Wall Street Admits That A Cyberattack Could Crash Our Banking System At Any Time

The Economic Collapse
by Michael Snyder

Cyberattack - Public DomainWall Street banks are getting hit by cyber attacks every single minute of every single day.  It is a massive onslaught that is not highly publicized because the bankers do not want to alarm the public.  But as you will see below, one big Wall Street bank is spending 250 million dollars a year just by themselves to combat this growing problem.  The truth is that our financial system is not nearly as stable as most Americans think that it is.  We have become more dependent on technology than ever before, and that comes with a potentially huge downside.  An electromagnetic pulse weapon or an incredibly massive cyberattack could conceivably take down part or all of our banking system at any time.

This week, the mainstream news is reporting on an attack on our major banks that was so massive that the FBI and the Secret Service have decided to get involved.  The following is how Forbes described what is going on…

The FBI and the Secret Service are investigating a huge wave of cyber attacks on Wall Street banks, reportedly including JP Morgan Chase, that took place in recent weeks.

The attacks may have involved the theft of multiple gigabytes of sensitive data, according to reports. Joshua Campbell, supervisory special agent at the FBI, tells Forbes: “We are working with the United States Secret Service to determine the scope of recently reported cyber attacks against several American financial institutions.”

When most people think of “cyber attacks”, they think of a handful of hackers working out of lonely apartments or the basements of their parents.  But that is not primarily what we are dealing with anymore.  Today, big banks are dealing with cyberattackers that are extremely organized and that are incredibly sophisticated.

The threat grows with each passing day, and that is why JPMorgan Chase says that “not every battle will be won” even though it is spending 250 million dollars a year in a relentless fight against cyberattacks…

JPMorgan Chase this year will spend $250 million and dedicate 1,000 people to protecting itself from cybercrime — and it still might not be completely successful, CEO Jamie Dimon warned in April.

Cyberattacks are growing every day in strength and velocity across the globe. It is going to be continual and likely never-ending battle to stay ahead of it — and, unfortunately, not every battle will be won,” Dimon said in his annual letter to shareholders.

Other big Wall Street banks have a similar perspective.  Just consider the following two quotes from a recent USA Today article

Bank of America: “Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future.”

Citigroup: “Citi has been subject to intentional cyber incidents from external sources, including (i) denial of service attacks, which attempted to interrupt service to clients and customers; (ii) data breaches, which aimed to obtain unauthorized access to customer account data; and (iii) malicious software attacks on client systems, which attempted to allow unauthorized entrance to Citi’s systems under the guise of a client and the extraction of client data. For example, in 2013 Citi and other U.S. financial institutions experienced distributed denial of service attacks which were intended to disrupt consumer online banking services. …

“… because the methods used to cause cyber attacks change frequently or, in some cases, are not recognized until launched, Citi may be unable to implement effective preventive measures or proactively address these methods.”

I don’t know about you, but those quotes do not exactly fill me with confidence.

Another potential threat that banking executives lose sleep over is the threat of electromagnetic pulse weapons.  The technology of these weapons has advanced so much that they can fit inside a briefcase now.  Just consider the following excerpt from an article that was posted on an engineering website entitled “Electromagnetic Warfare Is Here“…

The problem is growing because the technology available to attackers has improved even as the technology being attacked has become more vulnerable. Our infrastructure increasingly depends on closely integrated, high-speed electronic systems operating at low internal voltages. That means they can be laid low by short, sharp pulses high in voltage but low in energy—output that can now be generated by a machine the size of a suitcase, batteries included.

Electromagnetic (EM) attacks are not only possible—they are happening. One may be under way as you read this. Even so, you would probably never hear of it: These stories are typically hushed up, for the sake of security or the victims’ reputation.

That same article described how an attack might possibly happen…

An attack might be staged as follows. A larger electromagnetic weapon could be hidden in a small van with side panels made of fiberglass, which is transparent to EM radiation. If the van is parked about 5 to 10 meters away from the target, the EM fields propagating to the wall of the building can be very high. If, as is usually the case, the walls are mere masonry, without metal shielding, the fields will attenuate only slightly. You can tell just how well shielded a building is by a simple test: If your cellphone works well when you’re inside, then you are probably wide open to attack.

