Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber

from the you-don't-own-what-you-bought dept

We've talked a lot about the end of ownership society, in which companies are increasingly using copyright and other laws to effectively end ownership -- where they put in place restrictions on the things you thought you bought. This is bad for a whole variety of reasons, and now it's especially disappointing to see that Tesla appears to be jumping on the bandwagon as well. The company is releasing its latest, much more high powered, version of autonomous self-driving car technology -- but has put in place a clause that bars Tesla owners from using the self-driving car for any competing car hailing service, like Uber or Lyft. This is not for safety/liability reasons, but because Tesla is also trying to build an Uber competitor.

We wrote about this a few months ago, and actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Part of the point is that it effectively will make Tesla ownership cheaper for those who want it, because they can lease it out for use at times when they're not using it. So your car can make money for you while you work or sleep or whatever. That's a cool idea.

But it's flat out dumb to block car owners from using the car however they want.

If Tesla wants to compete with Uber, that's great, but it should compete and offer a better deal for car owners, rather than artificially limiting what they can do. And the thing is, Elon Musk knows this. Remember, a few years ago when he famously freed up all Tesla patents into the public domain, recognizing that it was better to compete on execution rather than artificial legal limitations? So why not take that same approach with competing in car hailing services as well? Don't limit what owners can do with their cars. That's now ownership. ow they're just leasing.

Tesla's plan for a competing ride hailing service is a good idea, and I'm excited to see what the company does with it, but if it starts off by artificially blocking Tesla owners from using their cars on competing services, it makes me think that Tesla doesn't think it's own service will be very good, and therefor it needs to artificially lock Tesla owners into its own platform, rather than competing on the merits. That seems antithetical to the message that Tesla and Elon Musk have given off in the past. Hopefully Musk reconsiders this anti-consumer move and recognizes that Tesla can build such a service that can stand on its own merits without artificially restricting Tesla owners.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, car hailing, competition, drm, elon musk, limitations, ownership, restrictions, ride hailing, ride sharing, self-driving cars
Companies: lyft, tesla, uber

The New Federal Safety Guidelines For Self-Driving Cars Are Too Vague... And States Are Already Making Them Mandatory

from the this-probably-isn't-such-a-good-idea dept

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration earned plaudits from across the tech sphere for its recently released safety guidelines for self-driving cars.

With the NHTSA looking to offer guidance to this emerging industry, the agency issued a set of rules that largely just asks manufacturers to report on how they were following the guidelines. The 15-point checklist is vague in quite a few details, but that isn't necessarily a tremendous problem so long as the standards remain voluntary, which they purport to be. To many, this approach struck a good overall balance between oversight and flexibility.

Regulatory ambiguity can, however, turn out to be a real nightmare with standards that are mandatory. Vague rules can leave even the best-intentioned firms at a loss as to how to proceed. Given how much of a premium consumer confidence will be in a market as revolutionary and potentially transformative as autonomous vehicles, it's crucial that manufacturers comply with whatever standards the federal government promulgates.

That's why it's essential to pay close attention to an underappreciated part of the NHTSA guidelines -- the opportunities they afford federal regulators to coordinate with the states on oversight that, in practice, will be anything but voluntary. Indeed, the early signs from the first of what will be many proposed state rules to follow in the wake of the NHTSA guidelines suggests that compulsory standards are exactly what we're going to get.

First up are proposed rules from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, recently revised in response to the NHTSA guidelines. The revised draft of California's model regulations is far more permissive than the original version the agency promulgated late last year, a set of changes that were celebrated by various observers, even me.

But delve closely into the updated DMV proposal, and you'll find a requirement that manufacturers obtain a state permit certifying that any and all vehicle tests are conducted in accordance with the NHTSA’s "Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles." Thus, in the nation's largest testing jurisdiction, the NHTSA standards already are set to be made mandatory.

This is not to say the federal government doesn't have a rule to play in oversight of self-driving cars. The feds are better situated to oversee the development of safety standards, and the door should be open to refine those standards. But coordinating with the states to turn those standards into a set of de facto binding obligations smacks of underground rule-making.

