Anyone using Google Now is already sending all the data that constitutes the article's undesirable dystopic vision to Google. And anyone running Android, I suppose, <i>could</i> get an update that began surreptitiously phoning home data. If that's a thing Google wanted to start doing.<p>Short of being in a faraday cage, we also already know cell phones have a habit of not really rendering you 'untrackable' even when lay users think they've turned them off.<p>And, frankly, the phone is a superior vector in the first place, as the car has little idea who's driving it, no real idea who the other occupants might be, and little idea where the occupants <i>actually</i> go when they get out. [1]<p>Yet this article chooses to worry about the cars?<p>I don't see a huge delta between "I have to leave my phone at home to be <i>sure</i> it can't be used to track me" and "I can't use my 'smart' car, if I want to be sure it can't be used to track me".<p>[1] The Gym, the massage parlor and the pizza joint might be in the same strip mall. Your car can't know one or ones you go to, whether you get into a subsequent vehicle and go somewhere else entirely, etc. Your phone can know <i>exactly</i> where you're going, and for how long. The car's data is far inferior. Rather than being a data detectives <i>dream</i>, it seems more like a "better than nothing" fall-back, if the tracked-individual happened to <i>actually</i> leave their phone at home or properly disable it.<p>And anyone smart/aware enough to prevent themselves from being tracked by their phone is smart/aware enough to take a different vehicle, or take the Google car to a transit station/park-and-ride/alibi-establishing-alternate-location/etc.
"But is everyone really so eager to see the automobile, which stands as one of history’s great amplifiers of personal autonomy and liberty, evolve into a
giant tracking device controlled by a $250 billion corporation that makes its money through an increasingly intimate and obtrusive knowledge of its customers? "
As a blind person the short answer is yes. Unfortunately job opportunities don't always line up with the few cities that have good public transportation and everything I need easily accessible so it's a fact of life that I need to sometimes rely on others to help me get places. I would be willing to give up a lot of privacy if I could have a self-driving car at a reasonable price. While I don’t know how it will turn out I’m hopeful that with Google backing this cost will be driven down into affordable cars, not $100000 cars. I’ll gladly trade a lot of privacy for a $50000 discount on the price of a self-driving car.
So get the driverless car that <i>isn't</i> run by Google. I get that there are privacy issues, but I still think this article is overly alarmist.<p>As an aside, I expect autonomous driving to be phased in gradually - I'd wager freeways first, then city centers, and rural areas only at the very end. However, once there's a sufficient installed base of autonomous vehicles, I expect it will be illegal to drive manually in those areas, because it kind of defeats the point.
I can only take an example from my own life: I'm a licensed motorcycle rider, I use it as my primary form of transportation when it's over 50F rain or shine. Being a motorcycle rider, I can never get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, or driving with all of my doors open (silly analogy, I know). All of these safety devices don't apply and riding a bike requires substantially more skill and practice than the weekend course required in most US states to receive a license. Arguably it is an incredibly dangerous way to travel compared with driving or riding in a car and it's still legal.<p>I wonder if the guy/gal of the future who decides they want to reject driver-less cars won't resemble the modern motorcycle rider in this way. I can see those of us who love our motorcycles standing up for (and probably being) supporters of "driver's rights". I made that up, but a similar movement among riders resulted in my state lifting the mandatory helmet law despite outrage from non-riders. I can't imagine the state getting away with banning motorcycles. I don't believe it'll have enough support to ban drivers in a driver-less majority world.<p>The other issue is one of <i>need</i> for such legislation. The author states that the automobile <i>stands as one of history’s great amplifiers of personal autonomy and liberty</i>. Liberating? For some of us, but probably not most of us. I think more people see it as a tool to get from their home in suburbia to work/kids to baseball practice. Most people see driving as something they have to do rather than want to do and will be happy to get rid of the chore if the price was right. Those of us who do find it liberating will be part of an enthusiast market that has always existed for both cars and motorcycles. We'll be the ones taking the most risk and consequences for taking that risk, while the driver-less passenger will, arguably, be much safer.<p>EDIT: Grammer/structure. Boo
I think it's too early to make these conclusions. The self driving cars are produced by Google X, and have nothing to do (yet) with the data-collecting Ads division. I would be very surprised if the cars send personally-identifying data back to Google, and I think there would be a considerable public backlash.
It's going to take a long time to get people comfortable with driverless cars. In the meantime, can the technology be immediately converted to "assisted" driving to help avoid collisions, crossing the center line, etc.? Make it a lot harder for people to "bump" into each other. We might be able to get some of the benefits of driverless cars sooner.
there's a fundamental assumption in this article that I think is very doubtful. this article assumes that part of the customers 'payment' for a self-driving car will be advertising.<p>That seems like a very poor assumption. Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business. Just because the search business is free and makes their revenue through advertising doesn't mean that the car business would have the same approach.
I don't know about other people, but I would use a driverless car just for the countless hours it would save me from sitting behind the wheel wasting my time either stuck in traffic, waiting at stop lights, or just plain driving from point A to point B. I don't know how much time the average American spends behind the wheel in a lifetime, but this reason alone would be enough, not to mention the decrease in accidents.
When weighing the balance between even through the lens that this article presents, the driverless car is still a net good. Google potentially knowing if I have cancer is an ok exchange if it reduces the very real chance of death, injury or legal problems that my commute presents me every day.
A person in security told me that a big fear they have is car bombs. You would now be able to send groups of cars to a location without risking human life. That us good enough reason to not want self driving cars. I still think some of the functionality can be used for accident prevention.