this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024

237 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59219 readers

2791 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

237

Followup on the vehicle "kill switch" mandated by the Infrastructure Bill (www.govinfo.gov)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by DemBoSain@midwest.social to c/technology@lemmy.world

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From my previous comment, it looks like NHTSA is moving faster than I predicted. We're now at step 1, with this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

(edit: I jumped the gun, we're still at step '0' on my original list)

Most of this notice seems to be a report on why 'impaired driving' is bad. I see alcohol, cannabis, mobile phone use, drowsiness...etc.

Due to technology immaturity and a lack of testing protocols, drugged driving is not being considered in this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Makes sense.

There is no clear and consistent engineering or industry definition of ‘‘impairment.’’

Yep, another unclear request by Congress.

NHTSA believes that Congress did not intend to limit NHTSA’s efforts under BIL to alcohol impairment.

Okay, that's fair.

Camera-based-systems, however, are increasingly feasible and common in vehicles.

Uh-oh...

The Safety Act also contains a ‘‘make inoperative’’ provision, which prohibits certain entities from knowingly modifying or deactivating any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Those entities include vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies, and repair businesses. Notably, the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or deactivating a safety system, the Safety Act does not prohibit them from doing so. This creates a potential source of issues for solutions that lack consumer acceptance, since individual owners would not be prohibited by Federal law from removing or modifying those systems (i.e., using defeat mechanisms).

Note that "make inoperative" does not apply to a "kill switch" in this case. NHTSA uses the term to mean "disabling required safety devices". For example, as an individual vehicle owner, it's perfectly legal for you to remove the seatbelts from your car, despite Federal requirements. But it's illegal for the entities listed above to do it. (This example doesn't extend to state regulations. It's legal for you to remove your seatbelts, but may still be illegal to drive a car without them.)

There's a short 'discussion' here regarding how to passively detect impaired driving, noting the difficulties of creating such a system. Followed by a note that basically says if they can't do it within 10 years, NHTSA can give up and not do it, as stated in the Infrastructure law.

There's a long section on how to detect various types of impairment, current methods of preventing impaired driving, etc. An interesting section about detecting blood-alcohol level using infrared sensors embedded in the steering wheel. Body posture sensors can be used to detect driver distraction.

This is followed by a brief overview of the technologies NHTSA is considering:

Camera-Based Driver Monitoring Sensors

Hands-On-Wheel Sensors

Lane Departure and Steering Sensors

Speed/Braking Sensors

Time-Based Sensors

Physiological Sensors

On page 850 (21 of the PDF), NHTSA asks for feedback to several questions. There are a few pages of relevant issues, so I won't cover them here. If you wish, you can go here to leave a comment. Please don't leave irrelevant garbage like "I oppose this on the grounds of my Constitutional rights..." While applicable in this situation, it's irrelevant to NHTSA, and commenting like that will just waste everybody's time. There's a section on page 855 (26 of the PDF) about Privacy and Security.

That's that. Let me know I can answer any of your questions. I'll try to come back to this post throughout the day and see what's happening. But, I do not work for NHTSA, so can't remark on agency thought process.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 109 points 10 months ago (6 children)

You know what would eliminate a ton of drunk driving?

Functional Public Transit

But that isn't something we can pass off onto the consumer and break their cars, so we're not gonna do it.

[–] 0ddysseus@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Also walkable towns and cities. Also public and community spaces. Also strong interconnected communities. All these things are bad for capitalism and the ruling class and their enforcers though so don't expect to see any change in the policy of dismantling communities

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 7 points 10 months ago

I spent a week in Pontevedra Spain a few years ago and it was amazing for the walkable city alone. Revitalizing downtown areas by turning them into walkable parks with shops is a great idea.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 80 points 10 months ago (6 children)

More parts in my car that can:

Break and render my car inoperative until fixed
Harvest my data for sale or AI model training
Take photos of me that can oopsie doopsie leak to the internet
Produce false positives and at least temporarily delay normal operation
Surveil me
Be hacked and used for nefarious purposes

Lovely.

I'm pissed enough already that my Subaru takes recordings of me through my OnStar microphone to train AI or sell or whatever. (Subaru's privacy policy says I agree to allow that basically by existing in a Subaru.) And Subaru is not the worst privacy offender.

I'm all for safer driving, but the car companies have to be creaming themselves over all the data this is would let them harvest in the name of "safety."

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wish it were as simple as calling things like your onstar microphone a deal-breaker when looking for a new car, but it seems like every single car out there has many deal-breakers, and you just need to choose which are worst.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My solution is no new cars and nothing newer than 2005.

