3 ms·

Because what could possibly go wrong hacking a hunk of metal that transports you at lethal speeds...

iramiller 3y ago
This line of reasoning is what is used to justify lock-in and anti-right to repair legislation. Following this reasoning you shouldn’t be allowed to change a flat tire on your car as it could be improperly tightened and fly off at speed. Technical constraints to lock out owners/users only serve to enforce a manufacturer’s feudalistic rent seeking and revenue extraction policies. In the overall scope of driving a personal automobile cellphone use or even adjusting the car entertainment system are far more common causes of accidents and death and yet these are not locked away via technical controls despite being very easy to accomplish.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  Two things can be true at the same time: 1. It's a sketchy idea for the manufacturer to lock away features behind paywalls. 2. It's a really bad idea to monkey with the internals of a self-driving car.
gedy 3y ago
As someone who made and drives a rat rod, it's basically the same situation? If the car fails due to my physical hacking, it's on me. Should be same for software.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  I never said they shouldn't be able to do it; I said it's a bad idea to do it. To put it in your terms: I'm happy for you to be allowed to drive a rat rod (hello, fellow old? I haven't heard that term in a looong time), but clearly a car with likely no crumple zones, air bags, antilock brakes, etc., etc. is less safe than a modern sedan.
waterheater 3y ago
Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe vehicle but was too afraid to drive on an interstate highway because they were afraid. That's not a "hunk of metal" issue but a risk-comfort "issue," which really is relative. Regardless, your point highlights the eternal fight between liberty and "safety and security." A society which tolerates little risk seeks to minimize liberty and maximize safety and security. A society which tolerates much risk seeks to maximize liberty and minimize safety and security. To use cars as the prime example: why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags [1]? They're expensive, bulky, decrease fuel economy, and may cause harm to a passenger if it improperly inflates. By owning a vehicle, I assume sole responsibility for the correct and proper operation of it as well as the physical well-being of any passengers. Frankly, I should be able to purchase a vehicle equipped without airbags to decrease the overall purchase price, thereby allowing me to use that money on other things. The same argument doesn't apply to certain things like ABS, which I argue should be regulated because poor braking affects people both inside and outside the car. Airbags, on the other hand, only apply to people inside the car. By carrying any passenger in the vehicle, the owner assumes legal responsibility for their safe carriage. [1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislation-makes-airbags-mandatory https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislat...
- fwip 3y ago
  > why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags? The same reason that you can't sell food that's sweetened with lead. You can add lead to your own food if you want, just like you can drive a car without airbags.
  - waterheater 3y ago
    Yes, keep lead out of food. The comparison is not accurate because the risk-reward profiles of lead-in-food and airbags-in-cars are misaligned. Food is consumed under all circumstances, whereas airbags are only employed during an emergency situation. You're also right that I can drive a car without airbags, but the point is that you can't buy a new car without airbags.

This line of reasoning is what is used to justify lock-in and anti-right to repair legislation. Following this reasoning you shouldn’t be allowed to change a flat tire on your car as it could be improperly tightened and fly off at speed. Technical constraints to lock out owners/users only serve to enforce a manufacturer’s feudalistic rent seeking and revenue extraction policies. In the overall scope of driving a personal automobile cellphone use or even adjusting the car entertainment system are far more common causes of accidents and death and yet these are not locked away via technical controls despite being very easy to accomplish.

gcanyon 3y ago
Two things can be true at the same time: 1. It's a sketchy idea for the manufacturer to lock away features behind paywalls. 2. It's a really bad idea to monkey with the internals of a self-driving car.

gedy 3y ago

As someone who made and drives a rat rod, it's basically the same situation? If the car fails due to my physical hacking, it's on me. Should be same for software.

gcanyon 3y ago
I never said they shouldn't be able to do it; I said it's a bad idea to do it. To put it in your terms: I'm happy for you to be allowed to drive a rat rod (hello, fellow old? I haven't heard that term in a looong time), but clearly a car with likely no crumple zones, air bags, antilock brakes, etc., etc. is less safe than a modern sedan.

waterheater 3y ago

Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe vehicle but was too afraid to drive on an interstate highway because they were afraid. That's not a "hunk of metal" issue but a risk-comfort "issue," which really is relative. Regardless, your point highlights the eternal fight between liberty and "safety and security." A society which tolerates little risk seeks to minimize liberty and maximize safety and security. A society which tolerates much risk seeks to maximize liberty and minimize safety and security. To use cars as the prime example: why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags [1]? They're expensive, bulky, decrease fuel economy, and may cause harm to a passenger if it improperly inflates. By owning a vehicle, I assume sole responsibility for the correct and proper operation of it as well as the physical well-being of any passengers. Frankly, I should be able to purchase a vehicle equipped without airbags to decrease the overall purchase price, thereby allowing me to use that money on other things. The same argument doesn't apply to certain things like ABS, which I argue should be regulated because poor braking affects people both inside and outside the car. Airbags, on the other hand, only apply to people inside the car. By carrying any passenger in the vehicle, the owner assumes legal responsibility for their safe carriage. [1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislation-makes-airbags-mandatory https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislat...

fwip 3y ago
> why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags? The same reason that you can't sell food that's sweetened with lead. You can add lead to your own food if you want, just like you can drive a car without airbags.
- waterheater 3y ago
  Yes, keep lead out of food. The comparison is not accurate because the risk-reward profiles of lead-in-food and airbags-in-cars are misaligned. Food is consumed under all circumstances, whereas airbags are only employed during an emergency situation. You're also right that I can drive a car without airbags, but the point is that you can't buy a new car without airbags.