Car Culture

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Good lord. How on earth do you figure those privacy invasion tools are more disruptive? Having to leave your cell phone at home when you want to go some place without the government knowing about it restricts your movements a hell of a lot less than having to leave your car at home. Likewise the rest of your list. "Pay cash." is an easier work-around than "Walk."; and I'm not clear on why a person would even have a Facebook account if she cares about her privacy -- Mark Zuckerberg sure doesn't.

So Toyota is going to install into every car's telematic device a map of the world's postal districts, and determine which one the car is in before broadcasting its location, you figure? What you're describing is a legal firewall, not a technological one. The redaction of the exact location happens at a central database: a database the authorities prohibit the authorities from examining prior to the redaction. So your solution by its very nature can only work in a country that respects rule of law. That's not where there's the greatest need for a solution.

You are right. You aren't a gun-nut, you are on some whole other level. I don't know if it's more disturbing that you believe the government will take control of vehicles or that you've already conceded government control of other devices and have already figured out ways to subvert them. (I guess mandatory telematics reporting is the straw that breaks the camel's back).

Make a tinfoil hat for me too eh?

And on top of all of this we would still need the manufacturer to install some other device in order for a third party to be able to remotely control the vehicle.

You mean like an internet connection?

I'm surprised (and thankful) it wasn't the government. Although if the current vehicles are already hackable, I don't see how mandatory telematics reports makes it easier.

Finally, we could use odometer readings at the smog test (although I struggle to figure out which fascist dictator government would also be concerned enough about pollution to require them - they aren't even required in all 50 states),

You might also struggle to figure out which fascist dictator is concerned about correctly pricing risk to insurance companies. The odometer readings at the smog tests would happen in nonfascist countries -- the point is to give the nonfascist governments a practical alternative way to price risk that doesn't invade privacy, so they won't make telematics compulsory and thereby incentivize Toyota to automatically install telematic devices on every car they build to the delight of any fascist dictator whose subjects buy Toyotas.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

but that doesn't tell you anything about where and when those miles were driven.

That's a feature, not a bug.

It is a feature wherein you get to pay a higher insurance premium than me, even though you commute to work everyday in crawling traffic whereas I drag race other cars on the highway at 2:00AM Saturday mornings.

Telematics are superior at conveying risk based driving information.

Certainly. But why in the world would anybody feel such a level of precision is worth as much as what you propose to sell in order to get it?

Insurance companies already use them extensively. My proposal would only apply if we put the coverage onto the public sector.

aa

 

[Bomb#20]

Good lord. How on earth do you figure those privacy invasion tools are more disruptive? Having to leave your cell phone at home when you want to go some place without the government knowing about it restricts your movements a hell of a lot less than having to leave your car at home. Likewise the rest of your list. "Pay cash." is an easier work-around than "Walk."; and I'm not clear on why a person would even have a Facebook account if she cares about her privacy -- Mark Zuckerberg sure doesn't.

So Toyota is going to install into every car's telematic device a map of the world's postal districts, and determine which one the car is in before broadcasting its location, you figure? What you're describing is a legal firewall, not a technological one. The redaction of the exact location happens at a central database: a database the authorities prohibit the authorities from examining prior to the redaction. So your solution by its very nature can only work in a country that respects rule of law. That's not where there's the greatest need for a solution.

You are right. You aren't a gun-nut, you are on some whole other level. I don't know if it's more disturbing that you believe the government will take control of vehicles or that you've already conceded government control of other devices and have already figured out ways to subvert them. (I guess mandatory telematics reporting is the straw that breaks the camel's back).

Make a tinfoil hat for me too eh?

Not only is that an ad hominem argument, it's also wildly out of proportion to what I wrote. This calls into question your ability to have a rational conversation about this subject.

I'm surprised (and thankful) it wasn't the government. Although if the current vehicles are already hackable, I don't see how mandatory telematics reports makes it easier.

Nobody said it does; but it would certainly make it easier to decide which car to hack into and easier to know what commands will cause it to do what you want after you've hacked into it.

