Within 6 Years, Most Vehicles Will Allow OTA Software Updates (computerworld.com) 199
Lucas123 writes: By 2022, using a thumb drive or taking your vehicle to the location you bought it for a software update will seem as strange as it would be for a smartphone or laptop today. By 2022, there will be 203 million vehicles on the road that can receive software over-the-air (SOTA) upgrades; among those vehicles, at least 22 million will also be able to get firmware upgrades, according to a new report by ABI Research. Today, there are about 253 million cars and trucks on the road, according to IHS Automotive. The main reasons automakers are moving quickly to enable OTA upgrades: recall costs, autonomous driving and security risks based on software complexities, according to Susan Beardslee, a senior analyst at ABI Research. "It is a welcome transformation, as OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner," Beardslee said.
So defective cars (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're telling me you'll be selling defective cars that need repaired so often their need OTA updates? And not just a regular maintenance at the dealership?
And where are the regulatory authorities then? Are they sitting on their asses while you sell us these defective cars?
Re:So defective cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. When I see this,
"It is a welcome transformation, as OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner," Beardslee said.
my first thought is that maybe cars being so connected before we have the robustness to go with it isn't such a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I was toying with the idea of getting a Dodge Hellcat Challenger. But it comes with what they call UConnect installed...and so far, I can find no option to disable the mechanism it uses (cell phone basically) to communicate with Dodge or whomever.
This bothers me. I don't want my car to be spewing out God knows what in
Re: (Score:2)
I'm staring to think more and more about buying instead, and older late 70's muscle car..spending the cash to restore it, modernize the suspension, etc......and have a fun gas burner that way that is simpler, and much less connected.
A cool idea, but you give up a lot of safety doing that. As much as I agree with you about not wanting my car talking to outside agencies without my permission, driving an older car seriously compromises your safety.
I guess I'm hoping that people will figure out which wire to pull to disable the cellular connection so I can disable that and still have all the modern safety and convenience without my car ratting me out to the powers that be.
Re: (Score:2)
driving an older car seriously compromises your safety.
But it's my safety. I'll compromise it if I want. If I'm not permitted to, I'll just ride my motorcycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I didn't mean to say you shouldn't be allowed to do it... just saying probably not a very good tradeoff if you're just worried about software safety issues. As bad as we all know software bugs can be, I seriously doubt we'll see bugs that take safety levels back to those of the 1970s (when we didn't even have seatbelts in lots of the cars!).
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt we'll see bugs that take safety levels back to those of the 1970s
Yes we will. Because when the ABS, stability control, automatic braking fails and drivers have come to depend on it, thing will get ugly fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I meant to respond to the motorcycle part... not sure if that was trolling or not on your part! But as a motorcyclist, I'd like to point out the obvious that those of us who ride motorcycles just.... must not care that much about safety otherwise we would never ride them! (but they sure are fun!)
Re: (Score:3)
On the subject of airbags, I'm not a huge fan. One 1997 article I read shows only a 5% decrease in fatalities versus just a lap+shoulder belt. I religiously use my seatbelt, but recognize that a lot of people don't (the same article claimed a 13% fatality reduction if you had airbags but no seatbelt but why wouldn't you wear your seatbelt and enjoy a 45-50% redu
Re: (Score:2)
I am understanding that you can actually (they're pretty sure) just get rid of the OEM radio (whole infotainment?) and that kills it by itself. I don't know if the Challenger comes with steering wheel controls but you'd have to go after-market with those too, which is possible. Supposedly... That's the only way to kill it AND supposedly it works. I know some of the Dodge Ram guys were working on it, specifically going for antenna modifications, but I think that even when they applied filters that they still
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I owned a Viper quite a few years ago but then my kids (that's how long ago this was) decided to move in with me 'cause I had the cooler toys. *sighs* So, there went the Viper. The car I have with me is a BMW 6 series, it's actually a nice intonation. It's nearly ~450 horses and that's enough for my daily driver - I've alternatives, too many alternatives. I do not have another Viper though - I do miss mine. I'd buy the same exact one back if I could find it and was for sale.
