7 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
      - pigtailgirl 4y ago
        you might be right you might be wrong - however I suspect you'll find there are many of us out here who are just not willing to let ourselves get so worked up about such a ridged view of a possible future - doubt you'll find many on HN who are ignorant to the signs - i'm certain many are concerned about the trends - that doesn't meant people necessarily disagree with your thought - we just may disagree with your outlook - myself - i'm inclined to believe I - my friends- and fine folks like you are thoughtful enough to deal with it in the moment - even if that took a civil war - i'm not inclined to believe at some point i am going to lose touch with reality - nor am i inclined to believe my government is going to turn against me without noticing - for what it's worth i don't think you need to take it so personally - lots of people are concerned - just not everyone is freaking out (yet)- maybe you can somehow make peace with that? :=)
  - tigershark 4y ago
    Is seriously this your biggest concern about government controlling you after the news that the Supreme Court banned abortion? You don’t have any whatsoever concern about that, I bet.
    - recursive 4y ago
      You are attempting to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument. This is known as "whataboutism", and there's an article on it on wikipedia.
    - Auracle 4y ago
      The Supreme Court didn’t “ban” abortion.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Police have had this ability for a long time now: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/03/disabling_cars.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/03/disabling_car... https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Autos/story?id=3706113&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Autos/story?id=3706113&page=... This degrades our freedoms and our privacy. Many of us are already being tracked every time we drive. All of the tracking, all of the loss of control and it's not serving us. Most people aren't even aware it's happening to them. These "features" are and will increasingly be abused and not just by the government, but by the corporations as well. Do we really want a permanent record of everywhere we drive and when? Of how fast we went? Of who we were with and what we were talking about while in the vehicle? We'd better start asking ourselves those questions now because that's where we're headed. Right now, you can at least physically disconnect and disable the OnStar system. In the future it seems likely that kind of thing will be entirely built in and impossible or illegal to disable.
  - zip1234 4y ago
    The fact is that loads of people drive drunk, drive illegally, and drive dangerously--on public roads. Police enforcement clearly doesn't work. Automated enforcement would. Why should people get to endanger others? The leading cause of death for children and teens almost every year is 'motor vehicle crashes' and it wasn't the children and teens causing those.
    - wfhordie 4y ago
      >Why should people get to endanger others? This is a dangerous frame for this argument. "Get to" implies a "right," or that the action is condoned somehow. It's not. Not everything bad in the world needs to be prevented by government action. We could stop all traffic deaths today by banning cars. We could stop all forms of obesity by making everyone drink Soylent. Personal liberty prevails because, in the end, the knock-on effects of removing liberty are a case of the cure being worse than the disease, in most cases. Automatic enforcement.... That sounds like letting the algorithms put people in jail.
      - zip1234 4y ago
        Obesity isn’t putting others at risk in the same way. Cars endanger others. People make a special exception to norms for cars because it is hard to look past the convenience of them.
        zaroth 4y ago
        It’s not a stretch to say that the obesity epidemic in the US is causing limited health care resources to be redirected to a vast number of people with self-imposed health issues, leading to significant deaths and under-investment in populations with diseases that were not self-imposed. However this is in no way is a convincing argument for government to take over control of what people stuff in their mouths. Things can pretty much always be made safer by eliminating personal freedom. The safest human protected by the best 5-laws-safe robot overlords probably doesn’t get outside all that much.
- jjulius 4y ago
  Additional Context: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497
wfhordie 4y ago
- rglullis 4y ago
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  You're saving fake quotes? If that's your hobby go for it I guess. You don't need to tell us though.

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - pigtailgirl 4y ago
      you might be right you might be wrong - however I suspect you'll find there are many of us out here who are just not willing to let ourselves get so worked up about such a ridged view of a possible future - doubt you'll find many on HN who are ignorant to the signs - i'm certain many are concerned about the trends - that doesn't meant people necessarily disagree with your thought - we just may disagree with your outlook - myself - i'm inclined to believe I - my friends- and fine folks like you are thoughtful enough to deal with it in the moment - even if that took a civil war - i'm not inclined to believe at some point i am going to lose touch with reality - nor am i inclined to believe my government is going to turn against me without noticing - for what it's worth i don't think you need to take it so personally - lots of people are concerned - just not everyone is freaking out (yet)- maybe you can somehow make peace with that? :=)
- tigershark 4y ago
  Is seriously this your biggest concern about government controlling you after the news that the Supreme Court banned abortion? You don’t have any whatsoever concern about that, I bet.
  - recursive 4y ago
    You are attempting to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument. This is known as "whataboutism", and there's an article on it on wikipedia.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    The Supreme Court didn’t “ban” abortion.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Police have had this ability for a long time now: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/03/disabling_cars.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/03/disabling_car... https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Autos/story?id=3706113&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Autos/story?id=3706113&page=... This degrades our freedoms and our privacy. Many of us are already being tracked every time we drive. All of the tracking, all of the loss of control and it's not serving us. Most people aren't even aware it's happening to them. These "features" are and will increasingly be abused and not just by the government, but by the corporations as well. Do we really want a permanent record of everywhere we drive and when? Of how fast we went? Of who we were with and what we were talking about while in the vehicle? We'd better start asking ourselves those questions now because that's where we're headed. Right now, you can at least physically disconnect and disable the OnStar system. In the future it seems likely that kind of thing will be entirely built in and impossible or illegal to disable.
- zip1234 4y ago
  The fact is that loads of people drive drunk, drive illegally, and drive dangerously--on public roads. Police enforcement clearly doesn't work. Automated enforcement would. Why should people get to endanger others? The leading cause of death for children and teens almost every year is 'motor vehicle crashes' and it wasn't the children and teens causing those.
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    >Why should people get to endanger others? This is a dangerous frame for this argument. "Get to" implies a "right," or that the action is condoned somehow. It's not. Not everything bad in the world needs to be prevented by government action. We could stop all traffic deaths today by banning cars. We could stop all forms of obesity by making everyone drink Soylent. Personal liberty prevails because, in the end, the knock-on effects of removing liberty are a case of the cure being worse than the disease, in most cases. Automatic enforcement.... That sounds like letting the algorithms put people in jail.
    - zip1234 4y ago
      Obesity isn’t putting others at risk in the same way. Cars endanger others. People make a special exception to norms for cars because it is hard to look past the convenience of them.
      - zaroth 4y ago
        It’s not a stretch to say that the obesity epidemic in the US is causing limited health care resources to be redirected to a vast number of people with self-imposed health issues, leading to significant deaths and under-investment in populations with diseases that were not self-imposed. However this is in no way is a convincing argument for government to take over control of what people stuff in their mouths. Things can pretty much always be made safer by eliminating personal freedom. The safest human protected by the best 5-laws-safe robot overlords probably doesn’t get outside all that much.
jjulius 4y ago
Additional Context: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497

wfhordie 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago
Dylan16807 4y ago
You're saving fake quotes? If that's your hobby go for it I guess. You don't need to tell us though.