6 ms·

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

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
    - shortcake27 3y ago
      What makes you so sure the data in your study is truly representative of gen z? A few months ago a study was posted on HN which claimed 30% of gen z supported police cameras being installed inside homes to protect against domestic violence. Meanwhile, in Dunedin, the number of cameras on the street was reduced in consultation with university students (aka gen z). How can both of these statements be true? The answer is, they aren’t- the study posted on HN was fearmongering, manipulated data, trying to discredit the younger generation, to get older people to vote a specific way. I’m a millennial but I’m sick of this rhetoric that gen z are stupid / oblivious / complicit etc. They aren’t.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        It’s 30%: https://www.cato.org/blog/nearly-third-gen-z-favors-home-government-surveillance-cameras-1 https://www.cato.org/blog/nearly-third-gen-z-favors-home-gov...
        shortcake27 3y ago
        Thank you, I was looking for this but couldn’t find it. My comment has been corrected. To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda? It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up. “I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.
- holmesworcester 3y ago
  Given that this feature would have to be real-time and robust, and given what we know about how AI inference works, I think we can assume that the mechanism will be running locally on the car. Otherwise you'd be able to drive drunk when out of cellphone range, drive drunk by messing with your car's antenna, drive drunk during system downtime, etc. It seems plausible that car manufacturers will keep "kill-switch triggered" events local, if only because it's a huge liability, or because of the sentiment behind articles like these. I think the more interesting question here is a discussion about the public policy tradeoffs of a local-only drunk driving kill-switch. Cons: lack of user control over their own software and hardware, a slippery slope, cars will be self-driving on a roughly similar timeline anyway, and false-positive edge cases, like someone having a medical emergency getting blocked for driving weird on the way to the hospital. Pros: 100s of lives saved in the first years, ~100,000s lives saved globally after full global saturation, a reduction in the need for drunk driving enforcement (which itself is extremely totalitarian, with traffic stops, checkpoints, court fees, jail time, suspended licenses, manslaughter convictions, lost jobs, etc.) I lean against on software freedom principles alone, but it's an interesting decision space, because it's easy to limit specific harms and there is a lot to be gained, even in pure liberty terms. A world where someone who blacked out wakes up with a manslaughter or murder charge does not feel entirely free or fair either, since the conscious action they took was "drink until lose control of drinking." Many of us would rather get pulled over by their car than by a cop, I suspect.
  - dangus 3y ago
    If this means I stop getting woken up by idiots doing donuts in their motorcycles and Dodge Challengers and I’m less likely to be killed similar to the roughly half of all traffic deaths caused by drunk drivers, I’m not sure the cons outweigh the pros. Driving is a licensed privilege anyway. You aren’t even allowed to drive at all unless you pass a written and physical test to prove your road-worthiness. There is no second amendment for driving. Your freedom to drive aggressively or drunk doesn’t outweigh everyone else’s physical safety. It’s more unfortunate that the United States is built around driving where most people can’t get around and cover their basic needs without the ability to drive a personal vehicle. I think the article is interpreting the law as a bunch of cops in the surveillance center monitoring us when what it’s asking automakers to do is make a basic feature that disables the car if it can’t detect an alert driver, just like how today’s driver assist systems disable themselves if they see you dozing off or not touching the wheel. In my opinion, the vagueness of the language in the law is there for the benefit of automakers. As written, a carmaker that disables a vehicle after 20 minutes without detection of a hand on the steering wheel would be in compliance.
zoky 3y ago
You're joking, right? How can you in one paragraph say it's not a violation of privacy for your car to decide you're too drunk to drive as long as that information stays local, then in the very next paragraph decry car manufacturers allowing too much information to be remotely accessible? Do you really think it's going to be a priority of car manufacturers to protect the privacy of their customers who they are, by federal mandate, already forced to (if not willingly) spy on?
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  There should be a way for everyone to compromise (put the data privacy angle aside for a moment) and allow for cars to heuristically detect impaired driving in exchange for reducing it to a simple, routine traffic ticket like speeding or at worst, stunt driving. Stunt driving shouldn't even realky be possible, technologically or otherwise (in terms of going insanely fast enough to allow for that capabillity)
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Data analysis in cars has become the norm. That doesn't mean all data collected will be uploaded to the cloud. Your phone keeps track of how many apps you open when and how often to get good battery life, and it's not a problem unless you're a dissident living in an oppressive state. Sure, your phone may be full of trackers and other privacy violations, but that particular tidbit isn't accessible anywhere but locally. I wouldn't want one of these cars, but that has very little to do with the car storing a flag that says I'm not drunk. It's all the other crap that irks me.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
It’s a law that forces your device to monitor you. Is there currently an equivalent? People had a problem with Apple monitoring CSAM on their phones. But monitoring blood alcohol in cars gets a pass. It’s not quite the same, because the phone would report you to authorities rather than shutting itself off. But in modern times, it seems unlikely that the data will remain on the car. Which means if someone somehow gets ahold of the data, they can easily drag you on social media if your car ever detected any alcohol. (Personally, I’m undecided.)
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  CSAM isn't just an arbitrary violation of law in context of phone monitoring. A false positive on CSAM detection won't just "report you to authorities". It will straight up ruin your life. In terms of false positives, you'd be better off with a car that cuts off your hand when it detects alcohol in your breath, than with a CSAM scanner. The impact of losing a limb on your life will likely be less than having a mere suspicion of you perusing CSAM go around in the community.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > will straight up ruin your life. If you are travelling between two cities in winter in Russia by car, and it refuses to start halfway, you die.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Fair. My point is more about this line from sillysaurusx's comment: > People had a problem with Apple monitoring CSAM on their phones. But monitoring blood alcohol in cars gets a pass. I.e. the objection would be fine if it was "Apple monitoring ${X} on their phones" for most values of X, but for X=CSAM, this is a qualitatively different issue - false positives are life-destroying, and you'd be at risk just by having an iPhone - a far more common situation than finding yourself in the middle of nowhere in a Russian winter.
junofan 3y ago
