61–70 of 111 posts
They’ll need a warrant to pull the data from the manufacturer. Chances are no LEA is even going to ask your permission as you won’t have the tools nor know how to pull that data.
Can you elaborate?
'I felt like I was in heaven,' the cop said. 'It's like instant replay in the NFL, I can tell what happened.' The engineers looked at each other like, 'Aw, crap.' As engineers, we have an obligation to think through privacy concerns. These (and nearly all) devices should either not retain data or should encrypt it. Also my self-driving car better not be phoning home or getting updates over the air. I've seen what hap…
Push back e.g. updated model data to help with updating routes, real-time construction developments, new driveways, ways humans make mistakes on the road, etc? I believe that every AV company will be doing this, and hopefully this data is useless to law enforcement.
OTA updates? Tesla already does. It won’t even be a choice, and that’s probably a good thing. Many people who don’t work with computers professionally don’t see the importance of updating things. In a situation where software updates could literally prevent deaths, I’m pretty sure that it will be mandatory to have vehicles receive OTA updates that can’t be disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is asking for historical location data, but merely what the car recorded as your input and other driving parameters before, during, after a crash. Where exactly is the privacy interest in that?
Great. To provide that, all the car will have to do is record all telemetry and upload it to a server farm. After all, it could be months before the cops realize they need a new angle on a crash you drove past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that I do want the data to be stored because it could act as training data to make the vehicles better. But I also recognize the potential for abuse. This one's tricky...
It's only tricky because there isn't an "off" button. That's the problem, it's forced on your rather than optional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aircraft, even private aircraft, are tracked and recorded. Why should automobiles be any different? Far more people are killed and injured by vehicles than are killed by aircraft. In general I'm pretty pro-privacy but I've had way too many close calls and accidents with bad drivers who were found to be at fault. Maybe there's a better way to get to vision zero, and if so I'd love to hear it.
Cars, especially in the US, is very closely linked to the location of a person. For private aircraft that is generally not the case I assume. I work for a semi-governmental organization in the Netherlands and we track ships. Tracking company-owned commercial ships is no problem, but we are heavily restricted by law in what we can do with the location data of privately owned ships because people live on them.
They won‘t „pull the data off your car“ anyway, because all the interesting data will be elsewhere. Also considering that all the big car manufacturers are working on business models where usually driver and owner are different entities this even gets more involved. We had an interesting case in Germany where data ended up in the court room neither the manufacturer nor the car-sharing provider claimed to have.
A man was sentenced to 33 months in prison for vehicular manslaughter. The verdict was based on location data obtained by the court.
Both, the manufacturer (BMW) and the provider (DriveNow), maintain that they don't collect personally identifiable location data. The location profile of the convicted man was created by the court from the data it received from both companies independently.
[1] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/datenerfassung-im-fahrzeug-d...
OT: Original source is in German and I wanted to link to the Google Translate version, like I did in the past. Seems this is not possible anymore without a Google account:-(
This is interesting. A true comprehensive rethink is required. When you rent a safe deposit box the law doesn't get automatic access (warrant etc is required). They law could consider buying just a ride from an AV service to be "renting" the car as you would a safe deposit box, house, or apartment and require a warrant for police access. But you'd have no authority over the cameras and other systems of all the other…
I wonder whether, along with the rollout of the infrastructure needed to support mass AVs, the govt will just be adding in traffic surveillance cameras as well? It seems to me that the infrastructure to support mass AV traffic would involve lots of sensors, cameras, and other electronic devices.
I don't wonder -- it seems quite certain this will happen. It seems whenever new systems are put in place, surveillance is built in: Automatic bridge toll payment? Could have been done with a reloadable token but no, you have to tie it to a particular vehicle and identity, and that information has been used by law enforcement. Driver's licenses? They really need only a photo and an expiration date but instead they are belarded with all sorts of information (weight, address etc) which have nothing to do with driving.
In this case it will likely be shrouded by the overstretched and abused "third party doctrine" (if a third party has the info the govt can just go see it -- so the DEA doesn't have a license plate database, it can simply contract with a third party to make one instead). The government will simply require that AV fleets provide all their telemetry data including optical camera info.
> It seems to me that the infrastructure to support mass AV traffic would involve lots of sensors, cameras, and other electronic devices.
What sort of infrastructure should be built that is specific to AVs (and why should the government, rather than the fleet operators or other third parties implement it)? Why should they need even as much as humans require today?
I think there is an aspect of privacy that folks may be ignoring. Privacy from commercial entities. Consider the following scenario: Driver A and driver B are involved in an accident. Driver C is in an autonomous vehicle that "witnesses" the accident, by being in close proximity to the event. If driver A or B have the same insurance company as C, that company could get the data from C to determine fault in the accide…
I think I'm misunderstanding, but when you say "make such a thing possible", what exactly are you referring to? The scenarios in your post I would think are heavily dependent on the considerations agreed upon in the policy between insurer and insured, so while Driver A may have a policy that sets limits on liability, Driver B may have a completely different set of considerations in the event of vehicle collision, what Driver C's car "sees" would just be supplementary, wouldn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it's about an accident, but if an ordinary police officer can view this, you know more powerful agencies are going to collect all of it (incidentally).
Are we even in the ballpark of being able to collect real time video (and other sensor data) from tens of millions of vehicles? That's a completely different technical problem than having the vehicle store some period of data. I guess authoritarians will push to have the ability to install monitoring programs locally.
They’ll need a warrant to pull the data from the manufacturer. Chances are no LEA is even going to ask your permission as you won’t have the tools nor know how to pull that data.
> They’ll need a warrant to pull the data from the manufacturer. Can you elaborate?
"Legally compelled to do so" means a warrant or a court order or something like that; which in my mind seems reasonable; in general, we do want courts to get evidence to determine what actually happened in (potentially fatal) accidents, instead of having to do without and have a greater chance of making a wrong judgement because they didn't have that information.