NHTSA May Mandate That New Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed

Didn't think you'd see two NHTSA threads today, did you?

While the key word here is "May", but lets not fool ourselves, if it isn't mandated at the end of this year, it will at some point down the road. It's just part of the evolutionary path of technology, right? No way, could this be nefarious... Trust your NHTSA.. because it's for your safety, right?

Before the end of this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will decide whether or not to begin the rulemaking process to mandate that newly manufactured cars include what is being called “vehicle-to-vehicle” (V2V) communications technology that constantly broadcasts via radio wave the car’s location, direction, speed and, possibly, even the number of passengers it is carrying.

The downside is that such a transportation system would give the government at least the capability to exert increasing control over when, where, if--or for how much additional taxation--people are allowed to go places in individually owned vehicles. It could also give government the ability to track where people go and when.

The Obama administration says this is something it has “no plans” to do even if it does mandate V2V technology in all new cars.

No plans, eh? Funny how government always seems to throw those "plans" out the window when it comes to protecting anything about individual privacy. I'm sure an agreement has already been made behind closed doors. Enjoy your slavery, right? Hell, just mandate it and link the system to the drone program... we don't mind... just as long as there's a PS4 built into the dashboard and the whole interior of the car projects the game in panorama.

While most of us are uncomfortable with change, the article does point to some forward-thinking, along the lines of fully-automated cars. Which I think most of us can agree, would be pretty cool. Fully-automated cars have been portrayed in futuristic movies for about 50 years. Plus it would create jobs, at least on the infrastructure since most of the automobile production will likely take place overseas.

NHTSA sees this technology as the first step on a “continuum” of automotive evolution that will ultimately lead to fully automated vehicles navigated by internal electronics linked to external infrastructure, communications and database systems.

The upside of a government-mandated movement toward cars that are not controlled by the people riding in them is that it could make transportation safer, allow people to use time spent in a vehicle for work, rest or entertainment, and give people who are currently incapable of driving because of age or disability the opportunity to move as freely as those who can now drive.

Just speculating here, but I'm sure no one would be held accountable for fully-automated car crashes/deaths due to computer failure/hackers, as the corporations and government would force you to forfeit your right to sue upon signature of purchase. Read the fine print ladies and gents.

So back to the downside:

Wise also said: “I think it is fair to add that DOT and industry are taking steps to try to minimize privacy risks. Also, while we do not explicitly say this in our report, we did not see or hear any indication that DOT has any plan or desire to use V2V to track peoples’ movements.”

“Identifying ‘bad actors,’ which could include anything from malfunctioning vehicles to intentional malfeasance (such as hacking), is crucial to ensuring that the V2V security system functions properly.

“NHTSA has no plans to modify the current V2V system design in a way that would enable the government or private entities to track individual motor vehicles.

Hmm, so comforting. They don't have a desire or plan to track peoples' movements!?!?!?!? They already do this. I can only assume they believe they have some sort of integrity left. I don't know how else to explain it.

In the end, just know this system WILL be forced upon us all. They've been working on it for years, they aren't going to junk it just because a few public interest groups have privacy concerns.

Off to bed.

Source

I'm all for privacy & can understand your view on this but they can already do this with any number of devices - cell phones, onstar, gps systems, etc...

Unfortunately if we are truly heading to a fully automated vehicular future it will be absolutely necessary that they can talk to each other to avoid collisions...sucks, but there's not really a good way around it.

Been reading up on it too. Sounds like an Agenda 21 Utopian vision.

coldkidc
I'm all for privacy & can understand your view on this but they can already do this with any number of devices - cell phones, onstar, gps systems, etc...

Unfortunately if we are truly heading to a fully automated vehicular future it will be absolutely necessary that they can talk to each other to avoid collisions...sucks, but there's not really a good way around it.

K, one response before I hit the sack.

Yes, I completely agree, no way around it. But heres my issue

Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining!!

They continue to lie about the tracking on every front. They lie on every front to avoid a real debate/conversation about it.

They should have Nancy Pelosi take questions on every bill/mandate passed so she can say, "We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it."

It's beyond ridiculous

I am saving my money for a Red Barchetta.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by six67seven


Your new biometric facial recognition drivers license already tracks you. Intersections are being equipped with windshield facing cameras that are designed to pick up your face even through dirt, darkness, and sun glare. Those cameras are linked into the DMV database, and can be used to track you...

Anyone who attempts to tell you that this is being done for identification purposes is lying, its being done for tracking. The reason I can say this is that your initial Real ID DL is issued based on non-biometric “seed” documents such as your birth certificate. That means there is no more way to prove that your face is linked to the birth certificate that you hand the DMV than your word. No one is taking a Facial Recognition scan of you at birth to prove that you actually are the same person that presents them a birth certificate.

With that in mind you can see that the Real ID is actually a lesser form of documented ID then the Birth Certificate. So why are they pushing so hard for it? Simply because it allows virtual checkpoints, tracking without your consent or knowledge, and the ability to “lock” or even delete your Identification at the press of a button. If you cannot prove your identification you cannot prove your citizenship, if you cannot prove your citizenship you cannot legally work in the US and you loose all constitutional protections granted to a citizen.

coldkidc
I'm all for privacy & can understand your view on this but they can already do this with any number of devices - cell phones, onstar, gps systems, etc...

Unfortunately if we are truly heading to a fully automated vehicular future it will be absolutely necessary that they can talk to each other to avoid collisions...sucks, but there's not really a good way around it.

Ohh i cant wait for that day, no more driving, hop in speak the destination and off ya go.

It's like there's no point anymore.

There is no point having some V2V system at the moment as we don't have the driver less cars required for it to be used and by the time they do come out they'll of needed to have changed it so much probably it'll be obsolete and you'll need to fit a new box of tricks

Main thing i can see it for is mass profiling of traffic especially in congested areas to be quickly able to do accurate counts of cars at a junction for perhaps altering the timing of the lights and perhaps detect holdups quicker so emergency vehicles can be on their way faster should there be an accident and even down to detected wanted cars driven by thieves who aint got the brains to disable the antenna before committing the crime so they get to their hide out and 2 mins later they're nicked

But the loss of privacy and other problems like for journalists wanting to meet sources on the quiet will be much harder as well and if the system blindly accepts input from the other cars it would be way to easy to cause a car to crash killing people and just blame it on a glitch etc