8 ms·

If you destroy a yield sign, the system will immediately know because all the cars previously recorded it.

by TwoBit 7y ago

incompatible 7y ago
The permanent signs would already be in the database. The signs you'd worry about would be temporary, for road works or accidents, but perhaps these locations could be made electronically available.
blub 7y ago
And it will play a helpful message like "Recalculating route: 3 self-driving fatalities registered at this location."
kohtatsu 7y ago
So presumably every self-driving vehicle is going to be constantly streaming all sorts of information in their purview to a central hub? That is a privacy nightmare without regulation on scrubbing extraneous information, done before upload: for example blocking out of pedestrian data; not just faces but clothing and gait, and probably also any data captured through windows. It would be ideal to have a limited view of just the roads and signage, and have a retention plan that gradually keeps less and less historical data. For accident review more of the data might be required, so vehicles should keep the last 24 hours of raw data.
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  Self-driving vehicles should be implemented with the same care Apple has given Touch ID and Face ID in regards to protecting sensitive data. Having a central database capable of being scraped and process to determine where any person is at any given time is a non-starter. Care needs to be taken to scrub all extraneous data from the fleet's network.
  - alxlaz 7y ago
    A lot of things should be implemented in a particular way, but most aren't. Decades of practical experience show that, unless forced by regulations, auto manufacturer will pick the cheaper and more profitable option over the safe option every single time.
  - aantix 7y ago
    If I had to choose between privacy of my location or the convenience of a self driving car, I’d choose the car. Every single time. Convenience wins out over privacy for me. It’s the same for the billions that elect to use Facebook. I don’t care if Tesla’s knows I visited the supermarket.
    - ozim 7y ago
      Tell that to guy that had smartwatch and his wife noticed he had high heart rate somewhere at night where he should be doing something else. I don't have link for the story. But idea behind this is not that one should not cheat on his wife because he will get caught. To be really a human and be honest, one must not have an urge to cheat on his wife(husband) because he loves her. If someone has dirty thoughts and only thing that is preventing a person from fulfilling that is that "Tesla will know"... People should be able to cheat, they also should be caught, but being good only because you are constantly watched? This argument looks like "because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say".
      - aantix 7y ago
        This argument is about that you have to make concessions - tradeoffs. You have a choice to not use the autonomous car, to not use the apple watch, to choose a privacy-conscious internet carrier.
        kohtatsu 7y ago
        Did you read the comment? The problem is self-driving vehicles implemented with fleet data that vacuums up everything will spy on everyone, not just the driver. They need to be implemented with on-board redaction. Otherwise there is no choice for anyone, the companies or the ruling party can do facial or gait recognition on pedestrians and other drivers, and scrape license plates of of all parked and driving cars from the data stored in the cloud. With just Lidar I imagine this is less of a problem, but at least pedestrians in that case will still need to be redacted for gait recognition. My first comment wasn't about your regard to personal privacy, it was with regards to everyone's. One person's data is mostly worthless; everyone's is priceless.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  I feel like this is almost like trying to resist the allure of drones in war. It’s too easy to do and too hard to stop. It takes almost global consensus. Any number of parties could lawfully and unobtrusively start slurping up all sorts of data which is in a kind of plain view, and nobody would really be the wiser.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > So presumably every self-driving vehicle is going to be constantly streaming all sorts of information in their purview to a central hub? That's a terrible design. The obvious way is that the sign/beacon itself pings a server every 5 minutes, and when that stops you know it's broken.
- gaius__baltar 7y ago
  > That is a privacy nightmare I don't want to disappoint, but the future will have no privacy whatsoever.
  - kohtatsu 7y ago
    There will be privacy until the singularity, don't worry. Continued encroachments on privacy and personal autonomy may indeed deteriorate them, even cripple our ability to protect those rights, but simply worrying about that doesn't mean I must go gentle into that good night.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > That is a privacy nightmare without regulation on scrubbing extraneous information, done before upload: for example blocking out of pedestrian data; not just faces but clothing and gait, and probably also any data captured through windows. If you can be photographed legally in a public place, what's going to protect your privacy in public?
cglace 7y ago
So what happens when a road sign legitimately changes? Does the system use the previous values recorded or the new value? Im also curious how situations will be handled where there are two speed signs: the regular posted speed and a temporary speed for construction. How does it know which to obey.
davewritescode 7y ago
Ideally we get to a point where we’re at least publishing signage to a database so that cars don’t have to rely on visual cues both human and automated. I personally don’t think it’s possible to make automated cars work well without a ton of infrastructure support.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Your car wishes to inform you that there's a sign for McDonald's where they're having a sale 2 for 1 quarter pounder with cheese.
- gambiting 7y ago
  The law doesn't require you to follow a sign that's not there. In fact I'd argue that doing so can be dangerous in some situations(and obviously advised in others). A car should only ever follow what it can actually see, which makes the whole idea almost daft, since computer image recognition is still so poor.
rossmohax 7y ago
If there is a central database with all the signs, you don't need a physical sign on the edge on the road for AV to notice it, they already know it is "there" from that DB
- gambiting 7y ago
  Bear in mind that's not how the traffic law works anywhere right now. You are only required to obey signs and markings which are actually there. And traffic signs get removed all the time for works, I honestly can't imagine that every action like that would be recorded in some central database that all cars could query.