Cars are a series of compromises on every single metric nowadays, and they’re more expensive, making you pay for the convenience of having your data sold

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 7 points 10 months ago

That's great until two years from now when all parts for that model year will stop being manufactured. If you're lucky, newer models of the same car share a part number. If you're not, the first time you need a new belt tensioner or torque strut you're buying a new car. I drive an 05 Civic and I can usually still find parts for it only because it's one of the most popular models to exist in America. My partner drives a similar year Suzuki and it's now actually impossible to repair over half of that car because of parts unavailability. Old cars are great until they need to be fixed.

I'm not really arguing in favor of buying a "new" car especially because you wouldn't catch me dead in anything more recent than a 2015. But there are some considerations to be taken into account when you're buying a car old enough to have its own drivers license. More considerations, when it's old enough to have its own license that would have already expired.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How do those terms of service affect passengers who aren't given an opportunity to read and opt out?

Besides just you, the driver, these things are collecting data on third parties and minors without consent. I can't believe we allow these things.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Well, their privacy policy has all the deets. In section 1, "Scope", it says:

For the avoidance of doubt, for purposes of this Privacy Policy, "using" the Services includes being a Vehicle Occupant in a Connected Vehicle.

In section 2, "Information We Collect", it says:

Identifiers - A real name, username or alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, Social Security number, driver’s license number, vehicle information (such as model and year), vehicle identification number (VIN), vehicle telemetry data, or other similar identifiers.

Other Personal Information subject to certain laws - A name, signature, Social Security number, address, telephone number, driver’s license or state identification card number. Some Personal Information included in this category may overlap with other categories.

Commercial information - Records of personal property, products or services purchased, obtained, or considered.

Internet or other similar network activity. - Browsing history, search history, information on a consumer’s interaction with a website, application, or advertisement.

Geolocation data. - Physical location and movements, including from Connected Vehicle Services or Technology Services.

Inferences drawn from other Personal Information. - Profile reflecting a person’s preferences, characteristics, predispositions, behavior, or attitudes.

Recordings - Audio recordings of Vehicle Occupants. Audio recordings when you call our call centers or a Retailer.

Payment information - Credit card information for optional Services, such as Subaru Starlink.

You can opt out of Subaru Starlink, but all that does is turn off the benefits the owner of the vehicle would get. It doesn't disable the collection of information and recordings and such. (If you never paid for Subaru Starlink, this would probably prevent them from having your payment information, I guess.)

About your concern about kids, they have this to say:

Subaru’s Service is intended for a general audience and not directed at children under (13) years of age.

We do not knowingly gather Personal Information (as defined by the U.S. Children’s Privacy Protection Act, or “COPPA”) in a manner not permitted by COPPA. If a person under 13 submits Personal Information through any part of a Subaru Service, and we learn the person submitting the Personal Information is a child, we will attempt to delete this Personal Information as soon as possible. If you are a parent or guardian and you believe we have collected Personal Information from your child in a manner not permitted by law, contact us as set out in the “Contact Us” Section below. We will remove the data to the extent required by applicable laws.

So, basically, they're going to collect until you call and tell them why it's not legal. Until then, they'll assume they're not breaking any laws.

There's a whole lot more in the privacy policy, of course. And if you want more summarized info about the privacy policy, Mozilla's page about the privacy of Subaru vehicles is a good resource.

But then again, it's entirely likely you don't have a Subaru and don't really care about Subaru specifically. If that's the case, I highly recommend this page on Mozilla's site where you can go to look more into most popular car brands' privacy practices. Soiler alert: none of the 25 popular car brands they evaluated are much better than Subaru. And many are worse.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear that whether they're "allowed to" or not, they do it.

And cars aren't the only concern. Robot vacuum cleaners for instance are an issue. (Also, don't believe a robot vacuum company when they say "this model doesn't have a camera, it only has an "optical sensor." If this interests you, see this talk.) And smart TVs. Just for instance.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

this talk

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] grayman@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Changing your child's diaper or changing vomit soaked clothes in the vehicle can result in a nude photo of your child. Then you could be guilty of having and distributing child pornography and those photos will make it onto nasty websites.

[–] mx_smith@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You know you can disable that with some foil. Wrap the On star module in it and it can’t send any signals.That’s assuming you don’t use the OnStar.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The last GM vehicle I had, it was possible to entirely remove the OnStar module without affecting the operation of the truck. I also knew someone else that found out that if something tears the little shark-fin antenna off the roof, it won't work either.

[–] mx_smith@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

I’m not sure about the interoperability between GM cars and OnStar, but almost every other car it can be disabled by removing the three plugs in the OnStar box. Here’s an article on how to do it.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah the amount of shit I’ve seen about lack of privacy in new cars is disgusting. If I were you I’d get into the onstar panel and just pull some wires.

