Can cellphones handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks?

It's going to be a long time before DSRC-equipped vehicles are common on our roads.

Read the whole story

 

[Mungus the Unhyphenated]

...the camera will automatically upload video up to and after an incident of heavy braking (which needn't just be a crash, it could be someone cutting you off). In this event, it sends the preceding 20 seconds and following 10 seconds to the cloud and uses character recognition to identify the number plate of the vehicle "at fault," which Nexar says at some point could be shared to other users.

And the automated license plate reading controversy re-ignites in 4...3...2...1...

 

[ace25]

Cell phones are radio networks. The article is interesting, but the title seems a bit mixed up. I think what was meant is "is the existing cell phone radio network good enough for V2V communications that we don't need a dedicated network"?

 

[TheNinja]

Ah, the security updates that aren't an issue in the smartphone market. I hope they have security in mind!

 

[Nilt]

Ah, the security updates that aren't an issue in the smartphone market. I hope they have security in mind!

Almost none of these folks have security anywhere in mind, which is why my vehicles won't have a computer in them until this becomes a requirement.

 

[Boskone]

From a quick overview, the Nexar Android app seems to lack some of the cooler features. I'll check it out, though, in case the complaints are outdated or due to some hardware limitation or carrier lockout.

...the camera will automatically upload video up to and after an incident of heavy braking (which needn't just be a crash, it could be someone cutting you off). In this event, it sends the preceding 20 seconds and following 10 seconds to the cloud and uses character recognition to identify the number plate of the vehicle "at fault," which Nexar says at some point could be shared to other users.

And the automated license plate reading controversy re-ignites in 4...3...2...1...

I don't see a problem at this time as it's not routinely reporting all plates, just those visible during an incident. Not particularly different than a regular dash cam, other than a slight convenience feature.

Now, if someone were to mandate constant reporting from such apps or devices, I'd take a much dimmer view.

 

[EaseOfUseFan]

And the auto manufacturers will scream holy hell because they don't get a cut of the cellular solution.

They will give millions to lobbyists to make sure a cellular solution to V2V never becomes widespread.

And the crooked do-nothing drones in DC will go along with the manufacturers as they stuff their pockets with the bribes "contributions" from the auto manufacturers.

Edit: trying to do a strikethrough. The "Help with post formatting and icons" is a nonfunctional link for me.

 

[Statistical]

Please don't use cellular networks for V2V at least not in the US. I don't trust cellular companies in the US to not exert a monopoly tax on every car. They would love nothing more than to collect $20 per month from every car on the road (~100M vehicles) in perpetuity.'

If you want to put LTE in a car for optional infotainment purposes then go ahead but please don't start trying in vital public safety systems into that connection.

 

[sporkinum]

Constant GPS usage with display on will beat up on the phone's battery and CPU. Obviously the screen shots would need a long cable going to the phone to keep it running.

 

[Null_Space]

So cloud based service + cell provider service.

So there's 2 additional points of failure in the chain (or 3 if there's multiple cell networks involved). Plus the ISP of that cloud service.


IMO, dedicated spectrum is the only thing that will pass regulatory muster and allow platooning.

 

[cygnus1]

...the camera will automatically upload video up to and after an incident of heavy braking (which needn't just be a crash, it could be someone cutting you off). In this event, it sends the preceding 20 seconds and following 10 seconds to the cloud and uses character recognition to identify the number plate of the vehicle "at fault," which Nexar says at some point could be shared to other users.

And the automated license plate reading controversy re-ignites in 4...3...2...1...

I'm assuming they're not getting any other info about the owner of the plate. I'm pretty sure the intention there is so if they see the same plate slamming on brakes consistently, throw a warning up to the driver that the car they're seeing in front of you should get some extra space because they're a crap driver.

 

[jdale]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

 

[cygnus1]

...if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream....

They said they are in the article. They're already selling data to municipalities. They did not go into detail about what specific data they're selling, so who knows how much data about users is already for sale.

 

[takk825]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

For me it is not so much having a permanent connection to the internet, it is having that connection routed to other systems on my car. It is a security issue. I see very little reason that my cars brakes, accelerator, or steering should be connected to the internet, no matter how "secure" the connection may be.

 

[Fatesrider]

Ah, the security updates that aren't an issue in the smartphone market. I hope they have security in mind!