I'll keep my eyes out for one of
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the problems...hard it seems, to find documentation to help you locate and actually find the transmitter(s).....it seems there might be multiple ones from some posts I've read so far...
Re: (Score:2)
They did do more serious stuff [washingtonpost.com] as well, and it triggered quite a storm about the professional ethics of the experiment, "white hat" or not.
Re: (Score:2)
"my first thought is that maybe cars being so connected before we have the robustness to go with it isn't such a great idea."
Not disagreeing, but I'd omit the 'before we have ...' part. It'll take a decade or three, but I expect after a lot of (unnecessary) pain, it will become obvious that arbitrary OTA updates for any device are a bad idea. Upside benefits are real, but minimal. Downside risks are also real and potentially serious.
That's especially true for cars. Cars are mobile. And Expensive. How
Re: So defective cars (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the legal bodies that will like this most since now they can cripple our cars remotely.
Re: (Score:2)
The hacking potential is also very scary. In the history of bad ideas, this one ranks pretty high.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're telling me you'll be selling defective cars that need repaired so often their need OTA updates?
No. This is so when one of these new-fangled cars does something bad or wrong, the vendor can secretly download a back-dated patch before authorities can investigate to make it look like the driver was to blame and not the car. /tinfoil-hat
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that the less honest manufacturers will start pushing out engine parameters to de-tune older model cars. So you bought that high performance sports sedan and now it's gutless? Time to trade it in on a new model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm concerned that this will turn out like software updates today: more alpha-quality releases with the world as your test bed, and a promise to fix things over time.
That sucks a little with games and apps. That could kill with automobiles.
Re: (Score:3)
I started to flame you for your tinfoil hat type comment, but I got to thinking about what if the emissions controls broke down, you couldn't afford to fix it, and the authorities disable your car until you can have it TOWED into a dealership and repaired?
States like Georgia have something similar to this already but don't use remote kill switches. If the authorities pull you over and can visually confirm your vehicle is non-compliant, they can have the vehicle impounded and force you to pay money into an
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh...its nice to live in a state where they don't do *sniff* tests or really care what ex
Re: (Score:2)
If you're at all interested in information instead of making snippy comments on slashdot ...
You've got to be new here...
better (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:better (Score:5, Insightful)
Being able to push OTA updates will only encourage managers to declare projects done then fix things later. The threat of a recall like an invisible hand encourages car companies to try extra hard to get it right.
Furthermore, there generally isn't adequate protection of critical systems from those that are provided for the convenience of the passengers. Those systems generally aren't very secure
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to push OTA updates will only encourage managers to declare projects done then fix things later.
Oh, yes. I can see it now.
Pay only $2.99 per month, to customize your ABS brake response... or to overclock the car's CPU processor... or to prevent it from reporting your movements to nearby police cars.
Re: (Score:2)
We can encourage manufacturers not to push updates by declining the EULA when the update comes and then demanding a refund. The law on this varies from place to place - it might require the EULA to have changed, the refund you get might vary, but in general declining the EULA is a great way to stop companies behaving badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My issue is that there are good ways to push updates, and there are bad ways. My experience is that companies will use the least expensive and most insecure ways possible in general, unless held to task by someone that matters (VISA and PCI-DSS, or the government.)
Want to do the upgrade proper? It just doesn't need to be signed, but signed by a computer that is air-gapped. The update process should be atomic (i.e. either the update completely succeeded, or it is rolled back.) There has to be no middle g
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a shame for your pandora to permanently stop working because of an API change.
That's opening a box of problems, man.
Autonomous Driving (Score:5, Funny)
BY DEFINITION the car can DRIVE ITSELF to the dealership.
It can do this at night, when I am sleeping.
It will wait in line with the other cars, the techs will plug in their devices, and they will fix the car.
