3 ms·

Think this through. Like, really, think this through. What’s the goal? You want to steel a car? Rob the passengers? Kidnap the passengers? Kill the passengers?

Think this through. Like, really, think this through. What’s the goal? You want to steel a car? Rob the passengers? Kidnap the passengers? Kill the passengers? So what are your options in this world where there is the equivalent of a firefighters key in elevator, but probably using PKE and periodic private key cycling? Steal a key? From where? Buy one? From who and for how much? Ok, so now you’re needing to commit some rather risky crimes before you even move onto the next step. And then let’s say you get the key. So you disable a taxi. And then what? I assume the passengers can lock the doors. So you smash the window open and, well, maybe it’s best to have a gun… But why not just get a gun and approach someone stuck at a red light? Why kind of risk/reward calculus is going on inside the mind of the criminal deciding to forcibly stop a moving vehicle and rob or murder the passengers? So yes, what you said is true, but the likelihood is very low and the benefit to emergency responders is high. I guess it makes for a good plot device for a spy movie.

BurningFrog 4y ago
I was thinking more that I pissed off a cop, and now my car randomly won't start.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Well if I was working on such a system I would definitely want to log every shutdown event on storage in the vehicle itself. It could then be seen what key was used and compared to which officer had been assigned that key for the day at the beginning of their shift. So yes, a pissed off (and stupid) cop could do this, but then you can turn around and go to the press with the information, call up a lawyer, and proceed in any other manner where you're being harassed by a police officer. Cue some unrelated critique on policing in general that has nothing to do with what we're talking about...
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    I guess we have different beliefs around how easy it is to fight back against government abuse. I don't think you just contact a journalist and a lawyer, and things usually work out for the best.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      As predicted, some unrelated critique on policing in general that has nothing to do with what we're talking about... The problem with your line of reasoning is that you really have a problem with government abuse and that you're looking for anything that could possibly add to government abuse even in the smallest of manners. There's no scalar to your concept of abusive systems, just the fact that any system that could be used for government abuse is bad. It leaves out the intent and capabilities of the government to engage in any kind of abuse. If the government wanted to silence you then it would silence you like they would in any authoritarian nation: showing up to your front door, putting a bag over your head, and taking you away. They don't need any advanced technology to do so. Technologies are not the main cause authoritarianism. People are the main cause. Technologies can facilitate authoritarianism or they can facilitate liberal democratic republics. Can a system of warranted entry on private property be abused so that police can enter your house in an unjust manner? Of course! But the presence of a system of warranted entry on private property does not correlate to the authoritarian government.
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        This is mostly a critique of an imagined version of my state of mind. Such discussions are pointless to me.
        williamcotton 4y ago
        Eh, not really... this is the only paragraph where imagining your "state of mind" might come into play: The problem with your line of reasoning is that you really have a problem with government abuse and that you're looking for anything that could possibly add to government abuse even in the smallest of manners. There's no scalar to your concept of abusive systems, just the fact that any system that could be used for government abuse is bad. But I'm not imagining anything because you've made it clear that your problem all along was with government abuse. It's also clear that you're looking for anything that could possibly add to government abuse even in the smallest manners because you don't talk about scale or likelihood, just a simple binary of "could be used for government abuse" or not. I'm just logically filling in the blanks based on our interaction to come up with how you reasoned your way through all of this. And I just went back and realized you started talking about personal cars and not taxis... what kind of cop is going to get mad at you and then... wait for you to get a cab, follow you, and then make your car pull over... and then what? Why are they doing this? Why would anyone do this? I mean, what system is more likely to be abused, one where cops can get a warrant to kick your door down or one where cops can make autonomous taxis pull safely over to the side? Stop being silly!

BurningFrog 4y ago

I was thinking more that I pissed off a cop, and now my car randomly won't start.

williamcotton 4y ago
Well if I was working on such a system I would definitely want to log every shutdown event on storage in the vehicle itself. It could then be seen what key was used and compared to which officer had been assigned that key for the day at the beginning of their shift. So yes, a pissed off (and stupid) cop could do this, but then you can turn around and go to the press with the information, call up a lawyer, and proceed in any other manner where you're being harassed by a police officer. Cue some unrelated critique on policing in general that has nothing to do with what we're talking about...
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  I guess we have different beliefs around how easy it is to fight back against government abuse. I don't think you just contact a journalist and a lawyer, and things usually work out for the best.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    As predicted, some unrelated critique on policing in general that has nothing to do with what we're talking about... The problem with your line of reasoning is that you really have a problem with government abuse and that you're looking for anything that could possibly add to government abuse even in the smallest of manners. There's no scalar to your concept of abusive systems, just the fact that any system that could be used for government abuse is bad. It leaves out the intent and capabilities of the government to engage in any kind of abuse. If the government wanted to silence you then it would silence you like they would in any authoritarian nation: showing up to your front door, putting a bag over your head, and taking you away. They don't need any advanced technology to do so. Technologies are not the main cause authoritarianism. People are the main cause. Technologies can facilitate authoritarianism or they can facilitate liberal democratic republics. Can a system of warranted entry on private property be abused so that police can enter your house in an unjust manner? Of course! But the presence of a system of warranted entry on private property does not correlate to the authoritarian government.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      This is mostly a critique of an imagined version of my state of mind. Such discussions are pointless to me.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        Eh, not really... this is the only paragraph where imagining your "state of mind" might come into play: The problem with your line of reasoning is that you really have a problem with government abuse and that you're looking for anything that could possibly add to government abuse even in the smallest of manners. There's no scalar to your concept of abusive systems, just the fact that any system that could be used for government abuse is bad. But I'm not imagining anything because you've made it clear that your problem all along was with government abuse. It's also clear that you're looking for anything that could possibly add to government abuse even in the smallest manners because you don't talk about scale or likelihood, just a simple binary of "could be used for government abuse" or not. I'm just logically filling in the blanks based on our interaction to come up with how you reasoned your way through all of this. And I just went back and realized you started talking about personal cars and not taxis... what kind of cop is going to get mad at you and then... wait for you to get a cab, follow you, and then make your car pull over... and then what? Why are they doing this? Why would anyone do this? I mean, what system is more likely to be abused, one where cops can get a warrant to kick your door down or one where cops can make autonomous taxis pull safely over to the side? Stop being silly!