[throwaway_ab]

Focusing on privacy is a weak angle of attack in this case. The issue of privacy is solvable anyway so time spent on this argument is ultimately time wasted.

The real issue here is the issue of our liberty being violated in a substantial way.

The ability for the state to remotely kill your means of transportation, thus remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control.

You might be wondering how is this different from the current system, the government already has the power to determine who can drive.

A few things:

- The current system works solely via the legal system. The law determines who can drive, there is no technological system to force compliance, yes you can be pulled over by the cops, but this is a case by case process that can't be applied to entire swaths of the population.

- a kill switch allows the possibility that transportation is denied to entire regions, specific minorities, a government could use this power to control people in ways make the power imbalance between state and individual even more extreme.

- The kill switch is a constant threat against our freedom of movement.

- The system could be abused or hacked, exposing us in this way for more power is abhorrent.

[404mm]

Where does this reference to remote kill come from? I didn’t see it in the bill itself. It mentioned that the vehicle itself decides based on some (not clearly defined) factors but I did see anything about remote kill.

[jvanderbot]

Adding a specific clause would be self defeating. A poorly worded, overly broad clause which can be twisted to mean whatever they might want later is much better.

In this case "decide" can mean "did the local government ask nicely" or anything else.

[timnetworks]

I too, am very concerned about a 'not authorized to drive to zone 4' error for specific income brackets. However, I am concerned those same zones will be Green Zones that don't let ICE vehicles in either way. . . . Kit cars?

[otterley]

The law has never interpreted “freedom of movement” as “freedom to move using whatever means you prefer.” If it did, airlines wouldn’t be able to refuse to carry ill-behaved passengers. So far, what little law has been written has guaranteed only that you can do so on your own two feet.

[bhpm]

You’ve got that the wrong way around and your airline analogy isn’t apt.

In the first place, rights are not granted by interpretation of the law. They exist naturally unless circumscribed by it.

In the second place, airlines are private companies and have a wide mandate to deny service based on various conditions stated in their terms.

[otterley]

> rights are not granted by interpretation of the law. They exist naturally unless circumscribed by it.

The legal system in the U.S. isn't based on some Hobbesian philosophical notion of "rights," even if the Founders were inspired by it. It's based on interpretations of how our rights, enumerated in law or a Constitution or otherwise, may or may not have been violated under the circumstances of a case.

If you said what you just said to a judge in court, they'd either laugh in your face, or laugh about you with staff in chambers after you leave.

[bhpm]

> may or may not have been violated under the circumstances of a case.

And if no case is before the court? What then? Is it automatically illegal?

[otterley]

It’s unclear. Life is full of ambiguity.

[otterley]

Another example is driving licenses: driving is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, there would be no such thing as a "license" to drive, and anyone, regardless of age or ability, could drive a motor vehicle anywhere.

[Halong]

No, using public roads requires a license. The government may not tell you that you may not drive a motor vehicle on private property.

[otterley]

You can’t get very far driving only on private property. So you can’t really exercise your right to move freely via a motor vehicle if your ability is restricted to your own property (and the properties of those who grant you license to use theirs).

[scott-smith_us]

> remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control.

*Freedom of movement* doesn't require that you are able to drive your own car. It's not *new* either. Get pulled over for a DUI, and you won't be allowed to drive for a while.

[dghlsakjg]

You won’t be allowed to drive legally on public roads after you are found guilty in court.

There is a world of difference between that and not being able to operate the vehicle you own on private or public areas after a computer receives a command.

[Volundr]

> not being able to operate the vehicle you own on private or public areas after a computer receives a command.

Which is not a feature described by the bill or claimed in the above article.

[dghlsakjg]

It doesn’t really specify anything. It is very vague, and interpretation is left to the regulator.

If the AI or whatever determines that you are impaired is offloaded to the cloud, then it can send a stop command remotely, and will almost certainly be abused by malicious actors (and some governments). If it is onboard, then it is still likely going to be a closed source software or hardware module that can send a stop command to the car.