The car will then DRIVE ITSELF home, park itself in the driveway, and finish its recharge cycle.
Why in the world would anybody need OTA?
Re: (Score:3)
I have NEVER had a software update on any of the vehicles that I have driven. NEVER. I have had regular maintenance that I have done myself for decades. There is no reason to have a software update for a car unless that car was defective to begin with. The information that we have so far indicates that these cars are unsecured and open to tampering from afar. The spying done by government and auto companies is bad enough, but foreign script kiddies wrecking cars for fun and profit is not a path we sho
Re: (Score:3)
If the manufacturer can deliver OTA updates, so can hackers.
I'd prefer a secured physical update device at the dealership any day, even if it costs extra to get my car there. (And this should somewhat discourage using the masses as their beta testing platform... they'll get tired of constant updates costing them money.)
The real resaon for this (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the government has a suspected terrorist in their sights, they can have the auto manufacturer perform an OTA software upgrade to the suspected terrorists car then when turned on will lock the doors, roll up the windows and autonomously suspected terrorist to the nearest police station.
Re:The real resaon for this (Score:5, Funny)
It's only one time for that one particular car and they promise to delete the code afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Early computers could actually catch fire under certain circumstances. Printers were the worst, and video monitors. Fortunately back then there wasn't much malware to abuse these weaknesses.
Seems like we are going back in time, except that now malware is common and script kiddies on 4chan take great delight in remotely setting cars on fire or making the engine destroy itself. The first manufacturer to fall victim to this will be looking at a *lot* of warranty claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Or vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Common... that would take far too long. You need to issue the NSL right away, and compel the backdoor RAT to be deployed immediately. That way as soon as you identify a dissonant... uh, "terrorist", you can immediately take any and all actions through the vehicle's systems to help protect the children. Who knows, the terrorist might be in his car, driving by a school, and you had to accelerate it into that tree to protect the kids. It's national security, so you can't do anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not be Luddites.
There is a simple solution and it's the same one we use on every other computer that gets updates. Configure the system to notify you updates are pending and describe what those updates do. That's what Tesla does now. The car's owner can still be in control of their car while reaping the benefits of OTA updates. Any new problems that arise can be addressed and are minor compared to the advantages brought by OTA updates. Cars have had computers and bugs for more than 20 years and m
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that your car has been running on software for the past 20 to 30 years. Most of this software has never been patched. Unless you believe that all software is perfect when it is first installed, you need a mechanism for updates. All of my other electronic devices have the option for regular updates to fix bugs and add features... why not cars?
Tesla has a full time cell data modem plus WiFi. This provides streaming music, navigation, and software updates. It also sends back diagnostic informati
oblig. (Score:2, Insightful)
what could possibly go wrong?
ota update mechanisms will be hacked.
ota updates of car software will be abused by certain agencies.. think feds, local enforcement agencies, etc.
ota updates puts a cellular modem in every car, also will be abused by above for tracking.
these modems will each use a phone number. our phone number pool (nanp) is finite-sized, and depleting fast enough the way it is.
Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch (Score:5, Insightful)
So the FBI will demand a kill switch. After all, if someone is running from cops we know they are guilty of something, because running from cops is illegal. If they can demand your phone have a backdoor, your car is obviously MUCH more important- a car can commit way more crimes than a phone!
The fact that these will be hackable is also just so amazing.
What a terrible fucking idea. I hope that people don't fall for this shit, but I'm afraid that they will.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They already demand Onstar turn on the microphones when they want to spy on the passengers of a car.
http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/onstar.htm
The head of Google, Eric Schmidt, uses an iPhone not an Android phone, if you've never noticed, Google Play Services can do everything OnStar can do and far more. It can video, turn on the mic, listen in on calls, send fake SMSs, read emails, etc. and if FBI has used warrants to require OnStar to spy on its customers, you can be sure they've done that many times with G
Re: (Score:2)
Time to get a 1970s Mercedes diesel, 1980 VW diesel, or 1982 Audi diesel. You know, the kind with zero electronics of any kind in it, outside of the radio.
