Toyota ad hijacks Siri to switch off iPhones while driving(marketingmagazine.co.uk)
marketingmagazine.co.uk
Toyota ad hijacks Siri to switch off iPhones while driving
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1355388/clever-toyota-ad-hijacks-siri-switch-off-iphones-driving
113 comments
Sounds to me like Toyota accessed thousands of computers without authorization.
Overreaction. Is it illegal for me to talk to your phone? To broadcast myself with a megaphone, in a crowd, and yell "Hey Siri, turn on airplane mode"?
Is it illegal for me to unplug your computer? Jerkish, sure, but illegal only, maybe, in very rare circumstances.
Is it illegal for me to unplug your computer? Jerkish, sure, but illegal only, maybe, in very rare circumstances.
I think you are missing the point. Sure, it's an overreaction but if an individual did it as a prank you can bet some prosecutor would try to make a name for themselves by throwing the book at them. What's fair for the goose...
I am officially doing this at every function I attend from now on. thank you for this fantastic idea. JWZ would be proud.
They're a corporation. Little people laws don't apply to them.
(Oh, how I long to be wrong on this, but I strongly suspect that nothing, or at least nothing that will make the campaign a net negative, will come of the fact that they violated the hell out of the CFAA.)
(Oh, how I long to be wrong on this, but I strongly suspect that nothing, or at least nothing that will make the campaign a net negative, will come of the fact that they violated the hell out of the CFAA.)
The ad ran in Sweden. CFAA is an American law.
We have the equivalent law against "dataintrång", lit. computerized trespass/intrusion.
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataintr%C3%A5ng
https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K4P9c
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataintr%C3%A5ng
https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K4P9c
Both of you: thanks for the correction.
We really need a case in which a corporate executive goes to jail for something like that.
Not sure that the world really needs more litigation...
> Hey Siri
by the way, I don't like being made to interact with clunky robotic devices in a manner that suggests they might be human for the purpose of [marketing] making unintelligent plebians think 'wow that's cool'. If it's lifelike I'll use it like it's a personality, but otherwise it should just be a set of commands. Stop trying to confuse my socially inept brain
by the way, I don't like being made to interact with clunky robotic devices in a manner that suggests they might be human for the purpose of [marketing] making unintelligent plebians think 'wow that's cool'. If it's lifelike I'll use it like it's a personality, but otherwise it should just be a set of commands. Stop trying to confuse my socially inept brain
A navigation device can be messed up for any number of reasons, but none of them are responsible for causing accidents.
The only thing that would cause an accident would be if the driver diverted his or her attention from the road instead of stopping the vehicle in a responsible manner.
The only thing that would cause an accident would be if the driver diverted his or her attention from the road instead of stopping the vehicle in a responsible manner.
Legally responsible? Of course not. Does that mean its a. Good idea to intentionally distract drivers, many of whom will look at and even pick up their phones while driving?
No, what causes the accident in your scenario is a driver illegally fucking with their phone while driving—not the ad that disabled their nav.
Don't misattribute the responsibility.
Don't misattribute the responsibility.
You can't use it as a passenger, either.
You're assuming that someone who uses it for navigation or to stream music to listen to is 'fucking with their phone'. As either OP or one of the other comments on here noticed, it will not effect people who are talking on their mobile phone, only those who have left it plugged in; ie. those who are obeying the law will be penalized, while those who aren't remain a danger to others.
Calm 'the fuck' down.
Calm 'the fuck' down.
[deleted]
> There are plenty of completely valid uses for having a phone on whilst driving - such as navigation, streaming music or using CarPlay
Valid? They are completely and utterly unnecessary. I was listening to music before the iPhone existed. I was also driving from point A to point B before GPS navigation existed. Funny, if you know how to read a map it you don't get lost.
No, these things are not necessary. It's one of those cases of "Just because you can <insert function> it doesn't mean you should".
Streaming Pandora while driving or using a shitty phone navigation system isn't a right. And certainly not one that is above the implied right to be safe on the road and responsibility to operate a vehicle in a manner that does not endanger the lives of others.
We are not entitled to use these toys while driving. Just because the features are there does not mean the driver MUST use them or IS ENTITLED to use them.
Let's start from the correct starting point: A driver should not interact with their phone in almost any way while driving. Everything else derives from there.
Valid? They are completely and utterly unnecessary. I was listening to music before the iPhone existed. I was also driving from point A to point B before GPS navigation existed. Funny, if you know how to read a map it you don't get lost.
No, these things are not necessary. It's one of those cases of "Just because you can <insert function> it doesn't mean you should".