In any case it creates a mechanism within cars for disabling it outside the control of the owner or operator

[Volundr]

> a kill switch allows the possibility that transportation is denied to entire regions, specific minorities

You and I read about very different things. In the bill I read, the vehicle was making the decision locally, not a government power, remotely.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> the vehicle was making the decision locally

Based on what? Are you asserting that data determining the decision, isn't in any way guided by law or regulation?

[Volundr]

> Are you asserting that data determining the decision, isn't in any way guided by law or regulation?

Of course not. Airbags and when they deploy are also guided by law and regulation. That doesn't mean that the government can suddenly deploy all the airbags in Arizona like the parent is claiming this mechanism could be used for.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Airbags ... are also guided by law and regulation.

This clarifies that 'local decision' is actually a 'government decision' - and that local refers to it's application. That helps.

With some tweaking tho, I think we can improve on that comparison. In order to accommodate the inevitable mission creep, we'll want nextgen airbags systems to accept updated programming - to always be ready for new mandates.

Airbags could then deploy whenever officer determines the public is at risk. And then whenever an officer fears for their safety. And then whenever the State fears for it's safety.

With these changes I absolutely see the similarities.

[Volundr]

> (and juuuust in case you're going to do the Law Doesn't Say thing again about accepting programming, it doesn't need to. it's already a thing.)

In other words your arguing against a hypothetical that only exists in your own mind, and by your own admission, software updates are already and thing and this law already wouldn't be required to issue a software update that disables your car, and this doesn't actually bring us any closer to that.

So already a moot point I guess?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> In other words your arguing against a hypothetical that only exists in your own mind,

Considering generations of legislative compulsions to control unliked behavior

that is increasingly enabled by Gov's history + means + ever-ratcheting desire for surveillance of every possible person

and then allowing those astoundingly plain realities to coalesce into the world's least unlikely outcome

[pause]

this process of obviousness isn't actually restricted to just my head - as is evidenced by post after post after post on the very same page you're posting to.

[cabalamat]

> The system could be abused or hacked

E.g. by a hostile foreign power.

[AnAaaaardvark]

Or even a cop that really dislikes another cop. This is pandoras box.

[scott-smith_us]

I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime.

In the foreign invasion (or US govt goes full fascist) case, people can remove these devices.

Meanwhile many if not most high-speed chases won't happen any more, because the person being chased didn't plan ahead.

There will still be getaway cars, etc. where the device was removed. That's no different to what we have now, and it'll be an extra violation to charge them with when they're caught.

Since driving is, and has always been a privilege and not a right, I don't see a problem with having a remote kill switch that cops can use in specific cases.

[erkt]

Literally all rights are privileges and protections granted by the government.

It’s funny to read someone write “US goes full fascist” in a negative light while actively arguing to take away freedoms from law abiding Americans.

It’s already illegal to drink and drive. Now you want it to be illegal to modify vehicles?

Can I lobby to shut down vehicles who fail to use their turn signals?

I buy a car and remove the device immediately: how is the law enforced? Do cops check our equipment every time we get pulled over? Do we have to reinstall it for every smog check?

Who do I get to sue when I can’t bring my dad to the hospital because he had a heart attack after I had a glass of wine.

There’s a little risk in life, please learn to coexist with it and stop trying to force people to jump through hoops so you can feel a little safer.

[ceejayoz]

> It’s already illegal to drink and drive. Now you want it to be illegal to modify vehicles?

I mean, it's hardly without precedent. You can't remove your license plate, you can't remove the seatbelts, you can't remove the muffler, you can't remove the catalytic converter, you can't remove the side or rear view mirrors. My state requires an annual inspection to confirm these things are all in place and working.

> Who do I get to sue when I can’t bring my dad to the hospital because he had a heart attack after I had a glass of wine.

General advice is that if it warrants drunk driving, it warrants a 911 call for an ambulance.

