6 ms·

Honest question: how is it possible for the American public to just accept that? This feels like a politician’s ideal wedge topic. “They want to control YOUR ca

Honest question: how is it possible for the American public to just accept that? This feels like a politician’s ideal wedge topic. “They want to control YOUR car. Take away your freedom.” And it’s not even hyperbole! For a nation that obsesses over the minutiae of gun legislation for its effects to personal freedom, it’s a bit out of character to let the government build in a remote “accidental” crash button.

tristor 3y ago
Something interesting about this comparison is that in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right, owning and operating a vehicle is not. In fact, it's exclusively considered a revocable privilege. This likely affects significantly the conversation around both.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right Maybe. This is far from clear. It certainly wasn't considered as such by anybody until the 20th century.
  - tristor 3y ago
    This isn't the proper subthread to have the grand gun debate and that isn't the point of my comment. But since I was replying to someone who is likely non-American, in the name of accuracy I need to point out what you are saying is directly false. Historically, this right has always been enumerated as individual firearms ownership, and is contextualized as such in the The Federalist Papers by the founding fathers who wrote the text of the Constitution, so there's really no argument to be had here. You can think it's a dumb idea, that it should be restricted or appealed, or any other such things, but to state that the Constitution does not enumerate an individual right of ownership is just patently legally and historically false. There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that also make this abundantly clear.
    - graypegg 3y ago
      Thanks! I have some context being Canadian, but I appreciate your explanation. My thinking was more so that, regardless of legal enshrinement, “freedom” is a pretty universal component of the American ethos. (as I understand it) You’d imagine that politicians would love to use people’s emotions on the topic, regardless if they have a de jure reason to oppose a change like gun control, or not, in the case of cars with remote off switches.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        The thing is that this issue is so niche that it is not anywhere close to being on anyone's political radar. Nobody outside of niche technical forums is thinking about the consequences of their cars being internet connected, or even realize that they are.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      As you say, this isn't the place for this debate, but I don't think your historical analysis is accurate. The plain text of the second amendment does not grant an individual right of ownership. It grants the right for communities to have a well-regulated, armed militia. That's a different thing. But I'll leave that there. I wasn't commenting to put forth a particular political agenda, I was just trying to inject a counterpoint to a thing that I've been hearing more and more that I believe is factually incorrect.
      - addisonl 3y ago
        > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Actual text from the 2nd amendment—pretty obvious why your comment is being flagged.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Something interesting about this comparison is that in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right, owning and operating a vehicle is not. I consider it a fourth amendment issue. The government has no business remoting into your car, rummaging though its data, and seizing control of your property.
JohnFen 3y ago
> how is it possible for the American public to just accept that? In the US, I am astounded at what is commonly accepted now. Not all that long ago, most people would have thought even the level of surveillance that we accept right now was an impossibly orwellian thing that would never have been accepted. Yet here we are. I even see people arguing regularly here on HN that these are good things, when just 30 or so years ago, these would have been things that we would have rioted to prevent. I have come to think that there is no amount of oppression that Americans can't be convinced into.
- redwall_hp 3y ago
  They happily ignore the surveillance and resist any effort to educate them on it...then they talk shit about TikTok.
kube-system 3y ago
Because they've already been voluntarily accepting it for 15 years. e.g. https://www.onstar.com/services/stolen-vehicle-assistance https://www.onstar.com/services/stolen-vehicle-assistance
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  A remotely activated killswitch that I install on my car is completely different from a remotely activated killswitch that the government installs on my car.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I disagree with that framing. A killswitch that GM puts on your car without telling you because some marketer thought the value-add was a good strategy is not much different than a killswitch that GM puts on your car without telling you because someone else told them to do it. In both scenarios, a third party can control your car without any real affirmative consent.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Last time I looked at onestar, you needed to bring your car to them so they would install their devices. If it's now included by default on every car, then yes, I agree with you.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        Yes, it was available as an aftermarket option as well. But OnStar is a GM subsidiary and it has been a factory telematics feature in GM vehicles since the 90s. Most other automakers have their own equivalents these days. They vary on which commands can be sent remotely, but they pretty much all will remotely track stolen vehicles.

tristor 3y ago

Something interesting about this comparison is that in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right, owning and operating a vehicle is not. In fact, it's exclusively considered a revocable privilege. This likely affects significantly the conversation around both.