The odometer readings at the smog tests would happen in nonfascist countries -- the point is to give the nonfascist governments a practical alternative way to price risk that doesn't invade privacy, so they won't make telematics compulsory and thereby incentivize Toyota to automatically install telematic devices on every car they build to the delight of any fascist dictator whose subjects buy Toyotas.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

You keep saying that, as though it's a religious formula like "God must have a good reason.", a mantra that justifies anything you decide to use it on. A job at IBM is a privilege, not a right. Do you figure that means it's okay for IBM to make it a condition of employment that all hourly workers must wear unremovable ankle monitors for the duration of their employment and must urinate under supervision so they'll have no opportunity to sneak somebody else's urine into their daily drug tests?

but that doesn't tell you anything about where and when those miles were driven.

That's a feature, not a bug.

It is a feature wherein you get to pay a higher insurance premium than me, even though you commute to work everyday in crawling traffic whereas I drag race other cars on the highway at 2:00AM Saturday mornings.

That does not strike me as something that happens often enough to justify the harm that will result from the measure you propose taking to prevent it.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

You are right. You aren't a gun-nut, you are on some whole other level. I don't know if it's more disturbing that you believe the government will take control of vehicles or that you've already conceded government control of other devices and have already figured out ways to subvert them. (I guess mandatory telematics reporting is the straw that breaks the camel's back).

Make a tinfoil hat for me too eh?

Not only is that an ad hominem argument, it's also wildly out of proportion to what I wrote. This calls into question your ability to have a rational conversation about this subject.

Yeah, you're right. I meant the comment in jest, but I went back and reread it and it comes off harsh. I apologize for the tone, I meant it to be lighter.

I'm surprised (and thankful) it wasn't the government. Although if the current vehicles are already hackable, I don't see how mandatory telematics reports makes it easier.

Nobody said it does; but it would certainly make it easier to decide which car to hack into and easier to know what commands will cause it to do what you want after you've hacked into it.

How?

The odometer readings at the smog tests would happen in nonfascist countries -- the point is to give the nonfascist governments a practical alternative way to price risk that doesn't invade privacy, so they won't make telematics compulsory and thereby incentivize Toyota to automatically install telematic devices on every car they build to the delight of any fascist dictator whose subjects buy Toyotas.

But if these fascist dictator countries are going to allow driverless cars on the roads, they will have all the telematics they need in the vehicle already. They would most certainly have a GPS (which is a telematic device), external sensors, etc. In fact, most cars have these things today. If the dictator has the inclination and capacity, they could easily take control of the car and send it to prison - irrespective of a car's ability to report stats to the 'ministry of transportation.'

And cars today already do this. They report to the dealership when it needs service or if you lock your keys in the car, it can email you certain statistical information, at the dealership it talks to diagnostic computers through the ECC. And it does so for insurance already as well. A device plugs into the ECC and transmits data to the insurer to monitor driving behavior. There is no receiver. The insurer cannot control the vehicle.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

You keep saying that, as though it's a religious formula like "God must have a good reason.", a mantra that justifies anything you decide to use it on. A job at IBM is a privilege, not a right. Do you figure that means it's okay for IBM to make it a condition of employment that all hourly workers must wear unremovable ankle monitors for the duration of their employment and must urinate under supervision so they'll have no opportunity to sneak somebody else's urine into their daily drug tests?

I'm not certain they don't do that in fascist countries. It sounds similar to Foxconn. But they don't do it here because it's against the law. See eventually we're going to have to specify the type of government we're describing and stick with it. Telematics reporting will not lead to 'government abuse' in a free democracy because the people will not allow it. If a fascist dictatorship wants centralized control of all autonomous vehicles, banning telematics reporting there will do almost nothing to stop them from doing it.

And like it or not, public transportation safety exists in the government arena. They build and maintain the roads, collect the revenue, and if we are going to give them the authority to price individual driving risk, they need to have the same or better tools available to them than what exists in the current market.

It is an invasion of privacy that the 'government' gets to know what color your socks are before you board a plane but until removing your shoes falls outside of the umbrella of transportation safety, we do it. Telematics is nowhere near this level of intrusion.

aa

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm surprised (and thankful) it wasn't the government. Although if the current vehicles are already hackable, I don't see how mandatory telematics reports makes it easier.