Almost none of these folks have security anywhere in mind, which is why my vehicles won't have a computer in them until this becomes a requirement.

Dude, unless you drive a 1971 or older model of car, it ALREADY has a computer in it.

Just thought you should know that...

 

[jdale]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

For me it is not so much having a permanent connection to the internet, it is having that connection routed to other systems on my car. It is a security issue. I see very little reason that my cars brakes, accelerator, or steering should be connected to the internet, no matter how "secure" the connection may be.

That's fair, but if Nexar is able to get the V2V requirements loosened to a technology-agnostic version, their system won't always be isolated from your car's computer.

 

[DanNeely]

Within a couple of years it will be impossible to buy a new car without an embedded LTE modem.

Using the modem in your phone connected via Android Auto/Apple Carplay/Bluetooth this might be a good idea. If it's an extra $20 to give your predatory cell company an extra line for your car it'll never get mass adoption due to the recurring cost.

Using an external modem or a longterm baselined protocol instead of an in car modem is also needed for longevity. US cars have a >20 year lifespan, the feds can mandate a car only standard that lives that long; your cell company won't maintain its legacy networks that long. 20 years ago was 1g analog (shut down about a decade ago) or maybe 2g which is in the process of being shut down now. The successor 3g networks are going down almost as fast and will likely have an even shorter total lifespan.

 

[davolfman]

As I understand the rules I can all but guarantee this is illegal in California right now. They take a dim view on electronic devices attaching to the windshield (it looks like they've added a strict GPS in the corner exception now), and phones anywhere above the dashboard line. Which is kinda a shame.

 

[Null_Space]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

For me it is not so much having a permanent connection to the internet, it is having that connection routed to other systems on my car. It is a security issue. I see very little reason that my cars brakes, accelerator, or steering should be connected to the internet, no matter how "secure" the connection may be.

That's fair, but if Nexar is able to get the V2V requirements loosened to a technology-agnostic version, their system won't always be isolated from your car's computer.

Wait, takk825, are you pro-Nexar or anti-Nexar?

I interpreted your comment as the later, since they are internet connected, and to do anything autonomous will also have to be connected to all those systems.

802.11p isn't internet connected, is it?

 

[mmiller7]

Cell phones are radio networks. The article is interesting, but the title seems a bit mixed up. I think what was meant is "is the existing cell phone radio network good enough for V2V communications that we don't need a dedicated network"?

Based on the prior article about Pokemon Go my initial reaction is "no, it's not". If you suddenly have everyone who's in a car trying to upload/download data at once you'll have the same issue.

Plus what happens when a storm hits and cell networks go down? That's the very thing that drove me to get more into ham radio - the inability to communicate after local disasters.

 

[mmiller7]

As I understand the rules I can all but guarantee this is illegal in California right now. They take a dim view on electronic devices attaching to the windshield (it looks like they've added a strict GPS in the corner exception now), and phones anywhere above the dashboard line. Which is kinda a shame.

Not seeing how that's any different than a GPS? That can't go in the corner because I'd have to hold it vs putting on the flat part in the center. Plus its absurd to argue its "obstructing my view" when I can see my own hood over top of the phone/GPS.

Then again, I guess it is CA where everything gives you cancer so I suppose that's somehow logical.

 

[DanNeely]

As I understand the rules I can all but guarantee this is illegal in California right now. They take a dim view on electronic devices attaching to the windshield (it looks like they've added a strict GPS in the corner exception now), and phones anywhere above the dashboard line. Which is kinda a shame.

Not seeing how that's any different than a GPS? That can't go in the corner because I'd have to hold it vs putting on the flat part in the center. Plus its absurd to argue its "obstructing my view" when I can see my own hood over top of the phone/GPS.

Then again, I guess it is CA where everything gives you cancer so I suppose that's somehow logical.

I guess they want you to clip your phone to your air vent, where it's low enough you need to take your eyes off the road to see your map/etc. :eyeroll:

 

[Dr Gitlin]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

How is the Nexar app in communication with your car? Other than traveling inside it? It's not connected to an OBD2 reader so there are no hooks into the car's network at all.

It has its tendrils as deep into your car's ECUs as Waze or a standalone dashcam. Which is to say not at all.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

 

[Null_Space]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

How is the Nexar app in communication with your car? Other than traveling inside it? It's not connected to an OBD2 reader so there are no hooks into the car's network at all.