From the AP’s article on the subject [1]: > Robert Strassburger, president and CEO of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, is involved in a public-private partnership with NHTSA to develop an alcohol detection system for vehicles. He said the partnership agreement includes a requirement to build security measures that would prevent third parties from accessing any data collected by the technology. A requirement to prevent third-party access to collected data heavily implies 1) data collection 2) by parties to the partnership agreement, namely the manufacturer’s interest group and the government. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497
_heimdall 3y ago
The law doesn't require how the data is processed, stored, destroyed, or shared. Meaning that the law allows for manufacturers to voluntarily save the data indefinitely or send it back to be stored remotely. The law also doesn't require or ban the use of this technology to inform law enforcement. The omission of these limits effectively guarantees there will be a privacy implication. Manufacturers are going to want to know the feature works, how often its triggered, etc. They will send the data back via the already onboard telematics unit. Insurance companies will want the data as well and they will buy it unless legally prevented from doing so. Similarly, its only a matter of time before law enforcement must be notifies "for drivers' safety".
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  So it really shouldnt then. Simple answer, there needs to be market pressure against this shit. For apps, (Apple) only BUY the checkmark ones that offer not lifetime but just like buying it
major505 3y ago
Anything that you paid for and the govement can just turn off is a invasion of your rights. Only a fool thinks the goverment will not abuse this power. Specially because the policies of goverment can drastically change every 4 years depending of who is ellected. Fuck new cars. Buy an old toyota hilux. Good luck turning that shit off.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Like your power? Your water? Let's all take it down a notch. Trying to save lives is a good goal. Compared to those other things? An order of magnitude more human and sensible. It's good to be cautious. So put some rules in place, sure. But to castigate the effort is not helpful or moving the conversation forward.
  - ccamrobertson 3y ago
    No, to castigate the effort is precisely helpful in a case where it results in a gross violation of privacy — potentially even impact constitutional rights directly. The entire point of this article is that other news sources and “fact checkers” are being obtuse (or simply lying) to deny the fact that a kill switch has been called for. This is typical Overton window bullshit; “no, no, that’s not what they want to do,” and of course five years later it’s completely apparent that indeed we have implicit (and probably even explicit) kill switches in cars.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      A gross violation is, driving drunk and killing somebody. Wave the 'rights' flag all you like, dead is dead and that flag is much, much bigger.
      - major505 3y ago
        So a guy drive drunk and aleneryboyldy pays the price ? Some phone scammer calls a old lady and steeals all her retirement money, now because of that the government can hear all your phone conversations? Nice try glowie.
marcus_holmes 3y ago
> assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? The law appears to be worded with no such stipulation. Which means it's up to the manufacturer how and where they process the data. The odds of the data being processed locally to the car are long. Which does give rise to some questions: if the car can't get a data connection, and therefore can't get the data analysed, will it assume the driver is incapacitated and refuse to start? If not, circumvention is simple. If the manufacturer's servers have an issue, will the car refuse to start? Will the data be the property of the driver, not the manufacturer? (hahaha, I'm kidding, of course the data will belong to the manufacturer, ready to be sold to anyone who wants it) edit: clarified first question
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  But do all cars need and have to process any fucking data locally. I don't want that shit. I wanna drive a car not a computer Having said that, there are arguments to be made for a standard that uses heuristics to detect impaired driving for sure. Its harder to make the case if theres like a homomorphic data situation going on where your car can 1) use data and processi locally to detect potential impaired driving, 2) it stipulates loss of function in terms of abillity to further drive (pulls you over) in exchange for eliminating the potentialitt for crime, damage, and criminal chsrging process. Its a goddamn loss of time, energy, and life to still have this problem. A car should not need to necessarily measure your BAC as evinced by breath to detect you're driving like a maniac and maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). The criminal aspect is bullshit because yes its a fucked up thing but people who are impaired are not thinking clearly or able to consent to committing a criminal act in th same way they can't consent to something as simple and hands-off (no pun intended) as being sexually fucked and still be considered to have had the agency to have been lawfully able to consent to that in the first place. It really makes zero sense: 1) simple thing: receiving sexual intercourse 2) complex thing: driving car You can do both these things drunk but your only assumed to have lacked agency in #1. Makes no sense to me, you're almost guranteed to fuck (up) your car [car non-consensually] if not yourself as the end result lol EDIT: i'd appreciate if any lawyer or legal person or someone you know could critique this rationale and discuss how/why it is or isnt cogent and elaborate on the extent to which it could even be theoretically implemented, even [GASP?!] if it costs us all a lil bit of money/taxes/legislation to get us to that point in legal dtae of affairs
38321003thrw 3y ago
Michael Foucault - Crime and Punishment - The Means of Correct Training [formatting for emphasis mine]: [A surveillance and hierarchical control] architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (cf, the geometry of fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control - to render visible those who are inside it; in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals: - to act on those it shelters, - to provide a hold on their conduct, - to carry the effects of power right to them, - to make it possible to know them, to alter them. Stones can make people docile and knowable. The old simple schemaof confinement and enclosure - thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, of filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies. Foucault has written tomes on this topic — the transformation of the ‘architectures of surveillance and control’ and its internalization as a means of unconscious self-policing. He didn’t live to see the internet and the pervasively present microphones and cameras and “surveillance capitalism”, but he did write the book on it. — See also (for a contemporary consideration of Foucault’s “Panopticon”): Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon, Connor Sheridan , 2016 (thesis) https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1564&context=theses https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
EGreg 3y ago
Same question for CSAM scanning onboard the phone then
34679 3y ago
Data sales. Insurance companies would love to pay for info from these systems.
whatevaa 3y ago
Boiling the frog. They suck a bunch of data so it's okay to suck more...
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> How exactly does this violate your privacy This is a nitpick, but it seems relevant given how the word "privacy" is actually being used in the article (and by lawmakers). "Privacy" means to be free from intrusion or interference. It's the latter word that people are talking about when saying that this violates privacy. https://iapp.org/about/what-is-privacy/ https://iapp.org/about/what-is-privacy/

