Samsung's little black box will hot-wire your car to the internet. Eek! Samsung is developing a small black box device that will plug into your car under the dashboard and instantly turn it into a smart, connected car. Speaking at its annual Developer Conference in San Francisco, the director of the company's Connected Car program, Val Zinchenko, showcased a rectangular black box roughly three …
"But the bigger question of course is: why do car owners actually want a connected car?"
Well, silly, to make it even EASIER for ne'er-do-wells to hack into my vehicle.
"The main advantage of the device, according to Zinchenko, is that it might enable you to get smaller insurance quotes – because the company would be able to see how safely you drive."
More likely, 'because the company could use that data against you to deny claims, etc.' Especially when one remembers how Samsung got caught gathering privacy-invading data via their smart TVs and the like.
"That's going to be a very, very hard sell to consumers."
On the one hand, I'd call that El Reg's understatement of the year so far. On the other hand, looking at electoral results I see that people will fall for pretty much anything so this will likely garner "Product of the Year" honors or somesuch...
Seriously, I don't want an e-nanny. No thank you.
Even if it doesn't spaff all my data to some damned cloud I don't want a bot telling me it doesn't like my driving 'style' - the ruddy in-car camera is bad enough beeping at me when I go round corners too fast 'enthusiastically' (as I believe BMW handbooks call it).
I'd like to see some research results that indicate a correlation between the quantities measurable thorough the OBDII connector and accident rate.
For example: do frequent rapid deceleration events correlate more highly with increased accidents or only with increased brake wear?
Just because the insurance company has declared certain measurable quantities as indicators of "bad driving", doesn't mean there's any basis in fact.
and they're about as popular as a fart in an elevator.
They're only ever forced on young, in-experienced drivers or those with a very sketchy driving record.
Shockingly Joe Public doesn't actually want some faceless organisation watching his every move.
Smaller insurance quotes? That won't happen.
I've been buying car insurance for rather more decades thatn I'd like to admit to...
My premium has always[1] been about £350, whatever car I own, whatever cover I select[2]. Except for last year's policy which was about £240.
I have only ever made one claim on my insurance[3] - that was in the year before my last renewal. And this year, where I haven't made a claim, my renewal is back to £350...
I am convinced that car insurance companies are simply insane.
Vic.
[1] I'm ignoring my classic policy, which was for a very restricted mileage.
[2] My choice of vehicle and cover has changed somewhat over the years, and to some exent has been influenced by what I can afford. but you'd be amazed how that really doesn't correlate...
[3] I had a split in my windscreen. Don't know how it happened, but I got a new one for £80. Which was nice.
Strangely enough I just paid £263 for my insurance elsewhere when Tesco decided my renewal would be £530 instead of £370 due to an address change (to a 'nicer' area, too). Got the price from the opera-singing-now-robot company.
Which I consider pretty reasonable for fully comp with PNCD and legal for an XKR (hence why I don't want an acceleration/braking/cornering e-nanny).
When an insurance co puts their prices to silly levels I just assume it's cos they no longer want to cover your demographic any more, having focussed on a more 'profitable' one for that year. It all seems like a mahoosive scam anyway, imho, I'm sure these buggers all cahoot and collude together.
...open the doors on the motorway...
...there are some benefits then...
Not the kids, no.
The wife's door.
And seatbelt release.
And the transverse rotational electrical seat adjustment.
And the airbag between the front seats.
Or the panoramic electric sunroof and the passenger side under-seat airbag...
Abd exactly how does that work with cars and trucks that don't have computers built in?
Given that the vast majority do have a CAN bus interface, they'd simply ignore the ones that don't.
I think that the problem is that people would learn that you unplug it and throw it away in the event of a smash. It's too easy a law to flout. When it's all built in it can't be disposed of easily. And governments are unlikely to force people to spend the money; every driver is also a voter, mostly, and an unpopular imposition would be remembered at the ballot box.
