13 ms·

The feds' vehicle 'kill switch' mandate is a gross violation of privacy

384 points by janandonly 3y ago

EGreg 3y ago
Ah so this is beginning to come true: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
A kill-switch seems like a bad idea as it would be an excellent target for eco-protestors or even terrorists to bring a city to a standstill. However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. There's also another benefit to measuring acceleration/deceleration data and that is to highlight if someone's faculties suddenly decline (e.g. illness or old age). Typically, when someone has failing eyesight, they might not be able to predict other vehicles as well and that would lead to more aggressive braking which can easily be measured. This could provide an important early warning system to the drivers that their driving has suddenly worsened and they might want to see a doctor unless they have a known temporary condition (e.g. hay fever). Also, if the aim is to detect drink-driving, then that's easy enough to do from outside the vehicle with CCTV cameras and the police already have methods to stop drunk drivers. I suspect that the aim is surveillance rather than law enforcement.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  >However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This already exists, at least in the UK market. A lot of insurers will give you a discount if you let them fit such a "telematics" box to your car. It's still a privacy nightmare.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Well, I'm in the UK but not a driver (cyclist by choice). My point is that the black boxes should be almost mandatory (or at least fitted by default) in order to detect health problems which I don't think the insurance company provided boxes do. Have it be a standardised device and provide the data to the owner so that they can decide on whether or not to provide that data to third parties (probably worth having anonymised data available to the government too). It could be a very useful early warning of a number of conditions as well as providing an incentive for drivers to pay attention.
    - whatevaa 3y ago
      What sort of early warnings are you thinking about exactly? Also, lol, no, governments are not gonna bother propely anonymising the data too. Plus if it's anonymous what's the point of this data?
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Early warnings of dementia or even eyesight problems - both of those are likely to lead to a change in driving style with more pronounced braking as the driver reacts slower to events. It would make sense to anonymise the data before sending it to the government and the point of the data is to identify road congestion and problematic junctions. It could also feed into better tracking of traffic lights timings etc. None of those uses have a requirement to know whether it's Mr Jones in his red Corsa or Mrs Malaprop in her SUV.
        rcxdude 3y ago
        location data is basically impossible to anonymise: if you have a record of someone's movements over any more than a day you can almost certainly work out where they live and work, for example. When it comes to personal data you can't just wave an anonymisation wand and say it's definitely OK now, you need to think carefully about the exact case, and especially the more data that is collected the more difficult it is to actually keep things private.
- martin_a 3y ago
  > valuable data to insurance companies Great idea! But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. Maybe you're next. We'll just make sure that rates have already been adjusted to account for that. Also we saw that you were driving (very smoothly, congrats on that!) around some rather shady parts of town. This will lead to another rise in your fees, we just want to make sure that we got you covered in case your car gets stolen...
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    I believe insurance companies already look at your location when deciding premiums, so this would just give them greater granularity on your actual driving habits.
    - isoprophlex 3y ago
      In the limit of perfect knowledge being transferred to your insurer, will an insurance stop being one, instead turning into an obligation to pay a middleman for all your claims?
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Only if that perfect knowledge includes knowledge of future events such as a tree falling on your car or it being struck by lightning etc.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    > But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. These types of statistical analyses are exactly why insurance is as cheap as it is. I'm no fan of all the discounts insurance companies hand out for handing over private data like driving behaviour or healthcare stuff, but insurance companies with no risk management can't compete in any kind of open market. I would argue that in terms of broader accessibility of insurance, these microtargeting approaches may actually be an improvement for many. If you live in a troublesome neighbourhood you may be paying through the nose for getting categorised as "one of the bad ones", but these individual data points can help prove you're a responsible driver and escape some of the cost of having a shitty start in life. I'm still against these data collection practises ("you want privacy? Live in a rich neighbourhood and get a college degree!", plus a lack of any kind of law preventing these companies from sharing or selling that data) but there are solid arguments in favour of feeding insurance companies more data.
- matsemann 3y ago
  What you describe is actually becoming common. What I want is something in cars that makes it impossible to go over X inside city bounds etc. The tech for knowing the speed limit isn't good enough yet to be used for limiting, but some kind of max limit in an area a bit over the highest speed limit would help a lot. Electric scooters have geofencing and speed limiters. My drone has gps zones it wont fly. Electric bikes have speed limiters. But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. In reality it's a political problem. Here in the UK, certain right-wing media outlets and personalities are often complaining about the "War on Motorists" which is ironic as when you look at RTC data, it's the motorists that are massacring pedestrians and other road users.
  - mrighele 3y ago
    > But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. There are already a solutions, it is called police, speed traps, fines, and license revocation. Not everything has to be done with preventative measures by a nanny state.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      And how well has that worked so far, you feel? Having limits on things doesn't automatically make things a "nanny state". Don't argue like that. Is it a nanny-state that there are speed limits?
      - giantg2 3y ago
        You're still going to need traditional enforcement. The people doing those sorts of speeds modify their cars will just push a new tune to remove it (remember, most cars today are limited by the factory well before that to match tire speed ratings). So there's already evidence that limits set today do nothing to prevent this sort of abuse.
- chronicsonic 3y ago
  This unfortunately already exist in europe. Young drivers can get a black box installed in return for a discount on their insurance. This is because those costs for young drivers can be astronomical. I would never trust a private for profit company with this much data.
- b112 3y ago
  Fully against all remote monitoring, especially having insurance companies having access, along with no kill switches. Remote monitoring, aside from the incredible security risks, provides no context as to why. Frankly, I think it should be illegal for cars to have any form of wireless networked access. I personally disable all of that in any car I buy, typically by removing antennas and replacing with resistors.
- matrss 3y ago
  > However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". Unfortunately, it also already exists.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". I think that highlights the stupidity of a privatised health insurance system. Not wanting to know about health problems due to a financial disincentive is not a sensible way of managing a populations' health, when typically prevention is much cheaper and more effective than waiting until obvious symptoms show up. I suppose it depends on whether profit is more important than the population's health.
- HtmlProgrammer 3y ago
  This already exists and has stopped people I know personally from driving like idiots. https://www.boxymo.ie https://www.boxymo.ie
- giantg2 3y ago
  Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. They already have data readers that plug into your OBD2 port for insurance purposes.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. Those events will be much rarer than the type of late braking that poor drivers will make due to lack of observation. It'd be trivial to separate out the emergency stops from the everyday driving data.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      I highly doubt it will be trivial. I rarely have to brake hard. But when I do, it's usuallynin an area where the other drivers are terrible and hard braking is simply more common (as are running lights and stop signs, eg Philly and parts of Jersey). So yes, in a population of good drivers it would be simple to select people with higher rates of hard braking. But punishing them without context could lead to false punishment (similar to the cases of nurses that just happened to have higher rates of patient deaths - the prosecutor fallacy I think). Once you surpass a threshold of bad drivers in the population, it's more likely in my mind that the hard braking people may actually be the good drivers avoiding the ones running lights.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This has been available for years from some insurance companies. There’s no reason it needs to be built into the car or to automatically report it against the driver’s will. It’s an opt-in thing. My coworker got it when they first came out because she thought she was a safe driver and wanted a discount. She got a monthly report of how many sudden stops it recorded and the number was much higher than she would have guessed. She never could figure out what was triggering it, but began to suspect it was the stop signs between her house and the office. So instead of coming to a complete stop she started slowing down and then rolling through (which isn’t legal in our state). Unintended consequences strike again.
rtpg 3y ago
