ThinkPad X200 Tablet Save Extra 5%
Car Tech: Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy?
- 5/11/07 10:12 AM
Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy?
by wcunning - 5/11/07 10:12 AM
In my recent column, The fully networked car, I wrote about the initiative to develop a system where your car reports its location and speed to other cars and a roadside infrastructure. Do you think this system would give up too much privacy, or is the benefit to safety and convenience worth it?
Where MS will go, google will follow, not the other way. :-)
by lotharkumar - 5/11/07 3:30 PM In reply to: Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy? by wcunning
I liked your article on car technology. One thing that you are missing is that MS is way ahead of yahoo & google in car technology. They have a car/auto group that works on car technology for a few years now. Upcoming technology in few Ford vehicles in 2008 and all Ford vehicles starting 2009 is a living proof of that.
So, I think you really wanted to day it that other way,i.e. where Microsoft will go, Google is bound to follow just like google is following Microsoft on all the existing apps like gmail, messenger product, google spreadsheets etc. etc. etc.
It was a good article though and I love the fact that technology is going to make car driving safer.
Thanks,
Lothar.
This is a double edged sword
by btljooz - 5/19/07 12:05 PM In reply to: Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy? by wcunning
Yes, this type of technology COULD possibly help safety.
However, I feel that this is something that can ...and probably WILL... be used in nefarious means by 'govs' to control the populous and therefore is, or has the potential to be, a gross invasion of privacy. And THAT is only the start of things that will come. ESPECIALLY, with the political climate as it is today!!!
This quote comes to mind:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~~~ Benjamin Franklin
BTW: "Technology" has existed since at least the 1950s that allowed vehicles to "communicate" like this. My father worked at General Motor Research Labs in Michigan at the time and helped to develop parts of it.
Double Edged Sword
by Steve1144 - 5/25/07 11:10 AM In reply to: This is a double edged sword by btljoozWhile I too am suspicious of much of current government policy, I have confidence in the long term ability of the US population to avoid too much privacy invasion. The safety benefits of the new tech for cars outweighs the risk.
And Benjamin Franklin never approached an intersection at 45 MPH in 1 1/2 tons of metal, and never visualized the kind of damage and human carnage an auto collision creates. I have. Safety first.
This is no sword whatsoever.
by batman823 - 5/30/07 11:27 AM In reply to: This is a double edged sword by btljoozNo single person in America has the right to drive. You have to pass a test and make the appropriate payments, arrangements, etc. to enjoy the PRIVELAGE of driving. If you look up any state's traffic law or any law on privacy, you will not find anything in your defense about what you do while driving. You will encounter numerous laws and statutes that state what you can't do on the road.
An example of a "gross invasion of privacy" would be if people were putting cameras and microphones in your bathroom and bedroom. That kind of essential liberty, such as your right to free speech, is what Benjamin Franklin was referring to. He was not, and I'm sure if he were alive today, would not claim that you are right when you gripe about getting a speeding ticket.
If you look at my other posts about these types of technology, you might see the reasoning behind some of these thoughts. The insurance companies would benefit from this, as well as the law-abiding citizen. The people on the road who turn a blind eye to the road signs and refuse to use turn signals should, and eventually will, have to pay more for thier insurance than the drivers who have good driving habits. Also, after a few of these tickets arrive in your mailbox for grossly breaking the speed limit, you might reconsider your driving habits. So how again is this a bad thing?
Short term gain, long term pain.
by Andy77e - 6/2/07 2:49 PM In reply to: This is no sword whatsoever. by batman823You are looking at the short term benefits of such technology. My issue is, in the long run, will government use this against it's population in other ways?
Yeah in the short term, this might improve things on the road. But in the long run will government use it against us in ways we haven't even thought of? In ways unrelated to driving or roads?
What if this well meaning advancement ends up being used to track people outside of the automobile? Hey if we can track you in your car, we should be able to track you in the store, or at your work place or anywhere else you want to go. If we can do it here, why not everywhere?
Remember the path to destruction is paved with good intentions.