[erkt]

A glass of wine isn’t drunk driving. The concern is allowing a computer to make what could amount to life a death decisions.

I’m sure you can imagine that there are lots of people who live in different situations than you. Waiting for an ambulance might take several hours or may simply not show up. How about that it may cost several thousand dollars?

What happens when your fancy kill switch simply malfunctions and kills a car in a life and death location like a desert in the summer.

Please try to account for more than a suburban environment when passing national laws.

This is the kind of nanny law that pushes people to plug their nose and vote for the other guy.

Edit: then to than

[ceejayoz]

> A glass of wine isn’t drunk driving.

Then it's unlikely your car will count it as such.

> The concern is allowing a computer to make what could amount to life a death decisions.

Your car does this continually. Should it fire the airbags? Tension the seatbelts? Engage the antilock brakes? Oops, one wheel is slipping, adjust power to the others.

> What happens when your fancy kill switch simply malfunctions and kills a car in a life and death location like a desert in the summer.

The same thing that happens if the starter or fuel pump or battery fails.

> This is the kind of nanny law that pushes people to plug their nose and vote for the other guy.

That's the evergreen threat of the folks who always find a reason to vote for the other guy anyways.

[JumpCrisscross]

> You can't remove your license plate, you can't remove the seatbelts, you can't remove the muffler, you can't remove the catalytic converter, you can't remove the side or rear view mirrors

Of course you can. You just can’t drive it on public roads. Plenty of vehicles aren’t street legal.

[renewiltord]

This is a problem with many laws. For instance, we don’t allow people to commit mass shootings. But what if Zondar the Planet Eater gives me an ultimatum and only ten minutes to execute? “Kill all these children or I will eat the planet”. Straightforward choice to kill the kids. Then who do I sue? We should think about the unintended consequences of these things. After all, who wouldn’t want to make that deal with Zondar. He eats planets! Next they’ll make it illegal to save the planet!

[outime]

>I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime.

>In the foreign invasion (or US govt goes full fascist) case, people can remove these devices.

I don't follow this logic. Would it stop being a crime then? If anything, it'd start being more severely punished.

[hakfoo]

If the fear is high-speed chases, maybe we need to also be considering when and how the police choose to give chase.

Are the criminals being pursued "active threats to life and limb?"-- someone in the middle of a spree killing deciding "I've cleaned out this area, gotta move to the next block?" Or are we seeing aggressive reaction to "self-contained" crimes-- drugs, robbery, a single assault, even kidnapping? Is the public actually made safer by creating a 20km long hazard zone for bystanders, rather than having a more deliberate monitoring and deployment process that waits for the target to stop before going for the capture?

It smells like the same sort of overkill obsession that leads to "one American traffic stop" using more bullets than "the entire police force of Germany in a year."

On the other hand, the song lyrics will be sort of funnier. Instead of "We put the sugar in the tank of the Sherrif's car", it will be "we spoofed the Sherrif's VIN and bricked his ignition".

[uconnectlol]

> I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime.

no. they should not be installed at all. while were on this topic vehicles have WAY too much insecure crapware in them already, to the point where they can already be remotely controlled by hackers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

> In July 2015, IT security researchers announced a severe security flaw assumed to affect every Chrysler vehicle with Uconnect produced from late 2013 to early 2015.[112] It allows hackers to gain access to the car over the Internet, and in the case of a Jeep Cherokee was demonstrated to enable an attacker to take control not just of the radio, A/C, and windshield wipers, but also of the car's steering, brakes and transmission.[112] Chrysler published a patch that car owners can download and install via a USB stick, or have a car dealer install for them.[112]

i don't know what people don't get, no matter how many times it happens it will not change: some company making a thing that communicates will always fuck it up beyond belief. they simply do not give a fuck about implementing it securely. a vehicle having software automatically means it will have severe vulnerabilities implemented in some stupid web scripting language by a kid who just arrived out of a shoddy college. did you miss the news or are you just coping by thinking "surely the 738th company to do IoT crap will do it right this time"

> Since driving is, and has always been a privilege and not a right, I don't see a problem with having a remote kill switch that cops can use in specific cases.

because you're just applying robotic reasoning to try and sound logically consistent while only knowing and focusing one one small part of law

[marcosdumay]

> Meanwhile many if not most high-speed chases won't happen any more

High-speed chases don't happen anymore, unless you are talking about helicopter chases in uncontrolled airpsace. There has been no reason to chase a car for at least half a century.

