

Google's Driverless Future - thecoffman
http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/10/googles-driverless-future

======
roc
Anyone using Google Now is already sending all the data that constitutes the
article's undesirable dystopic vision to Google. And anyone running Android, I
suppose, _could_ get an update that began surreptitiously phoning home data.
If that's a thing Google wanted to start doing.

Short of being in a faraday cage, we also already know cell phones have a
habit of not really rendering you 'untrackable' even when lay users think
they've turned them off.

And, frankly, the phone is a superior vector in the first place, as the car
has little idea who's driving it, no real idea who the other occupants might
be, and little idea where the occupants _actually_ go when they get out. [1]

Yet this article chooses to worry about the cars?

I don't see a huge delta between "I have to leave my phone at home to be
_sure_ it can't be used to track me" and "I can't use my 'smart' car, if I
want to be sure it can't be used to track me".

[1] The Gym, the massage parlor and the pizza joint might be in the same strip
mall. Your car can't know one or ones you go to, whether you get into a
subsequent vehicle and go somewhere else entirely, etc. Your phone can know
_exactly_ where you're going, and for how long. The car's data is far
inferior. Rather than being a data detectives _dream_ , it seems more like a
"better than nothing" fall-back, if the tracked-individual happened to
_actually_ leave their phone at home or properly disable it.

And anyone smart/aware enough to prevent themselves from being tracked by
their phone is smart/aware enough to take a different vehicle, or take the
Google car to a transit station/park-and-ride/alibi-establishing-alternate-
location/etc.

~~~
NoPiece
Most of your points are great, but I just want to point out that it is not
true that your phone can be tracked when it is turned off. That's a
misconception that is propagated by a few very poorly written articles that
misinterpreted some comments in a court case. No power = no tracking.

~~~
roc
Isn't the point that not all phones are _truly_ off when the user thinks
they're off? i.e. if you _can_ ensure there's no power (removed battery) you
can be confident there's no tracking. But if you _can't_ ensure it...

~~~
NoPiece
You are conflating a hypothetical with a real claim. it is hypothetically
possible, but it isn't actually true. And you can ensure in many ways. Like
measuring the power usage when your phone is off. Like looking at the source
code of the operating system.

~~~
cryptoz
Looking at the source code of the OS does not change anything, as you don't
know which compiler was used or even if the same source was indeed compiled.
Even further, if you compile it yourself you still don't know since at this
stage you clearly wouldn't trust even your compiler.

~~~
NoPiece
I think you guys are getting lost in the hypothetical vs the reality. Is it
hypothetically possible, yes. Is there any evidence it is true, no. See my
comment below to see how cnet confused a physical bug with some inherent
bugging capability of the phone.

Even in the hypothetical, don't you think someone would have identified the
"bug" by now? It would need to draw power while the phone is off, that would
be measurable. It would need software on the phone. Even without the source
code, the bug could be found in the OS or firmware. Do you think the FBI is
working with ever phone manufacturer to install this and no one ever leaked
that info? There isn't one piece of evidence that it is actually true.

------
jareds
"But is everyone really so eager to see the automobile, which stands as one of
history’s great amplifiers of personal autonomy and liberty, evolve into a
giant tracking device controlled by a $250 billion corporation that makes its
money through an increasingly intimate and obtrusive knowledge of its
customers? " As a blind person the short answer is yes. Unfortunately job
opportunities don't always line up with the few cities that have good public
transportation and everything I need easily accessible so it's a fact of life
that I need to sometimes rely on others to help me get places. I would be
willing to give up a lot of privacy if I could have a self-driving car at a
reasonable price. While I don’t know how it will turn out I’m hopeful that
with Google backing this cost will be driven down into affordable cars, not
$100000 cars. I’ll gladly trade a lot of privacy for a $50000 discount on the
price of a self-driving car.

~~~
h0w412d
Not to mention the annual 40,000 lives lost and even more injured due to car
accidents, and the huge swaths of land that would be freed up when parking
lots are no longer necessary.

Not everything is about jobs.

~~~
hexis
Neither is everything about safety or land use efficiency.

------
BruceIV
So get the driverless car that _isn't_ run by Google. I get that there are
privacy issues, but I still think this article is overly alarmist.

As an aside, I expect autonomous driving to be phased in gradually - I'd wager
freeways first, then city centers, and rural areas only at the very end.
However, once there's a sufficient installed base of autonomous vehicles, I
expect it will be illegal to drive manually in those areas, because it kind of
defeats the point.

~~~
thrownaway2424
An alarmist article in Reason, you say? How intriguing.

------
mdip
I can only take an example from my own life: I'm a licensed motorcycle rider,
I use it as my primary form of transportation when it's over 50F rain or
shine. Being a motorcycle rider, I can never get a ticket for not wearing a
seat belt, or driving with all of my doors open (silly analogy, I know). All
of these safety devices don't apply and riding a bike requires substantially
more skill and practice than the weekend course required in most US states to
receive a license. Arguably it is an incredibly dangerous way to travel
compared with driving or riding in a car and it's still legal.

I wonder if the guy/gal of the future who decides they want to reject driver-
less cars won't resemble the modern motorcycle rider in this way. I can see
those of us who love our motorcycles standing up for (and probably being)
supporters of "driver's rights". I made that up, but a similar movement among
riders resulted in my state lifting the mandatory helmet law despite outrage
from non-riders. I can't imagine the state getting away with banning
motorcycles. I don't believe it'll have enough support to ban drivers in a
driver-less majority world.

