New Rule Could Require Cars To Communicate

The world gets even scarier:

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would enable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technology on all new light-duty vehicles, enabling new crash-avoidance applications that, once fully deployed, could help prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes every year by helping vehicles “talk” to each other.

In February 2014, Secretary Foxx announced the DOT would accelerate its work to enable V2V, directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to begin work on the rulemaking. NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August 2014. The advancement of the V2V rulemaking complements the DOT’s work on automated vehicles.

The proposed rule would require automakers to include V2V technologies in all new light-duty vehicles. The rule proposes requiring V2V devices to “speak the same language” through standardized messaging.

Separately, the Federal Highway Administration plans to soon issue guidance for Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications to help transportation planners integrate the technologies to allow vehicles to “talk” to roadway infrastructure such as traffic lights, stop signs and work zones to improve mobility, reduce congestion and improve safety.

If your car can be told to alter its course by another car or technical device, it can be tricked into altering its course by a clever hacker.

Now the government is mandating that all cars must be listening for signals that will alter their course on the fly. If I didn’t know better, I would think somebody at the top is looking to lighten their workload by eliminating an entire list of troublesome little pricks in car crashes, so they won’t have to keep devoting resources to monitoring them.

The next wave of deadly hit men will be geeky kids with hacking skills and caffeine addictions. The only question when they come will be, are they freelancers for the rich and powerful, or the next generation of fedguv wetwork guys. My guess is the day will come when they will be one and the same.

Only you can help r/K Theory spread, because the mass media will never mention it

This entry was posted in Conspiracy, Intel, ITZ, Politics, Technology. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to New Rule Could Require Cars To Communicate

  1. Pingback: New Rule Could Require Cars To Communicate | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. boxty woot says:

    I was wondering if you saw this article on Breitbart quoting Kellyanne Conway about the second debate:

    When Hemmer asked if she thinks [Trump’s] press conference altered Clinton’s debate performance, Conway replied, “I know it did … listen, this is somebody who’s very scripted and when you’re scripted and you’re running against the most unscripted X-factor to ever explode onto the political scene, at least in our lifetimes, Bill, then you’re going to get ham-hit. It’s like not in the script.””

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/21/kellyanne-conway-bills-rape-accusers-affected-hillary-clinton-debate/

    Ham-hit = amygdala hijack?

  3. everlastingphelps says:

    More importantly, immediately after this is ubiquitous, the cops will get a “device” that tells any vehicle they target that it is stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, and it won’t move.

  4. DirkH says:

    Too paranoid. It’s about BRAKING. Not altering course. Which is VERY useful: You just won’t run into the end of a traffic jam anymore. The industry wants to do this since like FOREVER because it is technologically VERY simple yet it makes only sense if a sufficient number of cars use a normed system.

    And yes, of course the state will be able to disable your vehicle. But they can already blow you up at any moment with a hellfire missile, if you just look at the technological abilities of the state. They usually don’t, though – except for Michael Hastings possibly.

    • I figured it would include lane change adjustments.

    • Phelps says:

      Blowing up a vehicle is a loud, overt act that has political fallout.

      Disabling a vehicle and disappearing the occupants is quiet, covert, and deniable.

      Your argument is essentially the, “you can’twin a fight against nuclear power militarily because they will just nuke you.” Afghanistan has disproved that theory — TWICE.