Streaming Pandora while driving or using a shitty phone navigation system isn't a right. And certainly not one that is above the implied right to be safe on the road and responsibility to operate a vehicle in a manner that does not endanger the lives of others.
We are not entitled to use these toys while driving. Just because the features are there does not mean the driver MUST use them or IS ENTITLED to use them.
Let's start from the correct starting point: A driver should not interact with their phone in almost any way while driving. Everything else derives from there.
It would be fantastic if those down-voting this comment could explain why they think it is OK for somebody to place others in mortal danger for the "privilege" of playing with a toy while driving. And, in particular, I would like them to explain how they would feel about this if they lost a member of their family to some asshole texting while driving as my family has. It's easy to have a fucking opinion about everything when you are not exposed to the consequences of your ideas.
manicdee(1)
A clever idea with unintended consequences.
Now my docked phone in navigation mode is disabled, and I have to fumble for the airplane mode switch to then it back on, distracting me.
Or, my passenger, texting urgent details to someone else while plugged in to power, loses connection and doesn't realize. His message, "don't delete pied piper," never makes it to staff and a startup is ruined.
Or, the cell phone hidden the in the car by a jealous husband gets switched off, convincing him that the jig is up and an unstable situation turns grim.
Google and Apple should treat this as a security vulnerability. I think there were pranks related to Xbox voice control as well.
Now my docked phone in navigation mode is disabled, and I have to fumble for the airplane mode switch to then it back on, distracting me.
Or, my passenger, texting urgent details to someone else while plugged in to power, loses connection and doesn't realize. His message, "don't delete pied piper," never makes it to staff and a startup is ruined.
Or, the cell phone hidden the in the car by a jealous husband gets switched off, convincing him that the jig is up and an unstable situation turns grim.
Google and Apple should treat this as a security vulnerability. I think there were pranks related to Xbox voice control as well.
Xbox voice control trolling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQlHJcrbPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZLa4AnN5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQlHJcrbPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZLa4AnN5k
That's golden. It's like social engineering SQL injection. Fun stuff!
I wonder if there's any sort of sentence you can make that isn't actually "xbox shut off" but is interpreted by the xbox as such.
I wonder if there's any sort of sentence you can make that isn't actually "xbox shut off" but is interpreted by the xbox as such.
Oh like when you mouth "olive juice" to someone it looks like "I love you".
Perhaps something like "Ex Blocks Shout Ov".
Perhaps something like "Ex Blocks Shout Ov".
I remember there was an xbox ad that had the unintended consequence of controller the viewer's xbox
The "Hey Siri" feature is something that must be enabled, so that is one way to thwart this Toyota hacking attempt.
As a driver, the only thing you have to do is pay complete attention to the road and drive safely. It is not Toyota's fault if you stop doing that to fuck with your phone, even if they disabled your nav.
"As a driver, the only thing you have to do is pay complete attention to the road and drive safely. It is not the company's fault if they played an ad that's just sirens and horns and people screaming, distracting you."
If I could legally ban one thing in music, it would definitely be car horns and emergency vehicle sounds. There's nothing more annoying than hearing a horn and trying to decide if you need to emergency stop now, or if it was just some idiot deciding to put it in their music. Especially if you stream/shuffle and have no idea what song is coming up next.
And it's not Toyota's job to tell us what we should and shouldn't be doing while driving.
If that's true, then why do Toyotas have radios?
I am a cyclist. I am always incredibly wary when I see drivers using their phones. Yes, this happens a lot, and yes I am in the habit of looking very carefully if drivers have seen me or not. Usually they don't and drive as if I don't exist – it's so frequent that I am nearly driven over, that I have become a rather defensive cyclist. But indeed, apart from random aggressive people (e.g., just yesterday on my way home from work, a car shaved past me at rather high speed (about 50-60km/h at 10cm max) with youths shouting at me) on of my biggest gripes is people who text at the wheel. It's insane.
(disclosure: I live in France, and as far as cycling culture/acceptance and infrastructure is concerned, this is a third-world country)
(disclosure: I live in France, and as far as cycling culture/acceptance and infrastructure is concerned, this is a third-world country)
Funny phrasing. I usually think of third world countries as having drivers who are more aware of cyclists, and more bike-friendly roads in general. ;)
I've had drivers on phones see me at a red light and then almost turn into me. I've decided it's not enough they see me at some point. I've solved this by looking to see it is clear and going when all the directions are red. It's just safest to not be where they will be even though I am breaking the law.
I spend most of the week in London, where cycling is an incredibly popular mode of transport given the slow buses, heaving tubes, and the more widespread push to exercise and be healthy.
A pedestrian myself, I've observed that the largest risk to cyclists appears to be either at the lights or in slow moving traffic.