Once my 1983 Audi 5000TD was started, the only reason it needed an alternator or battery at all to keep running as long as the fuel held out was to keep the fuel cutoff solenoid energized and open. You could have done that function with a single jumper and some D cells. EMP? Ha! In a nuclear war it would have remained in perfect running condition when onl
Re: (Score:2)
Time to get a 1970s Mercedes diesel, 1980 VW diesel, or 1982 Audi diesel. You know, the kind with zero electronics of any kind in it, outside of the radio.
Want to buy my 1982 Mercedes 300SD? Mercedes actually kept to mechanically regulated diesels in the S-Class all the way until 1991, when they introduced the "Starship Enterprise" W140 300SD with an electronically-regulated engine. But 1980-1985 models have the legendary OM617.951 5-cylinder turbo diesel, which is broadly considered to be not only one of the most reliable engines Mercedes ever made, but one of the most reliable engines of all time.
the only reason it needed an alternator or battery at all to keep running as long as the fuel held out was to keep the fuel cutoff solenoid energized and open.
Yeah, that's amateur hour. The Mercedes uses a vacuum switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to buy my 1982 Mercedes 300SD?
If you're serious, well... You know how to get my attention. I'd need pics, of course, and I can go from there. Given my schedule, I may have to have someone else retrieve it - probably a transport company. I've read enough of your posts to know what you've done for work on it - I'm presuming that you've done it well. I have a moderate interest, with the right car and price then I might be enticed. I've turned a couple of similar models down but I probably should own one, at least for a while. Bare minimum,
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that these will be hackable is also just so amazing.
This doesn't actually worry me.
If I'm being targeted I'm likely screwed one way or another.
If I'm not being targeted then it would make no sense to indiscriminately mess with cars. You're not going to make much money attacking cars directly when instead targets exist that have personal / banking information or high bandwidth which can be used to stage further attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid, the teenage hoodlum who lived next door shot out all the back windows of cars on the street. But that takes nerve, risks being caught, and only appeals to the more active violent type. Now, the maladjusted nerdy kid next door will be able to hack your car for a laugh from the comfort of his bedroom.
Re: (Score:2)
And as I drive around I'm always at risk of having a brick thrown through my window for the lulz (something that happens all too frequently apparently). The end result is that all the bridges and overpasses in my city have cages around the pedestrian section. This hasn't changed anything though, except for the view from the bridge and the amount of money left in the budget for road maintenance.
I can't bubble wrap myself against idiots, but the point is that every time technology security is talked about it
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. Car recalls are nothing new. I can only imagine the reaction here if Apple announced that you'd have to take your iPhone back to the Apple Store for OS upgrades or security patches.
Cars have a lot more computer than in the past. It makes them more efficient and it makes them safer. The entertainment system is massively more complex than an old fashioned tape deck, and that lets us have a more enjoyable drive. With all that code, there are going to be things that can be improved or which nee
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather you were driving than being entertained in the car. Besides, books, kindles, ipads etc can keep your passengers entertained with out compromising the security of the automobile. Furthermore, any software controlling the driving functions of a few thousand pounds of moving metal and plastic had better tested far better than today's Windows or IOS. This is mission critical stuff, like if it fails people die. That can't be held to the same "not guaranteed to even work" level to which most PC
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not being targeted then it would make no sense to indiscriminately mess with cars. You're not going to make much money attacking cars directly when instead targets exist that have personal / banking information or high bandwidth which can be used to stage further attacks.
Uh, ransom the manufacturers? I'll kill one of your customers per day every day until you fork over 10 million?
Re: (Score:2)
OTA update done and patched. Next question? The problem with randsomware is that it needs to fly under the radar to be successful. Encrypting a few files and releasing them in return for a few hundred or thousand of dollars is the standard modus operandi. Randsomware for millions in exchange for not committing murder is the working of a truly sick mind, not your mass market hacker, which will also limit the number of such attacks and therefore the risk to the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Or is that you are not thinking of the children?