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
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    What makes you so sure the data in your study is truly representative of gen z? A few months ago a study was posted on HN which claimed 30% of gen z supported police cameras being installed inside homes to protect against domestic violence. Meanwhile, in Dunedin, the number of cameras on the street was reduced in consultation with university students (aka gen z). How can both of these statements be true? The answer is, they aren’t- the study posted on HN was fearmongering, manipulated data, trying to discredit the younger generation, to get older people to vote a specific way. I’m a millennial but I’m sick of this rhetoric that gen z are stupid / oblivious / complicit etc. They aren’t.
    - abduhl 3y ago
      It’s 30%: https://www.cato.org/blog/nearly-third-gen-z-favors-home-government-surveillance-cameras-1 https://www.cato.org/blog/nearly-third-gen-z-favors-home-gov...
      - shortcake27 3y ago
        Thank you, I was looking for this but couldn’t find it. My comment has been corrected. To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda? It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up. “I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.
holmesworcester 3y ago
Given that this feature would have to be real-time and robust, and given what we know about how AI inference works, I think we can assume that the mechanism will be running locally on the car. Otherwise you'd be able to drive drunk when out of cellphone range, drive drunk by messing with your car's antenna, drive drunk during system downtime, etc. It seems plausible that car manufacturers will keep "kill-switch triggered" events local, if only because it's a huge liability, or because of the sentiment behind articles like these. I think the more interesting question here is a discussion about the public policy tradeoffs of a local-only drunk driving kill-switch. Cons: lack of user control over their own software and hardware, a slippery slope, cars will be self-driving on a roughly similar timeline anyway, and false-positive edge cases, like someone having a medical emergency getting blocked for driving weird on the way to the hospital. Pros: 100s of lives saved in the first years, ~100,000s lives saved globally after full global saturation, a reduction in the need for drunk driving enforcement (which itself is extremely totalitarian, with traffic stops, checkpoints, court fees, jail time, suspended licenses, manslaughter convictions, lost jobs, etc.) I lean against on software freedom principles alone, but it's an interesting decision space, because it's easy to limit specific harms and there is a lot to be gained, even in pure liberty terms. A world where someone who blacked out wakes up with a manslaughter or murder charge does not feel entirely free or fair either, since the conscious action they took was "drink until lose control of drinking." Many of us would rather get pulled over by their car than by a cop, I suspect.
- dangus 3y ago
  If this means I stop getting woken up by idiots doing donuts in their motorcycles and Dodge Challengers and I’m less likely to be killed similar to the roughly half of all traffic deaths caused by drunk drivers, I’m not sure the cons outweigh the pros. Driving is a licensed privilege anyway. You aren’t even allowed to drive at all unless you pass a written and physical test to prove your road-worthiness. There is no second amendment for driving. Your freedom to drive aggressively or drunk doesn’t outweigh everyone else’s physical safety. It’s more unfortunate that the United States is built around driving where most people can’t get around and cover their basic needs without the ability to drive a personal vehicle. I think the article is interpreting the law as a bunch of cops in the surveillance center monitoring us when what it’s asking automakers to do is make a basic feature that disables the car if it can’t detect an alert driver, just like how today’s driver assist systems disable themselves if they see you dozing off or not touching the wheel. In my opinion, the vagueness of the language in the law is there for the benefit of automakers. As written, a carmaker that disables a vehicle after 20 minutes without detection of a hand on the steering wheel would be in compliance.