This could be incorrect, but I think almost all mid-range cars come with parking sensors which alert drivers to objects around them. However, they typically only sense objects in front of or behind the vehicle.
Therefore, I think it would be great to extend parking sensors to provide 360 degree detection. As a driver, your car would be able tell you if there is a cyclist behind you, in your blind spot, stationary or moving - all without having to take your concentration of the road ahead - including pedestrians who choose to jump out right in front of you.
I don't know if this is present in executive cars, such as the Mercedes E/S class, however, it would be an amazing kit to have, and I think it should be a legal requirement on all busses and HGVs - the single largest cause of accidents between cyclists and vehicles.
A pedestrian myself, I've observed that the largest risk to cyclists appears to be either at the lights or in slow moving traffic.
This could be incorrect, but I think almost all mid-range cars come with parking sensors which alert drivers to objects around them. However, they typically only sense objects in front of or behind the vehicle.
Therefore, I think it would be great to extend parking sensors to provide 360 degree detection. As a driver, your car would be able tell you if there is a cyclist behind you, in your blind spot, stationary or moving - all without having to take your concentration of the road ahead - including pedestrians who choose to jump out right in front of you.
I don't know if this is present in executive cars, such as the Mercedes E/S class, however, it would be an amazing kit to have, and I think it should be a legal requirement on all busses and HGVs - the single largest cause of accidents between cyclists and vehicles.
I think the whole parking sensor systems moving to the mid-range has probably happened too recently to be widespread at this point, but I imagine that depends enormously on affluence. There's a big difference between people who buy a mid-range/family car, and the people who replace it every few years.
It's a neat idea though, and if it is already on higher end models it'll probably trickle down eventually. Eliminating blind spots seems obvious - I imagine check the blind spot before moving is one of the first behaviours people lose after passing their test. I very rarely see drivers do it.
> I think it should be a legal requirement on all busses and HGVs - the single largest cause of accidents between cyclists and vehicles.
Do you have a link for this? It seems hard to believe given how relatively low the numbers of those vehicles are. Rospa [0] say it's cars or taxis which I'd have expected, although they do point out 20% of fatalities in London involve an HGV - and say one quarter of serious injuries are a bus/HGV (as you'd expect, performing a left turn). So more than I'd have guessed, but I'm not sure about the single largest?
For what it's worth they also say 75% of accidents happen at or near a junction which matches pretty well to your observation of lights/slow moving traffic.
[0] http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts...
It's a neat idea though, and if it is already on higher end models it'll probably trickle down eventually. Eliminating blind spots seems obvious - I imagine check the blind spot before moving is one of the first behaviours people lose after passing their test. I very rarely see drivers do it.
> I think it should be a legal requirement on all busses and HGVs - the single largest cause of accidents between cyclists and vehicles.
Do you have a link for this? It seems hard to believe given how relatively low the numbers of those vehicles are. Rospa [0] say it's cars or taxis which I'd have expected, although they do point out 20% of fatalities in London involve an HGV - and say one quarter of serious injuries are a bus/HGV (as you'd expect, performing a left turn). So more than I'd have guessed, but I'm not sure about the single largest?
For what it's worth they also say 75% of accidents happen at or near a junction which matches pretty well to your observation of lights/slow moving traffic.
[0] http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts...
> Do you have a link for this? It seems hard to believe given how relatively low the numbers of those vehicles are
In 2013, HGVs were the cause of approx. 65% of all deaths of a cyclist (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25080427).
* 2010: 10 deaths, four involving HGVs
* 2011: 16 deaths, 12 involving HGVs
* 2012: 14 deaths, five involving HGVs
* 2013 so far: 14 deaths, nine involving HGVs
In fact, it looks like every cyclist death this year (up to 9th April) has been from a collision with a HGV (http://www.london24.com/news/cycling/london_cycle_deaths_201...).
I've not read the 2014 report from ROSPA, so I will take a look! Thanks for posting the link!
In 2013, HGVs were the cause of approx. 65% of all deaths of a cyclist (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25080427).
* 2010: 10 deaths, four involving HGVs
* 2011: 16 deaths, 12 involving HGVs
* 2012: 14 deaths, five involving HGVs
* 2013 so far: 14 deaths, nine involving HGVs
In fact, it looks like every cyclist death this year (up to 9th April) has been from a collision with a HGV (http://www.london24.com/news/cycling/london_cycle_deaths_201...).
I've not read the 2014 report from ROSPA, so I will take a look! Thanks for posting the link!
Please stop fucking doing that. The number of times I've nearly been hit by other cyclists, who no doubt also "looked to see if it was clear", is terrifying.