Short term gain
by WAArnold - 6/2/07 4:30 PM In reply to: Short term gain, long term pain. by Andy77eAndy, you said if much better than I can and you are exceptionally right. Most of these dudes on here are to young to know much about the past and how things have evolved. If they were, they would know this is just the first step along the route to total control and us citizens will be the butt end of the stick.
Yes, I am young. That does not mean I'm ignorant.
by batman823 - 6/4/07 5:51 AM In reply to: Short term gain by WAArnoldYouth may be a sign of a person being inexperienced, but not necessarily ignorant. I am only 22 years old but I'm a nuclear engineer. I used to operate nuclear reactors for the US Navy. I also spend a lot of time exploring politics and law, including the history thereof. I believe that there are enough "bleeding hearts" and "right wing extremist psychopaths" to prevent the misuse of this kind of technology. I also belive passing a law that allows them to be used for any means of tracking would be very difficult. The reason for this being that there are many people out there who only think the gov't is out to get them. Big Brother doesn't care what the average citizen does on a daily basis. Being part of a special community in the US Navy, we get a lot of privelaged information. I can honestly say that I've not once seen a person, civilian or military, being investigated without there being a pretty good reason for it.
History
by WAArnold - 6/4/07 8:19 AM In reply to: Yes, I am young. That does not mean I'm ignorant. by batman823Batman, you need to broaden you history study a little.
There is a point you are obviously missing.
by batman823 - 6/4/07 10:23 AM In reply to: History by WAArnoldOur government has proven that they do things from time to time that are unconstitutional but they are always uncovered.
I believe that major political parties would oppose the use of this kind of tracking technology to monitor where anybody goes. The fact of the matter is not where you go, it's what you do. If there is a good reason to suspect you of illegal activity, you are subject to tracking by any means possible. If you are not, you shouldn't be tracked. But the belief that having a little black box in your car that transmits your position and bearing will be used to somehow ruin your personal life is just idiotic. Our government has always looked out for it's own best interests, not necessarily to the benefit of the people. But the individual citizen is rarely harassed without some sort of realistic cause. The ideas that some people are suggesting are rediculous. The government doesn't care what I say to my family and they definitely won't waste the time or resources required to monitor over 300 million people just to find out where they go for dinner or who's BBQ they're attending on a saturday afternoon.
To counter your statement, you definitely need to brush up on politics, and history. I think I am fairly well educated on those matters. Think about the cost of doing this kind of thing. It's just not possible, especially when we just passed a bill that spends over $100billion to fight a lost cause in the name of "supporting the troops." Not to mention the added measures of border control.
Seriously, use some common sense when making up you conspiracy theories.
History
by WAArnold - 6/4/07 1:50 PM In reply to: There is a point you are obviously missing. by batman823Well, Batman, with my rejection of the "black Box" being put into the automobile, I guess you're calling me an idiot.
I'll accept being sub-servant to you for a moment.
If you dangle a carrot before the rabbit it will eventually make a move for it. If you dangle that "black box" out there, we have those with your mentality that will make a move for it.
Now, that carrot was the inspiration to the rabbit and the black box is the inspiration to the feds. Remove them and the inspiration wont be there. Thus my rejection for the inspiration.
Now, I detect that you are very proud of yourself with your high education and important job. I commend you for your accomplishment.
I can match your credentials anyday with my credentials from two Colleges and Two Universities, plus 20 years Air Force and 22 years Federal. I have had the privilege in life to see the airplanes go from the little prop jobs to the jumbo jets, from the fireworks rockets to the space rockets to the walking on the moon. I was part of the bunch that broke the codes during the war that helped end it. I'm not going to give you my age other than that.
So, at this point, I quit being sub-servant to you. You need to know more than just the history the schools teach.
Do I believe the government will/would use that black box against it's people, you bet your pretty bippy they would/will. 42 years working for them tells me that.
Now, in a few years get back with me and I'll talk to you a little more about this. ::)) I plan to live to be 120. Until then I'll hope you are writing this way just to get reactions to which I won't react anymore.
