countryside, so most people living in cities in China do not know these
vehicles exist. The industry literally grew up while regulators in the cities
weren't looking._

That article is worth taking in as a whole, for its implications are broad.
First and foremost, this unregulated and illegal transportation revolution is
becoming a means for China to remedy some of its severe pollution problems.
Second, these networks of new manufacturers will become the experts in a
manufacturing domain which will certainly have reach well outside of China.

In the US (and the West more broadly) we're progressively adding regulatory
burdens to the auto manufacturing market, but little comprehensive cost-
benefit analysis. This itself is a substantial inhibitor to innovation which
might completely upend transportation as we know it.

For more really excellent discussion along these lines, I highly recommend
Horace Dediu's Asymcar podcast[2]. Asymcar digs into the nature of the
transportation market, its players, and the conditions under which
transportation market disruption might arise.

[1] [http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/25/a-window-into-chinas-
lo...](http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/25/a-window-into-chinas-low-speed-
electric-vehicle-revolution/)

[2] [http://www.asymcar.com/](http://www.asymcar.com/)

~~~
cpher
Very interesting. If I happened to live in a gated community, with beach
access or something, I'd rather drive one of these around than a golf cart--
although servicing it might be a problem.

------
JshWright
This has great implications for emergency vehicles. The current methods of
inter-vehicle communications used by emergency vehicles (loud ass sirens and
flashy lights) are ridiculously error prone, and becoming less and less
effective as manufacturers get better at insulating cars.

Even when the driver does hear it, it's often hard for them to localize where
the sound is coming from.

"An ambulance is approaching from the left" would be fantastic.

~~~
rsync
"The current methods of inter-vehicle communications used by emergency
vehicles (loud ass sirens and flashy lights) are ridiculously error prone, and
becoming less and less effective"

Yes, you _could_ solve that problem with complex, interdependent systems that
will fail in unpredictable ways.

Or you could just mandate better driver training and education which is the
clear failure point here, at least in my experience.

My experience is both as a driver and as a firefighter who regularly drives a
fire truck.

~~~
BrokenEnso
"Yes, you could solve that problem with complex, interdependent systems that
will fail in unpredictable ways."

Isn't that what you have now by depending on people?

~~~
VLM
You can blame individual people, but the mfgrs will simply purchase immunity
from their hired politicians. Its a question of responsibility. Individuals
have it. Corporations do not.

~~~
BrokenEnso
I'm not sure that's true. Auto manufactures are a really big target for
liability in accidents (I'd likely get more from GM then an individual in a
won law suit), and a quick search [1] seems to back my feeling that there is
sizable law and case law that define this area of liability. I'm not saying
that it's simple to win against any sufficiently funded entity, but it's not
impossible that anyone has immunity.

[1]
[http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/automotive.html#.U_Jd_2...](http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/automotive.html#.U_Jd_2ON58E)

------
einrealist
Digital inter-vehicle communication, what can possibly go wrong?! I hope, they
get the security right.

~~~
mindslight
To get _any_ network security right, you have to start with the assumption
that each node is fully open to being controlled/modifiable by its end user,
and that there is a non-negligable amount of unaccountable trolling nodes that
will actively seek to disrupt the system. In the world of corporate embedded
design and agency approvals, how likely do you think this is?

~~~
einrealist
Look at flaws in aviation communication systems like ADS-B. This is highly
regulated territory and full of agency approvals. With car owners as
customers, the manufacturers will need to build the onboard units as cost
effective as possible. I doubt that they will develop hardware and software
from scratch in order to employ maximum security.

~~~
mindslight
I wasn't using "agency approvals" as a positive point for security :P. Real
security properties just aren't legible to that kind of environment.

Most likely they'll start off with some "tamperproof" microcontroller platform
to assume away user control, further rely on keeping the protocol
documentation secret and other obfuscation, and then write naive code that
trusts every node to behave because they can't conceive of how brittle that
kind of system is.

------
superbaconman
Wouldn't surprise me if wireless hardware companies are involved in this. I'd
be much more comfortable with passive sensors being used, but then you
couldn't really do traffic optimization. If it's lives you're trying to save
go passive. Animals cause accidents too. If traffic congestion is the goal,
then we can start talking about this.

> The information sent between vehicles does not identify those vehicles, but
> merely contains basic safety data. In fact, the system as contemplated
> contains several layers of security and privacy protection to ensure that
> vehicles can rely on messages sent from other vehicles.

With all of the stuff talked about in the article I don't see how's that
supposed to work.

------
diafygi
Back when I used to work at a chemical plant, we had two networks: one for
regular corporate/internet access, and one for plant control. The later was
physically isolated from the former, which is why scenarios like Die Hard 4
are so hilarious. You can't hack a plant control system from outside because
that network is physically isolated.

Anyway, I hope this same practice is used in this standard, where critical
control systems are physically isolated from these external communication
systems.

~~~
Someone1234
Two points:

1\. Tell that to Iran... They thought the same thing and look what happened to
their centrifuges.

2\. I hope so too, and it likely will be. Many current car designs already
have a separation of interests, with things like engine control systems only
giving "read only" access to entertainment systems and similar (so you can get
diagnostic information without the entertainment system having the chance to
alter engine settings).

Some cars have "over the air" updates which CAN update the engine control
systems however, that can only happen when the engine is not running and they
often use traditional digital signing to confirm the authenticity of updates.

I do suspect you'll see people try to exploit these V2V systems (e.g. next
blackhat?). Let's hope they're designed with security in mind. We've already
seen the security services using hacked cars as lethal weapons to kill
journalists.