The California DMV might be complicit in this collusion, but it can't be faulted for deferring to federal authority. Were the NHTSA’s safety standards clearer -- an undertaking that presents risks and problems of its own -- California’s approach wouldn't actually be a problem. The fact that the federal guidelines are so vague in so many of the details means that we can't really know either that manufacturers will be able to comply with California's rules or that the state will be able to enforce them.

For now, state regulators should use their discretion to be as liberal as possible about what sorts of vehicle testing comports with the NHTSA safety guidelines. Over the longer term, what we need is for states like California to communicate to the NHTSA that it's up to them to make absolutely clear what does and does not count as compliance.

It's broadly understood how overly restrictive regulations can dampen innovation, but regulatory ambiguity can be just as bad. For regulators, the clock is ticking. It's up to both the NHTSA and state agencies like the California DMV to bring the clarity this new market needs.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, nhtsa, regulations, self-driving cars, voluntary

Technology Brings Peace, Not Peril

from the history-is-on-the-side-of-innovation dept

The future is positive, a dream. Focus on the future. Use science to stay ahead.

Those words didn't come from a tech-sector legend – not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates – or newcomer like Mark Zuckerberg. That wisdom about nurturing the previously unimaginable and embracing what technology offers came from a visionary of a different sort.

I heard Shimon Peres share this insight during my visit to the Peres Center for Peace in June, just three months before the former Israeli president and prime minister died. He saw innovation and technology as improving the world – a force for good that can break down borders, both national and political.

Peres' vision stands in stark contrast to Lord Jonathan Sacks' dystopian commentary calling computers and radical Islamists the "two dangers" of this century, defeated only by "an insistence on the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life."

On the contrary, I believe innovation and technology will help defeat terrorists and sustain and enhance human life.

Innovation and technology have extended our lives – most children born in the early 1900s didn't live past the age of 50, but the average U.S. lifespan is now almost 79 years. Artificial intelligence is helping doctors make complex diagnoses. 3D printing is producing low-cost prosthetics for children and those who otherwise couldn't afford care. Drones are delivering blood and emergency medicine in developing countries. The rabbi should explain his point that "Every new technology…benefits the few at the cost of the many" to the paraplegic patients learning how to walk thanks to virtual reality.

While Sacks decries the idea of self-driving cars, this innovation can save tens of thousands of lives a year in the U.S. alone. More than 35,000 people died on our roads last year, and the federal government estimates over 90 percent of crashes are caused by human error. Eliminating the great majority of automobile deaths and serious injuries would certainly meet Sacks' goal of preserving "the sanctity of human life."

The rabbi also frets technology will threaten "the dignity of the human person." Apparently, he hasn't considered the dignity self-driving cars will deliver to seniors and persons with disabilities, providing them with previously unimagined freedom and independence. The ability to read road signs or react quickly to traffic will no longer be needed to travel alone by car.

Similarly, Sacks fears doctors will be replaced by robots with artificial intelligence. However, if health care models remain unchanged, the U.S. may face a shortage of 124,000 physicians by 2025. Virtual care solutions – wireless health devices and telemedicine technology – will increasingly allow Americans to see doctors only when necessary.

Tech-enabled remote care also would remove much of the burden of traveling to see a doctor, reducing congestion on roads and easing the strain on caregivers. With 10,000 Americans turning 65 every day, this developing technology is a mitzvah – a gift or miracle, which will provide life and good health. Innovations in healthcare technologies could help resolve an emerging healthcare crisis – they need to be embraced, not feared.

I understand Rabbi Sacks' dual concerns about the growing use of technology threatening both our jobs and our connections with one other. But every major innovation from the wheel to the factory to the car to the internet radically affected how people work. Certain jobs were lost, yes, but new jobs were created.

More, people lived longer as they ate better, stayed healthier and gained greater access to knowledge. Innovation and the myriad benefits it brings allow us to ascend the Maslow hierarchy of needs, from survival with food and shelter to love and satisfying relationships.

The issue remains whether our love affair with technology and fascination with "things" mean we're sacrificing our humanity – choosing the devices in our hands over the people in our midst. Look around a restaurant at dinner and witness seas of quiet people looking at devices. But are devices worse than alcohol, drugs, gambling or anything in excess?

As parents, we should set limits and an example. As adults, we should enjoy the five-sense experience of the people around us, and let these wonders of technology be tools for living rather than our near total life experience.