That is, unless you have adrenaline-hungry cops that care more about having fun than actively hurting people. Car chases only happen if you don't criminally persecute cops for them.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Yes, every police department has a helicopter ready to chase a suspect at a moment's notice.

[hunter2_]

YouTube has videos of recent high speed chases in the US.

[wenebego]

Check out the end of the comment you're replying to

[ClumsyPilot]

> a new dystopian level of government control.

I always knew that USA opposed USSR because it's dystopia. I didn't know that USA wanted to have a monopoly on dystopias.

but seriously, if you read cyberpunk dystopias of the 80's, it pppears some people are treating them as a manual

[undersuit]

They've already killed you means of transport; you're not complaining about walking.

[jorvi]

Yup, my instant reaction was “kill switches are a violation of autonomy, not of privacy”.

[Pet_Ant]

I think that is a choice because privacy is more established in constitutional law than autonomy. Note that privacy was the mechanism for Wade v Roe.

[salawat]

And look at how Wade v Roe turned out. And Privacy isn't explicitly mentioned once in the Constitution, except indirectly via the 10th, meaning that at the end of the day, without the will to fight and prevent encroachment, it's as fair game as anything else.

[anonymouskimmer]

> And Privacy isn't explicitly mentioned once in the Constitution

That's because the particular definition we are using for "privacy" wouldn't be attached to the word "privacy" for another 25 years.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/privacy

> Meaning "state of freedom from intrusion or interference" is from 1814.

So instead they used phrases such as "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in the 4th amendment for the same general meaning.

Edit to make the specific point explicit: A right to "privacy" does exist in the US Constitution, however this right can be broached with a warrant and a "reasonable" search and seizure. The right, in and of itself, does not protect against any particular laws, including laws against abortion.

[salawat]

Just responding to say thank you, because I think you articulated the point I was trying to make better than I could.

[whywhywhywhy]

The concept of freedom of movement was already thrown out during covid, as we learnt with the patriot act if you capitulate "Ok, just this one time because it's a special circumstance" then you lose that freedom forever.

[beej71]

Freedom of movement was restricted multiple times in the last 200 years; COVID was hardly the first.

I'm not arguing that this case is ok, though.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Where was freedom of movement restricted in the United States? I heard of restrictions in other countries, but not here. I spent all of peak COVID in North Dakota and Minnesota, so I understand things were likely different in other places, but I don't remember hearing about any sort of travel bans within the country.

[whywhywhywhy]

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/order-safe-travel.html#:~:tex....

[zoklet-enjoyer]

"noncitizen nonimmigrant air passengers"

[whywhywhywhy]

Oh ok that time they restricted movement didn't count, yeah ok.

The gaslighting about something that was barely 3 years ago that we all saw happen is getting wild.

[JumpCrisscross]

There were technically curfews in big cities. But they were never enforced, to my knowledge.

[ryandrake]

I’d guess at most a single digit number of people faced any enforcement consequences of violating stay-at-home in all of the USA. It was purely government performance art to say they were Doing Something.

[stratigos]

> The ability for the state to remotely kill your means of transportation, thus remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control.

Indeed, this is the reason they are forcing EVs onto us.

[Robotbeat]

There’s nothing fundamentally about EVs that make them more conducive to government control. In fact, EVs can be charged from any AC power source, and it’s trivial to make electric yourself these days but nearly impossible to make gasoline in your backyard.