The other issue is one of _need_ for such legislation. The author states that
the automobile _stands as one of history’s great amplifiers of personal
autonomy and liberty_. Liberating? For some of us, but probably not most of
us. I think more people see it as a tool to get from their home in suburbia to
work/kids to baseball practice. Most people see driving as something they have
to do rather than want to do and will be happy to get rid of the chore if the
price was right. Those of us who do find it liberating will be part of an
enthusiast market that has always existed for both cars and motorcycles. We'll
be the ones taking the most risk and consequences for taking that risk, while
the driver-less passenger will, arguably, be much safer.

EDIT: Grammer/structure. Boo

~~~
will_work4tears
You bring up some good points, I think it's a great idea to make it tougher to
get a driver's license and driverless cars will allow those that can't pass,
or aren't interested in driving themselves the ability to get around. Older
people need to get places too, but it becomes clear that many, past a certain
age, cannot do so safely.

------
isaacwaller
I think it's too early to make these conclusions. The self driving cars are
produced by Google X, and have nothing to do (yet) with the data-collecting
Ads division. I would be very surprised if the cars send personally-
identifying data back to Google, and I think there would be a considerable
public backlash.

------
melling
It's going to take a long time to get people comfortable with driverless cars.
In the meantime, can the technology be immediately converted to "assisted"
driving to help avoid collisions, crossing the center line, etc.? Make it a
lot harder for people to "bump" into each other. We might be able to get some
of the benefits of driverless cars sooner.

~~~
maxerickson
Auto braking, adaptive cruise control and lane keeping are already on the
road.

~~~
elteto
Yes, however the technology has not "trickled down" from high end cars (albeit
some car makers are pushing hard on this). We still need to wait a little bit
more before we can find some of these on a Civic/Corolla.

------
riggins
there's a fundamental assumption in this article that I think is very
doubtful. this article assumes that part of the customers 'payment' for a
self-driving car will be advertising.

That seems like a very poor assumption. Personally, I assume google will make
money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business. Just because
the search business is free and makes their revenue through advertising
doesn't mean that the car business would have the same approach.

~~~
munificent
> Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech),
> just like any other business.

I am a Googler and I've heard Larry, Sergey, and many on the self-driving car
team talk about the project. While I'm sure monetization is on their minds as
well, the very clear message from them is that they view this project as
changing the world for the better.

In today's world, it is very hard not to be cynical, and it's especially hard
not to be cynical online without looking like a Pollyanna or a corporate shill
but in this case, I believe the opportunity for public good is the strongest
motivator for the project.

Much like NASA, Google gets tons of ancillary benefits from doing all of this
R&D so even if the project itself isn't a revenue generator, it will still
deliver value to Google, but I think what gets many of the people working on
it up in the morning is the chance to reduce the number of traffic fatalities,
to turn parking lots back into parks, and to let people spend time on the road
enjoying themselves and not grimly staring at the car in front of them.

~~~
riggins
I'm an admirer of Google. My point, which I was being kind of oblique about,
is that IMO its not really logical to expect Google to have the same revenue
model for a car as they do for the search service.

To me it seems totally reasonable that Google would charge for the software.
It's an innovative, valuable product. I see no reason why they shouldn't get
paid for that.

------
bernardom
Seriously? They JUST replaced Google Docs with Drive. They're already moving
on to drivele- oh.

------
andyl
Smart phones already track everything. The privacy battle was lost long ago.

------
vilaro
I don't know about other people, but I would use a driverless car just for the
countless hours it would save me from sitting behind the wheel wasting my time
either stuck in traffic, waiting at stop lights, or just plain driving from
point A to point B. I don't know how much time the average American spends
behind the wheel in a lifetime, but this reason alone would be enough, not to
mention the decrease in accidents.

------
fatjokes
As a person who can't drive and refuses to learn, I can't wait for the coming
driverless future. All hail Google!

~~~
elteto
If you don't mind me asking, why do you refuse?

~~~
fatjokes
So many downsides (increased danger, maintenance costs for vehicle, insurance
costs, can't drink then drive). The only upside (mobility) can be compensated
with money (i.e., cabs). It does suck when I want to go on a roadtrip though.

~~~
elteto
Don't you think that the same could be said about pretty much everything?
Regarding driving, a lot of the risks can be mitigated by being a defensive
driver and by purchasing cars with good safety features. I find your reasoning
very interesting, I just can't imagine not having a car, but I live in a place
where you are pretty much _forced_ to have one because of the distances and
the bad bus service. Oh and I also love driving :)

~~~
fatjokes
> Don't you think that the same could be said about pretty much everything?

... Not really. Sure, there are risks involved with most activities, but this
is one I found I can actually avoid. I chose to move to a city (NYC) where the
vast majority use public transit anyway.

~~~
elteto
Oh I understand now. In NYC a car can be more of a problem than a solution.

------
marmot1101
When weighing the balance between even through the lens that this article
presents, the driverless car is still a net good. Google potentially knowing
if I have cancer is an ok exchange if it reduces the very real chance of
death, injury or legal problems that my commute presents me every day.

------
pkandathil
A person in security told me that a big fear they have is car bombs. You would
now be able to send groups of cars to a location without risking human life.
That us good enough reason to not want self driving cars. I still think some
of the functionality can be used for accident prevention.

~~~
raldi
Would that also have been a good enough reason not to want regular cars?

~~~
ollysb
Yeah that's a bit like not allowing mobile phones because they can detonate
bombs.