If you had asked more politely I would be much more inclined to listen, good day Matthew.
edit (in case it gets deleted or editted)
matthewmacleod 28 minutes ago
Please stop fucking doing that. The number of times I've nearly been hit by other cyclists, who no doubt also "looked to see if it was clear", is terrifying.
matthewmacleod 28 minutes ago
Please stop fucking doing that. The number of times I've nearly been hit by other cyclists, who no doubt also "looked to see if it was clear", is terrifying.
As a cyclist, I definitely agree with you - but this applies to other cyclists too. One of the most ridiculously dangerous things I regularly see is someone I'm cycling behind in a narrow cycle lane suddenly slowing to walking pace to answer their phone like an idiot. Most of these cycle lanes don't really have enough room to safely overtake if the road alongside is busy (at least without probably panicking a driver and causing issues there) so it's really annoying and stupid.
That said, yea - anyone in a car not paying attention are lethal, it's not easy to predict what someone is going to do even at 30mph if they act like they have the whole road to themselves.
That said, yea - anyone in a car not paying attention are lethal, it's not easy to predict what someone is going to do even at 30mph if they act like they have the whole road to themselves.
Same here but in the US. I can actually spot them as they drive like faux drunk drivers. Driving at weird speeds, swerving a bit, etc. and then when they get close enough, "yep, just texting!".
I hope in 10 years people using their phones while driving will be seen on the same scale as drunk driving. At least drunk drivers keep their eyes on the road...
I hope in 10 years people using their phones while driving will be seen on the same scale as drunk driving. At least drunk drivers keep their eyes on the road...
>I am a cyclist. I am always incredibly wary when I see drivers using their phones.
OTOH, I'm always wary when I see cyclists on roads where heavy boxes run with 40-80 miles per hour...
OTOH, I'm always wary when I see cyclists on roads where heavy boxes run with 40-80 miles per hour...
Where would you want cyclists to go exactly? Sidewalks filled with pedestrians? Not every road has a cycling path.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5656153 "A bicycle superhighway was the future of transit"
By foot? By car? By bus? "Cyclist" isn't a race or religion. He's not telling them "to go" anywhere. He's saying that if you choose to use a mode of transport that is a hazard and nuisance to others, you are in a glass house and shouldn't be throwing stones.
Considering the hundreds of thousands of people drivers kill in Europe and North America every year, they're the hazard.
If you want cyclists off roads, lobby to change the law.
If you want cyclists off roads, lobby to change the law.
A cyclist isn't a hazard to an autoist. Maybe to the paint on their two-ton vehicle, but not to them bodily.
[deleted]
They are a hazard because drivers need to take actions to avoid them. It turns the road into an obstacle course, except with unpredictable obstacles that rarely follow traffic rules like red lights.
I spend a lot of time on the road, and I see autoists running red lights far more frequently than cyclists. Cyclists are at a lot greater risk getting out into any intersection, it'd be suicide (literally) to put ourselves into the path of oncoming traffic.
I do see this remark ("you dumb kids on your bikes break all the traffic laws!!") on all the web forums for the local newspaper, whenever any article comes along about bike lanes or whatever. I just don't see people on bikes breaking traffic laws anywhere near as often as people in cars.
As for needing to avoid things, would you call traffic circles or pedestrians a "hazard" as well? Again, you're in a two-ton metal box, none of this stuff is going to do anything more than scratch your paint.
I do see this remark ("you dumb kids on your bikes break all the traffic laws!!") on all the web forums for the local newspaper, whenever any article comes along about bike lanes or whatever. I just don't see people on bikes breaking traffic laws anywhere near as often as people in cars.
As for needing to avoid things, would you call traffic circles or pedestrians a "hazard" as well? Again, you're in a two-ton metal box, none of this stuff is going to do anything more than scratch your paint.
If your roads are an obstacle course then it sounds like they shouldn't have cars on because they're clearly not wide enough. That's endangering the lives of all traffic, not just cyclists.
If you're driving, you should always be wary whether or not there's any cyclists around.
I know it's hard to accept sometimes, but the world changes. Cycling is becoming more prevelant in auto-dominated America, whether autoists think it should or not.
Isn't it as likely that hipster bikers of today will grow into adults with cars like their parents did? "Our generation is different and our trends will last forever" doesn't have a great track record of panning out.
Maybe, maybe not. My friends and I are all pushing 40, most don't own cars (including some of the people with kids, mind), several of us don't even have licenses.
Like I said, the world changes. We got to this autoist-centric world slowly and through a lot of policy choices, and we'll move away from it the same way.
Like I said, the world changes. We got to this autoist-centric world slowly and through a lot of policy choices, and we'll move away from it the same way.