[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 3 points 10 months ago

Can't tell you how often I get a reminder to keep my eyes on the road, just because I repositioned my head, or tilted it down to stretch my neck. My eyes are on the road damn it. Now my car will turn off in the middle of the highway if i get a stiff neck...great.

Also, I had no idea subaru did this. I saw a recent article that mentioned a few big named car brands, and subaru wasnt included, so, i was naively hopefull. Plus, I realize im being recorded anyways, in an infinate amount of ways, but i didnt realize the car was in on it too. Wow, that sucks. I need to pay better attention, no pun intended.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 30 points 10 months ago (11 children)

One of the things that was posited was that cars would look at the way you were driving, and if you were driving "erratically" it would shut off.

So what happens when you're trying to get someone to a hospital because they've been seriously injured and are bleeding to death in your car? No, it doesn't happen very often. But I can think of at least one case: Kentucky Ballistics, who had a rifle explode and blew shrapnel into his jugular. You will absolutely be driving erratically in those circumstances; exceeding the speed limit, weaving, honking, turning without signaling...

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 19 points 10 months ago

This is a band-aid solution to a problem caused by a larger issue.

Since in the US driving is an implied requirement for transportation, the barrier to entry for driving a car is absurdly low.

This is a bad solution to a bad problem caused by decades of bad decisions.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 10 months ago

Me dodging around all the three foot wide potholes my city refuses to fucking fix would be tagged as "erratic driving", despite never fully leaving my travel lane, and would get my car disabled

Fuck that lmfao

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

On the other hand I can think of many more cases when someone was killed by erratic driver. It kind of sounds like you're ignoring something occurring every day and focusing on fantasy scenario. It's obvious that eliminating even 1% of accidents caused by erratic drivers would save more lives than people racing to hospitals do.

I'm not saying that shutting off cars based on some AI analyzing your driving patterns is a good idea but you really need to think about another argument than "this one guy would probably die this one time".

Also, that's what ambulances are for. Fixing the ambulance service would be a better idea than hoping people will manage to race to hospitals without killing anyone.

[–] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

in the case the guy was talking about he never would have made it if they waited for and ambulance. and your "fantasy scenario" occurs more than you'd like to admit, especially in rural areas. it's the old adage, "i'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it"

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Do you actually know how often it occurs? Of course not. There's no way to tell because the people that decide it's "erratic race to hospital time" are not doctors so they have no idea if they are saving lives or just putting more people in danger.

Also, your old adage makes no sense here. Erratic driving is not something that you have stored in your basement and can take out and use in case of emergency. It's something people do all the time for no reason and it kill thousands of people every year. You're talking about it like racing to a hospital with a dying person was the main reason why people drive like crazy. It's not. It's insignificant % of all the erratic driving cases.

Again, I'm sure there are good reasons to oppose automatic driving patterns detection. This is not one of them.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Counterpoint, all it takes is one person to die in the car because the car disabled itself on them while trying to get to a hospital, and suddenly hungry lawyers are swooping in all over your entire company.

I imagine the manufacturer will have some excuse about "if it was an emergency they should have called an ambulance" and I also imagine that won't stand up to a stiff breeze in court.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 1 points 10 months ago

If the manufacturer is building cars according to the specs defined by the law how can he be sued? Also, what do you care if the manufacturer will be sued?

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Also, that’s what ambulances are for.

Many people have died waiting for ambulances that didn't come, or took too long. Houses in my area have burned down because the fire department couldn't figure out where an address was because GPS gives them the wrong location.

If I slip while working with a chainsaw and cut my femoral artery, I'm not going to tell my wife to wait for an ambulance; I'm going to get a tourniquet on and have her drive me as fast as she can to the hospital, because that will save me 20 minutes--minimum, and that's if they're not already out on a call on the other side of the county--over waiting for an ambulance.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago

MAny many years ago I raced to the hospital doing all those things. I wouldn't rely on today's self-driving car to do it unless I was alone and had no choice.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Your link to leave a comment appears broken.

I admire the desire to reduce impaired driving, but not only are there so many edge cases where detection will create false positives or negatives, I frankly do not trust any modern auto manufacturers to implement it cleanly.
Modern cars are already an absolute travesty when it comes to consumer rights, privacy, and data safety. The only logical outcome I can possibly see for such systems is manufacturers using that data against your will for additional profit. That data WILL be abused in any way possible, it's the universal law of business.

And more risky than that, these complex electronic systems will fail. And they will fail frequently, and often, because manufacturers will cut as many corners out of them as they can until they are the bare minimum to be legally compliant without any care to longevity.
So what happens when your $1800 steering wheel alcohol sensor fucks off 500 miles out of warranty, and constantly says you have a BAC of 0.20 leaving you stranded 80 miles from home? Will they log that you tried to drive drunk, then sell that data to your insurance and mortgage companies who instantly raise your rates by double because you're "high risk", despite having never done anything wrong with no recourse whatsoever? You bet your fucking ass they will!