JohnFen 3y ago
> in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right Maybe. This is far from clear. It certainly wasn't considered as such by anybody until the 20th century.
- tristor 3y ago
  This isn't the proper subthread to have the grand gun debate and that isn't the point of my comment. But since I was replying to someone who is likely non-American, in the name of accuracy I need to point out what you are saying is directly false. Historically, this right has always been enumerated as individual firearms ownership, and is contextualized as such in the The Federalist Papers by the founding fathers who wrote the text of the Constitution, so there's really no argument to be had here. You can think it's a dumb idea, that it should be restricted or appealed, or any other such things, but to state that the Constitution does not enumerate an individual right of ownership is just patently legally and historically false. There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that also make this abundantly clear.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Thanks! I have some context being Canadian, but I appreciate your explanation. My thinking was more so that, regardless of legal enshrinement, “freedom” is a pretty universal component of the American ethos. (as I understand it) You’d imagine that politicians would love to use people’s emotions on the topic, regardless if they have a de jure reason to oppose a change like gun control, or not, in the case of cars with remote off switches.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      The thing is that this issue is so niche that it is not anywhere close to being on anyone's political radar. Nobody outside of niche technical forums is thinking about the consequences of their cars being internet connected, or even realize that they are.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    As you say, this isn't the place for this debate, but I don't think your historical analysis is accurate. The plain text of the second amendment does not grant an individual right of ownership. It grants the right for communities to have a well-regulated, armed militia. That's a different thing. But I'll leave that there. I wasn't commenting to put forth a particular political agenda, I was just trying to inject a counterpoint to a thing that I've been hearing more and more that I believe is factually incorrect.
    - addisonl 3y ago
      > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Actual text from the 2nd amendment—pretty obvious why your comment is being flagged.
autoexec 3y ago
> Something interesting about this comparison is that in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right, owning and operating a vehicle is not. I consider it a fourth amendment issue. The government has no business remoting into your car, rummaging though its data, and seizing control of your property.

JohnFen 3y ago

> how is it possible for the American public to just accept that? In the US, I am astounded at what is commonly accepted now. Not all that long ago, most people would have thought even the level of surveillance that we accept right now was an impossibly orwellian thing that would never have been accepted. Yet here we are. I even see people arguing regularly here on HN that these are good things, when just 30 or so years ago, these would have been things that we would have rioted to prevent. I have come to think that there is no amount of oppression that Americans can't be convinced into.

redwall_hp 3y ago
They happily ignore the surveillance and resist any effort to educate them on it...then they talk shit about TikTok.

kube-system 3y ago

Because they've already been voluntarily accepting it for 15 years. e.g. https://www.onstar.com/services/stolen-vehicle-assistance https://www.onstar.com/services/stolen-vehicle-assistance

marcosdumay 3y ago
A remotely activated killswitch that I install on my car is completely different from a remotely activated killswitch that the government installs on my car.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I disagree with that framing. A killswitch that GM puts on your car without telling you because some marketer thought the value-add was a good strategy is not much different than a killswitch that GM puts on your car without telling you because someone else told them to do it. In both scenarios, a third party can control your car without any real affirmative consent.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Last time I looked at onestar, you needed to bring your car to them so they would install their devices. If it's now included by default on every car, then yes, I agree with you.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Yes, it was available as an aftermarket option as well. But OnStar is a GM subsidiary and it has been a factory telematics feature in GM vehicles since the 90s. Most other automakers have their own equivalents these days. They vary on which commands can be sent remotely, but they pretty much all will remotely track stolen vehicles.