And with electromagnetic pulse weapons, terrorists or cyberattackers can try again and again until they finally get it right

And, unlike other means of attack, EM weapons can be used without much risk. A terrorist gang can be caught at the gates, and a hacker may raise alarms while attempting to slip through the firewalls, but an EM attacker can try and try again, and no one will notice until computer systems begin to fail (and even then the victims may still not know why).

Never before have our financial institutions faced potential threats on this scale.

According to the Telegraph, our banks are under assault from cyberattacks “every minute of every day”, and these attacks are continually growing in size and scope…

Every minute, of every hour, of every day, a major financial institution is under attack.

Threats range from teenagers in their bedrooms engaging in adolescent “hacktivism”, to sophisticated criminal gangs and state-sponsored terrorists attempting everything from extortion to industrial espionage. Though the details of these crimes remain scant, cyber security experts are clear that behind-the-scenes online attacks have already had far reaching consequences for banks and the financial markets.

In the end, it is probably only a matter of time until we experience a technological 9/11.

When that day arrives, will your money be safe?

The Economic Collapse

DOT Proposes Mandating Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed

CNSNews
By Terence P. Jeffrey

US Department of Transportation V2V image

(U.S. Department of Transportation image)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, published last week an “advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” on “vehicle-to-vehicle communications.”

What NHTSA is proposing could begin a transformation in the American transportation system that makes our lives better and freer — or gives government more power over where we go and when.

In announcing its proposed rulemaking, NHTSA is stressing its intention to protect the “privacy” of American drivers.

“This document initiates rulemaking that would propose to create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS No. 150, to require vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability for light vehicles,” says NHTSA’s dryly-worded notice.

What do vehicle-to-vehicle communications entail?

NHTSA has crafted a nice phrase to describe the information cars would broadcast. It is the “Basic Safety Message.”

“An integrated V2V system is connected to proprietary data busses and can provide highly accurate information using in-vehicle information to generate the Basic Safety Message,” says NHTSA’s technical report on “Readiness of V2V for Application.”

“The integrated system both broadcasts and receives BSMs,” says the report. “In addition, it can process the content of received messages to provide advisories and/or warnings to the driver of the vehicle in which it is installed.”

The “Basic Safety Message” will be broadcast by the vehicle’s dedicated short-range communications system. According to NHTSA, this system will need to transmit certain specific information.

“For example,” says the technical report, “when a DSRC unit sends out a BSM, the BSM needs to: Contain the relevant elements and describe them accurately (e.g., vehicle speed; GPS position; vehicle heading; DSRC message ID, etc.).”

What NHTSA envisions mandating will not control people’s cars but create a uniform communication system built into all vehicles that will give automobile manufacturers the opportunity to equip their products with warning systems that alert drivers to potential accidents — such as one that might be caused by cross traffic at a blind intersection.

“NHTSA currently does not plan to propose to require specific V2V-based safety applications,” says the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. “Rather, we plan to propose to require that new vehicles be equipped with DSRC devices, which will enable a variety of applications that may provide various safety-critical warnings to drivers.”

But NHTSA does not envision that the use of this type of technology will stop there.

The agency has published a “Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles.” This statement describes V2V as part of a “continuum” leading to fully automated vehicles.

“Accordingly, three distinct but related streams of technological change and development are occurring simultaneously: (1) in-vehicle crash avoidance systems that provide warnings and/or limited automated control of safety functions; (2) V2V communications that support various crash avoidance applications; and (3) self-driving vehicles,” said NHTSA’s statement of policy.

“NHTSA finds that it is helpful to think of these emerging technologies as part of a continuum of vehicle control automation,” said the policy statement. “The continuum, discussed below, runs from vehicles with no active control systems all the way to full automation and self-driving.

