https://www.dagstuhl.de/22042

January 23 – 28 , 2022, Dagstuhl Seminar 22042

Privacy Protection of Automated and Self-Driving Vehicles

Organizers

Frank Kargl (Universität Ulm, DE)
Ioannis Krontiris (Huawei Technologies – München, DE)
André Weimerskirch (Lear Corporation – Ann Arbor, US)
Ian Williams (University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, US)

For support, please contact

Dagstuhl Service Team

Documents

Dagstuhl Report, Volume 12, Issue 1 Dagstuhl Report
Aims & Scope
List of Participants
Shared Documents
Dagstuhl Seminar Schedule [pdf]

Summary

Cooperative, connected and automated mobility (CCAM) has the potential to drastically reduce accidents, travel time, and the environmental impact of road travel. To achieve their goals, connected and automated vehicles (AVs) require extensive data and machine learning algorithms for processing data received from local sensors, other cars, and road-side infrastructure. This immediately raises the question of privacy and data protection. While privacy for connected vehicles has been considered for many years, AV technology is still in its infancy and the privacy and data protection aspects for AVs are not well addressed. The capabilities of AVs pose new challenges to privacy protection, given that AVs have large sensor arrays that collect data in public spaces. Additionally, AVs capture data not only from other vehicles, but also from many other parties (i.e. pedestrians walking along a street) with very limited possibilities to offer notice and choice about data processing policies. Additionally, the driver will not necessarily be the owner of the vehicle and it may be the case that the majority of AVs are owned by fleets.

Our seminar reviewed existing technologies, standards, tools, and frameworks for protecting personal information in CCAM, investigated where such existing techniques clash with the requirements of an AV and its data processing, and identified gaps and road-blockers that need to be addressed on the way to deployment of privacy protection in AVs from a legal, technical, and ethical perspective. While we ran only a shortened online version of the originally planned seminar due to COVID pandemic limitations, we made very good progress, in particular towards identifying and structuring the challenges. Future meetings will build on the results and will discuss the different challenges in more depth, prioritize the corresponding road blockers, and push for research to overcome them.

Discussions during the seminar were organized in seven sessions with presentations from renowned experts from industry and academia, and a final discussion that collected and structured outcomes. In the concluding session, we identified four main challenges that we present in this report alongside the talk abstracts.

  • The first challenge is ethics and responsible behavior of companies and other actors that collect and process personal data in such systems. This goes beyond mere regulatory compliance but was seen as a promising path to complement this minimal baseline. Further discussions are required to identify ways to encourage such practices.
  • Second, we discussed how regulation needs to evolve for future CCAM systems in order to establish a stable baseline. A challenge here will be to identify to what extent sector-specific regulation will be needed to address specifics of CCAM and if regulation of future systems is reasonable and possible.
  • A third challenge is the commercial environment. Industry has to meet regulations and financial expectations and sometimes even conflicting goals like privacy and safety. Understanding and narrowing these trade-offs while acknowledging that industry has many such constraints that limit its flexibility requires further investigation.
  • Last but not least, we see a strong progress in the privacy-enhancing technology (PET) as a promising path towards resolving many of the above mentioned problems. At the same time, many PETs have not been designed for the CCAM domain and might not meet its demands in data quality or latency. For this reason, we see the need to further investigate how existing PETs meet CCAM requirements or how they can be developed further to do so.

Generally speaking, there is a lack of incentives for enterprises like original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to go beyond the legal minimum requirements to manage personal data in a privacy-respecting manner, to design privacy-preserving products, or to make the use of personal data transparent to the data subject. During our discussions one question became prominent: What could be the motivation for OEMs to do more in the field of data protection that goes beyond the bare minimum of legal compliance? Ethical and trustworthy aspects, as well as reputation and brand image could be worth investigating in answering this question. However, the field is massively interdisciplinary making it necessary to convince other involved disciplines of the value of data protection for the automotive sector.

There are several technical solutions available for protecting privacy and facilitating the privacy-by-design approach. However, the up-scaling of these solutions to larger systems and their integration with existing systems often fails because systems aspects and the related interdisciplinary issues are not taken into account. So, further progress is needed in promoting privacy-friendly system engineering, as well as integrating PETs into complete systems, taking into consideration the special requirements of safety and trust in the automotive domain. Overall, there should be a push for joint efforts to define and deploy technologies that are superior to today's solutions and that are commercially feasible since cost and effort are split amongst many participants.

Further progress is also required for the development of best practices, methodologies, and a requirements standard similar to ISO 21434 that supports the engineering of practical privacy solutions in complex systems. This will give OEMs a proper threshold target and allow for efficient solution finding and re-use. That guidance or standard could be a layer on top of regulation, similar to how the UN ECE R155 regulation requires a Cybersecurity Management System (CSMS) for which the ISO 21434 standard defines process requirements.

Summary text license
  Creative Commons BY 4.0
  Frank Kargl, Ioannis Krontiris, Natasa Trkulja, André Weimerskirch, and Ian Williams

Related Dagstuhl Seminar

Classification

  • Computers And Society
  • Cryptography And Security
  • Emerging Technologies

Keywords

  • Privacy and Data Protection
  • Automotive Security and Privacy

Documentation

In the series Dagstuhl Reports each Dagstuhl Seminar and Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop is documented. The seminar organizers, in cooperation with the collector, prepare a report that includes contributions from the participants' talks together with a summary of the seminar.

 

Download overview leaflet (PDF).

Dagstuhl's Impact

Please inform us when a publication was published as a result from your seminar. These publications are listed in the category Dagstuhl's Impact and are presented on a special shelf on the ground floor of the library.

Publications

Furthermore, a comprehensive peer-reviewed collection of research papers can be published in the series Dagstuhl Follow-Ups.