My reading of this article is that “kill switch” here seems to be “car determines that you are driving like a drunk person, so shuts down” rather than “some service remotely sends a kill command for reason X to your car”. In the hypothesis that it’s actually kind of easy to figure out if somebody is impaired, I’m pretty conflicted because the upside of not having an impaired person driving is really high. Just I don’t know how possible it is, nor how reliably that would work. On top of that it seems like one step between that and “and the car reports you”.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  It's easy to find out if someone is driving as though they are impaired, less easy to find out if they actually are. Medical emergencies spring to mind as something that will be hard to distinguish. How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth?
  - pinkgolem 3y ago
    I mean.. is it not more helpful if those people wait on the side of the road for 10-15 minutes till an ambulance/helicopter is there? If they are driving like a drunk driver I would assume the same risks are included...
    - sethammons 3y ago
      I have lived the majority of my life in Southern California and the fastest emergency personnel could get to my home is 25 minutes, speeding. I assume you are unfamiliar with rural living, a common shortsightedness I see on this forum.
      - pinkgolem 3y ago
        My city has a whopping 500 people, if it's something urgent... They send out an helicopter. Would be very surprised if there are places further away then 15 minutes from a helicopter where you can reach any sensibel healthcare infrastructure faster by car A women having early contractions, most likely would not qualify even for emergency lights.
gyudin 3y ago
Kinda too late to talk about privacy in US when you guys gave up ALL the electronic data to the government.
jeroenhd 3y ago
How exactly does this violate your privacy, assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? It's a massive violation of an individual's freedoms, but not everything has to be about privacy all the time. Your car deciding it doesn't want to drive because its sensors decided you steer too funnily impairs your freedom of movement, the privacy aspect is minor in comparison in my opinion. I'm also not too happy about the prospect of cars, which have been proven to be hackable remotely, having yet another point where an evildoer may insert motor control inhibitions. Perhaps a shitty car will let the media console inject false data about driving behaviour to trigger the system, or perhaps a particularly bad car will allow the kill switch signal to be injected directly. Either way, if I were a highway robber it worse, I'd start investigating the wireless stacks of cars common in rural areas. With how much data car manufacturers are already sucking out of you as a driver (https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article...), this kill switch is such a minor thing to add to the list.
- klabb3 3y ago
  > How exactly does this violate your privacy, assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? There is almost no remaining device-local data in consumer products, since everything that’s collected is usually exfiltrated or “shared with our partners to improve your experience”. It’s not strange that people assume device-local info doesn’t exist anymore. It’s a reasonable simplification that almost always turns out to be accurate, sadly. I worry we’re never gonna turn this around. Say gen Z, who have grown up after the compulsive data hoarding started. They won’t care because they don’t even remember another time..
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - tapland 3y ago
      What makes you sure about that? There was a survey in Sweden last week about face detection/AI surveillance cameras being deployed in public and GenZ was way more supportive of that than Millennials
jnsaff2 3y ago
I would warmly recommend everyone to read The Power Broker[0] to get a tiny glimpse into how innocuous things in different laws get planted and combined into getting wildly different outcomes from public perception. It's also gotten way worse nowadays. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker
- giantg2 3y ago
  Some states have constitutional ammendments that bills be single topic. Sounds like a good idea at the federal level too.
spuz 3y ago
The claim that those fact-checking websites are "gaslighting" is itself gaslighting. If you actually read the statements they make, it's clear they are debunking the claim that the law requires a kill-switch that can be activated remotely. They correctly state that the law requires a switch that can disable the car when it detects an impaired driver. Just because not everyone is as up in arms about the law as the author of this article, doesn't mean they are misinformed.
- jdiez17 3y ago
  That's also what I got out of reading the linked fact checks vs. the article here. They are talking about two different things, a local-only thing that analyzes driving patterns vs a remote killswitch. Those are substantially different - however both are quite misguided IMO.
- mrmanner 3y ago
  Indeed. My first thought when I read this article's description of the law was "where's the _switch_?". Not literally a switch of course, but there's not even a figurative switch IMO. It's a something else.
- mcv 3y ago
  Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise. But not only is this article imprecise in its criticism of the law, it sounds to me like the law (which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? How well has that technology been going lately? The article may be bad, but the law also sounds bad. This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill, but deserves some discussion on its own.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    > which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. The technology exists. The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... . The definition is: 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-- (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). In the findings: (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 That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-could-prevent-more-than-a-fourth-of-u-s-road-fatalities https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... . """Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented.""" Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technology-be-in-u-s-cars-and-trucks/ https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation. > You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? See the DADSS link. See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ). See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues. > And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement. > This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade. Nothing seems wrong with the law.
RadixDLT 3y ago
this is outrageous, people should riot in the street
Dalewyn 3y ago
There's a reason police don't just camp outside of restaurants that serve alcohol and arrest every single person that comes out and starts their car's engine. I doubt this mandate will survive the court of public opinion once this becomes adequately known.
- ipsin 3y ago
  I think you're right, but I'm wondering whether cars will be designed with this feature for that happens. The article does a decent job of showing how "Fact Checkers" failed to spread knowledge, probably due to individual biases and a lack of diligence.
- matsemann 3y ago
  > There's a reason police don't just camp outside of restaurants that serve alcohol and arrest every single person that comes out and starts their car's engine. Why is that? My guess it's mostly because police officers are over represented in drunk driving themselves?
  - bloomingeek 3y ago
    In my backward state, police won't arrest someone coming out of a bar, no matter how drunk they are, unless someone calls to alert them. (bartenders are suppose to cut them off if they seem drunk, yeah right!) However, the police will set up a "sobriety check" road stop, after warning you in the local newspaper where the checks will be! These road stops are usually off highway exit ramps far from any bars. So, yeah, too many cops drink and drive, I'm guessing.
  - tyfon 3y ago
    My guess is that police officers hate paper work and this would generate a ton of paper work, court appearances etc. My (European) opinion is the the best option here is really to provide public infrastructure (night buses etc) that enable the drunks to get home without driving.
    - Aspos 3y ago
bloomingeek 3y ago
So, where does it end? If the cops crash in to your car, even if they aren't pursuing you, they won't pay for repairs. If they remote disable your car and it turns out they weren't after you and it borks your car electronically, what makes you think they will pay for repairs? A bad guy, driving a certain model of car similar to yours, needs to have his car killed. They send out a "kill all" command and get your car, that would suck, huh? All the above examples is a violation of something, if not privacy. And who's to say they all aren't possible in the near future? So what if you spent $35K on your vehicle and they infiltrate it, it's not really yours anyway, right? (sarcasm intended)
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Government overreach and the surveillance state don't end willingly. Amassing power is a dangerous thing, those in charge will keep doing it as long as they can get away with it. I think the real question is how long can this go on before the people have no way to stop it if they wanted to.
  - whatevaa 3y ago
    Killer robots. Call me nuts, but then smart autonomous killing machines appear, which don't require human control (so zero empathy), then it will come, slowly. It's already hard to protest against anything with police in control, and when army steps in they can take complete control (see army coups in some other countries). Taking humans and their 'silly' empathy out of the equation would just make that even easier. Just don't cause too much unrest at once. And some countries already can't be stopped. See Russia, a mafia state. They just beated protests until 'morale improved'.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
If you are going this route a much simpler and more effective rule would be to limit the speed of a car to the max allowed on the road/country.
- cvb941 3y ago
  Attempt to overtake - > death
  - yard2010 3y ago
    Attempt to run away from terrorists -> death
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    You can just cap it at 10-20KM/H (or miles) extra if that's the argument. Im not necessarily for it. But there is definitely an argument to be made, speeding is the cause of 30% of all traffic deaths: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding#:~:text=Dangers%20of%20Speeding,-TRAFFIC%20SAFETY%20FACTS&text=For%20more%20than%20two%20decades,29%25%20of%20all%20traffic%20fatalities https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding#:~:text=Dangers....
cbeach 3y ago