~~~
bagels
"We've already seen the security services using hacked cars as lethal weapons
to kill journalists"

What is this in reference to?

~~~
XorNot
Conspiracy theory slip in of the week. 'Not only did the gpvernment totally
kill him, they did it with a method no one has yet shown is even technically
possible'.

~~~
arjunnarayan
It has been shown before. Here you go:
[https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/sec11/tech/full_papers/...](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/sec11/tech/full_papers/Checkoway.pdf)

------
acr25
"Please use your turn signals." "No, if you get in that lane you block the
bike lane in about 100 feet." "Your brights are on!" "If you would be so kind
as to reduce the bass just a small bit..." "Are you blocking the post office
drop off lane because you're driving a Lexus or have you suffered some sort of
heart attack?" Yeah, this'll be good.

~~~
theossuary
That's tame compared to what'd it'd be like most places, think XBox live but
with grown-up insults.

~~~
VLM
Think CB radio, but probably much less civil.

------
radicaledward
This sounds really cool. Unfortunately I don't know if I will get any direct
benefits unless they add a way to upgrade old cars. I don't plan on buying
another car. Ever.

I'll still get indirect benefits (safety while walking etc).

~~~
Myrth
I would imagine a stand alone unit with an warning indicator panel, that you
could attach/install on dashboard

------
jakeogh
Next up: Mandated GPS tracking in the black box with dial-in ability. For
'public safety'. O ya, and we should have new cars spy on the other cars and
automatically report back to the mothership when they misbehave.

------
Someone1234
I think this is fantastic news (and I suspect many people around here will
agree). However I am worried this might cause a certain demographic (anti-
government types) to come out of the woodwork about "the government spying on
our cars" and similar.

It will only take one talking-head to get that ball rolling against it and
once it starts I don't foresee it stopping. For comparison, like the "issue"
with students using a fingerprint for their school libraries (and the huge
negative backlash against that because "something something our kids aren't
criminals! Government spying! Privacy!").

~~~
ericcope
I'll be the first. I'd be very concerned about this type of communication
system and my vehicle. My concerns aren't limited to government surveillance,
but that certainly is one. I'm also concerned about malware or other security
vulnerabilities. I'm also concerned about the government "requiring it" and
the related costs associated with it. It will certainly drive up costs to
consumers.

~~~
closetnerd
I'll be the second.

I really don't think there's any reason for car's to have inter communication
systems. Using statistics and light signals, cars can have the theoretical
capacity to guess what others cars are about to do.

~~~
rjsw
One reason to have a communication system between cars is to be able to link
them together in a "train" on freeways.

~~~
closetnerd
Nah, using visual recognition software, this can be achieved too.

~~~
rjsw
The cars all need to brake at the same time, a purely visual system can't
manage that.

I'm just reporting what auto manufacturers have been discussing at
international standards meetings.

------
ojbyrne
It would be awesome if they could incorporate something like this into
bicycles.

~~~
electronvolt
This is actually one of the few reasons I wouldn't be totally against this
kind of technology. (For security reasons, I think that putting software with
open on the air connections into a 1-2+ ton metal machine powered by
explosions that moves ridiculously fast is mostly a bad idea.) Particularly in
America, even fairly 'bicycle friendly' cities can be pretty dangerous to ride
a bike in, and often for design reasons that force bikers to either endanger
themselves or put themselves in a place where cars will make dangerous
maneuvers near them. (Example below) A system that you could attach to a bike
that would basically give your bike a warning system for nearby cars (and them
a warning system for bikes) would be fantastic. Another good thing about it
would be that it could be used to give motorcycles the profile of a car, which
would make riding them much less dangerous: no matter how safe a motorcycle
rider you are, you're smaller than a car and that lower visibility can cause
accidents.

The promised example: A common dangerous design for bikers in cities is bike
lanes right up against a lane of parked cars. Depending on how fast a biker is
going and the local terrain, someone opening up their door into the bike lane
can be lethal: you might not have time to stop yourself, and your options
might be to slam into the door and maybe a person getting out of the car or to
swerve into traffic, both of which are very dangerous. The safest thing to do
when that's the case is actually to ride in the car lane, but that has its own
dangers: many cars will try to pass you by going part of the way or all of the
way into the lane to the left of them, which might have oncoming traffic or
traffic coming from behind that the drivers don't check for, which can lead to
them swerving back towards you. That means that the most safe thing you can do
for everyone in that situation is to ride dead center of the lane so that
passing you by going only halfway into a lane isn't possible (since many car
drivers seem to treat that kind of passing differently from an actual lane
change), but car drivers absolutely hate that and will do all sorts of other
dangerous things like following super close.

~~~
smackfu
This is more meant for rural riding, but the tech is getting there:
[http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-
rada...](http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-radar.html)

------
Estragon
Who is working on implementing this technology?

~~~
terrilldent
TrustPoint (where I work) is doing Crypto and PKI system research for it, and
contributing to the V2V security specs. There's some really interesting
technology being developed for both security and anonymity in M2M
communication field. More info: [http://www.trustpointinnovation.com/vehicle-
to-vehicle/](http://www.trustpointinnovation.com/vehicle-to-vehicle/),
[http://www.trustpointinnovation.com/device-
security/](http://www.trustpointinnovation.com/device-security/)

~~~
Estragon
Thanks.