It has its tendrils as deep into your car's ECUs as Waze or a standalone dashcam. Which is to say not at all.

But that's the long term proposal, is it not?

Otherwise in what way is it a substitute/replacement for v2v? How can it provide information for autonomous vehicles (as you alluded to in the comments on your other article), if it's not connected to those autonomous systems?

 

[Null_Space]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

V2v is required for the sorts of advanced autonomy features in the "vision". Platooning, reduced following distances, etc.

Without those, autonomous vehicles will _add_to congestion, not reduce it.

You can do LTE V2V in under 100ms *today* with existing tech. It's not going to be a problem.

 

[aaronb1138]

Absent schemes like "Cash for clunkers," the future—like the present—is going to be a mix of new and older machines sharing the roads.

Ah yes, cash for clunkers; let's advocate the socially malicious destruction of many thousands of working automobiles in order to increase new car sales and increase used car values.

And yes, just the carbon footprint math dictates that it is better for the environment to run a car into the ground (until repairs out way future use/value) than to buy a new one with higher efficiency prematurely.

There is a reason why the chain is Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.

And with very low latency 5G LTE on the way...

The tower density requirements for 5G are non-trivially higher than 4G. Not to mention it is a point-to-point distribution model requiring an incredible amount of additional computational power to select which endpoints get which data sets. Or we can have multicast per tower <trollguy.jpg>.

A local, low power of RF broadcast is much better for all vehicles to rather than talk interactively, instead to tell all, and listen to all nearby.

 

[Null_Space]

Absent schemes like "Cash for clunkers," the future—like the present—is going to be a mix of new and older machines sharing the roads.

Ah yes, cash for clunkers; let's advocate the socially malicious destruction of many thousands of working automobiles in order to increase new car sales and increase used car values.

And yes, just the carbon footprint math dictates that it is better for the environment to run a car into the ground (until repairs out way future use/value) than to buy a new one with higher efficiency prematurely.

There is a reason why the chain is Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.

1) Note that your source is in the UK, and the vehicles miles/year they use is approximately 2/3 of that in the US.

Meaning that the equivalent old car in the US emits massively more.

2) That calculation was purely concerned with C02, not all the other pollutants which can be orders of magnitude higher in a clunker.

 

[aaronb1138]

Absent schemes like "Cash for clunkers," the future—like the present—is going to be a mix of new and older machines sharing the roads.

Ah yes, cash for clunkers; let's advocate the socially malicious destruction of many thousands of working automobiles in order to increase new car sales and increase used car values.

And yes, just the carbon footprint math dictates that it is better for the environment to run a car into the ground (until repairs out way future use/value) than to buy a new one with higher efficiency prematurely.

There is a reason why the chain is Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.

1) Note that your source is in the UK, and the vehicles miles/year they use is approximately 2/3 of that in the US.

Meaning that the equivalent old car in the US emits massively more.

2) That calculation was purely concerned with C02, not all the other pollutants which can be orders of magnitude higher in a clunker.

They talk about using 40k miles / 5 years as a metric. The US averages ~13k miles per year making the miles in 5 years 65k miles. The math for the presented scenarios still favors reuse of an older vehicle over a new one with better emissions. As for other emissions (primarily NOx), they are generally linear to CO/CO2 output unless you are in a turbo diesel.

Also, that is before dealing with the horrific manner in which cars were "destroyed" under cash for clunkers. Ridiculous things like replacing the oil with head sealant and running the vehicle until the engine seized and prohibitions on salvaging parts from cash for clunkers vehicles.

Studies on the program notated a net increase of 0.6-0.7 mpg... That's bullshit social progress for the value removed from the economy as well as environmentally.

 

[jdale]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

How is the Nexar app in communication with your car? Other than traveling inside it? It's not connected to an OBD2 reader so there are no hooks into the car's network at all.

It has its tendrils as deep into your car's ECUs as Waze or a standalone dashcam. Which is to say not at all.

I didn't say anything about the connection to your car's computer. The point I raised is privacy, which you didn't address.