My key takeaway from this article is that we cannot trust the closed-door fact-checkers of Snopes, Politifact, AP and others. They're evidently not acting in the public interest, either by incompetence, or worse: by collaborating with the authoritarians who are rising in Western government. It's clear from the truckers protest in Canada (with participants having their bank accounts frozen on order of Prime Minister Trudeau) that Western governments are willing to take draconian measures. And on the basis of this example, it's obvious to see how kill switches in vehicles could be misused by a government that desperately wants its own way.
- jlmorton 3y ago
  This. That was really a wake-up call. I certainly do not support honking horns all night in cities for weeks, and I wouldn't have batted an eye if the government declared the protest a riot, arrested every individual involved, and put them all in court the next week. But the extrajudicial freezing of bank accounts under an Emergency Act was a siren, and I'll certainly view any new proposed new tools through that lens.
- eesmith 3y ago
  The article is lying to you. Do not trust it. The law does not require a kill switch of any sort, much less one that can be activated remotely. The phrase is "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". Limit can mean a lot of things besides preventing the car from driving. Consider that if you fail the test then a warning lamp appears. If you continue to fail the test for another 5 minutes, and are driving over 20 mph, then your car starts flashing its lights and honking its horn until the test passes again or you stop the car. Or, a governor engages, ramping down to 10mph over a period of 10 minutes. Those result in limited operation, but are not kill switches. Yes, the law could allow interlocks which prohibit use completely, just like those convicted of DUI may already required to have interlocks installed. But it certainly does not mandate it.
  - cbeach 3y ago
    To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpretation of the law. The path to hell is paved with generous assumptions that government won't take full advantage of the powers it granted itself
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Once neuralink-like devices become ubiquitous, they will ask for a "kill switch" in people's brain. And the same HN users on this thread will say that's not such a big deal. Law enforcers can already track people and arrest them physically, that's just a faster way to do that. But no, it's bonkers. And yes, a kill switch in cars is bonkers. You want to stop a car? You should do that manually because: - it requires efforts and has a high cost, for something that should not be common - it implies skin in the game - it's very hard to mass scale - it's not nearly has much subject to hacking, corporate abuses, rogue cops, dirty politicians or bugs - you can throttle things like speed and capabilities from the car, no need for a kill switch The fact that some people here even debates that shows how much we are screwed. A significant part of our population, even the educated and smart one as this thread demonstrates, cannot think in a way that will lead to maintain a decent amount freedom given a enough time. You could never, you cannot, and you will never be able to assume benevolence and competence from the people in power. Their power must always be restricted, for us to keep being free on the long run. It's not a matter of morality. It's causality at work. But sure, the biggest problem is that "it's a not violation of privacy". And sure, it's just "for impaired drivers". Just like the patriot act was only temporary, right?
- outime 3y ago
  >The fact that some people here even debates that shows how much we are screwed. It's really sad to see that even after centuries of countless examples about how the authorities of the time will end up abusing any power that's granted to them there's still people (even a majority of people) who think it'll be different this time as opposed to our whole known human history. We surely are doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again and again.
  - rsync 3y ago
    "... who think it'll be different this time as opposed to our whole known human history." You give them too much credit. I don't think they believe it will be "different this time". They believe: "This time it will be done on my behalf".
- 3y ago
spacebacon 3y ago
It’s a security concern more than a privacy concern.
toyg 3y ago
Good luck with this. My 2013 car has a sensor that tries to detect if you're swerving too hard, tuning down the engine if it thinks you've lost control. It engages way, way too often - e.g. a bumpy road on cold tires will easily trigger it. The faith that non-IT people have in "smart" automation always doing the right thing, is really remarkable.
- switch007 3y ago
  That's wild - what's that stupid "feature" called? Not heard of that one! My car also thinks I'm too stupid not to drive on busy roads with lots of parked cars and often thinks I'm about to slam in to a parked car. Like, did anybody test it in the UK? Our roads are narrow and full of parked cars!
  - toyg 3y ago
    It's this: https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/153818/what-is-esp-on-a-car https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/153818/what-is-es... I'm sure it's great when in an actually dangerous condition, but it's slightly annoying to feel the engine revving down every other day, when you're trying to get to work, just because the first couple of streets are a bit "unmaintained".
JCharante 3y ago
A vehicle kill switch sounds awesome. There is no reason vehicles should be unregulated to the point where you can just drive your car at 120MPH or plow it into a crowd.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hnbad 3y ago
The article seems to be more interested in being outraged in principle than demonstrating anything objectionable specifically. The law in question seems to require cars to implement a way to detect dangerous driving and be able to respond to this (presumably by forcing the driver to stop). There is nothing suggesting a need (or permission) for data collection beyond the specific incident or for law enforcement involvement at any point. It's worth mentioning that cars with "autonomous" driving modes or intelligent assistance already record similar data so the data generation itself does not seem to be the issue here. The far more troubling question is a) how the car is supposed to determine you're driving dangerously (and how likely false positives are) and b) how the car is supposed to safely come to a stop in a way that does not endanger other people (hopefully not by just turning on the hazards after coming to a full step on the left lane of a highway). Given that I recently had a car blare at me because it wouldn't believe that I was looking at the road no matter how I turned my head, where I looked and how much I opened my eyes, the prospect of a car deciding its driver is drunk and doing something dangerous seems like a much bigger concern than law enforcement or eco terrorists hacking my car to prevent me from driving to Starbucks.
- wryoak 3y ago
  I’m glad I scrolled all the way to the bottom because I thought I was going to have to point this out! It seems like one of those things many of us are used to the higher ups at work dumping on us in moments of excitement: some great sounding idea whose generator never considered all of the implementation details that are so damn complex
- AnAaaaardvark 3y ago
  Absolutely, my car AI the other day nearly tried to make me hit another car while driving for "safety reasons". These things are notoriously buggy and dangerous to use.
- whatevaa 3y ago
  I expect this to have shit ton of false positives. A new failure mode will appear, 'My car will not start because broken sensor is thinking that I'm always drunk'. :) To all the people who support this, how the hell do you you even start implementing this? Unless you detect only extremely obvious signs, simple manevrouing around shittier roads could trigger this.
HPsquared 3y ago
"Red Barchetta" coming closer to reality.
iambateman 3y ago
Privacy and safety exist in tension, and it seems like there is a possibility that this law is helpful. I have a right to travel, but no right to travel recklessly. Just like automated speed cameras, an in-car detection system could help reduce drunk driving and other kinds of reckless driving. As long as 42,000 Americans per year die in crashes and alcohol is the #1 contributing factor, I think we should think creatively as a society about how to fix that. I welcome a law which helps save lives - including the lives of drunk drivers - by detecting and limiting impairment at a vehicle level. There is no way law enforcement will ever be able to catch all instances of drunk driving without help and no way people will stop drunk driving in the first place. It’s time for some new policy.
- cbeach 3y ago
  Heart disease is the #1 cause of death. Let's regulate that away first. Cameras in every household to catch people who are about to eat unhealthily. Administer a small electric shock through their mandatory headgear until they comply. This is how we achieve utopia, where everyone is safe and no one dies of preventable causes.
LocalH 3y ago
Minority Report was a playbook for these bastards, instead of a warning.
- switch007 3y ago
  I can't help but feel films like that just exist to plant the seed; to help people get used to the idea. Just like the 300 different cop shows and films that follow the same script of "I don't need a lawyer", "Sure officer, I'd love to help", "Yes, please come in and root around all my belongings, no problem" I do admit however I have a vast collection of tinfoil hats
throwaway_ab 3y ago
Focusing on privacy is a weak angle of attack in this case. The issue of privacy is solvable anyway so time spent on this argument is ultimately time wasted. The real issue here is the issue of our liberty being violated in a substantial way. The ability for the state to remotely kill your means of transportation, thus remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control. You might be wondering how is this different from the current system, the government already has the power to determine who can drive. A few things: - The current system works solely via the legal system. The law determines who can drive, there is no technological system to force compliance, yes you can be pulled over by the cops, but this is a case by case process that can't be applied to entire swaths of the population. - a kill switch allows the possibility that transportation is denied to entire regions, specific minorities, a government could use this power to control people in ways make the power imbalance between state and individual even more extreme. - The kill switch is a constant threat against our freedom of movement. - The system could be abused or hacked, exposing us in this way for more power is abhorrent.
