Jnissen, also echo Drue's call to keep up the voice. One point to remember when thinking about big data is that actually, a lot of companies DON'T WANT to invade your privacy. For example, I know a major navigation supplier that definitely does not want to know where you are. Imagine they had to deal with requests from the police who are trying to locate your whereabouts on the night of an incident and be faced with a court order to give up data. So in fact, they take great pains not to know and demonstrably prove they don't know. So there's also great reasons why the initiative to protect consumer's privacy comes from both sides.
Experience has shown that users are willing to concede privacy where there's gain to do so (e.g. Facebook), and it can be done in a clear and transparent way where the users maintain control. And within these boundaries, service providers can innovate and grow.
@jnissen: Please keep up the voice of dissent! Solving the privacy issue is good for users and ultimately good for technology and good for business. Without the dissent, the risk is that privacy could be compromised and use acceptance will be limited. But the technology exists to protect the privacy, or give the user the opt in or out on certain features. So I appreciate your voice.
Drue i understand your postion and where your coming from (the industry that will benefit and I'm in that same boat). The problems is we continue to errode any sense of privacy. We embrace giving up all our freedoms and any sense of what is ours all for the cool possibilities.
Yes I understand that the present model tracks us as well with cell phones. Is this acceptable? Heck no it is not. We in the electronics industry helped create this beast and now we have to deal with it. I am voicing opposition because the talk will be made how the end use of the data will be protected but the sad fact is every prior promise has been broken. Call me crazy but I feel this is just ANOTHER step toward a life where everything is known about what you do, where you go, who you visit with, etc... If that is freedom then I think your definion of freedom is very flawed.
Tim W, outdoors: nice thing about 802.11p is indeeed you don't need cellular or a subscription, at least not for most safety-realted use cases. Communication is directly between cars so no local infrastructure is needed.
Of course, the big data advantage is not there if there is no link to the infrastructure (either cellular or also 802.11p), but in my opinion the real-time safety use cases are as important.
Why do we need to send this over a cellular network? We could agregate the data locally and have the system setup to receive data only. We could provide feedback nearly instantanious. My concern is that there is always someone who wants to take a great idea and use for purposes other than what was intended.
Aside from the big brother back-seat driver issue, connected cars won't do much good for places where there is no good cellular service. (And big brother might have trouble communicating when a needle finds it's way through the antenna's coax...)
@jnissen: If you are worried about maintaining your privacy about where you are driving, I trust you are not driving around with a mobile phone in your car...
We have much less privacy than we realize already. Why not allow an anonymous aggregation across thousands of vehicles to provide more useful information to increase traffic efficiency and safety? By adding security in the form of encryption technology, we can actually do a lot to ensure the data only flows into the hands of the people authorized to receive it and that it be used for the intended purposes. Personally, I wouldn't mind giving my insurance company access to my driving patterns as I believe it would shift me into a much lower risk pool (we all believe we are better than average drivers ;-) ) and would save me a lot of money on car insurance. On the other hand, if you prefer to drive aggressively, you could always choose to opt out of such an insurance program. Though such a decision would probably put you in a higher risk pool.
Hi Junko, I think the most important decisions will be for a few local or state governments to just get started with some Day-One V2I use cases requiring limited investment in infrastructure and for a few car OEMs to make the communications platforms available in those brands or models where technology and safety are seen as attractive differentiators. For example, signal phase & traffic light timing, in-vehicle signage, road-works warnings, and vehicle data probing (which is what I talked about in the blog, and which can be of great use to the insurance industry). A great positive example of this "just go out and do it" approach is the ITS Corridor being developed in Europe between the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. Several car brands will equip their cars with the necessary 802.11p hardware to enable this corridor to provide benefits to those drivers who have these cars. To the rest, it will be a "don't care" at first. But, over time, as more cars become equipped, it will make economic sense for there to be greater investment in infrastructure beyond the corridor, and also the V2V use cases will become increasingly more practical, which will unlock the real societal benefits of reducing congestion and saving lives. These first decisions would be great way to get the fly-wheel turning.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.