Government regulations of L2 driver assist systems

[hugh_jassol]

Waymo did 1.4M autonomous miles in CA last year with only 110 disengagements. Autonomous driving is going to happen. It just requires the right hardware and software.

Sure. Waymo is essentially operating in very controlled 100 sq mile environment, in one town, and where it has perfect knowledge. Also, When a Waymo car comes across something it doesn't understand or is different from the map data, it stops and phones home and a human tells it what to do.

If my Model 3 were restricted to those conditions, it would also have very-low disengagements.

It's two different philosophies: 1) Know everything a-priori, so the car doesn't have to be smart or 2) make the car smart and let it deal with things as it encounters them.

Of course (1) works, because it has been programmed to handle all the situations it will ever encounter. And in the odd case it encounters something outside of its knowledge base, it asks for help. It also requires a TON of work up-front - why do you think it's limited to a single 100sq mile area and requires ginormous sensor packs? (2) is much more versatile, but relies on lots and lots of training data. Of course, Tesla is uniquely positioned to collect such data now, and I suspect we will see vast improvements in the coming year or two, but we will see.

But comparing Waymo to Tesla in this regard is apples and oranges.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I don't want to make a long-term bet, because I'm afraid I might win and I don't WANT to win this one.

given the authoritarianism that is rampant in the world, I don't see any other direction UNLESS we control it and demand privacy levels that are minimally acceptable to us.

you don't see how a driver-facing camera invades your privacy? seriously?

and I don't like live mics, either, now that you've mentioned it.

we all should know, by now, that even a led won't truly tell us if something is live or waiting for some key-word.

my MO is to assume any camera or mic is always-on. and I don't really love having cameras on me, capturing every minute of my life.

You've really bought the wrong car. You're still allowed to drive a Model T on public roads you know? I sometimes drive a car that I built myself (in California!) that runs an open source ECU (no big brother watching me! haha).
I'm not saying a camera in the car can't be used to invade privacy, I'm just saying that GPS, internet connectivity, and microphones are far more of a privacy concern to me.

 

[Daniel in SD]

- why do you think it's limited to a single 100sq mile area and requires ginormous sensor packs?

Because they lose more than enough money operating in a 100 square mile area, why would they want to lose more? I assume their plan is to eliminate the safety drivers and lower the cost of the vehicles.

 

[linux-works]

You've really bought the wrong car.

so far, not yet, but who knows where its all going.

I trust tesla more than my own government (fwiw, lol). but I do expect the governments to push for more and more 'data' and this will be invasive and quite unnecessary.

tesla has already been forced to increase nags; and in europe, they have scaled back what AP can do, significantly.

like I said, in china the auto makers have zero choice: comply with the data-grabs or do not build/sell cars.

I don't want to get too political, but what makes you think that won't happen here, given our trajectory?

 

[Daniel in SD]

I don't want to get too political, but what makes you think that won't happen here, given our trajectory?

The trajectory is obviously toward an erosion of privacy but as far as I can tell that has very little to do with the government. People are perfectly happy to give all their information to Google and Facebook. Now our cars are connected to the internet logging and recording video everywhere we go and people are fine with that too.
I don't think regulation of driver assistance features is a civil liberties issue. It's still going to be perfectly legal to drive with no driver monitoring on private roads. As far as I can tell the NHTSA doesn't even want to regulate driver assistance features, they just want manufacturers to make a better effort to keep people from abusing them.

 

[linux-works]

the government insists on being able to tap any network (calea laws). why is it a stretch for you to think that they'll want our telemetry, audio and video, from all cameras? WHY do you think we are immune to such power grabs? we have no reason to believe that the west is going to ride the high ground. sounds great, but its not reality.

the internet is fully tappable by the 3 letter agencies. the car data, as smart cars become the norm, will be a data stream they won't want to say 'no' to.

all I'm saying is, well, 'keep your eyes open' about where we are going. there is a thing called slow cooking a frog and slowly we are being conditioned to accept a mic here, a cam there, and soon it can't be pulled back.

 

[linux-works]

oh, and given a choice between tugging on the wheel vs a face-pointing ever-seeing eye, yeah, I'll take the tugs, any day

 

[Daniel in SD]

the government insists on being able to tap any network (calea laws). why is it a stretch for you to think that they'll want our telemetry, audio and video, from all cameras? WHY do you think we are immune to such power grabs? we have no reason to believe that the west is going to ride the high ground. sounds great, but its not reality.

the internet is fully tappable by the 3 letter agencies. the car data, as smart cars become the norm, will be a data stream they won't want to say 'no' to.

all I'm saying is, well, 'keep your eyes open' about where we are going. there is a thing called slow cooking a frog and slowly we are being conditioned to accept a mic here, a cam there, and soon it can't be pulled back.

I agree with you but I don't see what it has to do with regulation of driver assistance features. I am very confident that any regulation will not require the storing or transmission of video data.

 

[linux-works]

NHTSA isn't the only one that might want to have a data feed on us all.

in fact, I was never even thinking of them. they're good guys who care about us. there are others that have less virtuous intentions, shall we say.

yes, we are post-snowden. we are. we need to think before we just *do* things.