You're forgetting: governments love laws that are easy to flout. A law that is easily ignored and easily transgressed is a law that can be used to judicially punish just about anyone with impunity, which in turn gives the state an enormous level of control over its citizens. Smash the box and you may never be caught out, or you might be pulled into a checkpoint and your car subjected to a "routine inspection", and end up with the car impounded and destroyed and yourself with a huge fine and a potential prison sentence for driving with an "unsafe" vehicle which, by the requirements of the law mandating the little retrofitted box, was not legally insured.
I already turn my nose up at the insurance companies that offer these little dongles that monitor my speed and driving habits. I'll tell you straight up, I'm very sure that's *not* going to earn me lower rates. Despite the fact that I've only had one accident, ever, over 20 years ago, and it was a low-speed fender-bender.
But even if it would lower my rates, I view paying more for not being monitored as just fine, exactly how I view things like paying a subscription rather than being tracked on-line to get "free" content. Until someone legislates that cars must have these things built in (and I fully expect that day to come), the folks who'd like me to use them can get stuffed. And maybe they can still get stuffed even once the cars come with them, depending on how hard or illegal they are to disable.
The idea, then, that I'd willingly choose to pay a *third party* to curate this data is mind-boggling ludicrous to me. Odds are good there's already a third party involved in the branded equivalents that the insurance companies offer directly, but why would I want to pick a middleman like that for myself?
The rest of the things this doodad purports to do sound like a solution desperately seeking problems. I at least see the utility in the insurance thing, even if I disagree with the wisdom of taking advantage of it.
Self driving cars will make it moot, since this will pretty much be required for them to properly operate. Those who drive their own will continue to be free, but insurance costs will begin to rise once self driving cars are able to demonstrate a safer driving record.
Erm, please try to enlighten me on why should I pay for insurance for a car that I'm not driving ?
Actually, insurance companies should start fighting against self-driving cars because this is going to kill most of them. Do you really think Google will do business with 30000 insurance companies ? They'll pick 20 or maybe 50 and good luck for the rest of them.
Insurance companies should also figure out that a real human driver will "drive" way much more revenue than a robotic car with an impeccable safety driving record. Pushing me to quit driving will surely spare me of the need to buy an insurance.
Actually, Google is big enough and well enough funded that It won't do business with ~any~ insurance companies.
They will opt to self insure.
Those jurisdictions that don't allow self insurance will find life becoming increasingly difficult and the cost of the lawsuit campaign Google will wage more expensive than is politically acceptable.
Hard to demonstrate a safer driving record than some of us already have, or over as broad a range of vehicles and driving conditions.
The only motor vehicle insurance claims I have ~ever~ been involved in have been generated by other peoples screw ups.
With these tracking devices the standard algorithms would label me a higher risk, strictly based on mileage driven. Above a certain average mileage there is an inverse correlation between risk and mileage, statistically demonstrable but ignored by most insurance underwriters.
"Above a certain average mileage there is an inverse correlation between risk and mileage,"
Agreed. At least anecdotally, most of my near misses have occurred when I'm just leaving my home town or arriving back and I can be reasonably certain that the idiots doing the "wrong" thing are the ones doing the local commute and probably rarely drive more than 20 miles per day in town traffic only.
Of course there's always the odd idiot doing 70/80mph in driving rain and road spray on the motorway with a lane "closed for safety" and a 50mph limit in force. Usually in a big expensive car, so obviously too important to worry about minor restrictions when time is money :-(
"The idea, then, that I'd willingly choose to pay a *third party* to curate this data is mind-boggling ludicrous to me."
Ever since these insurance "black boxes" were first mooted I've wondered if the policy includes cover for the eventual and inevitable data breaches.
If you ask, they tell you it's all "secure" and proper measures are taken. But we already know that the entire industry is based on risk assessment. How much risk are they taking with our data? If they are confident of their risk assessment then an addendum to the policy to cover against a data breach or even a hack which could cause physical damage ought to be a free add-on, not an extra insurance charge.
Progressive is the mother of this horrible concept or at least some bastard sibling.
One hopes this massive invasion of privacy never catches on or makes its way into la buried in some larger, perhaps unrelated script inserted there by a well meaning or more likely well paid MP or Congressperson.