- timnetworks 3y ago
  I too, am very concerned about a 'not authorized to drive to zone 4' error for specific income brackets. However, I am concerned those same zones will be Green Zones that don't let ICE vehicles in either way. . . . Kit cars?
- cabalamat 3y ago
  > The system could be abused or hacked E.g. by a hostile foreign power.
  - AnAaaaardvark 3y ago
    Or even a cop that really dislikes another cop. This is pandoras box.
  - scott-smith_us 3y ago
    I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime. In the foreign invasion (or US govt goes full fascist) case, people can remove these devices. Meanwhile many if not most high-speed chases won't happen any more, because the person being chased didn't plan ahead. There will still be getaway cars, etc. where the device was removed. That's no different to what we have now, and it'll be an extra violation to charge them with when they're caught. Since driving is, and has always been a privilege and not a right, I don't see a problem with having a remote kill switch that cops can use in specific cases.
juanani 3y ago
[dead]
egberts1 3y ago
I paid for something, w do not expect anyone else to attach a string to it. It is bad enough that government got a string to our income.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  That string provides the roads.
  - egberts1 3y ago
    That's why we have toll roads
rayiner 3y ago
How did the fact checkers get this wrong? > “Our rating: False,” said USA Today. > “ASSESSMENT: False,” said the Associated Press. > “We rate it Mostly False,” concluded PolitiFact.
- projektfu 3y ago
  PolitiFact basically got it right, but I imagine the OP thinks that you're not going to check. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/05/instagram-posts/-vehicle-technology-coming-stop-impaired-drivers-i/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/05/instagram-...
AnAaaaardvark 3y ago
I'm more concerned about cartels exploiting this tool to kill people 2bh.
AnAaaaardvark 3y ago
More concerned about hacking this to murder people. Imagine if this was exploited by a corrupt officer on the freeway to murder someone? Just another step towards full protection racket at this stage.
jacobwilliamroy 3y ago
I already have a little device in my car that let's my auto insurance company spy on me in exchange for a discount. They call it a "Drive Safe and Save Beacon". After asking a lot of questions I have come to believe that it is an accelerometer and a bluetooth radio that sends data to my phone and either the accelerometer data is processed on my phone or it is transmitted via the internet somewhere else where it is processed. I'm not sure which one it is. The insurance company consumes location data too, but they get that from my phone, but there might also be a GPS chip in the "beacon". Probably not though. There's no easy way to take the beacon apart to replace the battery so I would think they wouldn't put unnecessary components in there to draw power. It actually makes me wonder why they need the "beacon" at all because my phone already has an accelerometer, location data and an internet connection. It must be some kind of regulatory requirement. Either that or the people selling the "beacons" to the insurance company are really good at selling redundant unnecessary equipment. Or maybe to get accurate data the accelerometer needs to be in a fixed position in the vehicle and my phone moves around too much. The only part of a system like this that doesn't work is sometimes the actual posted speed limit doesn't match what the insurance company has in its database and I have to call them and tell them they need to update it. The U.S has a lot of roads. Just keeping track of what the speed limit is for a given location in the U.S. would be difficult, but not impossible. Probably involves a whole lot of boring data entry work.
mizzao 3y ago
Pretty torn on this one... There is the risk of privacy issues and the mechanism being abused. But on the other hand, motor vehicle accidents are the third largest cause of deaths in the US, a totally insane and unnecessary number. People were equally up in arms about the mandate to wear a seatbelt impinging on their freedoms but now most do it gladly. Operating a car is a privilege, not a right, and that's why we have driving tests and licenses and all of that. Maybe this will just be one necessary piece of having that privilege.
scott-smith_us 3y ago
"Freedom of travel" means the government can't tell you you're not allowed to move to (or visit) another location. It absolutely does not mean that they can't tell you you're not allowed to drive. Driving is, and always has been a privilege in the US; not a right.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  >It absolutely does not mean that they can't tell you you're not allowed to drive. Triple negative sentence = 'it does mean that they can tell you you're allowed to drive'?
  - drewzero1 3y ago
    That's not how that works, syntactically or logically. The sentence has a distinct meaning that is not preserved when trying to cancel our the negations like that. (This isn't "I don't owe nobody nothing".) Less concisely, it means that it does prevent the government from telling you you can't move around, but it doesn't prevent the government from forbidding you to drive.
uconnectlol 3y ago
> (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. first of all, whoever proposed this should be fired or in jail second, who even writes like this? did they consult software and electronic engineers? as a software engineer i have the expertise and experience to know this is a bad idea and will be ridden with false positives and cant be implemented in a secure manner anyway.
plz-remove-card 3y ago
If I wanted the government to have complete control over my transportation, I'd rather just spend more in taxes on better public transit systems...
excalibur 3y ago
This article is infuriating, but the author and publication are highly questionable. Does anyone have a better source?
anyonecancode 3y ago
Potentially controversial take -- we've been making, and continue to make, decisions that in aggregate prioritize private car ownership as the default transportation mode, and this has resulted in limiting our freedom of movement, and will continue to limit it. I have a car, and I enjoy a good road trip. I think cars are fantastic for inter-city transportation, especially with a family. But objectively, I have less practical freedom of movement today when I live in the suburbs than when I was younger and lived in NYC. Having a car is not optional for my current situation -- I cannot run any errands without a car, and can get to very few places of interest without one, and it is outright dangerous to be on foot in many parts. If my car is unavailable to me for whatever reason, I'm very inhibited in my movements. When I lived in the city, by contrast, I had a many options for errands and fun within a 15 minute walk, and most of the rest of city available to me via bus or subway. As cars become increasingly complex - especially as they start to become "connected" -- being car-dependent means our freedom of movement becomes even more vulnerable. My general feeling with this story on kill switches is skepticism that it's a good idea, but I feel that if people are really concerned about freedom of movement, they need to be thinking more broadly about how we've made it so difficult for a person to freely move around with just their own two feet.
- cbeach 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    Not sure where to start with this but the giant leap to dystopian hellscape from the premise of density and transit, of all things, is amusing.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    >There will be no carrots. Only sticks. 15 minute city lifestyle IS the carrot. When the zone is nice and convenient, one rarely cares about the sticks. Commerce reorients with land use patterns. Shops do magically relocate towards density. That's the default development pattern pre-car in human history. Pivotting back to less car-centric, walkable mix use doesn't mean no cars but less cars and different (smaller) cars in exchange for transit/pedestrian priority.
hooverd 3y ago
Anything to not build bike lanes, huh.
RecycledEle 3y ago
The feds have disproportionate power over We The People. That is a problem. What if we level the playing field instead of exacerbating the problem? Every fed knows where I live, so let's publish where they live. Let's put large LCD screens in the sides of every government building and vehicle announcing the PII (name, cell number, hine address, job title, pay rate) of everyone working there. I may suggest this to the Libertarian Party to be included in their platform.
- ETHisso2017 3y ago
  Try this, and see how long it takes before your home is raided and you are prosecuted for whatever the authorities can find
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    The US' Founding Fathers dealt with exactly that. They were successful.
nunez 3y ago
I just want people to stop speeding and driving while scrolling
hardcopy 3y ago
Makes perfect sense. Cars are incredibly deadly and should have a remote way to turn them off. Don't like it? Choose a method of transportation that doesn't have a huge potential to kill people.
vstern4 3y ago
[flagged]
vstern99 3y ago
[flagged]
lenkite 3y ago
The most illuminating thing is all the so-called "fact-checkers" who rated this kill-switch mandate as "false". They should all be called "lie-certifiers".
3seashells 3y ago
Can't wait for a cartel courier kills witching a chasing police car..
thegrim33 3y ago
One idea I have to solve the concern that it might eventually be made remotely accessible is to include in the bill a clause that if any future bill tries to mandate it being remotely accessible, in any way, then both bills are immediately null and void. Is there any legal precedent for something like that? And just to be clear, I don't support a kill switch either way, remotely accessible or not; I will never in my life voluntarily own such a vehicle.
rcpt 3y ago
Speed governors should be installed on every car. There's no reason it should be possible to go 80mph at any time. But as far as I know this is just a fantasy of mine, no politician will touch the idea citing privacy and freedom. But the 'kill switch' might actually happen? It doesn't improve safety nearly as much as speed governors. Annoying.
gymbeaux 3y ago
I mean I think it comes down to semantics. “Kill switch” to me implies the NSA or FBI or my local PD can disable my car for things like unpaid parking tickets or an expired registration or insurance. What is in the bill sounds like some AI or pseudo-AI that disables the car if it detects I would assume swerving, unusual acceleration or the like, which isn’t far removed from existing pseudo-AI in cars (lane keep assist, driver attention detection, emergency braking when radar detects an imminent collision).

