5 ms·

These vehicles are driving on public roads, this information needs to be public.

onion2k 5y ago
The implication of your post is that you think it should be possible to find out everything that happens on public roads, included things like where you drove your car, what accidents you've had, and whether you've broken any traffic laws. That would be quite an extreme point of view. Roads are public in the sense that they're paid for by the public, and open to the public, but that surely shouldn't extend to the public being allowed to track everything that happens on them. There should be some limit on gathering information about public spaces.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  The false equivalence is assuming algorithms are people and deserve privacy.
  - TrueDuality 5y ago
    That statement slaps of some existential philosophy that will probably need to be addressed at some point... For this context though I agree, we as a society should have the right to inspect any algorithm that makes safety or life altering decisions (looking at you "AI" judges) about your person or in public spaces you might reasonably occupy. I do think data used by an algorithm, or even potentially data that was used to train an algorithm should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The trained weights do become part of the algorithm in my humble opinion, and that does potentially lead to leakage about the source data, but that doesn't justify not allowing inspection of the algorithm.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > That would be quite an extreme point of view. It would. And it would also require an extreme leap of logic to go from "companies developing car technology with direct effect on road safety should be as public as possible" to "do you want to expose where you drove your car"
  - verdverm 5y ago
    Maybe we could try applying the same logic to other companies and products. One example that would seem more important is Pfizer et al and the vaccine trial data, but more generally applications to the FDA
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > would seem more important is Pfizer et al and the vaccine trial data Absolutely. Also the "we in EU have a secret deal with Pfizer to buy vaccines, this is not public info"
- mekal 5y ago
  How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it implies all your "personal" driving info would be made public? Seems to me its more like car companies would not be able to "hide behind trade secrets to avoid scrutiny". Extreme silly example to make my point: DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over" Waymo: "Its a trade secret, sorry". * New law gets passed DMV: "Ok now tell us" Waymo: "Ok well...it honks the horn automatically and gives the person 5 seconds to get out the way. We believe that should be sufficient for the majority of cases and if you're too stupid to move, well...natural selection ftw." DMV: "..............really? that's crazy...it should really be more like...10 seconds."
  - hahaxdxd123 5y ago
    More like: DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over? This is a confidential process so that you can be as specific as possible in the name of public safety." Waymo: "[REDACTED]" Anonymous third party: FOIA request Waymo: "WTF?" DMV: "You can sue us to stop us from responding to this FOIA request. Please do." Waymo: "OK"

The implication of your post is that you think it should be possible to find out everything that happens on public roads, included things like where you drove your car, what accidents you've had, and whether you've broken any traffic laws. That would be quite an extreme point of view. Roads are public in the sense that they're paid for by the public, and open to the public, but that surely shouldn't extend to the public being allowed to track everything that happens on them. There should be some limit on gathering information about public spaces.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
The false equivalence is assuming algorithms are people and deserve privacy.
- TrueDuality 5y ago
  That statement slaps of some existential philosophy that will probably need to be addressed at some point... For this context though I agree, we as a society should have the right to inspect any algorithm that makes safety or life altering decisions (looking at you "AI" judges) about your person or in public spaces you might reasonably occupy. I do think data used by an algorithm, or even potentially data that was used to train an algorithm should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The trained weights do become part of the algorithm in my humble opinion, and that does potentially lead to leakage about the source data, but that doesn't justify not allowing inspection of the algorithm.
dmitriid 5y ago
> That would be quite an extreme point of view. It would. And it would also require an extreme leap of logic to go from "companies developing car technology with direct effect on road safety should be as public as possible" to "do you want to expose where you drove your car"
- verdverm 5y ago
  Maybe we could try applying the same logic to other companies and products. One example that would seem more important is Pfizer et al and the vaccine trial data, but more generally applications to the FDA
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > would seem more important is Pfizer et al and the vaccine trial data Absolutely. Also the "we in EU have a secret deal with Pfizer to buy vaccines, this is not public info"
mekal 5y ago
How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it implies all your "personal" driving info would be made public? Seems to me its more like car companies would not be able to "hide behind trade secrets to avoid scrutiny". Extreme silly example to make my point: DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over" Waymo: "Its a trade secret, sorry". * New law gets passed DMV: "Ok now tell us" Waymo: "Ok well...it honks the horn automatically and gives the person 5 seconds to get out the way. We believe that should be sufficient for the majority of cases and if you're too stupid to move, well...natural selection ftw." DMV: "..............really? that's crazy...it should really be more like...10 seconds."
- hahaxdxd123 5y ago
  More like: DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over? This is a confidential process so that you can be as specific as possible in the name of public safety." Waymo: "[REDACTED]" Anonymous third party: FOIA request Waymo: "WTF?" DMV: "You can sue us to stop us from responding to this FOIA request. Please do." Waymo: "OK"