Maybe I'm cynical and just acting like an angry boomer, but I consider myself a responsible citizen and will NEVER buy a vehicle that implements any of these technologies, because not only do I not need them, but I guarantee you the implementations will be absolute hot garbage.
I mean, I'd never buy a modern car anyway because their current electronics and auto transmissions are also hot garbage.... but that's a separate problem

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Weird. Here it is. Maybe...

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

That link works, thanks.

[–] LOLjoeWTF@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

That's a very well put together overview. Thanks for taking care of this!

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Thanks for looking through all of this. If I'm understanding right, it seems like Congress is asking NHTSA to do a task that is probably not possible, but they are required to at least go through the motions to try?

It seems like they just told nhtsa to use technology to fix drunk driving so they can wash their hands of the situation and claim they tried to do something, but nhtsa couldn't figure it out. Why didn't they tell the NIH to eliminate the cancer while they were at it.

I do believe the technology to detect BAC is too erroneous to inflict on innocent drivers, and technology that could detect impairment through driving characteristics, while possible for individual drivers could never work on a population level. There's going to be a lot of overlap between impaired drivers and just naturally bad drivers.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. There's too much possibility of false positives in most of these technologies to be safe. There's a section where NHTSA covers how they should handle disabling a vehicle in a dangerous situation. For example, if I'm in the middle of the woods camping and drinking, should I be able to drive my car to escape a forest fire?

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

For example, if I’m in the middle of the woods camping and drinking, should I be able to drive my car to escape a forest fire?

The problem, of course, being that if an emergency override of any kind exists for such situations- then that override can always be used, making the restrictions null and void. which means all systems were simply added cost and maintenance headaches passed onto the consumer for zero net benefit.

Sure maybe they could make an always online system like onStar that would let you request an override to be reviewed by a person... but that's fucking hilarious to think any manufacturer is going to take on that cost, they'd make it a mandatory subscription for some stupid AI override bot, and that is an even bigger pile of fucking nope.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It might work for a single driver comparing their driving to previously stored sessions. But how does it handle switching drivers? It would have to create and manage profiles on each and every person that drives the vehicle.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, you could detect a difference between drunk me and sober me, but where does sleepy me fit in? It's wrong, but not exactly illegal to drive while very tired.

Plus, most laws about operating a vehicle only apply when the vehicle is on public roads.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] blazera@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

America will do anything to not implement public transit and less car dependency.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just listened to a podcast with a portion about how neighborhood convenience stores are all tied to gas stations, and how single-use zoning laws have forced everybody to travel for groceries.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

more specifically for the goal of this law, to reduce impaired driving, there's the insane zoning requirements of minimum parking for bars of all places. Other countries have less drunk driving than us because they enable transit that doesnt require you to drive, rather than just trying to forbid drunk driving with no other alternatives.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

How else will I be able to roll coal in my pavement princess because I have ~~a small dick~~ huge throbbing masculinity?

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh look. More reasons I'm never buying new.

Definitely eyeing an EV conversion in the future.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

deleted

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

At least this part is good:

"While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or deactivating a safety system, the Safety Act does not prohibit them from doing so. This creates a potential source of issues for solutions that lack consumer acceptance, since individual owners would not be prohibited by Federal law from removing or modifying those systems (i.e., using defeat mechanisms)."

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Personal owners are allowed to do whatever the hell they want to their vehicles regarding Federal safety standards. Weld the doors shut, go ahead. Remove all the airbags, not a problem.

(b) PROHIBITION.—A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Remove seatbelts? Just curious how it is in the US

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

There are about...50?...Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The way the law is written, personal owners are allowed to disable any safety features mandated by these standards. But it's illegal for one of those listed entities (manufacturers, dealers, rental places, and repair businesses) to do it. So, while you personally are allowed disable those items, you can't bring your car to a repair business and have them do it for you.

But, there are also State Regulations to consider. The Federal government doesn't force anybody to wear a seatbelt, they just require the car to have them when you buy it. The individual states regulate seatbelt use. While the Federal Regulations say you're legally allowed to remove the seatbelts, most of (if not all) the State Regulations say you have to wear a seatbelt while driving.

That being said, there's a mechanism for those listed entities to get an exemption, allowing them to disable safety features. Consider someone in a wheelchair. They have to get a car modified if they want to drive, and they'll be unable to do it themselves. So they bring the car to someone that can handle the modifications (say they need to disable the airbag), and that business will send a request to NHTSA, and NHTSA will give them an exemption for one modified car to remove or disable the airbag.

load more comments