As President Peres explained to me in June, big data will deliver a new age of being able to predict – and predictability will change and improve the world. I recall him saying, Four thousand years of commandments will keep the morality. Sixty-eight years of Israel will keep innovations coming. His goal for the Center for Peace is to become a center of innovation.

Technology is changing our lives for the better – enhancing our security, removing human error from our roads, reducing trips to the doctor and cutting our workload. In doing so, it improves the sanctity and dignity of human lives. And that is a blessing, not a curse.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World's Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

Filed Under: 3d printing, drones, innovation, israel, jonathan sacks, peace, prosperity, self-driving cars, shimon peres

Engineers Say If Automated Cars Experience 'The Trolley Problem,' They've Already Screwed Up

from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-dave dept

As self-driving cars inch closer to the mainstream, a common debate has surfaced: should your car be programmed to kill you if it means saving the lives of dozens of other people? This so-called "trolley problem" has been debated at universities for years, and while most consumers say they support automated vehicles that prioritize the lives of others on principle, they don't want to buy or ride in one, raising a number of thorny questions.

Should regulations and regulators focus on a utilitarian model where the vehicle is programmed to prioritize the good of the overall public above the individual? Or should self-driving cars be programmed to prioritize the welfare of the owner (the "self protective" model)? Would companies like Google, Volvo and others prioritize worries of liability over human lives when choosing the former or latter?

Fortunately for everybody, engineers at Alphabet's X division this week suggested that people should stop worrying about the scenario, arguing that if an automated vehicle has run into the trolley problem, somebody has already screwed up. According to X engineer Andrew Chatham, they've yet to run into anything close to that scenario despite millions of automated miles now logged:

"The main thing to keep in mind is that we have yet to encounter one of these problems,” he said. “In all of our journeys, we have never been in a situation where you have to pick between the baby stroller or the grandmother. Even if we did see a scenario like that, usually that would mean you made a mistake a couple of seconds earlier. And so as a moral software engineer coming into work in the office, if I want to save lives, my goal is to prevent us from getting in that situation, because that implies that we screwed up."

That automated cars will never bump into such a scenario seems unlikely, but Chatham strongly implies that the entire trolley problem scenario has a relatively simple solution: don't hit things, period.

"It takes some of the intellectual intrigue out of the problem, but the answer is almost always ‘slam on the brakes’,” he added. “You’re much more confident about things directly in front of you, just because of how the system works, but also your control is much more precise by slamming on the brakes than trying to swerve into anything. So it would need to be a pretty extreme situation before that becomes anything other than the correct answer."

It's still a question that needs asking, but with no obvious solution on the horizon, engineers appear to be focused on notably more mundane problems. For example one study suggests that while self-driving cars do get into twice the number of accidents of manually controlled vehicles, those accidents usually occur because the automated car was too careful -- and didn't bend the rules a little like a normal driver would (rear ended for being too cautious at a right on red, for example). As such, the current problem du jour isn't some fantastical scenario involving an on-board AI killing you to save a busload of crying toddlers, but how to get self-driving cars to drive more like the inconsistent, sometimes downright goofy, and error-prone human beings they hope to someday replace.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, ethical dilemma, self-driving cars, trolley problem

Uber Wasting No Time: Launching Test Of Self-Driving Cars

from the this-should-be-interesting dept

It's no secret that Uber has been interested in self-driving vehicles and how they might change its business. Lots of people have predicted futures in which Uber basically runs a fleet of self-driving cars and Uber itself has commented on the idea in the past as well. But I'm not sure anyone expected it to happen this soon. The company is apparently starting a test-run with driverless vehicles in Pittsburgh:

Starting later this month, Uber will allow customers in downtown Pittsburgh to summon self-driving cars from their phones, crossing an important milestone that no automotive or technology company has yet achieved. Google, widely regarded as the leader in the field, has been testing its fleet for several years, and Tesla Motors offers Autopilot, essentially a souped-up cruise control that drives the car on the highway. Earlier this week, Ford announced plans for an autonomous ride-sharing service. But none of these companies has yet brought a self-driving car-sharing service to market.

