5 ms·

> "Geofenced" That's the word. That's the plan. We will be geofenced, there will be a kill switch. You will not be able to go where you want, except if the

> "Geofenced" That's the word. That's the plan. We will be geofenced, there will be a kill switch. You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. In fact, I think Uber is the best example of geofencing we have for the long run. In the medium term, self-driving cars you still own will fill the gap.

QuercusMax 5y ago
You're making a pretty big leap there from "our experimental self-driving mode only works inside the geofence" to "the government won't let you drive where you want".
- verisimi 5y ago
  Yes, a huge leap. I can't possibly imagine that government would pass legislation that all the automakers would comply with. /s https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bill-vehicle-kill-switch-2026/ https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bil... "Deep within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was signed into law by President Joe Biden is a passage that will require automakers to begin including what can be best summarized as a “vehicle kill switch” within the operating software of new cars, which is described in the bill as “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology”. The measure has been positioned as a safety tool to help prevent drunk driving, and by 2026 (three years after the enactment of the Act, per the text) the kill switch could be mandated on every new car sold in the United States. Then there’s the broader reaching RIDE Act, which we’ll touch on in a moment."
  - verisimi 5y ago
    I'm being downvoted - but this is the reality of what will happen. Who wants that sort of monitoring when they are driving? Is this a consumer-driven feature? Or is this more government management - leveraging technology to micro-manage every detail of our lives - only allowing good citizens travel privileges etc? We are sleep walking into a dystopia, and I get downvoted for stating the obvious! Seriously - your government is about managing you, saying what you are and aren't allowed to do, extracting taxes, fines and licensing fees from you - its not there to help! PS I was being downvoted, but now I'm back up... It was right what I wrote it!
    - pigtailgirl 5y ago
      Maybe some people just agree with this? (a) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United States each year; (2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher; (3) the estimated economic cost for alcohol-impaired driving in 2010 was $44,000,000,000; (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and (5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles. (b) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- [[Page 135 STAT. 832]] (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
      - verisimi 5y ago
        I think its possible to make an argument for lots of things, in the name of safety. That it should be impossible to have anonymity online, etc because of child abuse, or terrorism, or some other action. The safety argument cannot balance the fact that we also need freedom of speech and thought. We are heading into a world where the power balance is going to become so wildly asymmetrical - the government will know everything about you and will have the power to act against you instantly, automatically - it will change us. It will be dehumanising - you will have to watch your back. If you don't already. We will have to conform to have a job, be able to travel, receive our govcoin vouchers, etc. We are literally installing an even worse citizen score system than China, that no one would ever want, but each step of the way we are convinced by some spurious and limited 'safety' argument. This misses the whole picture. And if you think that the government won't act against you once it has the power to do so, you are dreaming. Everyone seems to think that government is a force for good, as opposed to being the operators of the slavery system we find ourselves in. Some of us try to kid ourselves that we are free, while we hand over 40% of our income for government to service the interest on the debt that they have accrued on our behalf. I don't. Anyway - I say what I see, no one likes my message, everyone seems blind to the points I raise, or wants to ignore them - what can I do? I hope I'm wrong.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    Additional Context: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497
- wfhordie 5y ago
  - rglullis 5y ago
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    You're saving fake quotes? If that's your hobby go for it I guess. You don't need to tell us though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 5y ago
> You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. Sounds like in your model Elon will be the one deciding where you can and cannot go.
glaucon 5y ago
Don't worry, at least in a Tesla the geofencing is going to be disabled in datetime.now().year + 1
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
Yeah, so much unlike the present, where you can go wherever you want (if the government has built a road to do so).
- verisimi 5y ago
  That's actually quite funny to me. In a dark, ironic way... The government designed/authorised the solution - roads + cars. They decide to spend lots of money on this. They got rid of earlier public solutions - eg trams, closed train lines, etc. They could have invested more on public infrastructure - but opted for facilitating private transport. But now they are walking this back! Around here they are decreasing roads, especially recently. We have 2 lane roads, where one lane has been closed to create cycle lanes. We have roads that have been entirely pedestrianised. All this has made traffic worse - and this is the plan. We are meant to get off the roads and ... cycle? Take the bus? There are actually no alternative viable forms of transport. So - the government implements, then de-implements whatever solutions it likes. The public investments using money paid by the previous generation of tax payers, is actively being worked against by this generation of government! So, no, I'm not cheering the government spend.