384 points by janandonly 3y ago

Ah so this is beginning to come true: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

A kill-switch seems like a bad idea as it would be an excellent target for eco-protestors or even terrorists to bring a city to a standstill. However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. There's also another benefit to measuring acceleration/deceleration data and that is to highlight if someone's faculties suddenly decline (e.g. illness or old age). Typically, when someone has failing eyesight, they might not be able to predict other vehicles as well and that would lead to more aggressive braking which can easily be measured. This could provide an important early warning system to the drivers that their driving has suddenly worsened and they might want to see a doctor unless they have a known temporary condition (e.g. hay fever). Also, if the aim is to detect drink-driving, then that's easy enough to do from outside the vehicle with CCTV cameras and the police already have methods to stop drunk drivers. I suspect that the aim is surveillance rather than law enforcement.

rcxdude 3y ago
>However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This already exists, at least in the UK market. A lot of insurers will give you a discount if you let them fit such a "telematics" box to your car. It's still a privacy nightmare.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Well, I'm in the UK but not a driver (cyclist by choice). My point is that the black boxes should be almost mandatory (or at least fitted by default) in order to detect health problems which I don't think the insurance company provided boxes do. Have it be a standardised device and provide the data to the owner so that they can decide on whether or not to provide that data to third parties (probably worth having anonymised data available to the government too). It could be a very useful early warning of a number of conditions as well as providing an incentive for drivers to pay attention.
  - whatevaa 3y ago
    What sort of early warnings are you thinking about exactly? Also, lol, no, governments are not gonna bother propely anonymising the data too. Plus if it's anonymous what's the point of this data?
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Early warnings of dementia or even eyesight problems - both of those are likely to lead to a change in driving style with more pronounced braking as the driver reacts slower to events. It would make sense to anonymise the data before sending it to the government and the point of the data is to identify road congestion and problematic junctions. It could also feed into better tracking of traffic lights timings etc. None of those uses have a requirement to know whether it's Mr Jones in his red Corsa or Mrs Malaprop in her SUV.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        location data is basically impossible to anonymise: if you have a record of someone's movements over any more than a day you can almost certainly work out where they live and work, for example. When it comes to personal data you can't just wave an anonymisation wand and say it's definitely OK now, you need to think carefully about the exact case, and especially the more data that is collected the more difficult it is to actually keep things private.
martin_a 3y ago
> valuable data to insurance companies Great idea! But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. Maybe you're next. We'll just make sure that rates have already been adjusted to account for that. Also we saw that you were driving (very smoothly, congrats on that!) around some rather shady parts of town. This will lead to another rise in your fees, we just want to make sure that we got you covered in case your car gets stolen...
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I believe insurance companies already look at your location when deciding premiums, so this would just give them greater granularity on your actual driving habits.
  - isoprophlex 3y ago
    In the limit of perfect knowledge being transferred to your insurer, will an insurance stop being one, instead turning into an obligation to pay a middleman for all your claims?
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Only if that perfect knowledge includes knowledge of future events such as a tree falling on your car or it being struck by lightning etc.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  > But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. These types of statistical analyses are exactly why insurance is as cheap as it is. I'm no fan of all the discounts insurance companies hand out for handing over private data like driving behaviour or healthcare stuff, but insurance companies with no risk management can't compete in any kind of open market. I would argue that in terms of broader accessibility of insurance, these microtargeting approaches may actually be an improvement for many. If you live in a troublesome neighbourhood you may be paying through the nose for getting categorised as "one of the bad ones", but these individual data points can help prove you're a responsible driver and escape some of the cost of having a shitty start in life. I'm still against these data collection practises ("you want privacy? Live in a rich neighbourhood and get a college degree!", plus a lack of any kind of law preventing these companies from sharing or selling that data) but there are solid arguments in favour of feeding insurance companies more data.
matsemann 3y ago
What you describe is actually becoming common. What I want is something in cars that makes it impossible to go over X inside city bounds etc. The tech for knowing the speed limit isn't good enough yet to be used for limiting, but some kind of max limit in an area a bit over the highest speed limit would help a lot. Electric scooters have geofencing and speed limiters. My drone has gps zones it wont fly. Electric bikes have speed limiters. But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. In reality it's a political problem. Here in the UK, certain right-wing media outlets and personalities are often complaining about the "War on Motorists" which is ironic as when you look at RTC data, it's the motorists that are massacring pedestrians and other road users.
- mrighele 3y ago
  > But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. There are already a solutions, it is called police, speed traps, fines, and license revocation. Not everything has to be done with preventative measures by a nanny state.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    And how well has that worked so far, you feel? Having limits on things doesn't automatically make things a "nanny state". Don't argue like that. Is it a nanny-state that there are speed limits?
    - giantg2 3y ago
      You're still going to need traditional enforcement. The people doing those sorts of speeds modify their cars will just push a new tune to remove it (remember, most cars today are limited by the factory well before that to match tire speed ratings). So there's already evidence that limits set today do nothing to prevent this sort of abuse.
chronicsonic 3y ago
This unfortunately already exist in europe. Young drivers can get a black box installed in return for a discount on their insurance. This is because those costs for young drivers can be astronomical. I would never trust a private for profit company with this much data.
b112 3y ago
Fully against all remote monitoring, especially having insurance companies having access, along with no kill switches. Remote monitoring, aside from the incredible security risks, provides no context as to why. Frankly, I think it should be illegal for cars to have any form of wireless networked access. I personally disable all of that in any car I buy, typically by removing antennas and replacing with resistors.
matrss 3y ago
> However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". Unfortunately, it also already exists.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". I think that highlights the stupidity of a privatised health insurance system. Not wanting to know about health problems due to a financial disincentive is not a sensible way of managing a populations' health, when typically prevention is much cheaper and more effective than waiting until obvious symptoms show up. I suppose it depends on whether profit is more important than the population's health.
HtmlProgrammer 3y ago
This already exists and has stopped people I know personally from driving like idiots. https://www.boxymo.ie https://www.boxymo.ie
giantg2 3y ago
Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. They already have data readers that plug into your OBD2 port for insurance purposes.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. Those events will be much rarer than the type of late braking that poor drivers will make due to lack of observation. It'd be trivial to separate out the emergency stops from the everyday driving data.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    I highly doubt it will be trivial. I rarely have to brake hard. But when I do, it's usuallynin an area where the other drivers are terrible and hard braking is simply more common (as are running lights and stop signs, eg Philly and parts of Jersey). So yes, in a population of good drivers it would be simple to select people with higher rates of hard braking. But punishing them without context could lead to false punishment (similar to the cases of nurses that just happened to have higher rates of patient deaths - the prosecutor fallacy I think). Once you surpass a threshold of bad drivers in the population, it's more likely in my mind that the hard braking people may actually be the good drivers avoiding the ones running lights.
Aurornis 3y ago
> However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This has been available for years from some insurance companies. There’s no reason it needs to be built into the car or to automatically report it against the driver’s will. It’s an opt-in thing. My coworker got it when they first came out because she thought she was a safe driver and wanted a discount. She got a monthly report of how many sudden stops it recorded and the number was much higher than she would have guessed. She never could figure out what was triggering it, but began to suspect it was the stop signs between her house and the office. So instead of coming to a complete stop she started slowing down and then rolling through (which isn’t legal in our state). Unintended consequences strike again.

rtpg 3y ago

My reading of this article is that “kill switch” here seems to be “car determines that you are driving like a drunk person, so shuts down” rather than “some service remotely sends a kill command for reason X to your car”. In the hypothesis that it’s actually kind of easy to figure out if somebody is impaired, I’m pretty conflicted because the upside of not having an impaired person driving is really high. Just I don’t know how possible it is, nor how reliably that would work. On top of that it seems like one step between that and “and the car reports you”.