Nice future (Score:5, Insightful)
Within 7 years then, the FBI will want General Motors to write a special update for them to get at some terrorist's encrypted car camera pictures and a couple of months later Russian teen hackers will crash our cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. The occasional script kiddy may find it funny, but for the most part hackers aren't that. They are after things they can sell or extort. Unless you have your mobile phone banking app in your car I imagine you will be an unlikely target for hackers.
Re:Nice future (Score:5, Insightful)
Send you payment information to XXX.XXX.XXX or the car won't start.
Hi! Nice to see your kids driving now. Boy, wouldn't it be horrible if the steering went out on the free way? Act NOW to prevent this tragedy by sending a secure payment to us.
Good morning Police Mayor! Please ensure that proper payment to us is made or all the cars in your city will stop working correctly.
Just a few things that can be done with complete connected cars and their automatic updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Send you payment information to XXX.XXX.XXX or the car won't start.
This one I can get behind but ultimately is not that severe.
Hi! Nice to see your kids driving now. Boy, wouldn't it be horrible if the steering went out on the free way? Act NOW to prevent this tragedy by sending a secure payment to us.
Good morning Police Mayor! Please ensure that proper payment to us is made or all the cars in your city will stop working correctly.
Just a few things that can be done with complete connected cars and their automatic updates.
These two on the other hand are the plots of bad action movies staring Bruce Willis, not reality. Hackers survive on turning their activities into a continuously profitable business. This becomes very different when you threaten murder on a continuous basis or shutdown a city. Hackers thrive on small fry not acts of war, and quite frankly given the state of our infrastructure if its acts of war they want they could already quite easily achieve that
Re: (Score:2)
The door refused to open. It said, âoeFive cents, please.â
He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. âoeIâ(TM)ll pay you tomorrow,â he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. âoeWhat I pay you,â he informed it, âoeis in the nature of a gratuity; I donâ(TM)t have to pay you.â
âoeI think otherwise,â the door said. âoeLook in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.â
In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
âoeYou discover Iâ(TM)m right,â the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his aptâ(TM)s money-gulping door.
âoeIâ(TM)ll sue you,â the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, âoeIâ(TM)ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.â
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA has a pretty good system for certification of flight software, why not use that as a starting point? Systems such as steering, braking, acceleration should be as foolproof as a Level-A system on an airliner. While a failure in one of those systems probably won't kill hundreds of people like it would in an airliner, if it's me, I want the same level of safety. I want the chance of my steering, braking, and acceleration systems to fail because of a software or hardware bug to be extremely remote.
The F
Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches (Score:3)
How will be possible to have car chases in this case ?
The cops will simply shut down the car remotely.
All the movie scripts will have to be modified to exclude car chases.
Then again, spying on people while driving is a source of additional income for the car makers, so the possibility of buying a car without this "feature" will be removed from customers.
Re: Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches (Score:2)
Rethink?
See "Demolition Man".
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood already has two "new" tropes for this - Either every criminal drives classic hot-rods, or evil, evil "modders" who dare to think they own their cars exist as a distinct criminal segment right up there with slavers and pedos. Or both, of course.
Ownership? (Score:2)
...OTA is the only way to accomplish secure centralized remote control over the car you are renting from the manufacturer in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner.
FTFY, Mr. Beardslee!
In related news, the automotive sector officially announces that it has joined smartphone manufacturers, cellular service providers, appliance manufacturers, and producers of desktop operating systems and software, in the last push for complete corporate hegemony. Industry representatives say that very soon now, full-time monitoring and control of the population will be realized, and both true individual ownership, and personal autonomy, will be things of the past.
