Bursic 2:00
L12
A Breach of Privacy: The Truth About Inter-Vehicle Communication
Chris Herrick (cmh165@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
When it comes to the privacy of inter-vehicle
communication, technical leader at Ford Motor Company
Mike Shulman stated, “We want people to accept that this is
a technology that’s helpful. It’s not Big Brother that we’re
putting in their vehicle” [1]. The idea of having constant
surveillance, especially when driving, is an intimidating
notion. Most drivers, including myself, avoid confrontation
when it is directed at his or her driving habits. However,
with inter-vehicle communication, the capability to observe,
record, and report driving tendencies is a very real
possibility. While working on the research and development
of inter-vehicle communication at General Motors, my team
was approached by our project supervisor, who briefed us on
new objectives for the technology. Since inter-vehicle
communication technology will be a new requirement in
vehicles, government officials have been pursuing the
implementation of data collection and storage in the
technology to observe the habits of drivers and more
efficiently reprimand driving infractions.
When this project began, I was under the impression that
data collection was not the purpose of this technology. Like
Shulman from Ford said, its purpose was for safety rather
than law enforcement. Since this project has become more
controversial, I do not know if I fully support the work that
my team and I are doing.
THE FOCUS IS ON THE WRONG ASPECT
First and foremost, the focus of this project has shifted.
Before government interference, the research and
development of inter-vehicle communication was
concentrated on the safety of drivers and the prevention of
accidents rather than the collection of data. Since then, our
work has been much more fixated on the idea of catching
and recording driver mistakes in order to enforce laws more
effectively. Due to this shift in focus, there is a noticeable
disregard for inter-vehicle communication’s original
purpose, the safety and prevention of vehicle crashes.
THE COST VERSUS THE BENEFIT
The benefit of the data collection software seems to be
obvious. It will observe and record driver infractions that
can seriously jeopardize the lives of drivers around them.
This technology will make drivers more conscientious of
their surroundings and their habits due to the constant
surveillance. However, the idea of constant surveillance
could seriously backfire in the implementation of this
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
Submission Date 2014-10-28
technology. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, NHTSA, has already begun to write laws
that will require all drivers to have a vehicle with intervehicle communication technology on board within the next
few years [1]. While this will benefit the aspect of driver
safety, the suspicion surrounding the technology that
observes them will, without a doubt, hamper the efforts for
effective and timely implementation.
The cost associated with this change of focus has two
meanings. First and foremost, there has been a rise in the
overhead associated with this production. The budget
proposed was being utilized to advance research and
development strictly on the safety implications rather than
data collection. From General Motors’ point of view, the
cost of this new addition to the research should be playing a
major role in the decision to adopt the government’s ideas
[2]. The other cost is the time required to implement this
technology. Before government involvement, there was very
little reason that the public would not want inter-vehicle
communication technology in their vehicles, because it
increased safety and decreased accidents. However, now
there will be an air of suspicion surrounding inter-vehicle
communication because drivers will feel like they are being
forced to sign their rights of privacy away.
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS
By the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Code of Ethics, an engineer is required to avoid conflicts of
interest and to disclose them to affected parties if they do, in
fact, exist [3]. In this case, I feel that there is a conflict of
interest because the original objective for inter-vehicle
communication was safety, but it has since morphed into the
enforcement of laws in driving. Furthermore, I do not
believe that the public will be entirely educated on the lack
of privacy that they will be subjected to while travelling if it
is left to the government to explain.
Another ethical dilemma that I feel uncomfortable with is
that the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers states that,
“Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional
reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all
relevant and pertinent information in such reports” [4]. This
statement is conflicting because my team has been
approached to detail our report on the necessity of intervehicle communication, but I feel that there should be a
specific section detailing the collection of data and its usage
for law enforcement. When we drafted our initial report, that
section was prominent and well addressed. However, it has
since been reviewed and edited so that the section detailing
the privacy aspects of inter-vehicle communication is now
more of a side note rather than a major aspect of the report.
Christopher Herrick
CASE 1: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR
BAGS
CASE 3: PRIVACY – IS IT OKAY TO
OBJECTIFY THAT RIGHT?
An example similar to my situation is the implementation
of a previous safety feature in vehicles – the air bag.