margalabargala 3y ago
It's easy to find out if someone is driving as though they are impaired, less easy to find out if they actually are. Medical emergencies spring to mind as something that will be hard to distinguish. How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth?
- pinkgolem 3y ago
  I mean.. is it not more helpful if those people wait on the side of the road for 10-15 minutes till an ambulance/helicopter is there? If they are driving like a drunk driver I would assume the same risks are included...
  - sethammons 3y ago
    I have lived the majority of my life in Southern California and the fastest emergency personnel could get to my home is 25 minutes, speeding. I assume you are unfamiliar with rural living, a common shortsightedness I see on this forum.
    - pinkgolem 3y ago
      My city has a whopping 500 people, if it's something urgent... They send out an helicopter. Would be very surprised if there are places further away then 15 minutes from a helicopter where you can reach any sensibel healthcare infrastructure faster by car A women having early contractions, most likely would not qualify even for emergency lights.

gyudin 3y ago

Kinda too late to talk about privacy in US when you guys gave up ALL the electronic data to the government.

jeroenhd 3y ago

How exactly does this violate your privacy, assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? It's a massive violation of an individual's freedoms, but not everything has to be about privacy all the time. Your car deciding it doesn't want to drive because its sensors decided you steer too funnily impairs your freedom of movement, the privacy aspect is minor in comparison in my opinion. I'm also not too happy about the prospect of cars, which have been proven to be hackable remotely, having yet another point where an evildoer may insert motor control inhibitions. Perhaps a shitty car will let the media console inject false data about driving behaviour to trigger the system, or perhaps a particularly bad car will allow the kill switch signal to be injected directly. Either way, if I were a highway robber it worse, I'd start investigating the wireless stacks of cars common in rural areas. With how much data car manufacturers are already sucking out of you as a driver (https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article...), this kill switch is such a minor thing to add to the list.

klabb3 3y ago
> How exactly does this violate your privacy, assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? There is almost no remaining device-local data in consumer products, since everything that’s collected is usually exfiltrated or “shared with our partners to improve your experience”. It’s not strange that people assume device-local info doesn’t exist anymore. It’s a reasonable simplification that almost always turns out to be accurate, sadly. I worry we’re never gonna turn this around. Say gen Z, who have grown up after the compulsive data hoarding started. They won’t care because they don’t even remember another time..
- shortcake27 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - tapland 3y ago
    What makes you sure about that? There was a survey in Sweden last week about face detection/AI surveillance cameras being deployed in public and GenZ was way more supportive of that than Millennials

jnsaff2 3y ago

I would warmly recommend everyone to read The Power Broker[0] to get a tiny glimpse into how innocuous things in different laws get planted and combined into getting wildly different outcomes from public perception. It's also gotten way worse nowadays. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker

giantg2 3y ago
Some states have constitutional ammendments that bills be single topic. Sounds like a good idea at the federal level too.

spuz 3y ago

The claim that those fact-checking websites are "gaslighting" is itself gaslighting. If you actually read the statements they make, it's clear they are debunking the claim that the law requires a kill-switch that can be activated remotely. They correctly state that the law requires a switch that can disable the car when it detects an impaired driver. Just because not everyone is as up in arms about the law as the author of this article, doesn't mean they are misinformed.

jdiez17 3y ago
That's also what I got out of reading the linked fact checks vs. the article here. They are talking about two different things, a local-only thing that analyzes driving patterns vs a remote killswitch. Those are substantially different - however both are quite misguided IMO.
mrmanner 3y ago
Indeed. My first thought when I read this article's description of the law was "where's the _switch_?". Not literally a switch of course, but there's not even a figurative switch IMO. It's a something else.
mcv 3y ago
Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise. But not only is this article imprecise in its criticism of the law, it sounds to me like the law (which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? How well has that technology been going lately? The article may be bad, but the law also sounds bad. This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill, but deserves some discussion on its own.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. The technology exists. The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... . The definition is: 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-- (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). In the findings: (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 That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-could-prevent-more-than-a-fourth-of-u-s-road-fatalities https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... . """Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented.""" Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technology-be-in-u-s-cars-and-trucks/ https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation. > You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? See the DADSS link. See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ). See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues. > And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement. > This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade. Nothing seems wrong with the law.

RadixDLT 3y ago

this is outrageous, people should riot in the street

Dalewyn 3y ago

There's a reason police don't just camp outside of restaurants that serve alcohol and arrest every single person that comes out and starts their car's engine. I doubt this mandate will survive the court of public opinion once this becomes adequately known.

ipsin 3y ago
I think you're right, but I'm wondering whether cars will be designed with this feature for that happens. The article does a decent job of showing how "Fact Checkers" failed to spread knowledge, probably due to individual biases and a lack of diligence.
matsemann 3y ago
> There's a reason police don't just camp outside of restaurants that serve alcohol and arrest every single person that comes out and starts their car's engine. Why is that? My guess it's mostly because police officers are over represented in drunk driving themselves?
- bloomingeek 3y ago
  In my backward state, police won't arrest someone coming out of a bar, no matter how drunk they are, unless someone calls to alert them. (bartenders are suppose to cut them off if they seem drunk, yeah right!) However, the police will set up a "sobriety check" road stop, after warning you in the local newspaper where the checks will be! These road stops are usually off highway exit ramps far from any bars. So, yeah, too many cops drink and drive, I'm guessing.
- tyfon 3y ago
  My guess is that police officers hate paper work and this would generate a ton of paper work, court appearances etc. My (European) opinion is the the best option here is really to provide public infrastructure (night buses etc) that enable the drunks to get home without driving.
  - Aspos 3y ago

bloomingeek 3y ago

So, where does it end? If the cops crash in to your car, even if they aren't pursuing you, they won't pay for repairs. If they remote disable your car and it turns out they weren't after you and it borks your car electronically, what makes you think they will pay for repairs? A bad guy, driving a certain model of car similar to yours, needs to have his car killed. They send out a "kill all" command and get your car, that would suck, huh? All the above examples is a violation of something, if not privacy. And who's to say they all aren't possible in the near future? So what if you spent $35K on your vehicle and they infiltrate it, it's not really yours anyway, right? (sarcasm intended)

_heimdall 3y ago
Government overreach and the surveillance state don't end willingly. Amassing power is a dangerous thing, those in charge will keep doing it as long as they can get away with it. I think the real question is how long can this go on before the people have no way to stop it if they wanted to.
- whatevaa 3y ago
  Killer robots. Call me nuts, but then smart autonomous killing machines appear, which don't require human control (so zero empathy), then it will come, slowly. It's already hard to protest against anything with police in control, and when army steps in they can take complete control (see army coups in some other countries). Taking humans and their 'silly' empathy out of the equation would just make that even easier. Just don't cause too much unrest at once. And some countries already can't be stopped. See Russia, a mafia state. They just beated protests until 'morale improved'.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

If you are going this route a much simpler and more effective rule would be to limit the speed of a car to the max allowed on the road/country.

cvb941 3y ago
Attempt to overtake - > death
- yard2010 3y ago
  Attempt to run away from terrorists -> death
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  You can just cap it at 10-20KM/H (or miles) extra if that's the argument. Im not necessarily for it. But there is definitely an argument to be made, speeding is the cause of 30% of all traffic deaths: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding#:~:text=Dangers%20of%20Speeding,-TRAFFIC%20SAFETY%20FACTS&text=For%20more%20than%20two%20decades,29%25%20of%20all%20traffic%20fatalities https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding#:~:text=Dangers....

cbeach 3y ago

My key takeaway from this article is that we cannot trust the closed-door fact-checkers of Snopes, Politifact, AP and others. They're evidently not acting in the public interest, either by incompetence, or worse: by collaborating with the authoritarians who are rising in Western government. It's clear from the truckers protest in Canada (with participants having their bank accounts frozen on order of Prime Minister Trudeau) that Western governments are willing to take draconian measures. And on the basis of this example, it's obvious to see how kill switches in vehicles could be misused by a government that desperately wants its own way.

