5 ms·

Let me be the one to challenge your claim of the enforced "Kill Switch" [0]. [0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/infrastructure-bill-track-drivers/ https://

Let me be the one to challenge your claim of the enforced "Kill Switch" [0]. [0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/infrastructure-bill-track-drivers/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/infrastructure-bill-track-... Especially stating that this is an eco-agenda is imho either misinformation or willfully partisan.

verisimi 5y ago
Its a control agenda. The eco-agenda is the provided pretext that will mean we willingly accept what is offered, in the name of saving the planet.
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  Save the planet for the children!
- mistrial9 5y ago
  "a control agenda" is one (landmine) label meant to represent a set of complex interactions; this kind of drastic oversimplification is daily fodder for politics, but literally destructive to actual fact-based inquiry leading to effective policy. Similar arguments have been made regarding product safety and hygiene requirements by "government" !
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Except that such all-or-nothing logic is completely appropriate when talking about security of computational domains. Taking a device that is supposedly mine and configuring it to work against my interests repudiates the idea that I am the owner of it. Rather than representing my interests, it is now an agent of someone else's top-down policy. And if enough people modify "their" devices to remove such restrictions, then there's a good chance that even more systems of control get deployed to prevent them from doing so.
    - gkop 5y ago
      I was under the impression people are buying Teslas voluntarily, not because it’s mandated by the government.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        I don't see how that's relevant. Both government and corporations are independently capable of pushing top-down controls onto society.
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      > Taking a device that is supposedly mine and configuring it to work against my interests repudiates the idea that I am the owner of it strongly agree here!
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Except that such all-or-nothing logic is completely appropriate when talking about security of computational domains. Taking a device that is supposedly mine and configuring it to work against my interests repudiates the idea that I am the owner of it. You mean like smartphones, proprietary operating systems, streaming devices, many (most?) IOT devices, digital books/music/movies and a host of other things? Sorry, until there's some law/regulation (e.g., broadly confirming the First Sale doctrine[0] and/or similar stuff) that ship has sailed, my friend. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Mass adoption of centrally controlled devices doesn't change the paradigm of reasoning about computing freedom, though. This trend just means that the majority of computing devices aren't under the control of their owners, not that the idea of computational freedom is irrelevant. In fact I would say barring some very strong laws that make de facto locked down devices outright illegal, there will always be more proprietary devices than libre ones. One of the chief goals of locking down computers is decommodification, meaning taking what could be a general purpose device and restricting it to one specific purpose. Even caring heavily about software freedom - I've got two librebooted desktops, two me_cleaned laptops, one microG phone, but still countless purpose-tailored devices that perform some proprietary function. If those proprietary functions (eg Google Voice SIP integration) could be straightforwardly done with libre software, then I could just consolidate those functions into the libre infrastructure.
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
These seems to just confirm there point while using a lot of weasel words to say it's not a "kill switch"....? Seriously I've not read such a round about stretch of a justification in a long time.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  What???? Cars already have this! The base model Corolla has had this for half a decade! Hyundai, MB, Nissan, all have this across the board. If you're impaired for any reason (but mainly assured to be drowsiness), it detects your behavior and gives you a warning: https://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/time-for-a-break-e1463515152248-1280x720.jpg https://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ti... https://di-uploads-pod5.s3.amazonaws.com/sorgnissan/uploads/2016/02/how-does-nissan-driver-attention-system-work-to-prevent-drowsy-driving.jpg https://di-uploads-pod5.s3.amazonaws.com/sorgnissan/uploads/... https://www.autotrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RT_Driver-Monitoring-System-Warning.jpg https://www.autotrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RT_Dri... All the bill does is say now those systems should escalate beyond a warning and be able to stop the vehicle. These cars already have all the info they need, if you "accidentally" drive like an intoxicated person, it's going to be for a reason you need to be stopped over! Like a medical episode, dangerous lack of sleep, texting and driving. It has literally nothing to do with being a remote kill switch. Saying it's a remote kill switch is like saying the mandatory backup camera system is as a mandatory surveillance tool... It's such a huge leap you can't possibly make it in good faith...
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    What if you have to drive like a maniac to get your friend to the ER before he bleeds out? (Yes, a friend of mine told me how he had to do just that. His friend died anyway, but it wasn't because the car quit.) There are lots of cases where I might need to get the most out of the car. Or maybe I just want to practice parallel parking. Erratic back and forth driving and turning. So the car according to some algorithm decides to shut down the car and strand me. The worst part is, I have no idea what criteria that algorithm is using, so I have no idea what line to not cross.
pessimizer 5y ago
That link doesn't even challenge the claim, it just fails to completely verify it.

verisimi 5y ago

Its a control agenda. The eco-agenda is the provided pretext that will mean we willingly accept what is offered, in the name of saving the planet.