Re: (Score:2)
NOPE! You will own the car. The software you will license and the data generated from your use of the software will be used to monitor your behavior and adjust your costs accordingly. Data on operations and locations of the vehicle will be shared with business partners to ensure that the car is operated in agreement with the terms and conditions of the license, insurance policies, and law enforcement. Should you breech the license agreement at any time, you can and will be stranded with out the use of t
It's Stupid.... (Score:3)
First just give me a USB slot so I can download the update and apply it myself OUT OF BAND. no I will not pay a monthly fee for my car to have internet access, they can go fuck themselves if they think I will be paying for that.
The problem is Car software engineers really really suck at programming and usability. The Engine guys that got the math down for the engine, steering, and suspension systems? they are decent mathematicians.. But the drooling morons that write the rest......
USB slot next to the ODB connector, let users do it themselves out of band.
Re: (Score:2)
First just give me a USB slot so I can download the update and apply it myself OUT OF BAND. no I will not pay a monthly fee for my car to have internet access, they can go fuck themselves if they think I will be paying for that.
Companies like Qualcomm have been willing to provide this kind of service for over a decade now. Since it is low-traffic, it will be cheap enough that it won't cost anything to the end-user, and since it will probably be cheaper than doing the updates manually, it will probably save money to the manufacturers too. (As another example, see the Kindle, where books are downloaded automatically and free when you buy them).
This could get scary (Score:2)
great for volkswagen (Score:3)
What can possibly go wr (Score:3)
BS Bingo (Score:3)
"OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner,"
I win Bullshit Bingo! More meaningless buzzwords per sentence than I've seen in a while.
And clearly anyone who confuses "secure" and "OTA" doesn't understand either concept.
Updates will end after 1 year of the car comeing o (Score:2)
Updates will end after 1 year of the car comeing out so if there is a big fix needed it may be. Due to lack of update X your car will not be able to use auto drive mode any more to get auto drive mode back buy a new car.
What he actually meant to say was.... (Score:2)
""It is a welcome transformation, as OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner," Beardslee said."
What he actually meant to say was, "OTA is the cheapest way to update software and if it goes wrong we can (a) blame the customer and (b) charge the customer to put it right.
Data roaming will they pay the data fee for a push (Score:2)
Data roaming will they pay the data fee for a pushed update as to day with some system that 1GB update may cost you $10.24/MB = $10K
Coming soon (Score:2)
Boss: Why are you late for work?
You: Ford bricked my car.
Cool! (Score:2)
Unless you bought your car from Sony [slashdot.org]
no forced reboots, please (Score:2)
I just hope they don't to the MS thing with forced reboots - wouldn't be good driving down the motorway at 120km/h and your car telling you that it will reboot itself in 10 minutes and not give a cancel option
#annoying
Disable the wireless (Score:2)
Automatic updates in the field (Score:3)
What could go wrong? So your car gets an update in the middle of the night and when you go to leave in the morning the car won't start. If we've learned anything from Microsoft forcing updates out then there will things will go wrong in some cases. Of course cars are more uniform so there shouldn't be as many problems. However iPhones are standard too and sometimes there's a new iOS version you get a number of people with problems upgrading.
Do not turn off your engine... (Score:5, Funny)
Bosses of the world: Please prepare for the "Sorry I'm late. GM decided to roll out critical updates during my commute."
Cost (Score:2)
If they do it anything like in-car GPS systems, you'll have to pay $500 for each OTA update.
I can hear the phone calls now... (Score:2)
"Sorry boss, I'm not going to be able to make it in today. Yeah, the goddamn Hyundai bricked itself again..."
Re:The attackers will always be ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who is driving a fancy "new" car (for which the primary criteria was "no extras, no gadgets, no fancy stuff, cheapest thing they have", and which ended up with touchscreen displays, in-car wifi, electronic parking brake, etc. because - well, that is considered "no extras" nowadays):
The problem is that people (and some manufacturers!) confuse two things:
The electronic systems that control the life-critical elements of the vehicle (brakes, airbags, even driver seat position).
The electronic systems that play your music, your in-dash sat-nav, the software that does voice recognition, etc.