“While the agency is conducting research along the entire automation continuum, our emphasis initially is on determining whether those crash avoidance and mitigation technologies that are currently available (or soon to be available) are not only safe, but effective,” said the statement. “However, because these same technologies are the building blocks for what may one day lead to a driverless vehicle, we have also begun research focused on safety principles that may apply to even higher levels of automation, such as driver behavior in the context of highly automated vehicle safety systems.”

In its technical report on V2V, published last week, NHTSA said: “At the outset, readers should understand some very important points about the V2V system as currently contemplated by NHTSA. The system will not collect or store any data identifying individuals or individual vehicles, nor will it enable the government to do so.”

“There is no data in the safety messages exchanged by vehicles or collected by the V2V system that could be used by law enforcement or private entities to personally identify a speeding or erratic driver,” the report said. “The system — operated by private entities — will not enable tracking through space and time of vehicles linked to specific owners or drivers.”

“Our research to date suggests that drivers may be concerned about the possibility that the government or a private entity could use V2V communications to track their daily activities and whereabouts,” said the report. “However, as designed, NHTSA is confident that the V2V system both achieves the agency’s safety goals and protects consumer privacy appropriately.”

Like any other instrument, the new automobile technology the federal government is now planning to mandate can be used for good or ill. Certainly, automated automobile warning systems based on accurate data broadcast by other people’s cars and roadway infrastructure can save lives.

But as vehicles become fully automated, as they surely will, and the people in them no longer have absolute control over the vehicle’s movements, a key question will be: Who does?

CNSNews

Propaganda Alert: Without National ID card, you may be banned from boarding airplanes in 2016

InfoWars
by RON PAUL FORUMS

Serious push for a national ID card

national id card

There is a serious push for a national ID card right now. It is an issue that I think more folks should pay attention to. I know it’s hard with all the mud they are slinging right now, but read this propaganda piece to get Massachusetts residents to buy into a national ID card.

Susan Podziba couldn’t enter a federal building near Washington this month because her driver’s license revealed an unacceptable home state: Massachusetts.

Bay State residents can no longer use their driver’s licenses to get inside some government agencies because the state is one of nine that have not signed on to a federal law called REAL ID. If nothing changes, they will even lose the ability to display their licenses to board a plane.

The REAL ID measure presses states to verify citizenship and update security standards when they issue licenses. Congress intended the act to prevent terrorists who arrive in the country illegally from boarding planes. But officials in Massachusetts and elsewhere have balked at a program they claim costs millions, raises privacy concerns, and infringes on state’s rights.

States face no direct penalty other than the frustration of their citizens.

Some restrictions — such as the one that kept Podziba, a public policy mediator from Brookline, out of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — began in late July.

Unless the state decides to participate, Massachusetts residents without other identification will find themselves banned from White House tours next year and commercial airplanes as soon as 2016.

InfoWars

U.S., Brazil Nearing Approval of Genetically Engineered Trees

IPS News
By Carey L. Biron

The U.S. and Brazilian governments are moving into the final stages of weighing approval for the commercialisation of genetically engineered eucalyptus trees, moves that would mark the first such permits anywhere in the world.

The Brazilian government is slated to start taking public comments on such a proposal during the first week of September. Similarly, U.S. regulators have been working on an environmental impact assessment since early last year, a highly anticipated draft of which is expected to be released any day.

Technician Christine Berry checks on futuristic peach and apple “orchards”. Each dish holds tiny experimental trees grown from lab-cultured cells to which researchers have given new genes. Credit: USDA Agricultural Research Service

Technician Christine Berry checks on futuristic peach and apple “orchards”. Each dish holds tiny experimental trees grown from lab-cultured cells to which researchers have given new genes. Credit: USDA Agricultural Research Service

Despite industry claims to the contrary, critics warn that the use of genetically engineered (GE) trees would increase deforestation. The approvals could also spark off a new era of such products, which wouldn’t be confined solely to these countries.

“If Brazil and the United States get permission to commercialise these trees, there is nothing to say that they wouldn’t just export these products to other countries to grow,” Anne Petermann, the executive director of the Global Justice Ecology Project (GJEP) and the coordinator of the Campaign to Stop GE Trees, a network that Wednesday announced a new global initiative, told IPS.