MrYellowP 5y ago
Save the planet for the children!
mistrial9 5y ago
"a control agenda" is one (landmine) label meant to represent a set of complex interactions; this kind of drastic oversimplification is daily fodder for politics, but literally destructive to actual fact-based inquiry leading to effective policy. Similar arguments have been made regarding product safety and hygiene requirements by "government" !
- mindslight 5y ago
  Except that such all-or-nothing logic is completely appropriate when talking about security of computational domains. Taking a device that is supposedly mine and configuring it to work against my interests repudiates the idea that I am the owner of it. Rather than representing my interests, it is now an agent of someone else's top-down policy. And if enough people modify "their" devices to remove such restrictions, then there's a good chance that even more systems of control get deployed to prevent them from doing so.
  - gkop 5y ago
    I was under the impression people are buying Teslas voluntarily, not because it’s mandated by the government.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      I don't see how that's relevant. Both government and corporations are independently capable of pushing top-down controls onto society.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    > Taking a device that is supposedly mine and configuring it to work against my interests repudiates the idea that I am the owner of it strongly agree here!
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Except that such all-or-nothing logic is completely appropriate when talking about security of computational domains. Taking a device that is supposedly mine and configuring it to work against my interests repudiates the idea that I am the owner of it. You mean like smartphones, proprietary operating systems, streaming devices, many (most?) IOT devices, digital books/music/movies and a host of other things? Sorry, until there's some law/regulation (e.g., broadly confirming the First Sale doctrine[0] and/or similar stuff) that ship has sailed, my friend. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Mass adoption of centrally controlled devices doesn't change the paradigm of reasoning about computing freedom, though. This trend just means that the majority of computing devices aren't under the control of their owners, not that the idea of computational freedom is irrelevant. In fact I would say barring some very strong laws that make de facto locked down devices outright illegal, there will always be more proprietary devices than libre ones. One of the chief goals of locking down computers is decommodification, meaning taking what could be a general purpose device and restricting it to one specific purpose. Even caring heavily about software freedom - I've got two librebooted desktops, two me_cleaned laptops, one microG phone, but still countless purpose-tailored devices that perform some proprietary function. If those proprietary functions (eg Google Voice SIP integration) could be straightforwardly done with libre software, then I could just consolidate those functions into the libre infrastructure.

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

These seems to just confirm there point while using a lot of weasel words to say it's not a "kill switch"....? Seriously I've not read such a round about stretch of a justification in a long time.

BoorishBears 5y ago
What???? Cars already have this! The base model Corolla has had this for half a decade! Hyundai, MB, Nissan, all have this across the board. If you're impaired for any reason (but mainly assured to be drowsiness), it detects your behavior and gives you a warning: https://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/time-for-a-break-e1463515152248-1280x720.jpg https://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ti... https://di-uploads-pod5.s3.amazonaws.com/sorgnissan/uploads/2016/02/how-does-nissan-driver-attention-system-work-to-prevent-drowsy-driving.jpg https://di-uploads-pod5.s3.amazonaws.com/sorgnissan/uploads/... https://www.autotrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RT_Driver-Monitoring-System-Warning.jpg https://www.autotrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RT_Dri... All the bill does is say now those systems should escalate beyond a warning and be able to stop the vehicle. These cars already have all the info they need, if you "accidentally" drive like an intoxicated person, it's going to be for a reason you need to be stopped over! Like a medical episode, dangerous lack of sleep, texting and driving. It has literally nothing to do with being a remote kill switch. Saying it's a remote kill switch is like saying the mandatory backup camera system is as a mandatory surveillance tool... It's such a huge leap you can't possibly make it in good faith...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  What if you have to drive like a maniac to get your friend to the ER before he bleeds out? (Yes, a friend of mine told me how he had to do just that. His friend died anyway, but it wasn't because the car quit.) There are lots of cases where I might need to get the most out of the car. Or maybe I just want to practice parallel parking. Erratic back and forth driving and turning. So the car according to some algorithm decides to shut down the car and strand me. The worst part is, I have no idea what criteria that algorithm is using, so I have no idea what line to not cross.

pessimizer 5y ago

That link doesn't even challenge the claim, it just fails to completely verify it.