If you destroy a yield sign, the system will immediately know because all the cars previously recorded it.

by TwoBit 7y ago

If you destroy a yield sign, the system will immediately know because all the cars previously recorded it.

The permanent signs would already be in the database. The signs you'd worry about would be temporary, for road works or accidents, but perhaps these locations could be made electronically available.

blub 7y ago

And it will play a helpful message like "Recalculating route: 3 self-driving fatalities registered at this location."

kohtatsu 7y ago

So presumably every self-driving vehicle is going to be constantly streaming all sorts of information in their purview to a central hub? That is a privacy nightmare without regulation on scrubbing extraneous information, done before upload: for example blocking out of pedestrian data; not just faces but clothing and gait, and probably also any data captured through windows. It would be ideal to have a limited view of just the roads and signage, and have a retention plan that gradually keeps less and less historical data. For accident review more of the data might be required, so vehicles should keep the last 24 hours of raw data.

kohtatsu 7y ago
Self-driving vehicles should be implemented with the same care Apple has given Touch ID and Face ID in regards to protecting sensitive data. Having a central database capable of being scraped and process to determine where any person is at any given time is a non-starter. Care needs to be taken to scrub all extraneous data from the fleet's network.
- alxlaz 7y ago
  A lot of things should be implemented in a particular way, but most aren't. Decades of practical experience show that, unless forced by regulations, auto manufacturer will pick the cheaper and more profitable option over the safe option every single time.
- aantix 7y ago
  If I had to choose between privacy of my location or the convenience of a self driving car, I’d choose the car. Every single time. Convenience wins out over privacy for me. It’s the same for the billions that elect to use Facebook. I don’t care if Tesla’s knows I visited the supermarket.
  - ozim 7y ago
    Tell that to guy that had smartwatch and his wife noticed he had high heart rate somewhere at night where he should be doing something else. I don't have link for the story. But idea behind this is not that one should not cheat on his wife because he will get caught. To be really a human and be honest, one must not have an urge to cheat on his wife(husband) because he loves her. If someone has dirty thoughts and only thing that is preventing a person from fulfilling that is that "Tesla will know"... People should be able to cheat, they also should be caught, but being good only because you are constantly watched? This argument looks like "because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say".
    - aantix 7y ago
      This argument is about that you have to make concessions - tradeoffs. You have a choice to not use the autonomous car, to not use the apple watch, to choose a privacy-conscious internet carrier.
      - kohtatsu 7y ago
        Did you read the comment? The problem is self-driving vehicles implemented with fleet data that vacuums up everything will spy on everyone, not just the driver. They need to be implemented with on-board redaction. Otherwise there is no choice for anyone, the companies or the ruling party can do facial or gait recognition on pedestrians and other drivers, and scrape license plates of of all parked and driving cars from the data stored in the cloud. With just Lidar I imagine this is less of a problem, but at least pedestrians in that case will still need to be redacted for gait recognition. My first comment wasn't about your regard to personal privacy, it was with regards to everyone's. One person's data is mostly worthless; everyone's is priceless.
threatofrain 7y ago
I feel like this is almost like trying to resist the allure of drones in war. It’s too easy to do and too hard to stop. It takes almost global consensus. Any number of parties could lawfully and unobtrusively start slurping up all sorts of data which is in a kind of plain view, and nobody would really be the wiser.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> So presumably every self-driving vehicle is going to be constantly streaming all sorts of information in their purview to a central hub? That's a terrible design. The obvious way is that the sign/beacon itself pings a server every 5 minutes, and when that stops you know it's broken.
gaius__baltar 7y ago
> That is a privacy nightmare I don't want to disappoint, but the future will have no privacy whatsoever.
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  There will be privacy until the singularity, don't worry. Continued encroachments on privacy and personal autonomy may indeed deteriorate them, even cripple our ability to protect those rights, but simply worrying about that doesn't mean I must go gentle into that good night.
Fjolsvith 7y ago
> That is a privacy nightmare without regulation on scrubbing extraneous information, done before upload: for example blocking out of pedestrian data; not just faces but clothing and gait, and probably also any data captured through windows. If you can be photographed legally in a public place, what's going to protect your privacy in public?

cglace 7y ago

So what happens when a road sign legitimately changes? Does the system use the previous values recorded or the new value? Im also curious how situations will be handled where there are two speed signs: the regular posted speed and a temporary speed for construction. How does it know which to obey.

davewritescode 7y ago

Ideally we get to a point where we’re at least publishing signage to a database so that cars don’t have to rely on visual cues both human and automated. I personally don’t think it’s possible to make automated cars work well without a ton of infrastructure support.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Your car wishes to inform you that there's a sign for McDonald's where they're having a sale 2 for 1 quarter pounder with cheese.
gambiting 7y ago
The law doesn't require you to follow a sign that's not there. In fact I'd argue that doing so can be dangerous in some situations(and obviously advised in others). A car should only ever follow what it can actually see, which makes the whole idea almost daft, since computer image recognition is still so poor.

rossmohax 7y ago

If there is a central database with all the signs, you don't need a physical sign on the edge on the road for AV to notice it, they already know it is "there" from that DB

gambiting 7y ago
Bear in mind that's not how the traffic law works anywhere right now. You are only required to obey signs and markings which are actually there. And traffic signs get removed all the time for works, I honestly can't imagine that every action like that would be recorded in some central database that all cars could query.