“These GE trees would grow faster and be more economically valuable, so it’s easy to see how current conventional plantations would be converted to GE plantations – in many parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Further, both Europe and the U.S. are currently looking at other genetically engineered trees that bring with them a whole additional range of potential impacts.”

While the United States has thus far approved the use of two genetically modified fruit trees, the eucalyptus is the first GE forest tree to near release. Similar policy discussions are currently taking place in the European Union, Australia and elsewhere, while China has already approved and is using multiple GE trees.

Read More

UN Internet Summit: Communists, Socialists, Globalists in Charge of Cyberspace?

internet control

The New American
by William F. Jasper

The United Nations will soon be convening the ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a gathering that is bound to have a profound impact on freedom throughout the world. A profoundly negative impact, that is, unless the U.S. Congress is activated to stop the Obama administration’s moves to support the UN’s designs for “global governance” over cyberspace.

Despite proclamations of commitment to transparency, openness, inclusivity, privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression, the IGF is stacked from top to bottom with communists, socialists, and globalists who represent the antithesis of those commitments. That is hardly surprising, since that is standard procedure for events sponsored by the UN, which is itself stacked from top to bottom with communists, socialists, and globalists who represent the antithesis of those commitments.

The Internet Governance Forum will take place September 2-5 in Istanbul, hosted by the government of Turkey, which, according to the liberal-left Freedom House, is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists” and is infamous for censoring the Internet. Apropos of this setting, the person overseeing the Istanbul meeting is Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the Istanbul confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

Hongbo will be joined in Istanbul by fellow CPC comrades, who will be attending as “official participants” as well as members of the Internet Government Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). China’s representation includes: Professor Liang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Lee Xiaodong, CEO of CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center, an agency of China’s Ministry of Information); Chen Hongbing, China’s permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva, Switzerland. These are the folks who have helped build and maintain China’s shameful “Great Firewall” that the Communist regime uses to spy on, censor, restrict, and police Internet usage.

Then there is the High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, which has had a huge hand in forming the agenda for the IGF. Among its members is Liu Qingfeng, director of the National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China.

Among those representing Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin at the IGF/Istanbul is Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s State Duma, where he is deputy chairperson of the Committee on Physical Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. He is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio unabashedly admits (or perhaps boasts) that Schlegel was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth. A recent article in the International Business Times, entitled “Censorship, Social Media Crackdown Make It Easy For Putin To Stay Popular,” provides disquieting reports (as if more were needed) concerning the sorry plight of Internet freedom under Putin’s regime. Schlegel is a leader among the Kremlin’s agents who will be pushing for imposing Putin’s model of cyberspace control on the entire Internet.

Socialist International: Elephant Under the Doily

The danger of the Internet becoming an Orwellian tool of oppression does not, however, emanate only from the schemes of Moscow, Beijing, and the other more obvious centers of totalitarian thought and practice. One of the most ominous signals that the Internet Governance Forum is tilted heavily against freedom is the dominance of the process by leaders of the Socialist International, which traces its lineage to the First International founded by Karl Marx. The Socialist International is a massive, globe-straddling organization of 168 political parties and organizations from all continents, including 60 member parties that currently are running national governments. Its members are completely at home inside the United Nations and are comfortable collaborating with representatives of communist regimes. Speakers at Socialist International confabs address each other as “comrade,” and the Socialist International I still maintains the old Soviet organizational structure, governed at the top by a “Presidium.”

Prominent Socialist International members have dominated many of the UN’s agencies, departments, commissions, and conferences for decades. Yet, there is virtually no coverage in the mainstream media of this organization and the tremendous power it wields. Currently, former Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson serves as deputy secretary-general at the UN, second only to Ban Ki-moon in the organization’s hierarchy. Eliasson is a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which is a member party of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International.