jlmorton 3y ago
This. That was really a wake-up call. I certainly do not support honking horns all night in cities for weeks, and I wouldn't have batted an eye if the government declared the protest a riot, arrested every individual involved, and put them all in court the next week. But the extrajudicial freezing of bank accounts under an Emergency Act was a siren, and I'll certainly view any new proposed new tools through that lens.
eesmith 3y ago
The article is lying to you. Do not trust it. The law does not require a kill switch of any sort, much less one that can be activated remotely. The phrase is "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". Limit can mean a lot of things besides preventing the car from driving. Consider that if you fail the test then a warning lamp appears. If you continue to fail the test for another 5 minutes, and are driving over 20 mph, then your car starts flashing its lights and honking its horn until the test passes again or you stop the car. Or, a governor engages, ramping down to 10mph over a period of 10 minutes. Those result in limited operation, but are not kill switches. Yes, the law could allow interlocks which prohibit use completely, just like those convicted of DUI may already required to have interlocks installed. But it certainly does not mandate it.
- cbeach 3y ago
  To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpretation of the law. The path to hell is paved with generous assumptions that government won't take full advantage of the powers it granted itself

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

Once neuralink-like devices become ubiquitous, they will ask for a "kill switch" in people's brain. And the same HN users on this thread will say that's not such a big deal. Law enforcers can already track people and arrest them physically, that's just a faster way to do that. But no, it's bonkers. And yes, a kill switch in cars is bonkers. You want to stop a car? You should do that manually because: - it requires efforts and has a high cost, for something that should not be common - it implies skin in the game - it's very hard to mass scale - it's not nearly has much subject to hacking, corporate abuses, rogue cops, dirty politicians or bugs - you can throttle things like speed and capabilities from the car, no need for a kill switch The fact that some people here even debates that shows how much we are screwed. A significant part of our population, even the educated and smart one as this thread demonstrates, cannot think in a way that will lead to maintain a decent amount freedom given a enough time. You could never, you cannot, and you will never be able to assume benevolence and competence from the people in power. Their power must always be restricted, for us to keep being free on the long run. It's not a matter of morality. It's causality at work. But sure, the biggest problem is that "it's a not violation of privacy". And sure, it's just "for impaired drivers". Just like the patriot act was only temporary, right?

outime 3y ago
>The fact that some people here even debates that shows how much we are screwed. It's really sad to see that even after centuries of countless examples about how the authorities of the time will end up abusing any power that's granted to them there's still people (even a majority of people) who think it'll be different this time as opposed to our whole known human history. We surely are doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again and again.
- rsync 3y ago
  "... who think it'll be different this time as opposed to our whole known human history." You give them too much credit. I don't think they believe it will be "different this time". They believe: "This time it will be done on my behalf".
3y ago

spacebacon 3y ago

It’s a security concern more than a privacy concern.

toyg 3y ago

Good luck with this. My 2013 car has a sensor that tries to detect if you're swerving too hard, tuning down the engine if it thinks you've lost control. It engages way, way too often - e.g. a bumpy road on cold tires will easily trigger it. The faith that non-IT people have in "smart" automation always doing the right thing, is really remarkable.

switch007 3y ago
That's wild - what's that stupid "feature" called? Not heard of that one! My car also thinks I'm too stupid not to drive on busy roads with lots of parked cars and often thinks I'm about to slam in to a parked car. Like, did anybody test it in the UK? Our roads are narrow and full of parked cars!
- toyg 3y ago
  It's this: https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/153818/what-is-esp-on-a-car https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/153818/what-is-es... I'm sure it's great when in an actually dangerous condition, but it's slightly annoying to feel the engine revving down every other day, when you're trying to get to work, just because the first couple of streets are a bit "unmaintained".

JCharante 3y ago

A vehicle kill switch sounds awesome. There is no reason vehicles should be unregulated to the point where you can just drive your car at 120MPH or plow it into a crowd.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hnbad 3y ago

The article seems to be more interested in being outraged in principle than demonstrating anything objectionable specifically. The law in question seems to require cars to implement a way to detect dangerous driving and be able to respond to this (presumably by forcing the driver to stop). There is nothing suggesting a need (or permission) for data collection beyond the specific incident or for law enforcement involvement at any point. It's worth mentioning that cars with "autonomous" driving modes or intelligent assistance already record similar data so the data generation itself does not seem to be the issue here. The far more troubling question is a) how the car is supposed to determine you're driving dangerously (and how likely false positives are) and b) how the car is supposed to safely come to a stop in a way that does not endanger other people (hopefully not by just turning on the hazards after coming to a full step on the left lane of a highway). Given that I recently had a car blare at me because it wouldn't believe that I was looking at the road no matter how I turned my head, where I looked and how much I opened my eyes, the prospect of a car deciding its driver is drunk and doing something dangerous seems like a much bigger concern than law enforcement or eco terrorists hacking my car to prevent me from driving to Starbucks.

wryoak 3y ago
I’m glad I scrolled all the way to the bottom because I thought I was going to have to point this out! It seems like one of those things many of us are used to the higher ups at work dumping on us in moments of excitement: some great sounding idea whose generator never considered all of the implementation details that are so damn complex
AnAaaaardvark 3y ago
Absolutely, my car AI the other day nearly tried to make me hit another car while driving for "safety reasons". These things are notoriously buggy and dangerous to use.
whatevaa 3y ago
I expect this to have shit ton of false positives. A new failure mode will appear, 'My car will not start because broken sensor is thinking that I'm always drunk'. :) To all the people who support this, how the hell do you you even start implementing this? Unless you detect only extremely obvious signs, simple manevrouing around shittier roads could trigger this.

HPsquared 3y ago

"Red Barchetta" coming closer to reality.

iambateman 3y ago

Privacy and safety exist in tension, and it seems like there is a possibility that this law is helpful. I have a right to travel, but no right to travel recklessly. Just like automated speed cameras, an in-car detection system could help reduce drunk driving and other kinds of reckless driving. As long as 42,000 Americans per year die in crashes and alcohol is the #1 contributing factor, I think we should think creatively as a society about how to fix that. I welcome a law which helps save lives - including the lives of drunk drivers - by detecting and limiting impairment at a vehicle level. There is no way law enforcement will ever be able to catch all instances of drunk driving without help and no way people will stop drunk driving in the first place. It’s time for some new policy.

cbeach 3y ago
Heart disease is the #1 cause of death. Let's regulate that away first. Cameras in every household to catch people who are about to eat unhealthily. Administer a small electric shock through their mandatory headgear until they comply. This is how we achieve utopia, where everyone is safe and no one dies of preventable causes.

LocalH 3y ago

Minority Report was a playbook for these bastards, instead of a warning.

switch007 3y ago
I can't help but feel films like that just exist to plant the seed; to help people get used to the idea. Just like the 300 different cop shows and films that follow the same script of "I don't need a lawyer", "Sure officer, I'd love to help", "Yes, please come in and root around all my belongings, no problem" I do admit however I have a vast collection of tinfoil hats

throwaway_ab 3y ago

Focusing on privacy is a weak angle of attack in this case. The issue of privacy is solvable anyway so time spent on this argument is ultimately time wasted. The real issue here is the issue of our liberty being violated in a substantial way. The ability for the state to remotely kill your means of transportation, thus remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control. You might be wondering how is this different from the current system, the government already has the power to determine who can drive. A few things: - The current system works solely via the legal system. The law determines who can drive, there is no technological system to force compliance, yes you can be pulled over by the cops, but this is a case by case process that can't be applied to entire swaths of the population. - a kill switch allows the possibility that transportation is denied to entire regions, specific minorities, a government could use this power to control people in ways make the power imbalance between state and individual even more extreme. - The kill switch is a constant threat against our freedom of movement. - The system could be abused or hacked, exposing us in this way for more power is abhorrent.

timnetworks 3y ago
I too, am very concerned about a 'not authorized to drive to zone 4' error for specific income brackets. However, I am concerned those same zones will be Green Zones that don't let ICE vehicles in either way. . . . Kit cars?
cabalamat 3y ago
> The system could be abused or hacked E.g. by a hostile foreign power.
- AnAaaaardvark 3y ago
  Or even a cop that really dislikes another cop. This is pandoras box.
- scott-smith_us 3y ago
  I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime. In the foreign invasion (or US govt goes full fascist) case, people can remove these devices. Meanwhile many if not most high-speed chases won't happen any more, because the person being chased didn't plan ahead. There will still be getaway cars, etc. where the device was removed. That's no different to what we have now, and it'll be an extra violation to charge them with when they're caught. Since driving is, and has always been a privilege and not a right, I don't see a problem with having a remote kill switch that cops can use in specific cases.

juanani 3y ago

[dead]

egberts1 3y ago

I paid for something, w do not expect anyone else to attach a string to it. It is bad enough that government got a string to our income.

