Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Volundr 942 days ago
> 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.
1 comments
WarOnPrivacy 942 days ago
> 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?

link
Volundr 942 days ago
> 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.

link
WarOnPrivacy 942 days ago
> 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.

link
Volundr 942 days ago
> (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?

link
WarOnPrivacy 942 days ago
> 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.

link