I think the point you are trying to make was already made more clearly by takk825. Which is that privacy is not the only consideration, there is a separate consideration regarding hacking. Which, as others have noted, is valid regarding Nexar's current form, but not at all valid regarding their long term plans.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Absent schemes like "Cash for clunkers," the future—like the present—is going to be a mix of new and older machines sharing the roads.

Ah yes, cash for clunkers; let's advocate the socially malicious destruction of many thousands of working automobiles in order to increase new car sales and increase used car values.=

Your definition of advocate is very different to mine. Or is merely referencing something an advocation now?

 

[Fatesrider]

I don't particularly care about having a computer in my car. I do care about the methods it has of connecting to it. Hard-wired by a contortionist having to twist around to find the port and plug in, OK.

And only to a device that doesn't upload anything.

If anything is "wireless", it must be completely separate from critical vehicle systems like breaks, transmission, engine, lights, wipers, what have you. It must also be downloadable ONLY, which is to say it doesn't upload any information from connected systems (including photos, GPS data, etc).

There's a balance between functionality and privacy. I don't expect the auto industry to get it right. It's difficult to ensure privacy is observed while providing what are becoming more "essential services".

The very thought of OTA updates changing the way my car functions fills me with dread, however well-intentioned such things are. And the LAST thing I'd ever rely on with respect to functionality and features is a cell phone that has to have data, location, NFC and all that jazz turned on.

Just pay attention to the fucking road while driving for a change.

Speaking of which, I looked at that cell phone "break warning" thing and had this conversation in my head.

Me: What the fuck is that?
Driver: It's my early warning breaking system. It tells me if I need to hit the breaks. Cool, huh?
Me: I'll drive.
Driver: What? WHY?
Me: I want to live. If you think you need something like that, you're not paying enough attention to your driving in the first place.

<sighs>

If I could afford it, I'd retrofit any small, pre-1970 vehicle with an electric kit and be a happy clam. Low carbon footprint, recycling the materials, no stopping at the pumps, NO INTERNET. Just me, the car and the road...

Why is that such a hard concept these days for auto makers to get?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

"Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars"

You say here it is a "misapprehension" that it could be used for hacking cars.

"cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus."

So V2V has deep hooks into CAN, but you don't think it will be a hacking vector????

Unless, perhaps where you said "this could be" you were referring to Nexar. But there is no indication of that. In the rest of the post, you only mention V2V. You didn't quote a post about Nexar. It isn't clear from any post immediately above that post that you might be talking about Nexar.

And Nexar is a huge privacy issue, even without hooking into the CAN. It would be *worse* if it did, but it already isn't good.

 

[Null_Space]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

The Nexar app doesn't _currently_ connect to the car. Yes, you were clear on that.

But you then write a whole article on how it's a V2V replacement. Which it's not (not for a whole host of use cases) unless it _does_ connect to the car in the future.


I then _explicitly_ pointed out how you referenced those use cases (autonomy) on your previous story.


So which is it? Will cell phones never, ever ever connect to the control systems of the cars? Or will cell phones "handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks"?

Because it certainly isn't "better" if it can't handle the _primary_ future use case (autonomy).

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

"Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars"

You say here it is a "misapprehension" that it could be used for hacking cars.

"cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus."

So V2V has deep hooks into CAN, but you don't think it will be a hacking vector????

Unless, perhaps where you said "this could be" you were referring to Nexar. But there is no indication of that. In the rest of the post, you only mention V2V. You didn't quote a post about Nexar. It isn't clear from any post immediately above that post that you might be talking about Nexar.

And Nexar is a huge privacy issue, even without hooking into the CAN. It would be *worse* if it did, but it already isn't good.

No, of course I was referring to Nexar! Because reading the comments there appeared to be a misapprehension that hackers could compromise Nexar's app as a way into your car.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

"Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars"

You say here it is a "misapprehension" that it could be used for hacking cars.

"cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus."

So V2V has deep hooks into CAN, but you don't think it will be a hacking vector????

Unless, perhaps where you said "this could be" you were referring to Nexar. But there is no indication of that. In the rest of the post, you only mention V2V. You didn't quote a post about Nexar. It isn't clear from any post immediately above that post that you might be talking about Nexar.

And Nexar is a huge privacy issue, even without hooking into the CAN. It would be *worse* if it did, but it already isn't good.

No, of course I was referring to Nexar! Because reading the comments there appeared to be a misapprehension that hackers could compromise Nexar's app as a way into your car.

