6 ms·

> In some of their reports, police officers also said Waymo was often unwilling to provide video of the attacks. In one case, a Waymo employee told the police t

> In some of their reports, police officers also said Waymo was often unwilling to provide video of the attacks. In one case, a Waymo employee told the police they would need a warrant to obtain video recorded by the company’s vehicles. Veering off topic a bit here, but this is a very good decision by the company. Taking a hard line here removes the subjectivity of when to violate your customer's privacy and puts the onus on the police to choose to make that violation.

sneakernets 8y ago
I'm not sure if they really care about privacy as much as they do arse-coverage. The sentence before that one: >The emergency drivers in the Waymo vans that were attacked in various cases told the Chandler police that the company preferred not to pursue prosecution of the assailants. If I didn't know any better, this statement reads as if the emergency driver doesn't exist to Waymo. One could argue that they aren't the target, but nowhere else can I think of someone attacking a vehicle because of the vehicle, and not the one "not driving" it.
- xiphias2 8y ago
  It doesn't matter why the emergency drivers attacked. It's a hubris of Google Management that they think that they should be the ones who decide whether the victim (the driver) should pursue prosecution or not, and the company should help the driver in his decision, whatever it is. It was very sad to see that the forced arbitration case was handled only for sexual offences, Google management has too much power over employees when they are assaulted.
  - sneakernets 8y ago
    I'm totally in agreement with you on that point.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Neither Google nor the driver gets to make that choice. The police decide whether to refer the incident for prosecution and the prosecutor decides whether to pursue it. Google saying they don’t want to pursue it carries only as much weight as the police and prosecutor give it.
    - masonic 8y ago
      If Google refuses to provide video and sensor data, it becomes difficult to impossible to prosecute. If they do this in some but not all cases, that lends to suspicion that the denial cases could show egregious misconduct on the part of the Waymo software (I.e. avoiding self incrimination).
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Seems like it would be pretty easy to get a warrant for the video.
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    Unclear. Is the company actually forbidding or "strongly discouraging" drivers from pressing charges, or is it just declining from pressing charges itself?
- kodablah 8y ago
  I don't really care about the reason. If their fear of case-by-case liability/PR aligns with my fear of case-by-case government data sharing it's a win for both of us.
KKKKkkkk1 8y ago
Even if you're not the victim of a crime, but just a witness, it's your civic duty to report it. I think Waymo is being a bad citizen here.
- ggreer 8y ago
  Waymo is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they hand the car's video to law enforcement without a warrant, lots of people will worry about the privacy implications and the precedent it sets. It will also strengthen the resolve of the luddites by allowing them to claim persecution. Right now, the problem is limited to a few wackos. If a multi-billion dollar company ruins the lives of some photogenic families (even if it's legally and morally justified), public sentiment could change. Waymo doesn't want publicity. That could lead to copycats and political polarization. Most people in the US don't even know about these tests, and I'm not sure they'd allow them if they did know. If an interest group (or god forbid, a political party) comes out against self-driving cars, rollout could be delayed by years. That would mean hundreds of thousands of more lives lost due to human drivers. The quieter Waymo can keep this (and the more they avoid looking like a big bad corporation), the sooner we get self-driving cars.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Maybe it's your civic duty as a person based on your ideals, but not as a company's technology lest we think the speed radar companies are bad citizens. Crime has levels, reporting has levels, and to treat both as absolute sans nuance is unrealistic.

sneakernets 8y ago

I'm not sure if they really care about privacy as much as they do arse-coverage. The sentence before that one: >The emergency drivers in the Waymo vans that were attacked in various cases told the Chandler police that the company preferred not to pursue prosecution of the assailants. If I didn't know any better, this statement reads as if the emergency driver doesn't exist to Waymo. One could argue that they aren't the target, but nowhere else can I think of someone attacking a vehicle because of the vehicle, and not the one "not driving" it.

xiphias2 8y ago
It doesn't matter why the emergency drivers attacked. It's a hubris of Google Management that they think that they should be the ones who decide whether the victim (the driver) should pursue prosecution or not, and the company should help the driver in his decision, whatever it is. It was very sad to see that the forced arbitration case was handled only for sexual offences, Google management has too much power over employees when they are assaulted.
- sneakernets 8y ago
  I'm totally in agreement with you on that point.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Neither Google nor the driver gets to make that choice. The police decide whether to refer the incident for prosecution and the prosecutor decides whether to pursue it. Google saying they don’t want to pursue it carries only as much weight as the police and prosecutor give it.
  - masonic 8y ago
    If Google refuses to provide video and sensor data, it becomes difficult to impossible to prosecute. If they do this in some but not all cases, that lends to suspicion that the denial cases could show egregious misconduct on the part of the Waymo software (I.e. avoiding self incrimination).
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Seems like it would be pretty easy to get a warrant for the video.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  Unclear. Is the company actually forbidding or "strongly discouraging" drivers from pressing charges, or is it just declining from pressing charges itself?
kodablah 8y ago
I don't really care about the reason. If their fear of case-by-case liability/PR aligns with my fear of case-by-case government data sharing it's a win for both of us.

KKKKkkkk1 8y ago

Even if you're not the victim of a crime, but just a witness, it's your civic duty to report it. I think Waymo is being a bad citizen here.

ggreer 8y ago
Waymo is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they hand the car's video to law enforcement without a warrant, lots of people will worry about the privacy implications and the precedent it sets. It will also strengthen the resolve of the luddites by allowing them to claim persecution. Right now, the problem is limited to a few wackos. If a multi-billion dollar company ruins the lives of some photogenic families (even if it's legally and morally justified), public sentiment could change. Waymo doesn't want publicity. That could lead to copycats and political polarization. Most people in the US don't even know about these tests, and I'm not sure they'd allow them if they did know. If an interest group (or god forbid, a political party) comes out against self-driving cars, rollout could be delayed by years. That would mean hundreds of thousands of more lives lost due to human drivers. The quieter Waymo can keep this (and the more they avoid looking like a big bad corporation), the sooner we get self-driving cars.
kodablah 8y ago
Maybe it's your civic duty as a person based on your ideals, but not as a company's technology lest we think the speed radar companies are bad citizens. Crime has levels, reporting has levels, and to treat both as absolute sans nuance is unrealistic.