Although air bags are now one major reason why lives are
saved in accidents everyday, they were not always as
effective. After air bags had been implemented in cars, their
safety was not necessarily what it is today. Through studying
and monitoring real crashes, engineers realized that air bags
had saved thousands of lives, but had also caused the deaths
of many drivers due to minor miscalculations by engineers
[5]. For the implementation of air bags, like the
implementation of inter-vehicle communication, safety
should be the number one priority. Although it may be
helpful for there to be data collection software for the
government, that should not be our main focus. If our focus
strays too far from the safety applications of inter-vehicle
communication, accidents may be caused rather than
prevented by our technology from minor miscalculations.
Research should not be solely aimed at what the government
officials want, because if our technology does not perform
properly, or worse, there are corners that we must cut in
order to bring inter-vehicle communication technology to
fruition, then we are to blame for the accidents and possible
deaths of drivers.
Privacy is the main subject of this entire dilemma. The
problem with privacy is that it cannot really be quantified.
Who is to say the amount of privacy that people are allowed
to have? In addition, who is to say that people are not
allowed to have a certain amount of privacy? Should the
amount of privacy allowed be different from public to
private places? If you are in your own vehicle, but travelling
on a public road, is that considered public or private? All of
these questions do not have a simple answer. A case with a
similar problem stems from the amount of privacy that
employees should have on a company email account. In this
case, a systems engineer was asked to access the records of
employees’ emails, without the employees’ knowledge, in
order to determine who was inappropriately using company
time for personal communications [7]. Although the
engineer had the capability to access that information, the
breach of privacy seemed like she was overstepping her
boundaries. In relation to my case, is it better to not tell the
public that they are being watched in their own vehicles, or
would it be right to let them know despite going against the
government’s wishes?
By allowing the government to officials to censor the
work that my team is doing, I am complying with their
wishes, but compromising my morals and the code of ethics
that I must abide by. On the other hand, by going against
their wishes, I may be viewed as a whistleblower that will be
ostracized by the engineering profession. Since the
government is now partially funding the project, they would
be considered an employer. A counterexample to this
dilemma comes from the same NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers where it states that, “Engineers shall not disclose;
without consent, confidential information concerning the
business affairs or technical processes of any present or
former client or employer, or public body on which they
serve” [4]. By following that canon, I cannot say anything
that the government – my employer – does not give me
permission to say. However, if I follow the other canons,
then I should not hesitate to tell the public the truth about the
privacy breach that inter-vehicle communication will entail.
CASE 2: DON’T ASK DON’T TELL
In some cases, I understand that there is a “don’t ask,
don’t tell” policy. However, I do not believe that this is one
of those times. A case where that policy occurred was when
there was a water tower with fire codes that may not have
been up to par; however, the engineer was not well educated
in the area of fire codes, so he let the town handle the codes
and he omitted it from his report [6]. If I were to omit a
detail because it may hinder the implementation of our
technology, then that is just as bad as lying about it outright.
Looking at the idea of omission from a point of view where
the tables are turned provides suitable support for my
argument. For example, if there were some other scenario
that was more related to the oversight of a safety aspect of
inter-vehicle communication, and I were to omit it from the
report, then that oversight could be responsible for countless
injuries and deaths. The NSPE Code of Ethic for Engineers
details a section on the duties of engineers that includes not
omitting a fact to deceive the public [4]. Therefore, the
“don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be breaking that canon
and conflicting with my morals and my duties as an
engineer.
ASKING A MENTOR
This dilemma has valid arguments on both sides. On one
hand, as the team leader I should address the situation and
brief the public on exactly what inter-vehicle communication
has the capability to do. On the other hand, I cannot go
against my employer’s wishes. Because of the moral
stalemate that I was in, I had to talk to my graduate school
professor, Dr. William Mays. After providing the details that
I was allowed to, I asked him what I should do, and if he had
ever been in a similar situation. His advice seemed less
helpful than it actually was. What he told me was that I
2
Christopher Herrick
needed to do what I had been taught [8]. At first, I was
confused because I had been taught to follow the codes of
engineers and the orders that superiors gave me. However,
after examining his cryptic advice, I realized that it was
necessary to address this situation where it began. Although
he did not seem to say much, that was how he taught in
lecture, and he expected me to challenge myself to find the
correct answer.