(ok, enough batman quotes, LOL)

 

[linux-works]

oh, and I 99% guarantee you that every tesla in china gives that data feed on its citizens to its govermental agencies. tesla would not be allowed to operate there unless they complied.

#ifdef CHINA
...
#endif

there might well be other ifdef's.

 

[diplomat33]

This is infuriating! These two kids claim that Autopilot can drive itself and film themselves pranking people, like pretending to sleep while on Autopilot. It's stuff like this that could get AP banned.

 

[linux-works]

I agree with you but I don't see what it has to do with regulation of driver assistance features. I am very confident that any regulation will not require the storing or transmission of video data.

just today, posted on a tech forum:

Are Tesla's Cameras a Threat To Our Privacy? - Slashdot

you can't ignore this and just laugh it off. we have to deal with it, address it, evaluate what we want from OUR collective future and weigh the pros and cons. too many times we have just taken a tech path 'because we can' and not because we should. each time we made that mistake, it became impossible to pull our rights or freedom back (withness the so-called patriot act; ruined our freedom and gave us NOTHING (good) in return.

keep this in the back of your minds. watch as things slowly creep toward surveillance. little bit here, little there. but in 5-10 years, I suspect if we don't keep a lid on this, that it will be too late.

 

[mikes_fsd]

I find this hilarious...

little bit here, little there. but in 5-10 years

This is coming from a society that puts live microphones and networked cameras that are hosted by third parties inside their homes.

Privacy died long ago, but we keep trying to lie to ourselves as we find new ways to expose our private lives to the world.

 

[linux-works]

the war on privacy is not over, regardless of what some may say.

those that have given up have an agenda, which I don't support, trust or believe.

its not over. it will be over when we are as bad as china. you want that? I don't think so. no, the war is NOT even close to being over.

and the ring amazon cameras are FAR from being accepted by most americans. its a very tiny minority, in fact, and its already been reported how abused it has been.

 

[Daniel in SD]

the war on privacy is not over, regardless of what some may say.

Says the guy who bought a car that uploads video and telemetry data.

those that have given up have an agenda, which I don't support, trust or believe.

I haven't given up, I'm all for regulating how companies and the government use our data. I just think it's funny that you bought the most invasive car ever built. Do any of the actual camera based attentiveness monitoring systems used by other manufacturers present a privacy concern?

 

[linux-works]

tesla, today, does NOT live-mic its users in the US (at least) and does not activate (afawk) the front-facing camera.

and so, privacy is still in check for audio and video of inside the cabin.

for china, though, I'm quite sure that tesla uploads much much more. but so far, the US has not forced auto makers to go to the level of china. yet.

buying a tesla does is not a privacy nightmare. not sure why you think I'm giving a lot up, by owning a 3. yes, tesla corporate gets my GPS and even the outside camera captures, if they want. that's quite different from INSIDE CABIN bugging.

I sense that to many here, turning on inside cams and mics is no different from the outside cameras, but I am puzzled why people would think that way. its not at all the same thing.

 

[Daniel in SD]

tesla, today, does NOT live-mic its users in the US (at least) and does not activate (afawk) the front-facing camera.

and so, privacy is still in check for audio and video of inside the cabin.

for china, though, I'm quite sure that tesla uploads much much more. but so far, the US has not forced auto makers to go to the level of china. yet.

buying a tesla does is not a privacy nightmare. not sure why you think I'm giving a lot up, by owning a 3. yes, tesla corporate gets my GPS and even the outside camera captures, if they want. that's quite different from INSIDE CABIN bugging.

I sense that to many here, turning on inside cams and mics is no different from the outside cameras, but I am puzzled why people would think that way. its not at all the same thing.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that logging everywhere I go is a far bigger privacy concern than a neural net trying to figure out if I'm looking at the road. You're certainly putting a lot of faith in Tesla to not misuse your data and their diligence in preventing others from doing so.

 

[linux-works]

currently, we can tape over the front camera and nothing changes for us, the users.

the mic is not live and you have to push a button to get it to listen.

that is all acceptable levels.

if any of that changes, then I will sell the car and never look back. but I'm hoping tesla does not sell their users down the river. so far, there's no indication they sell our data as a profit center, but if that ever happens, yes, lots of people will exit the brand.

 

[renim]

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2020-HWY18FH011-BMG-abstract.pdf

 

[drtimhill]

It's not about regulating away all stupidity, it's about ensuring a minimum standard of safety. It's why we have seat belts and airbags and automatic emergency braking etc... If we can minimize deaths and injuries, that's a good thing.

But has anyone made any attempt to compare the heavily publicized deaths against the number of times AP has in fact saved someone? Of course not!

First, the headline "No-one dies as Tesla drives safely on freeway" doesnt sell newspapers (or get click-though in modern terms) compared to lurid headlines about an AP caused death. Second, its far harder to document occasions when AP saves the day, by its very nature. It's easy to see where seat belts or airbags save someone, since by their nature they prevent injury in an accident. But what about AP simply avoiding that accident in the first place?

Let's look at the most extreme case, where Tesla are forced to disable AP on all cars. And all those miles that would have been driven by AP are now driven manually. Would that actually cause more accidents/deaths than if AP were doing the driving?

I don't know the answer to that, but I'm pretty sure the NTSB doesnt either. And until they or someone does, some of the pronouncements they are making seem ill-advised.