There is no need for the two to be joined. That's the danger.
It's not a problem that your sat-nav might use an Internet connection to pull down traffic and map updates, or even read out your emails. There's also no problem with the entertainment system going online to suck down album covers, or to update its playback software, or to pull in that new feature to support Apple CarPlay streaming or whatever.
The problem is things like your ECU that controls the ABS and brakes being a) anywhere near or connected to the other system, b) being over-the-air updateable.
And steering? Short of REALLY STUPID semi-automated cars (Tesla, etc), your steering shouldn't be able to be computer controlled. There's no need for that unless you want to mollycoddle STUPID AND DANGEROUS drivers who fall asleep at the wheel, to make them even more stupid and dangerous.
Some manufacturer's get this right. Some don't. Even cruise control can be a dangerous item. Honestly, you want the car to continue to accelerate without driver input? No sensor in the world is going to make that a safe thing to do. Yet we've taken that for granted, even on huge trucks, for decades.
But OTA updates of the airbags, steering, brakes, etc. just shouldn't be happening. There is no safe point at which to switch control mid-flow to a different piece of software. Even static and with the engine off, you could open up the brakes if it fails at switchover, and end up rolling down hills.
The trick is to ensure that you get a sensible manufacturer here, not to deny OTA updates of things like sat-navs, entertainment systems, etc. A lot of cars isolate the two systems. Some cars actually have an "entertainment board" separate to the dashboard display, even, and it's not possible to show entertainment data on the dashboard display or car data on the touchscreen entertainment display.
And I would hope that any sensible manufacturer signs their updates and is legally responsible for ANYTHING that happens as a result of hacking and/or bad software updates.
The car I drive has a lever to adjust the driver's seat. There was an option for automatic, electronics, "remember who's driving" adjustment. That's dangerous. I said no.
The car I driver has a manual key-start. In an emergency, I just turn it off. There was an option for remote-start, touch-start, etc. That's dangerous. I said no.
The car I drive has a manual gearbox. In an emergency, I can just neutral it. There was an automatic option. I don't like the fact that in automatic cars, the car can creep forward without the driver doing anything. In a manual, that's much harder to do and much more likely to just stall the car. Even knocking a manual INTO gear is much harder to do.
The car I drive had an option for automatic lane control. NO. Not a chance in hell. Able to fight my steering, even slightly, is not going to happen. But people obviously still buy that option.
The car I drive had all kinds of options and there are even a handful of "standard" features that I consider could be potentially dangerous. And those I don't use. That doesn't mean they couldn't be activated, but it can't go on the Internet. And with the separation between the USB ports, OBD, the entertainment system, the dashboard display, and the control systems, it's so difficult - if not impossible - to cross the gap that I know it's p
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw with your generally reasonable arguments is that as you mentioned yourself, these systems do make driving safer under normal conditions. Modern vehicle safety systems save lives, without any doubt. Sure, you can say the driver shouldn't have been driving, and you'd be right, but that isn't going to bring your kid back to life, and it wasn't your kid's fault that the idiot had a pint at lunchtime before driving half a mile back to the office they never reached.
The legal aspect is another interesting
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw with your generally reasonable arguments is that as you mentioned yourself, these systems do make driving safer under normal conditions.
No, that's the flaw with his seemingly reasonable arguments. They are not reasonable arguments, and you found the primary problem with them right away so you should know better than to encourage him.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about arguing that these systems introduce new risks, nor that if everyone were driving properly then many of these systems would not be necessary. They do introduce new risks, including the risk that compensating for driver errors will just make drivers more willing to accept those errors in the first place. Most of these safety systems should not ever be activated, because a skilled and properly aware driver wouldn't have put their vehicle in a position where th
Most people are stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment of much of what you say but:
The car I driver has a manual key-start. In an emergency, I just turn it off. There was an option for remote-start, touch-start, etc. That's dangerous. I said no.