Many generations have changed to adopt newer forms of transit than the previous generations. I'm pretty sure the pony express doesn't run anymore. Did you think we would never change forms of transit again? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/16/t...
Cycling on the road is literally the law in most of the west.
I don't think this is a particularly good idea because the first thing I'd do is switching it back one. I might miss an important call. And we have Siri and headsets to make calling while driving as secure as talking to a child while driving. So why would anyone turn the hands free functionality off and require the driver to pick up the phone and turn it on. This endangers driving, not using siri/Google voice whole driving.
> And we have Siri and headsets to make calling while driving as secure as talking to a child while driving.
Apparently, headsets do not make calling while driving as safe as talking to a passenger while driving. If something happens, a passenger in the car with you will see it and instinctively shut up. Someone at the other end of the phone won't know anything is going on and will keep talking, keeping your attention distracted. Not for long, to be sure, but when you're behind the wheel of a car, half a second can easily make the difference between life and death.
Apparently, headsets do not make calling while driving as safe as talking to a passenger while driving. If something happens, a passenger in the car with you will see it and instinctively shut up. Someone at the other end of the phone won't know anything is going on and will keep talking, keeping your attention distracted. Not for long, to be sure, but when you're behind the wheel of a car, half a second can easily make the difference between life and death.
That's a good point but remember that some passengers are not that good at keeping an eye on the row (I also often talk to a driver when I shouldn't without realizing it and he needs to shut me up).
But encouraging people to use safer alternatives is better then banning (or preventing) these alternatives because some people will always use a phone in the car. Remember that the average John Smith salesman who is about to use his phone to call his costumer doesn't immediately know how to turn off the airplane mode. He might be distracted for quite a while because he can't figure out why siri is not working. And if he is in a hurry, he will certainly not pull over!
But encouraging people to use safer alternatives is better then banning (or preventing) these alternatives because some people will always use a phone in the car. Remember that the average John Smith salesman who is about to use his phone to call his costumer doesn't immediately know how to turn off the airplane mode. He might be distracted for quite a while because he can't figure out why siri is not working. And if he is in a hurry, he will certainly not pull over!
> That's a good point but remember that some passengers are not that good at keeping an eye on the row (I also often talk to a driver when I shouldn't without realizing it and he needs to shut me up).
Yes, as a driver I take it as my responsibility to shush people (whether talking via a handsfree arrangement or with passengers) when I need concentration or something unexpected has come up on the road.
Yes, as a driver I take it as my responsibility to shush people (whether talking via a handsfree arrangement or with passengers) when I need concentration or something unexpected has come up on the road.
[deleted]
If the driver is going to pick up the phone and turn it on, he should first pull of the road as soon as it's safe. Just like any other interaction with a phone.
And when he gets home, complain to the national govt communication agency, and Toyota.
And when he gets home, complain to the national govt communication agency, and Toyota.
Except that you can't always pull over (e.g. in the city) and most people don't do it. In a perfect world, we would not need Siri handsfree but in reality, people are just too lazy and instead of making it too inconvenience for them to do something (so that they do something dangerous), we should rather give them safer (though not perfect) alternatives. Disabling them on purpose is just stupid and endangering.
> Disabling them on purpose is just stupid and endangering.
I agree with that. Further, Toyota, nor anyone else, has no right to reach down into my life and disable something.
I agree with that. Further, Toyota, nor anyone else, has no right to reach down into my life and disable something.
Actually couldn't you just tell siri to turn airplane mode off?
Also a good argument for not using a radio in a car, but that is mostly my own personal bias.
Also a good argument for not using a radio in a car, but that is mostly my own personal bias.
> Actually couldn't you just tell siri to turn airplane mode off?
Siri is a network service, it can't work locally.
Siri is a network service, it can't work locally.
They are not requiring the driver to do what you claim they are requiring the driver to do.
>I might miss an important call.
OTOH, if you crash and die, you'll miss all calls. And the other passengers of the other car too.
OTOH, if you crash and die, you'll miss all calls. And the other passengers of the other car too.
Sure, but the chances of crashing are rather low if you use hands-free soft- and hardware (such as siri to control the call and a headset). If you believe these things should not be allowed, either, because there are too distracting, you should not let children ride with you because they tend to ask way more distracting questions then you saying ("Hey Siri, call XXX").
What a childish, fallacious argument ...
Parent wasn't talking about answering calls while on the road. Parent was referring to missing a call. If they need to have their phone on, that's completely reasonable. Maybe they're even an emergency driver. It doesn't mean they won't pull over when there's a call.