The privacy aspect I'm less sympathetic to simply because choosing to install Nexar on your phone and run it is an active decision, and it's not like Apple and Google (and plenty of other apps on both) aren't already doing all that data collection already. That cat is out of the bag, whether we like it or not.

Also, please don't think that DSRC V2V is any more private. There are all sorts of provisions for collecting the data and selling it to businesses in the NPRM. And at least with a cell phone I can put it in wireless mode or turn it off before driving.

But I believe we've been arguing at cross purposes.

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

The Nexar app doesn't _currently_ connect to the car. Yes, you were clear on that.

But you then write a whole article on how it's a V2V replacement. Which it's not (not for a whole host of use cases) unless it _does_ connect to the car in the future.


I then _explicitly_ pointed out how you referenced those use cases (autonomy) on your previous story.


So which is it? Will cell phones never, ever ever connect to the control systems of the cars? Or will cell phones "handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks"?

Because it certainly isn't "better" if it can't handle the _primary_ future use case (autonomy).

Here's the thing; the infrastructure for proper V2X, platooning, and all the rest of it doesn't exist right now. And we live in a country that is notorious for not paying to upgrade infrastructure. So to make that a reality, either we're going to have to spend a lot of money installing DSRC radios at every stop sign and traffic light, plus some kind of back-end infrastructure to run it all, or cars just use the LTE modems that they will already have, and we skip adding DSRC and just use the cloud.

And of course to make that happen, there will have to be hooks into the car, and of course there damn sure better be layers upon layers of security to make sure that doesn't end in catastrophe.

Again, I think we've been arguing at cross purposes; if we're talking about V2V 10+ years from now when the streets of some of our cities are already starting to teem with level 4 autonomous pods, then you are completely correct. (But by that point it'll be embedded LTE not someone's cellphone on a windscreen mount.)

I was referring specifically to this instance, where an app running on a cellphone, providing V2V alerts to the driver, works just fine and there's no danger some script kiddie can drive you off a bridge.

 

[Zool26]

"Qui bono?" -> "Cui bono?"

 

[Null_Space]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

"Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars"

You say here it is a "misapprehension" that it could be used for hacking cars.

"cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus."

So V2V has deep hooks into CAN, but you don't think it will be a hacking vector????

Unless, perhaps where you said "this could be" you were referring to Nexar. But there is no indication of that. In the rest of the post, you only mention V2V. You didn't quote a post about Nexar. It isn't clear from any post immediately above that post that you might be talking about Nexar.

And Nexar is a huge privacy issue, even without hooking into the CAN. It would be *worse* if it did, but it already isn't good.

No, of course I was referring to Nexar! Because reading the comments there appeared to be a misapprehension that hackers could compromise Nexar's app as a way into your car.

The privacy aspect I'm less sympathetic to simply because choosing to install Nexar on your phone and run it is an active decision, and it's not like Apple and Google (and plenty of other apps on both) aren't already doing all that data collection already. That cat is out of the bag, whether we like it or not.

Also, please don't think that DSRC V2V is any more private. There are all sorts of provisions for collecting the data and selling it to businesses in the NPRM. And at least with a cell phone I can put it in wireless mode or turn it off before driving.

But I believe we've been arguing at cross purposes.

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

The Nexar app doesn't _currently_ connect to the car. Yes, you were clear on that.

But you then write a whole article on how it's a V2V replacement. Which it's not (not for a whole host of use cases) unless it _does_ connect to the car in the future.


I then _explicitly_ pointed out how you referenced those use cases (autonomy) on your previous story.


So which is it? Will cell phones never, ever ever connect to the control systems of the cars? Or will cell phones "handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks"?

Because it certainly isn't "better" if it can't handle the _primary_ future use case (autonomy).

So to make that a reality, either we're going to have to spend a lot of money installing DSRC radios at every stop sign and traffic light, plus some kind of back-end infrastructure to run it all, or cars just use the LTE modems that they will already have, and we skip adding DSRC and just use the cloud.

stop signs and traffic lights?

The main use case is freeways. Platooning on 25 mph surface streets, that already have minimal following distances, doesn't add much.

 

[cbreak]

"Do mobiles handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks?"

Answer: Nope. Mobiles don't communicate at all without radio networks. Next question?