3 ms·

That's true from a technical point of view, but I was referring to the social and behavioral angle. It seems like it was mobile that killed the commitment to pr

by api 4y ago

That's true from a technical point of view, but I was referring to the social and behavioral angle. It seems like it was mobile that killed the commitment to privacy in the minds of users. My only real reservation about the EV revolution is that this is doing similar things to people with regard to cars. An EV is just a car with a battery and a motor instead of a gas tank and an ICE, but the "form factor change" seems like it can be used as a pretext to introduce a lot of other changes like your car no longer being yours. Teslas are too cloud connected already, and Ford is talking about a car that can repossess itself at their command. When you pay off your car does this feature get turned off? I doubt it. It seems like it's easy to use any change as a pretext to smuggle other perhaps less palatable changes in alongside it.

mindslight 4y ago
I agree that shiny new things are often traps, which then normalize bad developments across an industry. But I also think a lot of the privacy/autonomy shift was really a shift to a wider gamut of non-technical people using technology, and would have happened regardless of the new form factor. Also the change wasn't led by mobile, but rather it was web 2.0 that really kicked off the trend of centrally controlled software.
vkou 4y ago
> When you pay off your car does this feature get turned off? I doubt it. Why would you doubt it? Who, besides the vehicle's owner exactly do you think will be using it, and for what?
- nindalf 4y ago
  In theory, law enforcement.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Why would they want to steal your car, and why would they feel the need to do it when they aren't in physical vicinity of it? If they can't be assed to show up in person to rob you, why would they want to steal your car? Why not just drain your bank account? Or just steal the deed to your house?
- mindslight 4y ago
  It's the general principle of the matter. Why should an item you supposedly own have programming that works directly contrary to your interests? Specific easily-imaginable attackers are law enforcement, criminals, and finance companies. Both through deliberate unjust actions, as well as administrative mixups. "Sorry, despite your car being paid off, we incorrectly thought your loan was in default. But we returned your car a week later, so no harm done, right?" And responding to your other comment about criminals, actual physical property can be parted out and sold. As opposed to committing fraud to obtain paper assets, which can be investigated and reversed. Stealing cars and financial fraud are just different (criminal) industries.
  - vkou 4y ago
    You don't own a car that you are paying a loan for. The bank does. It is letting you use it until you pay the loan off. What you're describing is not a 'whoops sorry', but a felony theft. If your laws can't handle felony theft, self-repo devices aren't the problem in your society.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Actually you do own a car that you are paying a loan for. A lien holder is not an owner. And sure, I definitely support policing the incorrect actions of systems as the basic crimes that they fundamentally are. But that isn't really how things work in the real world (at least in the US), where institutional criminals generally escape being charged.
      - vkou 4y ago
        It's a distinction without a difference. Some locales give the lien holder an incredible amount of power over the vehicle, some give slightly less. At the end of the day, though, it's not your car until you own it free and clear. The relevant law in Washington State: > Once you are in default, the lender may repossess your car at any time. They do not have to notify you before the repossession takes place. The lender cannot commit a crime, use abusive language, enter a home without permission, or take an item if you physically resist. Cars can be towed from public or private lots. If you default on payments, it doesn't sound like it's 'your' car anymore. You aren't the owner of something that can legally be taken away from you at any time.

by api 4y ago

mindslight 4y ago

I agree that shiny new things are often traps, which then normalize bad developments across an industry. But I also think a lot of the privacy/autonomy shift was really a shift to a wider gamut of non-technical people using technology, and would have happened regardless of the new form factor. Also the change wasn't led by mobile, but rather it was web 2.0 that really kicked off the trend of centrally controlled software.

vkou 4y ago

> When you pay off your car does this feature get turned off? I doubt it. Why would you doubt it? Who, besides the vehicle's owner exactly do you think will be using it, and for what?

nindalf 4y ago
In theory, law enforcement.
- vkou 4y ago
  Why would they want to steal your car, and why would they feel the need to do it when they aren't in physical vicinity of it? If they can't be assed to show up in person to rob you, why would they want to steal your car? Why not just drain your bank account? Or just steal the deed to your house?
mindslight 4y ago
It's the general principle of the matter. Why should an item you supposedly own have programming that works directly contrary to your interests? Specific easily-imaginable attackers are law enforcement, criminals, and finance companies. Both through deliberate unjust actions, as well as administrative mixups. "Sorry, despite your car being paid off, we incorrectly thought your loan was in default. But we returned your car a week later, so no harm done, right?" And responding to your other comment about criminals, actual physical property can be parted out and sold. As opposed to committing fraud to obtain paper assets, which can be investigated and reversed. Stealing cars and financial fraud are just different (criminal) industries.
- vkou 4y ago
  You don't own a car that you are paying a loan for. The bank does. It is letting you use it until you pay the loan off. What you're describing is not a 'whoops sorry', but a felony theft. If your laws can't handle felony theft, self-repo devices aren't the problem in your society.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Actually you do own a car that you are paying a loan for. A lien holder is not an owner. And sure, I definitely support policing the incorrect actions of systems as the basic crimes that they fundamentally are. But that isn't really how things work in the real world (at least in the US), where institutional criminals generally escape being charged.
    - vkou 4y ago
      It's a distinction without a difference. Some locales give the lien holder an incredible amount of power over the vehicle, some give slightly less. At the end of the day, though, it's not your car until you own it free and clear. The relevant law in Washington State: > Once you are in default, the lender may repossess your car at any time. They do not have to notify you before the repossession takes place. The lender cannot commit a crime, use abusive language, enter a home without permission, or take an item if you physically resist. Cars can be towed from public or private lots. If you default on payments, it doesn't sound like it's 'your' car anymore. You aren't the owner of something that can legally be taken away from you at any time.