Having the phone on doesn't mean talking on the phone while driving. In fact, I'm pretty sure siri is disabled during phone calls, so this is a feel-good farce with very dangerous implications. One that's more likely to cause crashes than prevent them. Thankfully this happened in a low density country with safe roads.
Parent wasn't talking about answering calls while on the road. Parent was referring to missing a call. If they need to have their phone on, that's completely reasonable. Maybe they're even an emergency driver. It doesn't mean they won't pull over when there's a call.
Having the phone on doesn't mean talking on the phone while driving. In fact, I'm pretty sure siri is disabled during phone calls, so this is a feel-good farce with very dangerous implications. One that's more likely to cause crashes than prevent them. Thankfully this happened in a low density country with safe roads.
>Parent wasn't talking about answering calls while on the road. Parent was referring to missing a call.
Yeah, because they're gonna pull over on the side on the road to answer it.
In a world where people are even TEXTing while driving, pulling over to answer a phone is what most people would do, right?
Yeah, because they're gonna pull over on the side on the road to answer it.
In a world where people are even TEXTing while driving, pulling over to answer a phone is what most people would do, right?
> In a world where people are even TEXTing while driving, pulling over to answer a phone is what most people would do, right?
Maybe you only know completely insensitive and inconsiderate jerks, but most of the drivers I know abhor texting/calling while driving. Don't turn your problem into everybody's problem.
Maybe you only know completely insensitive and inconsiderate jerks, but most of the drivers I know abhor texting/calling while driving. Don't turn your problem into everybody's problem.
What does it matter what "most people" would do? We're talking about what Matt3o12_ would do.
I ended up in a river because of switching a Spotify playlist. It was a miracle that saved my friends and me. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, PUT YOUR PHONE AWAY WHILE DRIVING. NOTHING, NOTHING CAN'T BE MORE IMPORTANT IN THOSE MINUTES YOU DRIVE THAT YOUR OR OTHER PEOPLES' LIFE. Want to check your phone? stop, check it and continue.
"I ended up in a river because of switching a Spotify playlist."
That is a profound level of incompetence along a number of dimensions. Obligatory: ThisIsWhyWeCan'tHaveNiceThings.
That is a profound level of incompetence along a number of dimensions. Obligatory: ThisIsWhyWeCan'tHaveNiceThings.
Tons of people have gotten in accidents doing things like adjusting the radio or air conditioning. Your car travels 88 feet blind every second you are distracted.
Sometimes I drive at speeds other than 60 mph.
Highly suggest using Siri on a mounted device where you can say "Hey Siri" without taking your eyes from the road and speak your command. I am not sure if it is compatible with Spotify playlists but can give you a lot of power behind the wheel without compromising on safety.
[deleted]
I used my iPhone for turn-by-turn directions because it was far superior to the navigation functionality built into my car. This ad could potentially have caused me to have to interact with my phone while driving to disable airplane mode and allow me to resume navigation.
No, it cannot cause that. You may illegally choose to then grab your phone while driving to fiddle with the settings, but that is your own reckless and negligent choice.
It may definitely cause you to drive around in unknown area while trying to figure out where you can stop to turn the navigation back on. If you're on a motorway, that may be an additional 20+ miles until you can stop safely.
If it happens to kill your navigation, it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary distraction. Whether you decide to turn it on again while driving or wait until you can stop.
If it happens to kill your navigation, it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary distraction. Whether you decide to turn it on again while driving or wait until you can stop.
I don't think it's illegal to manipulate your phone while driving anywhere I've lived, though it was illegal to text or talk without using a hands-free device.
This is the advertising equivalent of clickbait - make a video about an ad which maybe ran a handful of times, if it even aired at all, in the hopes of that video going viral and stimulating press coverage.
Pizza Hut recently did something similar with their pizza box projector[1], a fun little idea which ultimately probably only directly reached a few hundred customers but which millions of people around the world read an article about.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pizza-hut-box-turns-into-m...
Pizza Hut recently did something similar with their pizza box projector[1], a fun little idea which ultimately probably only directly reached a few hundred customers but which millions of people around the world read an article about.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pizza-hut-box-turns-into-m...
Let's be clear: this is more an ad to cause people to think of/buy Toyota than an actual thing that worked.
What we saw in the ad is an ideal situation for the mechanism.
Only a miniscule amount of iPhones will be affected by this. In real life, iPhones won't be plugged in, won't have Hello Siri enabled (an explicit thing to do), won't be turned to a station that plays the ad, and so on.
What we saw in the ad is an ideal situation for the mechanism.
Only a miniscule amount of iPhones will be affected by this. In real life, iPhones won't be plugged in, won't have Hello Siri enabled (an explicit thing to do), won't be turned to a station that plays the ad, and so on.