> By 2020, there will be [50% more cars ] on the road.
That seems unlikely, but it would negate the "bad driver detection" concern. You wouldn't be able to go more than 8mph anyway. But, on the bright side, there wouldn't be any accidents serious enough to cause an entire motorway to be closed, so it would be a _consistent_ 8mph
[...] showcased a rectangular black box roughly three inches long that he said contained GPS, Bluetooth, a Wi-Fi hotspot and motion sensors.
Hmmm, It's almost like having your smartphone in the car...
The main advantage of the device, according to Zinchenko, is that it might enable you to get smaller insurance quotes – because the company would be able to see how safely you drive. That's going to be a very, very hard sell to consumers.
That is your "main advantage"? How about HELL NO! Also, again, if you really did want this, all you need is an app on your phone.
The other main advantage? As per the video, you can open your trunk and someone can drop off something you have bought online straight into it.
Well, you could get stuff delivered to work, or if that's not an option then there's "click & collect" or similar. Or you could let some numpty mess around in your car while you're not there. For me, not a difficult choice.
If you ask me, they really seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for reasons for this product to even exist.
"If you ask me, they really seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for reasons for this product to even exist."
Oh, they have a very good reason for this product to exist, more detailed monitoring of you by the corporations and the state.
The hard part is coming up with a reason why in seven Hells would you voluntarily want it.
Have to keep up that illusion of 'free choice' for at least a while longer, don'cha know.
And about as useful. What did we do before computers invaded every part of a vehicle. It seems that we got along "just fine".
At one time I drove a 1964 VW bug (seatbelts installed) and had little problems. Great car to learn how to drive, and not a computer in sight.
If you wanted a "self driving car" you hailed a taxi. Life goes on.
No, a toaster does NOT need to be "connected". Go away!
Given my past experience of Samsung products its the LAST thing in the world I would allow to be connected to my car - in fact I DONT want my car "connected".
My phone works fine - via a very reliable Nokia "cark" bluetooth unit that I have had for many years, it just works... I can make calls or even dictate a text. I don't need a wi fi hotspot, an insurance company spy or even a government friendly Tracker.
As others have said - a "solution" in search of a problem.
No Thanks - I'll pass.
So your insurance company offers you a discount for installing one of these. Fine. But you don't want it messing with your vehicle's other functions. I predict that someone will cobble together an OBD-II/CAN 'condom'. An interfacing intelligent plug that sits between your vehicle's data bus and the insurance company dongle. And filters/blocks unwanted data from passing in either direction.
Some performance data can be derived from sensors internal to the dongle. Such as acceleration and braking from internal accelerators. There's not much one can do about that (other than stop driving like a jerk). But blocking the 'unlock the trunk' or 'shut down the engine' commands should be doable.
"other than stop driving like a jerk"
I drive a 1.4 automatic so have to mash my foot in to the carpet to get the car to accelerate 10 seconds delay after my foot hits the floor. ok i can then ease up but something logging throttle position would see me as being erratic.
Looks like ill be buying a Model "A" try interfacing to that !
To access the ODBII socket on my car, you have to remove a panel by the driver's knee. It just unclips, but it would be very ugly to have anything connected to it when using the car.
Also the panel can't close with the socket in use, due to the position, so every movement of your right leg would risk moving/unplugging anything in the socket.
When it gets mandated, it'll probably require professional installation using tamper-evident equipment, registration, and so on. Then it pretty much can't be faked without them noticing. And they can probably find thin plugs and so on to keep them from being accidentally dislodged in cramped settings.
Did you read about how some Progressive customers installed their little widget and it fried their whole car's electrical system? No? Did you then read about how Progressive isn't compensating these customers of theirs AT ALL for the damage? FUCK this technology, and fuck the people behind it!
Hell no! I am NOT giving my insurance company my data for "cheaper rates". They are already doing this with Progressive's "Snapshot" (which has an unfortunate ability to FRY some cars electrical systems, and Progressive isn't covering the damage either!).
I also do NOT want ANY way for someone to access my car, it's engine, it's doors, or the trunk via the internet! No way will I buy a car that has these features. It's just one more way that thieves can access your vehicle!