CONCLUSION
This dilemma proved to be much more of an exercise in
the application of the codes of ethics than I had previously
assumed. By working my way through the situation, I was
able to find that the public had the right to know what the
government wanted my team to do in order to implement the
inter-vehicle communication technology. With the help of
my graduate school professor and my project supervisor, I
was able to come to the conclusion that satisfied both my
moral obligations and my obligations to the codes of ethics
that I must abide by as an engineer. Although I may have
made the government officials irritated with my actions by
disclosing the information that they did not feel was
necessary for the public to know, I know that my actions
were legal and founded in what I was taught as a student. If
another engineer were in the same position that I was, I
would recommend that he or she read the codes of ethics
closely in order to make the best decision. If it were not for
my scrutiny of the details of each canon, I would not have
been able to make the decision that I did. Because I was able
to share this information with the public, my graduate school
professor was able to gain the full picture of what I come to
him about. In the end, he was proud of the conclusion that I
had come to. I was able to satiate my desire to do the right
thing and to follow the codes of ethics that were ingrained in
my head. Despite feeling that it is unnecessary for intervehicle communication to collect and store driver data, I feel
better that the public at least has the knowledge of it
happening. I agree with how Consumer Reports summed up
the information, “The potential safety benefits of this
technology make it worth pursuing, but adequate oversight
of how the data are used is essential to ensure the privacy of
drivers and to prevent abuse” [1].
RESOLVING THE ISSUE: BITING THE
BULLET
Since talking with my graduate school professor, I was
able to come to a decision, but I still needed to address one
more person. My project supervisor, Darren McCoy, was the
one person that I knew I could lay all of the information out
with, and come to a conclusion on how to approach this
issue. We were able to talk about the specifics of each
viewpoint and come to a professional conclusion. McCoy
said that since engineers are bound by the codes of ethics
that we all follow, there are certain actions that must be
made in a certain order [9]. Both my professor and my
supervisor agreed that the best way to go about resolving
this issue was to confront the government officials with the
problems that they were imposing on our team [8][9].
In my meeting with the government officials, I went
about explaining the codes that I was bound by. I explained
that because General Motors is a private company, our initial
client was actually the public. Since our client was the
public, the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers states that,
“Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or
otherwise, from more than one party for services on the
same project, or for services pertaining to the same project,
unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by
all parties” [4]. Therefore, this canon allows me, as an
engineer, to relay the government’s involvement in intervehicle communication research and development to the
public. By letting the public know that the government is
now involved in the research and development of intervehicle communication, I now have the right to disclose the
information to the public, my initial client, that the
government has made changes to the privacy aspects of our
technology. The NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers grants
this right to me by the same canon that I had previously
thought to be a counterexample as to why I could not let the
public know. Since my client is the public, I am allowed to
disclose information to them that the government may not
want them to know. For example, the privacy breach that the
government is trying to impose. Despite the officials
masking their displeasure, they all agreed that I was correct
in my logic and begrudgingly let my team publish our initial
report.
REFERENCES
[1] (2012). “Vehicle-to-vehicle Communication can Prevent
Crashes.” Consumer Reports Magazine. (Online article).
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/04/vehi
cle-to-vehicle-communication-can-preventcrashes/index.htm
[2] F. Dressler, F. Kargl, J. Ott, O. Tonguz, L. Wischhof.
(2011).
“Research
Challenges
in
Intervehicular
Communication: Lessons of the 2010 Dagstuhl Seminar.”
IEEE
Communications
Magazine.
(print
article).
10.1109/MCOM.2011.5762813. pp. 158-164.
[3]
(2014).
“IEEE
Code
of
Ethics.”
IEEE.
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[4] (2014). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society
of
Professional
Engineers.
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[5] (2013). “Air Bags, Safety, and Social Experiments.”
Online Ethics Center for Engineering. (Online article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/AirBag.aspx
3
Christopher Herrick
[6] (2014). “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Texas Tech University.
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[7] (2014) “Was That ‘Piracy’ or ‘Privacy.’” Texas Tech
University.
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[8] W. Mays. (2020, June 10). Conversation.
[9] D. McCoy. (2020, June 11). Conversation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Judith Brink for leading me on the
right path for this essay. I would like to thank Aster
Chmielewski for editing and helping me with this essay. I
would also like to thank the writing instructors for detailing
all of the intricate features of this assignment.
4
Your Name
5