InCityDreams 3y ago
That string provides the roads.
- egberts1 3y ago
  That's why we have toll roads

rayiner 3y ago

How did the fact checkers get this wrong? > “Our rating: False,” said USA Today. > “ASSESSMENT: False,” said the Associated Press. > “We rate it Mostly False,” concluded PolitiFact.

projektfu 3y ago
PolitiFact basically got it right, but I imagine the OP thinks that you're not going to check. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/05/instagram-posts/-vehicle-technology-coming-stop-impaired-drivers-i/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/05/instagram-...

AnAaaaardvark 3y ago

I'm more concerned about cartels exploiting this tool to kill people 2bh.

AnAaaaardvark 3y ago

More concerned about hacking this to murder people. Imagine if this was exploited by a corrupt officer on the freeway to murder someone? Just another step towards full protection racket at this stage.

jacobwilliamroy 3y ago

I already have a little device in my car that let's my auto insurance company spy on me in exchange for a discount. They call it a "Drive Safe and Save Beacon". After asking a lot of questions I have come to believe that it is an accelerometer and a bluetooth radio that sends data to my phone and either the accelerometer data is processed on my phone or it is transmitted via the internet somewhere else where it is processed. I'm not sure which one it is. The insurance company consumes location data too, but they get that from my phone, but there might also be a GPS chip in the "beacon". Probably not though. There's no easy way to take the beacon apart to replace the battery so I would think they wouldn't put unnecessary components in there to draw power. It actually makes me wonder why they need the "beacon" at all because my phone already has an accelerometer, location data and an internet connection. It must be some kind of regulatory requirement. Either that or the people selling the "beacons" to the insurance company are really good at selling redundant unnecessary equipment. Or maybe to get accurate data the accelerometer needs to be in a fixed position in the vehicle and my phone moves around too much. The only part of a system like this that doesn't work is sometimes the actual posted speed limit doesn't match what the insurance company has in its database and I have to call them and tell them they need to update it. The U.S has a lot of roads. Just keeping track of what the speed limit is for a given location in the U.S. would be difficult, but not impossible. Probably involves a whole lot of boring data entry work.

mizzao 3y ago

Pretty torn on this one... There is the risk of privacy issues and the mechanism being abused. But on the other hand, motor vehicle accidents are the third largest cause of deaths in the US, a totally insane and unnecessary number. People were equally up in arms about the mandate to wear a seatbelt impinging on their freedoms but now most do it gladly. Operating a car is a privilege, not a right, and that's why we have driving tests and licenses and all of that. Maybe this will just be one necessary piece of having that privilege.

scott-smith_us 3y ago

"Freedom of travel" means the government can't tell you you're not allowed to move to (or visit) another location. It absolutely does not mean that they can't tell you you're not allowed to drive. Driving is, and always has been a privilege in the US; not a right.

InCityDreams 3y ago
>It absolutely does not mean that they can't tell you you're not allowed to drive. Triple negative sentence = 'it does mean that they can tell you you're allowed to drive'?
- drewzero1 3y ago
  That's not how that works, syntactically or logically. The sentence has a distinct meaning that is not preserved when trying to cancel our the negations like that. (This isn't "I don't owe nobody nothing".) Less concisely, it means that it does prevent the government from telling you you can't move around, but it doesn't prevent the government from forbidding you to drive.

uconnectlol 3y ago

> (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. first of all, whoever proposed this should be fired or in jail second, who even writes like this? did they consult software and electronic engineers? as a software engineer i have the expertise and experience to know this is a bad idea and will be ridden with false positives and cant be implemented in a secure manner anyway.

plz-remove-card 3y ago

If I wanted the government to have complete control over my transportation, I'd rather just spend more in taxes on better public transit systems...

excalibur 3y ago

This article is infuriating, but the author and publication are highly questionable. Does anyone have a better source?

anyonecancode 3y ago

Potentially controversial take -- we've been making, and continue to make, decisions that in aggregate prioritize private car ownership as the default transportation mode, and this has resulted in limiting our freedom of movement, and will continue to limit it. I have a car, and I enjoy a good road trip. I think cars are fantastic for inter-city transportation, especially with a family. But objectively, I have less practical freedom of movement today when I live in the suburbs than when I was younger and lived in NYC. Having a car is not optional for my current situation -- I cannot run any errands without a car, and can get to very few places of interest without one, and it is outright dangerous to be on foot in many parts. If my car is unavailable to me for whatever reason, I'm very inhibited in my movements. When I lived in the city, by contrast, I had a many options for errands and fun within a 15 minute walk, and most of the rest of city available to me via bus or subway. As cars become increasingly complex - especially as they start to become "connected" -- being car-dependent means our freedom of movement becomes even more vulnerable. My general feeling with this story on kill switches is skepticism that it's a good idea, but I feel that if people are really concerned about freedom of movement, they need to be thinking more broadly about how we've made it so difficult for a person to freely move around with just their own two feet.

cbeach 3y ago
[flagged]
- Clamchop 3y ago
  Not sure where to start with this but the giant leap to dystopian hellscape from the premise of density and transit, of all things, is amusing.
- maxglute 3y ago
  >There will be no carrots. Only sticks. 15 minute city lifestyle IS the carrot. When the zone is nice and convenient, one rarely cares about the sticks. Commerce reorients with land use patterns. Shops do magically relocate towards density. That's the default development pattern pre-car in human history. Pivotting back to less car-centric, walkable mix use doesn't mean no cars but less cars and different (smaller) cars in exchange for transit/pedestrian priority.

hooverd 3y ago

Anything to not build bike lanes, huh.

RecycledEle 3y ago

The feds have disproportionate power over We The People. That is a problem. What if we level the playing field instead of exacerbating the problem? Every fed knows where I live, so let's publish where they live. Let's put large LCD screens in the sides of every government building and vehicle announcing the PII (name, cell number, hine address, job title, pay rate) of everyone working there. I may suggest this to the Libertarian Party to be included in their platform.

ETHisso2017 3y ago
Try this, and see how long it takes before your home is raided and you are prosecuted for whatever the authorities can find
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  The US' Founding Fathers dealt with exactly that. They were successful.

nunez 3y ago

I just want people to stop speeding and driving while scrolling

hardcopy 3y ago

Makes perfect sense. Cars are incredibly deadly and should have a remote way to turn them off. Don't like it? Choose a method of transportation that doesn't have a huge potential to kill people.

vstern4 3y ago

[flagged]

vstern99 3y ago

[flagged]

lenkite 3y ago

The most illuminating thing is all the so-called "fact-checkers" who rated this kill-switch mandate as "false". They should all be called "lie-certifiers".

3seashells 3y ago

Can't wait for a cartel courier kills witching a chasing police car..

thegrim33 3y ago

One idea I have to solve the concern that it might eventually be made remotely accessible is to include in the bill a clause that if any future bill tries to mandate it being remotely accessible, in any way, then both bills are immediately null and void. Is there any legal precedent for something like that? And just to be clear, I don't support a kill switch either way, remotely accessible or not; I will never in my life voluntarily own such a vehicle.

rcpt 3y ago

Speed governors should be installed on every car. There's no reason it should be possible to go 80mph at any time. But as far as I know this is just a fantasy of mine, no politician will touch the idea citing privacy and freedom. But the 'kill switch' might actually happen? It doesn't improve safety nearly as much as speed governors. Annoying.

gymbeaux 3y ago

I mean I think it comes down to semantics. “Kill switch” to me implies the NSA or FBI or my local PD can disable my car for things like unpaid parking tickets or an expired registration or insurance. What is in the bill sounds like some AI or pseudo-AI that disables the car if it detects I would assume swerving, unusual acceleration or the like, which isn’t far removed from existing pseudo-AI in cars (lane keep assist, driver attention detection, emergency braking when radar detects an imminent collision).