zoky 3y ago

You're joking, right? How can you in one paragraph say it's not a violation of privacy for your car to decide you're too drunk to drive as long as that information stays local, then in the very next paragraph decry car manufacturers allowing too much information to be remotely accessible? Do you really think it's going to be a priority of car manufacturers to protect the privacy of their customers who they are, by federal mandate, already forced to (if not willingly) spy on?

Obscurity4340 3y ago
There should be a way for everyone to compromise (put the data privacy angle aside for a moment) and allow for cars to heuristically detect impaired driving in exchange for reducing it to a simple, routine traffic ticket like speeding or at worst, stunt driving. Stunt driving shouldn't even realky be possible, technologically or otherwise (in terms of going insanely fast enough to allow for that capabillity)
jeroenhd 3y ago
Data analysis in cars has become the norm. That doesn't mean all data collected will be uploaded to the cloud. Your phone keeps track of how many apps you open when and how often to get good battery life, and it's not a problem unless you're a dissident living in an oppressive state. Sure, your phone may be full of trackers and other privacy violations, but that particular tidbit isn't accessible anywhere but locally. I wouldn't want one of these cars, but that has very little to do with the car storing a flag that says I'm not drunk. It's all the other crap that irks me.

sillysaurusx 3y ago

It’s a law that forces your device to monitor you. Is there currently an equivalent? People had a problem with Apple monitoring CSAM on their phones. But monitoring blood alcohol in cars gets a pass. It’s not quite the same, because the phone would report you to authorities rather than shutting itself off. But in modern times, it seems unlikely that the data will remain on the car. Which means if someone somehow gets ahold of the data, they can easily drag you on social media if your car ever detected any alcohol. (Personally, I’m undecided.)

