4 ms·

"In order to receive a deployment permit, manufacturers must [... Develop] a Law Enforcement Interaction Plan that provides information to law enforcement and o

by mike_d 5y ago

"In order to receive a deployment permit, manufacturers must [... Develop] a Law Enforcement Interaction Plan that provides information to law enforcement and other first responders on how to interact with the autonomous vehicles." So they get to write the rules on how law enforcement interacts with their vehicles? Can I do that too?

bpodgursky 5y ago
Do you really think this is helpful (much less a charitable) interpretation? This is asking the manufacturers for a user manual, like how to disable auto-piloting etc.
- mindslight 5y ago
  At a time when it seems that police are unwilling to interface with regular human drivers, to the point they suggest that drivers need to preemptively place both their hands on the wheel so officers don't become spooked, it's reasonable to ask why companies get to specify deliberate procedures. As in, why isn't the attack first and ask questions later standard good enough for them too?
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > to the point they suggest that drivers need to place both their hands on the wheel so officers don't become spooked, it's reasonable to ask why companies get deliberate procedures. I don't understand. Isn't "place both hands on the wheel, show me your license", etc precisely a "deliberate procedure"? It sounds like your complaint is that police are too procedural instead of engaging on a human level, but then you complain that theyre not _more_ procedural with humans?
    - mindslight 5y ago
      I'm talking about who is setting the procedures, not simply their existence. With autonomous vehicles, they're asking how to interface with them politely. Like if they signal one to stop and it's not stopping, here is a phone number to call where someone can gracefully shut it down. As opposed to just deploying spike strips or ramming as is their default. Whereas human drivers don't get the luxury of specifying any such protocols. And rather than reform their own procedures, police are attempting to compensate by creating protocols drivers are supposed to know and follow before an officer is even at the car. As a motorist I'd love to be able to choose a protocol that police would follow when pulling me over. For example, call this phone number first rather than just walking up to me and risking yourself getting spooked and me getting killed.
      - slownews45 5y ago
        The protocols waymo and others are and will be offering will prevent passengers from trying to drive off. They will stop vehicle, unlock it and roll down the windows for the cops etc. They will also record outside and in some cases inside of vehicle. Again, I think you could write a similar protocol. Pull over, roll down windows to allow cops easy access and visibility to your person, and unlock all the doors so they can open them. Maybe do a dash cam plus interior cam to get cops the footage they need that way? Waymo also will automatically connect to a ride support operator who can do things like give permission for a vehicle search if needed. Not sure how you could copy that, maybe vehicle owners could put a sticker on their cars so regardless of what passenger wants the vehicle can be searched at any time?
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        > With autonomous vehicles, they're asking how to interface with them politely. Like if they signal one to stop and it's not stopping, here is a phone number to call where someone can gracefully shut it down. As opposed to just deploying spike strips or ramming as is their default. This is quite an extraordinary assumption. Do you have any evidence of this that I missed? My assumption was closer to something like "here's how you communicate to an SDC that it should pull over; here's the decision path it will follow when pulling over; here's how to get in touch with the co". I don't see any indication that an out-of-control car will be given free rein to rampage (in situations where a spike strip would be used on a human driver) while the PD waits on hold with the operating company. Honestly, this sounds like a paranoid fever dream.
modeless 5y ago
Information, not rules.
slownews45 5y ago
Yes - you may be able to. This involves automatically pulling over and stopping the vehicle when a cop is behind the car and flashes their lights. The vehicle will also roll down its windows so the cops can access the interior of the vehicle and have easy access to passengers. This also links in rider support automatically to communicate directly to law enforcement / rider support can also provide various commands to vehicle then. They can also open a door, which triggers a an autonomos driving cutout. They can also contact these folks directly to gain access (ie, remote unlock etc). To retrofit your vehicle so that law enforcement has this type of direct access may take some effort, but I doubt you'd have much objection - there currently is a real issue with drive offs and law enforcements ability to respond to those under vehicle chase rules. If you can set up your vehicle to override your drive-off efforts that will probably be welcomed, especially if it pulls over, stops, can unlock doors to provide LEO access to your person etc. Separately, rider support can give permission for a vehicle search as the owner of the vehicle, so you'd want to register vehicle with a service that would give consent automatically and then provide instructions on where to find registration and insurance in vehicle. Waymo I beleive does it on the visors. I'm not sure you fully grasp the implications of Law Enforcement Interaction Protocol efforts. In the future, the car may be able to drive you to a "safe" location for a car search and your arrest.
- mike_d 5y ago
  Which should be codified into law based on police requirements with an eye as to what is legal. Police procedures should not be developed by way of an agreement between the state and a private company, who is in a position to error on the side of cooperation because they need a license. It is similar to the state granting a locksmith a license to practice under the condition that law enforcement be provided with copies to every key just in case they need them. There are some serious Fourth Amendment considerations when traveling in a vehicle for hire without a driver. Is a Waymo closer to a private automobile with implied consent, or is it similar to a bus where you can deny consent to a search? Is the provider (or virtual driver) in a position to consent to a search of your property? Is the virtual assistant that opened the doors and consented to a search now in a position to be charged with transporting narcotics for distrubtion? Who's license gets dinged if the passenger has no seatbelt?