Estonian President Toomas Ilves is chairman of the aforementioned High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms. His Estonian Social Democratic Party is a member party of the Socialist International, and when Ilves served as a Member of the European Parliament, he sat with the Party of European Socialists group. Also on the Panel is Thorbjorn Jagland, former Norwegian prime minister and leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, a Socialist International member party.

Perhaps the most significant person in the Socialist International orbit regarding “global governance” of the Internet is High-Level Panel member Nitin Desai. A former UN under-secretary-general and former secretary-general of the UN’s World Summit for Sustainable Development, he has been in the forefront of the globalist effort to place the Internet under “international” control. Desai, who was appointed in 2004 by the UN secretary-general to chair the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), has been an active participant in many Socialist International activities. During the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit on sustainable development, Desai penned an op-ed attacking the United States for failing to jump on board the UN’s global warming bandwagon. “The American way of life — and, for that matter, the way of life everywhere — has to be up for negotiation,” opined Desai. “This is because climate change is the mother of all externalities — global, long-term and potentially catastrophic in its impact.”

The dangers posed by the likes of Nitin Desai, Wu Hongbo, Toomas Ilves, and the rest of the Communist/Socialist UN claque at the Istanbul conference are multiplied several fold by the organized globalists of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who are also pushing for similar “global governance” goals, as we have reported in a recent article entitled, “UN Grabs for the Internet: CFR, Chatham House Lead Toward “Global Governance.”

The New American

The VMT Tax: Big Brother Will Be Watching You Drive

travel

The New American
by Jack Kenny

For years, even decades, the federal government has been urging motorists to drive fuel-efficient vehicles. In President Obama’s first term, there was even a “Cash for Clunkers” program, offering drivers a financial reward if they traded in an old car for a more fuel-efficient new vehicle. And apparently Americans have done too good a job of following that government policy. Greater fuel efficiency means minimal or less frequent purchases at the gas pump. Some motorists have switched to hybrid or electric cars, which enables them to avoid the gas pumps altogether. All of which results in lower revenue from federal and state gas taxes, which means less money to build and repair roads and bridges and fund myriad mass transit programs. So policymakers are looking at taxing not the gas you buy, but the miles you travel.

A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax might not reduce air pollution or the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, the main reasons given for government’s campaign to get motorists into more fuel-efficient vehicles. But it could raise more revenue and even be useful for traffic control since it could tax motorists for driving into already congested areas. But chances are drivers won’t like being penalized for having long commutes to work or going extra miles on vacation trips any more than they would like paying more in taxes at the gas pumps. And at least some of us might resent the invasion of privacy involved in having the government track all our trips, short and long, to total up our mileage bill. As described on the federal technology news site, Nextgov.com:

It has long been a nightmare scenario for privacy advocates: Every time you get in your car, a computer relays your location and tracks your trip from start to finish. It can track how far you go, where you drive, how long the trip is, and even how much traffic you encounter.

For many drivers it is already a reality, as motorists take part in ride-sharing programs such as Zipcar or Car2Go, though both services record cars and drivers. E-Z passes enable drivers to zip through tolls without the delay and inconvenience of stopping to pay, but the system also creates electronic records of everyone’s trips on toll roads. But to have a Global Positioning System or some such device in every car to track each motorist’s comings and goings has overtones of an Orwellian “Big Brother” government, watching you every move and knowing where you are at all times. When then-Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood proposed such a system in early 2009, NextGov.com recalled, the Obama administration quickly disowned it, saying it was off the table. A proposal to research a VMT system was left out of the 2012 transportation reauthorization bill. But some transportation experts argue that Americans have already surrendered so much privacy for the conveniences of modern technology that the intrusive watchfulness of a VMT system should hardly bother us. 

“Logic has not really entered into that discussion,” said Joshua Schank, president of the Eno Center for Transportation. “People have had cell phones and private cell companies knowing where they travel for years, but somehow that doesn’t give them any more comfort if the federal government is going to track their driving.”