Nobody said it does; but it would certainly make it easier to decide which car to hack into and easier to know what commands will cause it to do what you want after you've hacked into it.

How?

When you're picking up telematic transmissions from all the cars on the road, you can tell your computer you're interested in visitors to a particular location and then any car that tells you that's where it is can be automatically popped to the top of your "cars to hack into" menu. Likewise, if you can send a car remote commands but you don't know where the car is then you won't know whether a "turn left" or a "turn right" command is what it will take to make it head toward your preferred destination. If it's broadcasting its location at all times then you won't have that difficulty.

They would most certainly have a GPS (which is a telematic device), external sensors, etc. In fact, most cars have these things today.

A GPS unit is a receiver. It's transmission that causes privacy problems.

If the dictator has the inclination and capacity, they could easily take control of the car and send it to prison - irrespective of a car's ability to report stats to the 'ministry of transportation.'

And cars today already do this. They report to the dealership when it needs service or if you lock your keys in the car, it can email you certain statistical information, at the dealership it talks to diagnostic computers through the ECC. And it does so for insurance already as well. A device plugs into the ECC and transmits data to the insurer to monitor driving behavior. There is no receiver. The insurer cannot control the vehicle.

Well, the details of what information is collected and stored and available in the car to be revealed to others without the owner's consent should be subjected to the same scrutiny and regulation as any other collection of personal data by corporations -- preferably by the same European regulators who do a considerably better job of privacy protection than American regulators do.

But if these fascist dictator countries are going to allow driverless cars on the roads, they will have all the telematics they need in the vehicle already. ... See eventually we're going to have to specify the type of government we're describing and stick with it. Telematics reporting will not lead to 'government abuse' in a free democracy because the people will not allow it. If a fascist dictatorship wants centralized control of all autonomous vehicles, banning telematics reporting there will do almost nothing to stop them from doing it.

Huh? Who said anything about banning telematics reporting in a fascist dictatorship? You keep taking what I say about fascist dictatorships and what I say about rule-of-law countries and putting them in a blender. And no, for chrissakes we do not have to specify the type of government we're describing and stick with it. We have to not do that. That's the bloody point -- the different types of government are not on different planets! What we do here affects what they are able to do there.

Iran et al have negligible pull with Toyota et al -- those countries aren't a big enough fraction of the market. So if fascists want to require cars to be driverless they'll have to try to keep hundreds of millions of people from driving the most ubiquitous cars in the world over millions of miles of third-world roads -- good luck with that. Fascists' only realistic hope to enforce such a ban is for Toyota et al to stop making user-drivable cars -- as long as Toyota keeps making them ordinary Iranians will keep getting hold of them and keep driving them. But if manufacturers ever stop making them fascists will only need to wait for most of the manual cars to die of old age. And the only thing that's going to make Toyota et al stop manufacturing user-drivable cars is for the market for them to dry up in the countries that do have pull with the car manufacturers: i.e., the West, Japan and Korea.

And like it or not, public transportation safety exists in the government arena. They build and maintain the roads, collect the revenue, and if we are going to give them the authority to price individual driving risk, they need to have the same or better tools available to them than what exists in the current market.

That doesn't mean we need to casually sign off on buraucrats' wet-dreams as though they were just so much shrink-wrapped-software end-user-agreement verbiage; that means we need to have a public discussion of just how much precision it's worth it to us to give government the authority to price individual driving risk with.

It is an invasion of privacy that the 'government' gets to know what color your socks are before you board a plane but until removing your shoes falls outside of the umbrella of transportation safety, we do it. Telematics is nowhere near this level of intrusion.

I find your judgments of degree of intrusion mystifying. Why on earth would you regard the government knowing you wear plaid socks as a higher level of intrusion than them knowing you attend Occupy Wall Street protests?*

And never mind what they know about you -- they probably don't care about anything they know about you. Do you really want the government to know the next Bob Woodward's car was in a certain parking garage at the same time as the next Mark Felt's car? I'd be a lot more disturbed by that than by the government knowing what color Woodward and Felt's socks are.

(* Oops. I've said too much.)[/NSA]