Uber’s Pittsburgh fleet, which will be supervised by humans in the driver’s seat for the time being, consists of specially modified Volvo XC90 sport-utility vehicles outfitted with dozens of sensors that use cameras, lasers, radar, and GPS receivers. Volvo Cars has so far delivered a handful of vehicles out of a total of 100 due by the end of the year. The two companies signed a pact earlier this year to spend $300 million to develop a fully autonomous car that will be ready for the road by 2021.

Separately, the company announced that it has bought a self-driving startup, Otto, and put its co-founder, Antohony Levandowski, in charge of Uber's self-driving efforts.

We've already noted that Tesla has Uber-like plans as well, but this could certainly get interesting. Lots of people (including us!) have speculated on what the world will look like as autonomous vehicles become more prominent, but it's somewhat amazing how quickly this is happening.

While it's not a huge surprise that Uber may be leading the way, it does still raise some interesting questions. Obviously, lots of people say that Uber wants to do this so that it won't have to pay drivers any more (though in these tests a human is still in the driver's seat and, one assumes, getting paid). But part of the genius (or problem, depending on your point of view...) of Uber was that it was just a platform for drivers who brought their own cars. That is, Uber didn't have to invest the capital in buying up cars. It just provided the platform, drivers brought their own cars, and Uber got a cut. If it's moving to a world of driverless cars, then Uber is no longer the platform for drivers, it's everything. It needs to make the investment and own the cars. That's actually a pretty big shift.

That's not to say that it won't work -- and there's an argument that Uber's real power these days is in its operations software figuring out which cars should go where -- but it is an interesting shift in the business. And given that, it's also interesting to see how Tesla is entering the market from the other direction -- a direction that is more like Uber's original concept, where individuals own their own cars, but then lease them back to Tesla to act as for-hire cars for others. I guess it's possible that Uber could do the same thing too, where any car owner could provide their vehicle back to Uber to earn money, but without having to drive it -- just making it a productive resource.

Who knows how this will turn out -- and I'm sure some people will inevitably freak out when there's a self-driving car accident -- but the future is getting really interesting really fast.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, ride hailing, ride sharing, self-driving cars
Companies: otto, tesla, uber

If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow

from the who-controls-the-code dept

We've talked a lot about the ethical and programming problems currently facing those designing self driving cars. Some are less complicated, such as how to program cars to bend the rules slightly and be more more human like. Others get more complex, including whether or not cars should be programmed to kill the occupant -- if it means saving a school bus full of children (aka the trolley problem). And once automated cars are commonplace, can law enforcement have access to the car's code to automatically pull a driver over? There's an ocean of questions we're not really ready to answer.

But as we accelerate down the evolutionary highway of self-driving technology, the biggest question of all becomes: who gets to control this code? Will the automotive update process be transparent? Will the driver retain the ability to modify their car's code? Will automakers adapt and stop implementing the kind of paper mache level security that has resulted in the endless parade of stories about hacked automobiles it takes five years for automakers to patch?

Trying to force the issue before there's a hacker-induced automotive mass fatality, Ford, GM and Toyota were hit by a class action lawsuit earlier this year claiming the car companies were failing to adequately disclose the problems caused my abysmal auto security:

"Among other things, the lawsuit alleges Toyota, Ford and GM concealed or suppressed material facts concerning the safety, quality and functionality of vehicles equipped with these systems. It charges the companies with fraud, false advertising and violation of consumer protections statutes. Stanley continued, "We shouldn't need to wait for a hacker or terrorist to prove exactly how dangerous this is before requiring car makers to fix the defect. Just as Honda has been forced to recall cars to repair potentially deadly airbags, Toyota, Ford and GM should be required to recall cars with these dangerous electronic systems."

This month a court ruled that yes, we will have to probably wait for someone to die before automakers are held liable for lagging automotive security. The case was ultimately dismissed (pdf), the court ruling that the plaintiffs have yet to prove sufficiently concrete harms, and that potential damage (to the driver and to others) remains speculative. At the pace self-driving and smart car technology is advancing, one gets the sneaking suspicion we won't have long to wait before harms become notably more concrete.