Ride-sharing companies track trips for locations, speed, and travel times, but have policies aimed at offering motorists some assurance of privacy protection. Zipcar says it does “not actively track or monitor vehicle location, and we do not store historical GPS data regarding vehicle location.” Uber, the rideshare and taxi service, uses GPS and geolocation through its mobile app to see where users and drivers are, but says the data is not shared with third parties and is used only for purposes such as customizing services, promotions, and data analytics.

“There’s really a lot less privacy with those systems because they know at least where you are picked up and dropped off and someone’s keeping track of that,” said Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “I have no reason to doubt that these companies are trustworthy and it’s possible that as people become more comfortable with that, they’ll see that there are less privacy concerns.”

“I don’t think that means we should be any less concerned about the government doing something like this,” said Gautum Hans, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology. He told Nextgov.com that people may be more comfortable with a private company using location tracking for business or research use, but “as we like to say, a private company can’t put you in jail.” “Research is understood by individuals. You can understand why a ride-sharing app would want to do research as long as it’s aggregated and takes steps to protect your privacy,” he said. “With the government, there are reasons you would be concerned, whether it’s the First Amendment and the freedom of association or how the information is kept and how.”

A federal pilot program is already underway in Oregon, offering 5,000 volunteers a variety of options, including a smartphone app, self-bought GPS systems, or even a flat fee that would require no tracking at all. But if millions of motorists have switched to smaller more fuel efficient cars to escape rising prices at the gas pump, would millions more not curtail needless trips to reduce their tax burden under a VMT system? What will that do to vacation trips?

Stay tuned for opposition from the travel and tourist industry. 

The New American

By 2020 Only Cars That Speak to Each Other Will Be Allowed on the Road

Occupy Corporatism
by Susanne Posel

Orig.src.Susanne.Posel.Daily.News- cars.communicate.department.transportation.2020_occupycorporatism

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Department of Transportation (DoT) will be changing rules based on a “comprehensive research report on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications technology.”

By 2020, all cars should speak to each other with ease after all the retrofitting is completed at an estimated cost of $341 to $350 per car.

Using V2V technology is expected to reduce the number of accidents involving:

• Stop lights
• Blind spots
• Do not pass areas
• Collisions

 

The NHTSA claims that with V2V technology “592,000 left-turn and intersection crashes a year” could be prevented, resulting in the saving of an estimated 1,083 lives annually.

Anthony Foxx, secretary for the DoT asserts: “This technology could move us from helping people survive crashes to helping them avoid crashes altogether—saving lives, saving money and even saving fuel thanks to the widespread benefits it offers.”

According to the NHTSA: “The information sent between vehicles does not identify those vehicles, but merely contains basic safety data. The system as contemplated contains several layers of security and privacy protection to ensure that vehicles can rely on messages sent from other vehicles.”

Back in February, the DoT announced a push for the development of a short-range radio system that will allow cars to “speak” to one another in an aim to prevent car crashes and other vehicle mishaps.

Referred to as dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), the device uses 3G and 4G cellular networks that are dependent on internet-based services.

Funded by the Joint Program Office (JPO), the DoT and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), this move toward tying vehicles to the internet of things is being sold to the public as a way to ensure “safer driving”.

This technology, called vehicle-to-vehicle communications (V2V) would facilitate one car to communicate with another and trigger the braking system to activate and steering to avoid collisions while warning drivers to avert the potential danger from 300 feet away.

Light-weight vehicles will be required to have wireless chips installed in order for cars to “talk” to each other as they travel down the road.

The DoT asserts that the application of V2V technology will help drivers with:

  • Blind spot warnings
  • Forward collision warnings
  • Sudden braking ahead warnings
  • Do not pass warnings
  • Intersection collision avoidance and movement assistance
  • Approaching emergency vehicle warning
  • Vehicle safety inspection
  • Transit or emergency vehicle signal priority
  • Electronic parking and toll payments
  • Commercial vehicle clearance and safety inspections
  • In-vehicle signing
  • Rollover warning
  • Traffic and travel condition data to improve traveler information and maintenance services

David Friedman, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), commented that V2V will “prevent crashes in the first place” and ensure accidents are survivable.

Occupy Corporatism