by mike_d 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago

Do you really think this is helpful (much less a charitable) interpretation? This is asking the manufacturers for a user manual, like how to disable auto-piloting etc.

mindslight 5y ago
At a time when it seems that police are unwilling to interface with regular human drivers, to the point they suggest that drivers need to preemptively place both their hands on the wheel so officers don't become spooked, it's reasonable to ask why companies get to specify deliberate procedures. As in, why isn't the attack first and ask questions later standard good enough for them too?
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > to the point they suggest that drivers need to place both their hands on the wheel so officers don't become spooked, it's reasonable to ask why companies get deliberate procedures. I don't understand. Isn't "place both hands on the wheel, show me your license", etc precisely a "deliberate procedure"? It sounds like your complaint is that police are too procedural instead of engaging on a human level, but then you complain that theyre not _more_ procedural with humans?
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I'm talking about who is setting the procedures, not simply their existence. With autonomous vehicles, they're asking how to interface with them politely. Like if they signal one to stop and it's not stopping, here is a phone number to call where someone can gracefully shut it down. As opposed to just deploying spike strips or ramming as is their default. Whereas human drivers don't get the luxury of specifying any such protocols. And rather than reform their own procedures, police are attempting to compensate by creating protocols drivers are supposed to know and follow before an officer is even at the car. As a motorist I'd love to be able to choose a protocol that police would follow when pulling me over. For example, call this phone number first rather than just walking up to me and risking yourself getting spooked and me getting killed.
    - slownews45 5y ago
      The protocols waymo and others are and will be offering will prevent passengers from trying to drive off. They will stop vehicle, unlock it and roll down the windows for the cops etc. They will also record outside and in some cases inside of vehicle. Again, I think you could write a similar protocol. Pull over, roll down windows to allow cops easy access and visibility to your person, and unlock all the doors so they can open them. Maybe do a dash cam plus interior cam to get cops the footage they need that way? Waymo also will automatically connect to a ride support operator who can do things like give permission for a vehicle search if needed. Not sure how you could copy that, maybe vehicle owners could put a sticker on their cars so regardless of what passenger wants the vehicle can be searched at any time?
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > With autonomous vehicles, they're asking how to interface with them politely. Like if they signal one to stop and it's not stopping, here is a phone number to call where someone can gracefully shut it down. As opposed to just deploying spike strips or ramming as is their default. This is quite an extraordinary assumption. Do you have any evidence of this that I missed? My assumption was closer to something like "here's how you communicate to an SDC that it should pull over; here's the decision path it will follow when pulling over; here's how to get in touch with the co". I don't see any indication that an out-of-control car will be given free rein to rampage (in situations where a spike strip would be used on a human driver) while the PD waits on hold with the operating company. Honestly, this sounds like a paranoid fever dream.

modeless 5y ago

Information, not rules.

slownews45 5y ago

Yes - you may be able to. This involves automatically pulling over and stopping the vehicle when a cop is behind the car and flashes their lights. The vehicle will also roll down its windows so the cops can access the interior of the vehicle and have easy access to passengers. This also links in rider support automatically to communicate directly to law enforcement / rider support can also provide various commands to vehicle then. They can also open a door, which triggers a an autonomos driving cutout. They can also contact these folks directly to gain access (ie, remote unlock etc). To retrofit your vehicle so that law enforcement has this type of direct access may take some effort, but I doubt you'd have much objection - there currently is a real issue with drive offs and law enforcements ability to respond to those under vehicle chase rules. If you can set up your vehicle to override your drive-off efforts that will probably be welcomed, especially if it pulls over, stops, can unlock doors to provide LEO access to your person etc. Separately, rider support can give permission for a vehicle search as the owner of the vehicle, so you'd want to register vehicle with a service that would give consent automatically and then provide instructions on where to find registration and insurance in vehicle. Waymo I beleive does it on the visors. I'm not sure you fully grasp the implications of Law Enforcement Interaction Protocol efforts. In the future, the car may be able to drive you to a "safe" location for a car search and your arrest.

mike_d 5y ago
Which should be codified into law based on police requirements with an eye as to what is legal. Police procedures should not be developed by way of an agreement between the state and a private company, who is in a position to error on the side of cooperation because they need a license. It is similar to the state granting a locksmith a license to practice under the condition that law enforcement be provided with copies to every key just in case they need them. There are some serious Fourth Amendment considerations when traveling in a vehicle for hire without a driver. Is a Waymo closer to a private automobile with implied consent, or is it similar to a bus where you can deny consent to a search? Is the provider (or virtual driver) in a position to consent to a search of your property? Is the virtual assistant that opened the doors and consented to a search now in a position to be charged with transporting narcotics for distrubtion? Who's license gets dinged if the passenger has no seatbelt?