QuercusMax 5y ago

You're making a pretty big leap there from "our experimental self-driving mode only works inside the geofence" to "the government won't let you drive where you want".

verisimi 5y ago
Yes, a huge leap. I can't possibly imagine that government would pass legislation that all the automakers would comply with. /s https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bill-vehicle-kill-switch-2026/ https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bil... "Deep within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was signed into law by President Joe Biden is a passage that will require automakers to begin including what can be best summarized as a “vehicle kill switch” within the operating software of new cars, which is described in the bill as “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology”. The measure has been positioned as a safety tool to help prevent drunk driving, and by 2026 (three years after the enactment of the Act, per the text) the kill switch could be mandated on every new car sold in the United States. Then there’s the broader reaching RIDE Act, which we’ll touch on in a moment."
- verisimi 5y ago
  I'm being downvoted - but this is the reality of what will happen. Who wants that sort of monitoring when they are driving? Is this a consumer-driven feature? Or is this more government management - leveraging technology to micro-manage every detail of our lives - only allowing good citizens travel privileges etc? We are sleep walking into a dystopia, and I get downvoted for stating the obvious! Seriously - your government is about managing you, saying what you are and aren't allowed to do, extracting taxes, fines and licensing fees from you - its not there to help! PS I was being downvoted, but now I'm back up... It was right what I wrote it!
  - pigtailgirl 5y ago
    Maybe some people just agree with this? (a) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United States each year; (2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher; (3) the estimated economic cost for alcohol-impaired driving in 2010 was $44,000,000,000; (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and (5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles. (b) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- [[Page 135 STAT. 832]] (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
    - verisimi 5y ago
      I think its possible to make an argument for lots of things, in the name of safety. That it should be impossible to have anonymity online, etc because of child abuse, or terrorism, or some other action. The safety argument cannot balance the fact that we also need freedom of speech and thought. We are heading into a world where the power balance is going to become so wildly asymmetrical - the government will know everything about you and will have the power to act against you instantly, automatically - it will change us. It will be dehumanising - you will have to watch your back. If you don't already. We will have to conform to have a job, be able to travel, receive our govcoin vouchers, etc. We are literally installing an even worse citizen score system than China, that no one would ever want, but each step of the way we are convinced by some spurious and limited 'safety' argument. This misses the whole picture. And if you think that the government won't act against you once it has the power to do so, you are dreaming. Everyone seems to think that government is a force for good, as opposed to being the operators of the slavery system we find ourselves in. Some of us try to kid ourselves that we are free, while we hand over 40% of our income for government to service the interest on the debt that they have accrued on our behalf. I don't. Anyway - I say what I see, no one likes my message, everyone seems blind to the points I raise, or wants to ignore them - what can I do? I hope I'm wrong.
- jjulius 5y ago
  Additional Context: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497
wfhordie 5y ago
- rglullis 5y ago
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  You're saving fake quotes? If that's your hobby go for it I guess. You don't need to tell us though.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

arcticbull 5y ago

> You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. Sounds like in your model Elon will be the one deciding where you can and cannot go.

glaucon 5y ago

Don't worry, at least in a Tesla the geofencing is going to be disabled in datetime.now().year + 1

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

Yeah, so much unlike the present, where you can go wherever you want (if the government has built a road to do so).

verisimi 5y ago
That's actually quite funny to me. In a dark, ironic way... The government designed/authorised the solution - roads + cars. They decide to spend lots of money on this. They got rid of earlier public solutions - eg trams, closed train lines, etc. They could have invested more on public infrastructure - but opted for facilitating private transport. But now they are walking this back! Around here they are decreasing roads, especially recently. We have 2 lane roads, where one lane has been closed to create cycle lanes. We have roads that have been entirely pedestrianised. All this has made traffic worse - and this is the plan. We are meant to get off the roads and ... cycle? Take the bus? There are actually no alternative viable forms of transport. So - the government implements, then de-implements whatever solutions it likes. The public investments using money paid by the previous generation of tax payers, is actively being worked against by this generation of government! So, no, I'm not cheering the government spend.