So, just guessing, but knowing how engineers think, if the car has an option for touch-start, don't you think the key is probably just an input into the computer system? What makes you think the key will actually kill the engine if the computer malfunctions? Even if that's how it works in your car, don't you think it's unlikely to be true in most new cars?
Manual transmission is a different story. Nothing like having a manual clutch... I don't care if th
Re: (Score:2)
And steering? Short of REALLY STUPID semi-automated cars (Tesla, etc), your steering shouldn't be able to be computer controlled. There's no need for that unless you want to mollycoddle STUPID AND DANGEROUS drivers who fall asleep at the wheel, to make them even more stupid and dangerous.
In short, you are wrong. First, the average driver is stupid and dangerous; I want the average driver to have help. Second, letting the vehicle steer itself is a necessity for self-driving. Cars should be able to drive themselves. It's going to happen. Complaining about it won't change that. Third, bad things sometimes happen to good people, I want the car to be under control if someone has a stroke or a heart attack. Fourth, it's already being used by active yaw control, a technology mandated on all new ca
Re: (Score:2)
Planes pretty much fly themselves nowadays, and they are safer than ever.
In Airbus jets, the stick is just a glorified game controller that sends commands to be interpreted by the autopilot according to a set of "laws". Should the pilot do something that the plane doesn't like, it will just ignore it. There are overrides of course but the idea is that the computer controls everything.
No OTA yet, but one must consider that things are different in the aviation world. That's a world where in case the manufactu
Re: (Score:2)
Even cruise control can be a dangerous item. Honestly, you want the car to continue to accelerate without driver input? No sensor in the world is going to make that a safe thing to do.
You haven't used adaptive cruise control, I'm guessing.
get dangerous drivers off the road ASAP
Agree, but not as a reason to hold back technical advances. You could make similar arguments against ABS and stability control (if they were to malfunction), yet I think you'll agree any potential liabilities of those systems has proven negligible.
Did you know that the Tesla you deride will come to a stop and turn on the flashers if you don't respond to prompts? The risks you're laying out are well understood by the engineers working on these systems.
Re: (Score:2)
My Tesla with Autopilot is a much better driver. It always stays exactly centered in the lane. It's constantly adjusting the speed to keep a safe distance behind the car ahead and will automatically brake when traffic stops or someone pulls in front of me. It won't change lanes unless there is a clear space in the adjacent lane.
People are bad, distracted drivers. The automated systems do a much better job of driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, a key that opens doors remotely is useful.
As an aside, is that really true? I find that for a car door to be useful, something has to pass through it. It's a reasonable bet that that thing won't be far from the car at that time. We take a lot of modern gizmos on cars for granted, and maybe sometimes we should stop and ask how useful or necessary they really are.
In any case, the solution to this whole issue "should be obvious": critical systems should be completely isolated from anything remotely accessible. Of course, that isn't as easy as it sound
Re: (Score:2)
I find remote locking is more useful than remote entry.
Scary new days (Score:4, Interesting)
I also remember when terrorists only crashed one vehicle at once.
I'm not generally a fear-the-terrorists hawk. I think in most cases the risk is exaggerated and we have more important things to worry about. Ironically, one of those things is improving road safety, where we know that many people are killed or seriously injured every year.
However, making something as ubiquitous and dangerous as cars susceptible to remote control actually does have the potential to create a new type of weapon of mass destruction, not by causing one huge event with mass casualties but by causing many small ones. We should be extremely careful about the safeguards implemented to prevent that kind of outcome, and I don't have much faith in the auto industry to emphasize that aspect of their product given their track record.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on all counts and would add that foreign governments are likely to have far greater resources than individual terrorists wrt to hacking vehicles. I do suspect that China or the US for example are unlikely ever to cripple the other's transportation system because their own will be equally vulnerable. But how about North Korea? Or Cuba (which probably has about six computer controlled cars in its entire fleet).? Given that US foreign policy is often dictated by guys whose approach to the world has