4 ms·

It's a real shame that cities didn't do this aggressively as a condition of licensing the TNCs; they could've demanded detailed speed and location data, could'v

by MBlume 7y ago

It's a real shame that cities didn't do this aggressively as a condition of licensing the TNCs; they could've demanded detailed speed and location data, could've put systems in place to reliably and consistently fine the TNCs every time a driver went over the speed limit or stopped in a bike lane. Wasted opportunity.

closeparen 7y ago
This suggests an interesting tactic to build public support for mass surveillance. Don't do it it secret, but also don't talk about monitoring individual behavior. Instead, make it about regulating the service provider. "We need all your GMail so we can fine Google for failed deliveries and spam" is a much better story than "We need all your GMail to make sure you're not a terrorist" but of course the effect is the same.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Oh, I made a similar comment. I absolutely agree. I think this is a sound strategy and the outcome is pretty desirable. It will make us safer and more peaceful at the risk of being exploitable by governments. Fortunately, many people who advocate for privacy are also big on regulation and standards, so your backdoor may sell well in that demographic.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  They are already heavily using it. See the telecom retroactive immunities, the lawful intercept requirements, and their persistent attempts to draft corporations to break Cryptography. Despite the US being the biggest beneficiary of Cryptography. They are all lazy stupid bastards.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Mass surveillance is here already. This is about regulation and eventually consumption tax for cars.
scarejunba 7y ago
Well, let's be honest: there's no reason to limit that to TNCs. If you speed you're just as bad as a TNC driver speeding and you occupy just as much room in a bike lane as a TNC driver. The only real solution is complete surveillance. And I think we will have it in my lifetime. It should be pretty easy to convince people of it. - "It will fight crime" - "It's to ensure that cars won't occupy bike lanes" - "We want to ensure that big corporations do not violate the law" - "The government is doing this to protect you, while the corporations are doing it to exploit you. At least we're helping" - "At LADOT, our job is to move people and goods as quickly and safely as possible, but we can only do that if we have a complete picture of what’s on our streets and where"
- keenmaster 7y ago
  Self-driving cars can be made to automatically follow the law. In theory, they should also be able to go much faster than human drivers with fewer accidents. I’m with you on complete surveillance. It is bad idea.
- dublinben 7y ago
  "Complete surveillance" isn't necessary to implement technical measures such as speed limiters, as Europe is introducing in the next few years. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-car...
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    I think with the sufficient motivation I could create a desire to force surveillance in. It isn't about technology. It's about people. Our views are like water. You create the right channels and you can create a rushing torrent in one direction. Do something else and you have a placid lake. For instance, I could mention the idea that people can hack their systems and then you get: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21988606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21988606 > This doesn't address the fundamental issue: a car is being controlled by an untested and unregulated system on public roads. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21986685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21986685 > Does this imply they're encouraging anyone to write buggy code and drive their cars with it?!? It's easy. You just make it about the guys who could be running 'untested', 'unregulated' code on their cars so you need a hardware security module that reports on the car constantly and then you track them by their 5G tower. Admittedly if we quickly get non-tracking-based solutions out there it immunizes us to these fears.

by MBlume 7y ago

closeparen 7y ago

This suggests an interesting tactic to build public support for mass surveillance. Don't do it it secret, but also don't talk about monitoring individual behavior. Instead, make it about regulating the service provider. "We need all your GMail so we can fine Google for failed deliveries and spam" is a much better story than "We need all your GMail to make sure you're not a terrorist" but of course the effect is the same.

scarejunba 7y ago
Oh, I made a similar comment. I absolutely agree. I think this is a sound strategy and the outcome is pretty desirable. It will make us safer and more peaceful at the risk of being exploitable by governments. Fortunately, many people who advocate for privacy are also big on regulation and standards, so your backdoor may sell well in that demographic.
Nasrudith 7y ago
They are already heavily using it. See the telecom retroactive immunities, the lawful intercept requirements, and their persistent attempts to draft corporations to break Cryptography. Despite the US being the biggest beneficiary of Cryptography. They are all lazy stupid bastards.
Spooky23 7y ago
Mass surveillance is here already. This is about regulation and eventually consumption tax for cars.

scarejunba 7y ago

Well, let's be honest: there's no reason to limit that to TNCs. If you speed you're just as bad as a TNC driver speeding and you occupy just as much room in a bike lane as a TNC driver. The only real solution is complete surveillance. And I think we will have it in my lifetime. It should be pretty easy to convince people of it. - "It will fight crime" - "It's to ensure that cars won't occupy bike lanes" - "We want to ensure that big corporations do not violate the law" - "The government is doing this to protect you, while the corporations are doing it to exploit you. At least we're helping" - "At LADOT, our job is to move people and goods as quickly and safely as possible, but we can only do that if we have a complete picture of what’s on our streets and where"

keenmaster 7y ago
Self-driving cars can be made to automatically follow the law. In theory, they should also be able to go much faster than human drivers with fewer accidents. I’m with you on complete surveillance. It is bad idea.
dublinben 7y ago
"Complete surveillance" isn't necessary to implement technical measures such as speed limiters, as Europe is introducing in the next few years. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-car...
- scarejunba 7y ago
  I think with the sufficient motivation I could create a desire to force surveillance in. It isn't about technology. It's about people. Our views are like water. You create the right channels and you can create a rushing torrent in one direction. Do something else and you have a placid lake. For instance, I could mention the idea that people can hack their systems and then you get: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21988606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21988606 > This doesn't address the fundamental issue: a car is being controlled by an untested and unregulated system on public roads. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21986685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21986685 > Does this imply they're encouraging anyone to write buggy code and drive their cars with it?!? It's easy. You just make it about the guys who could be running 'untested', 'unregulated' code on their cars so you need a hardware security module that reports on the car constantly and then you track them by their 5G tower. Admittedly if we quickly get non-tracking-based solutions out there it immunizes us to these fears.