But however complicated these legal, ethical, and technical questions are, they become immeasurably more complicated once you realize that smart cars will ultimately form the backbone of the smart cities of tomorrow, working in concert with city infrastructure to build a living urban organism designed to be as efficient as mathematically possible. As Cory Doctorow noted last week, this makes ensuring code transparency and consumer power more important than ever:

"The major attraction of autonomous vehicles for city planners is the possibility that they’ll reduce the number of cars on the road, by changing the norm from private ownership to a kind of driverless Uber. Uber can even be seen as a dry-run for autonomous, ever-circling, point-to-point fleet vehicles in which humans stand in for the robots to come – just as globalism and competition paved the way for exploitative overseas labour arrangements that in turn led to greater automation and the elimination of workers from many industrial processes.

If Uber is a morally ambiguous proposition now that it’s in the business of exploiting its workforce, that ambiguity will not vanish when the workers go. Your relationship to the car you ride in, but do not own, makes all the problems mentioned even harder. You won’t have the right to change (or even monitor, or certify) the software in an Autonom-uber. It will be designed to let third parties (the fleet’s owner) override it. It may have a user override (Tube trains have passenger-operated emergency brakes), possibly mandated by the insurer, but you can just as easily see how an insurer would prohibit such a thing altogether."

You'd hate to wander too casually into the hyperbole territory traditionally reserved for hysterical Luddites, but there's a laundry list of reasons to be worried about the trajectory of the lowly automobile. If we don't demand code transparency and consumer empowerment in automotive standards now, your car may find itself the cornerstone of a future in which DRM, encryption backdoors, lax security standards, eroded consumer legal rights, insurance companies and government power combine to create a supernova of dystopian dysfunction.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, cars, drm, privacy, self-driving cars, surveillance

Should Police Have The Right To Take Control Of Self-Driving Cars?

from the kill-switch dept

As Google, Tesla, Volvo, and other companies make great strides with their self-driving car technology, we've started moving past questions about whether the technology will work, and started digging into the ethics of how it should work. For example, we recently discussed whether or not cars should be programmed to sacrifice their own driver if it means saving the lives of countless others (like a number of children on a school bus). Programmers are also battling with how to program vehicles to obey all rules -- yet still account for highway safety's biggest threat: shitty human drivers.

But another key question recently raised its head in discussing what this brave new self-driving world will look like. Just how much power should law enforcement have over your self-driving vehicle? Should law enforcement be able to stop a self-driving vehicle if you refuse to? That was a question buried recently in this otherwise routine RAND report (pdf) which posits a number of theoretical situations in which law enforcement might find the need for some kind of automobile kill switch:

"The police officer directing traffic in the intersection could see the car barreling toward him and the occupant looking down at his smartphone. Officer Rodriguez gestured for the car to stop, and the self-driving vehicle rolled to a halt behind the crosswalk.

Commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, the RAND report is filled with benign theoreticals like this, and while it briefly discusses some of the obvious problems created by giving law enforcement (and by proxy intelligence agencies) this type of power over vehicle systems and data, it doesn't offer many solutions. As parts of the report make clear, having immediate access to driver and vehicle history and data is an incredibly sexy concept for law enforcement:

"Imagine a law enforcement officer interacting with a vehicle that has sensors connected to the Internet. With the appropriate judicial clearances, an officer could ask the vehicle to identify its occupants and location histories. … Or, if the vehicle is unmanned but capable of autonomous movement and in an undesirable location (for example, parked illegally or in the immediate vicinity of an emergency), an officer could direct the vehicle to move to a new location (with the vehicle’s intelligent agents recognizing “officer” and “directions to move”) and automatically notify its owner and occupants."

Yes, because if the history of intelligence and law enforcement is any indication, the "appropriate judicial clearances" are of the utmost importance. Thanks to what will inevitably be a push for backdoors to this data, we'll obviously be creating entirely new delicious targets for hackers -- who've already been poking holes in the paper mache grade security currently "protecting" current vehicle electronics. The report does briefly acknowledge this "risk to the public’s civil rights, privacy rights, and security," but as we've seen time and time again, these concerns are a footnote in the expansion of surveillance authority.

We already live in an age where the consumer doesn't have the ability to control or modify their own vehicle's electronics courtesy of DRM and copyright, and self-driving cars are already going to be a tough sell for many people from a liberty and personal freedom perspective. Adding the ability for law enforcement to not only snoop on vehicle data but take direct control of your vehicle -- is a conversation we should start having sooner rather than later.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, lawa enforcement, police, remote control, self-driving cars, surveillance