'The ad relies on the fact that an iPhone, if plugged in and charging, will wake up on the voice command "Hey Siri"'
-- actually, an iPhone will only respond to Hey Siri if you have _explicitly_ turned that feature on - it's not enabled by default and I would imagine that the vast majority of people wouldn't have bothered.
-- actually, an iPhone will only respond to Hey Siri if you have _explicitly_ turned that feature on - it's not enabled by default and I would imagine that the vast majority of people wouldn't have bothered.
"Toyota makes front page of HN with silly gimmick"
I have the same issue with my Xbox one: If a commercial on TV says :"now available on Xbox one", the Xbox interprets "Xbox one" as "Xbox ON" and turn on by itself.
But here this is a malicious use of the feature. It doesn't even assume there might be other people in the car. I wouldn't be surprised if people start boycotting Toyotas if they get disturbed by this stupid ad.
I noticed on windows 10 you can switch Cortana to "recognize my voice". This would fix the problem for anyone with a voice sufficiently different from the ad
But here this is a malicious use of the feature. It doesn't even assume there might be other people in the car. I wouldn't be surprised if people start boycotting Toyotas if they get disturbed by this stupid ad.
I noticed on windows 10 you can switch Cortana to "recognize my voice". This would fix the problem for anyone with a voice sufficiently different from the ad
Many comments are saying, "This ad exposed people to danger."
Zooming out, lots of ads expose people many kinds of danger. It's easier to criticize this ad because the danger-connection is obvious. It's harder to run robust thought-experiments about the effect of thousands of unhealthy food ads (or gambling ads, smoking ads, 411 scams, credit card offers). But the (speaking unscientifically) aggregate millions of extra calories consumed is a big deal.
So saying, "Toyota shouldn't've done this" neglects wider contexts.
Zooming out, lots of ads expose people many kinds of danger. It's easier to criticize this ad because the danger-connection is obvious. It's harder to run robust thought-experiments about the effect of thousands of unhealthy food ads (or gambling ads, smoking ads, 411 scams, credit card offers). But the (speaking unscientifically) aggregate millions of extra calories consumed is a big deal.
So saying, "Toyota shouldn't've done this" neglects wider contexts.
They think it is a world first, there there was an Xbox one ad[0] that was doing this over a year ago. They could have easily found it just googling "voice command ad" or similar.
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/aaron-paul-xbox-one...
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/aaron-paul-xbox-one...
I can't find it now, but I'm certain I saw a story about a late-night television infomercial that used "OK Google" to dial a premium long distance number. As I recall, the show was pulled off the air in minutes.
So what is the shortest wav that can disable both iOS and Android? ;)
iOS: Settings -> General -> Siri -> Toggle "Allow 'Hey Siri'"
This should be considered hacking, not to mention interfering with driving, as you know some people would start fiddeling with their phones (without thinking).
My phone got part way through the process while watching the video. The lock screen prevented it from working.
If a GPS system needs my 3G/4G connection to work, I'm not using it. Period.
Clever ad, btw. It's not like they are running this every day to enforce some law. It might be a little distraction (on top of the other 200 distraction/minute you get while driving) but it's good press, and for a good reason.
Clever ad, btw. It's not like they are running this every day to enforce some law. It might be a little distraction (on top of the other 200 distraction/minute you get while driving) but it's good press, and for a good reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rClJW9gnchc
I wish there was something one could do every time we see someone staring at their phone while driving. I've seen it so many times. I wonder how many accidents those people have caused.
Frankly, the problem does have a technological solution. Is there no interest on the part of companies like Apple to fix the problem? I wonder how many people have been killed by iPhones and other "smart" phones?
One of the first things I noticed about smart phones was just how much more of your attention and focus they require for normal use. I've owned cellphones dating back to when they were the size of a shoe-box, including many Blackberry's. The last Blackberry I owned could be used with one hand. In fact, most everything I needed to do could be done with my thumb by using the rotary encoder on the side.
The minute we went to touch screens things changed radically. Usability, from a certain perspective, suffered greatly. A touch interface is inherently fragile. With physical buttons you know what you are touching without looking. You can learn shape and location based cues that do not require looking at the phone. A touch interface cannot be explored. If you touch the screen a mm this way or that way you can make an absolute mess out of things. A touch interface requires that you look at he phone and focus on it intently enough that your brain task switches during that time.
My own test is what I call the "Mom and Dad Test". I can deal with my kids in the back seat and retain far more attention on the road and my surroundings than when I have to look at and interact with a smart phone. The act of operating a smart phone, reading small type, locating buttons, menu's, understating state and then precisely touching small controls, seems to require far more CPU cycles than most other distractions.