No harm done.
by batman823 - 6/5/07 6:00 AM In reply to: History by WAArnoldThis is not a place for personal attacks. It wouldn't be my place to say whether or not you are an idiot. You can tell if you are an idiot, not me. I am surely not going to get into a pissing contest in this sort of forum, especially with somebody I don't even know. However; If you felt threatened or insulted by my statements and opinions, I apologize.
This is a forum for people to discuss thier opinions and present facts on technological matters and policy. I did not intend to imply that you were any better or worse, more or less educated than myself. The statement of my position and education was simply to show that I have seen this type of equipment in action and how today's government uses them. At least in the military section of the executive branch.
On a separate note, I would like to thank you for serving for such a long period of time. I had planned on the same thing before I was injured overseas. I don't care how nice or mean anybody is, but serving the military , even for a single enlistment, deserves some respect. I guess that's the electronic version of a salute.
To get to the point of the forum.
We definitely disagree on whether or not these black boxes will be used against the public.
I don't believe they will. Nor do I believe the capabilities to micromanage the 'average joe' exist. Also, what could anybody possibly do to ruin your life with a black box that monitors your position, speed, and bearing? Even if Big Brother did tap in, what would they do? I am, of course, going under the assumption that there is no form of audio surveillance. With that being said, if you are not doing anything seriously illegal, there is nothing to worry about and there is nothing the government can and would do to you as the average american. But these black boxes should be used to monitor anybody who is suspect of any kind of illegal activity.
Mr. Arnold, If you have worked for some federal installation for so long, then I'm sure you know that all of today's cell-phones already have this capability. So when it all boils down, we're discussing a moot point. Simply whether or not yet another channel to monitor should be implimented.
One last thing. However agressive you may be, I appreciate an intelligent conversation. That is meant to include arguments. So anytime you see a post of mine, feel free to pipe in with some valueable information.
Thank You
by WAArnold - 6/5/07 8:10 AM In reply to: No harm done. by batman823Thank you Batman. I have in fact served a long time for the government. Military from Korea through Viet Nam. Then for the Federals (name with-held on purpose).
Sorry you were injured and could not continue your intentional dream path. I was able to for which I am thankfull daily.
I was once a member of the mensa society and that tells you where I am there.
We agree to disagree on the black box and it's future use. I don't suspect that I will be around long enough to see the outcome, or be affected by it's use, anyway.
A little note on some of the past/current developments. Once my ABS on my motor home kicked in and the surprise I got was thinking I had suddenly hit a long run of railroad tracks. 
Oh well, I said I wasn't going to respond this time but I needed to let you know I am not against development, just some of the uses that originate from it. I'm gone this time.
Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy?
by M. Butzin - 5/23/07 10:38 PM In reply to: Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy? by wcunning
Good on the whole imagine a person driving impaired (drugs/alcohol) If a link were to be provided to the state troopers or local city or county with a sat tracking system showing speed and a pinhole camera front and rear showing the drivers actions, would be a good thing. Mount it behind the rearview facing forward and another in the rear third light both with night vision. They can download some of tthis info from the the computer already, such as speed and and braking already. As far as cell phone go no driver should be allowed to use one while driving.
Auto Operating Data is subject to abuse
by richard coombs - 5/24/07 7:01 AM In reply to: Vehicle communication: good for safety or bad for privacy? by wcunning
As previous readers have noted, we have insufficient laws protecting individual citizens' rights to privacy to put our driving data into the hands of legislators, lawyers, insurance companies. This is a current, not future, issue on GM made cars. In fact, state legislation is already enacted or being discussed that will take advantage of this driving data to increase taxes or help establish insurance premiums (or even cancel insurance coverage).
I don't see safety becoming an issue or a benefit, until privacy laws are first established. Our society is not yet interested in promoting safety as they are in establishing blame and having additional tools to claim large $$ lawsuits.
I, for one, will be shopping for non-GM brands for personal vehicles. I don't want to pay for technology that I can neither use, nor that can be used against my will. But thanks for the timely article.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