DO NOT WANT! Samsung, are you listening?
"government-grade security
What does it need the backdoor for?"
To get in the back seat.
"Whatever you can imagine doing with a smartphone app, you can do with a smart car app,"
My car already makes erratic farting noises.
More seriously, almost all the things I can imagine doing with a smartphone app are things you should absolutely not be doing while driving, or with a car at all.
Folks are rightly concerned about privacy issues. However, in the EU, that's already been compromised by requiring eCall units to be fitted to new cars from 2018. See The Register.
Of course you could choose to believe that no agency will use this for other purposes. If the agencies don't bother you then perhaps this might - "The European Parliament itself admitted that it expects a whole host of commercial companies to have access to this data."
Talk about a solution looking for a problem. Yet another Samsung stillborn failure of a product that they will abandon in a year, upsetting the few thousand people who get this because they think it is cool to be able to unlock their car with their smartphone.
Although I upvoted, it's pretty rare IME to see a posted sped limit increased. Speed limits, if being changed, are almost invariabley reduced, not increased.
On the other hand, over three different SatNavs, two different brands, a road near me was 60mph limit, reduced 3 years ago to 40mph, but all my SatNavs see it not only as a 30mph limit but mark the entire stretch as a "30mph mobile speed camera zone"
It's very rare for that to happen, and it usually has to do with congestion. If more accidents are the result of stop-and-go driving than the result of speeding then they'll have a case for speeding things up because slowing down in that case has become counterproductive.
This is laughably sad... I mean was the business justification written down on a beer-mat.... This is more like a hobbyist invention anyway... WTF is going on?.. Snake-oil salesmen are alive and well on Wall-Street / Silicon-Valley for sure. Thanks but no, I'll still stick to dumb TV's too. Luckily LG still sell some (for now).... Screw you Samsung and your IoT, we still haven't forgotten your TV Panel-Lottery games..
because the company would be able to see how safely you drive.
This meme annoys me beyond words.
I've trained with P1 pursuit drivers. They are the safest drivers I've ever seen. By a significant margin.
So how would these devices rate such people? They use rapid acceleration in all axes, and use speeds appropriate to the task in hand, regardless of the posted limits...
"Whatever you can imagine doing with a smartphone app, you can do with a smart car app," Zinchenko says enthusiastically.
I can imagine contracting malware from a smartphone app. I have a sneaking suspicion that Zinchenko may be completely correct.
Vic.
You just watch. Soon it'll be mandated, the government will be able to download and analyze your behavior, probably start issuing speeding tickets out of the data (since it can now cross-reference the engine with the GPS to confirm you were speeding and not in a concrete canyon), and basically start forcing people out of the driver's seat.
"I could save myself a trip to the toy store," Zinchenko says.
Wow!
You order something online.
So the chap from the toy store drives to your house and rings the doorbell. You get a tweet on your smartphone to announce it, then you use your smart-car app to open up your car. The delivery driver dumps your package in the back and drives off. When you have finished watching the "box set" of something off Netfix, (you dare not interrupt it because you never know whether Samsung will kill off your "smart" TV again), you head out to find the spotty kid left everything open. Your package has gone and been replaced by a dog turd or three. It's been raining hard too, so the inside of your car is now soaked.
Or is Zinchenko confused? Maybe you have to actually drive to the toy store and wait for somebody to come out. Then, rather than using the button provided by the car manufacturer, you use the app to open the boot?
Thing is, this is going to get government attention, and you try to screw with government, they can screw you back. You just watch. They' mandate this or prevent your from driving, and if you're far from public transport, you'll basically have to (a) bend over, (b)become dependent on others to get anywhere, or (c) be isolated from the rest of society.
And once you find out you WON'T be able to without killing your car first? I'm pretty sure tamper-proofing is high on their list of priorities since tax money (not to mention vehicle safety and therefore lawsuits) is going to be involved.
And worse, what if you live somewhere where public transport isn't an option, meaning you MUST have a car pretty much to get anywhere?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