Of course, I haven't conducted any studies. This isn't my field. This is just conjecture and one data point. Having one teenage kid now driving we had to make sure we pounded the "don't use the phone while driving" message into his head. It's scary, actually. And, it is also scary to realize that you could be perfectly responsible while someone in another car might plow into you because they were focusing on a small little button on their iPhone to be able to click it.
I hate government over-regulation and the insertion into our lives. However, this might just be a case where a law or mandate is required. It needs to be simple. We don't need a new government agency with 100,000 employees and 50,000 pages of rules. It can be stated very clearly: By the year 2020 car drivers should not be able to use their phones while the vehicle is in motion. Let car and phone manufacturers figure out how to accomplish this feat. If it means nobody in the car can use their phone.
One of the arguments being made is that for navigation. Frankly, I hate using navigation on my iPhone. It goes back to the fragility of the interface. I have a dedicated GPS unit on the dashboard. It's pretty hard to screw up and it is pretty much immune to fumbling. The using Apple/Google for navigation on the iPhone can fall pray to the issues and fragility of a touch screen system with a pile of unrelated apps.
How many of you are willing to lose your kids or your own life to the issues introduced by smart phones while driving? Right.
Apple has enough money to figure out how to solve this problem. They need to solve this problem.
I wish there was something one could do every time we see someone staring at their phone while driving. I've seen it so many times. I wonder how many accidents those people have caused.
Frankly, the problem does have a technological solution. Is there no interest on the part of companies like Apple to fix the problem? I wonder how many people have been killed by iPhones and other "smart" phones?
One of the first things I noticed about smart phones was just how much more of your attention and focus they require for normal use. I've owned cellphones dating back to when they were the size of a shoe-box, including many Blackberry's. The last Blackberry I owned could be used with one hand. In fact, most everything I needed to do could be done with my thumb by using the rotary encoder on the side.
The minute we went to touch screens things changed radically. Usability, from a certain perspective, suffered greatly. A touch interface is inherently fragile. With physical buttons you know what you are touching without looking. You can learn shape and location based cues that do not require looking at the phone. A touch interface cannot be explored. If you touch the screen a mm this way or that way you can make an absolute mess out of things. A touch interface requires that you look at he phone and focus on it intently enough that your brain task switches during that time.
My own test is what I call the "Mom and Dad Test". I can deal with my kids in the back seat and retain far more attention on the road and my surroundings than when I have to look at and interact with a smart phone. The act of operating a smart phone, reading small type, locating buttons, menu's, understating state and then precisely touching small controls, seems to require far more CPU cycles than most other distractions.
Of course, I haven't conducted any studies. This isn't my field. This is just conjecture and one data point. Having one teenage kid now driving we had to make sure we pounded the "don't use the phone while driving" message into his head. It's scary, actually. And, it is also scary to realize that you could be perfectly responsible while someone in another car might plow into you because they were focusing on a small little button on their iPhone to be able to click it.
I hate government over-regulation and the insertion into our lives. However, this might just be a case where a law or mandate is required. It needs to be simple. We don't need a new government agency with 100,000 employees and 50,000 pages of rules. It can be stated very clearly: By the year 2020 car drivers should not be able to use their phones while the vehicle is in motion. Let car and phone manufacturers figure out how to accomplish this feat. If it means nobody in the car can use their phone.
One of the arguments being made is that for navigation. Frankly, I hate using navigation on my iPhone. It goes back to the fragility of the interface. I have a dedicated GPS unit on the dashboard. It's pretty hard to screw up and it is pretty much immune to fumbling. The using Apple/Google for navigation on the iPhone can fall pray to the issues and fragility of a touch screen system with a pile of unrelated apps.
How many of you are willing to lose your kids or your own life to the issues introduced by smart phones while driving? Right.
Apple has enough money to figure out how to solve this problem. They need to solve this problem.
This makes me wonder, does the "hey Siri" recognition happen on the phone or on their servers? If it happens on the server does that mean that it's secretly uploading a recording of everything I say?
No, it's 100% local. Even ignoring the privacy concerns of uploading everything you say, it would simply use too much data.
You also need to opt-in: it's turned off by default and can be enabled by going to Settings > General > Siri > Allow "Hey Siri."
You also need to opt-in: it's turned off by default and can be enabled by going to Settings > General > Siri > Allow "Hey Siri."
This seems like it would be more likely to cause an accident as people have to divert attention from driving to mess with their phone so they can get navigation back (and having listened to the advert, I know I would be very distracted by it).
Finally, is this even legal? I have no idea of the law in Sweden (and IANAL) but I feel like you could make the point that this advert is interfering with your device without authorisation.