TeMPOraL 3y ago
CSAM isn't just an arbitrary violation of law in context of phone monitoring. A false positive on CSAM detection won't just "report you to authorities". It will straight up ruin your life. In terms of false positives, you'd be better off with a car that cuts off your hand when it detects alcohol in your breath, than with a CSAM scanner. The impact of losing a limb on your life will likely be less than having a mere suspicion of you perusing CSAM go around in the community.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > will straight up ruin your life. If you are travelling between two cities in winter in Russia by car, and it refuses to start halfway, you die.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Fair. My point is more about this line from sillysaurusx's comment: > People had a problem with Apple monitoring CSAM on their phones. But monitoring blood alcohol in cars gets a pass. I.e. the objection would be fine if it was "Apple monitoring ${X} on their phones" for most values of X, but for X=CSAM, this is a qualitatively different issue - false positives are life-destroying, and you'd be at risk just by having an iPhone - a far more common situation than finding yourself in the middle of nowhere in a Russian winter.

junofan 3y ago

From the AP’s article on the subject [1]: > Robert Strassburger, president and CEO of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, is involved in a public-private partnership with NHTSA to develop an alcohol detection system for vehicles. He said the partnership agreement includes a requirement to build security measures that would prevent third parties from accessing any data collected by the technology. A requirement to prevent third-party access to collected data heavily implies 1) data collection 2) by parties to the partnership agreement, namely the manufacturer’s interest group and the government. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497

_heimdall 3y ago

The law doesn't require how the data is processed, stored, destroyed, or shared. Meaning that the law allows for manufacturers to voluntarily save the data indefinitely or send it back to be stored remotely. The law also doesn't require or ban the use of this technology to inform law enforcement. The omission of these limits effectively guarantees there will be a privacy implication. Manufacturers are going to want to know the feature works, how often its triggered, etc. They will send the data back via the already onboard telematics unit. Insurance companies will want the data as well and they will buy it unless legally prevented from doing so. Similarly, its only a matter of time before law enforcement must be notifies "for drivers' safety".

Obscurity4340 3y ago
So it really shouldnt then. Simple answer, there needs to be market pressure against this shit. For apps, (Apple) only BUY the checkmark ones that offer not lifetime but just like buying it

major505 3y ago

Anything that you paid for and the govement can just turn off is a invasion of your rights. Only a fool thinks the goverment will not abuse this power. Specially because the policies of goverment can drastically change every 4 years depending of who is ellected. Fuck new cars. Buy an old toyota hilux. Good luck turning that shit off.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Like your power? Your water? Let's all take it down a notch. Trying to save lives is a good goal. Compared to those other things? An order of magnitude more human and sensible. It's good to be cautious. So put some rules in place, sure. But to castigate the effort is not helpful or moving the conversation forward.
- ccamrobertson 3y ago
  No, to castigate the effort is precisely helpful in a case where it results in a gross violation of privacy — potentially even impact constitutional rights directly. The entire point of this article is that other news sources and “fact checkers” are being obtuse (or simply lying) to deny the fact that a kill switch has been called for. This is typical Overton window bullshit; “no, no, that’s not what they want to do,” and of course five years later it’s completely apparent that indeed we have implicit (and probably even explicit) kill switches in cars.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    A gross violation is, driving drunk and killing somebody. Wave the 'rights' flag all you like, dead is dead and that flag is much, much bigger.
    - major505 3y ago
      So a guy drive drunk and aleneryboyldy pays the price ? Some phone scammer calls a old lady and steeals all her retirement money, now because of that the government can hear all your phone conversations? Nice try glowie.

marcus_holmes 3y ago

> assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? The law appears to be worded with no such stipulation. Which means it's up to the manufacturer how and where they process the data. The odds of the data being processed locally to the car are long. Which does give rise to some questions: if the car can't get a data connection, and therefore can't get the data analysed, will it assume the driver is incapacitated and refuse to start? If not, circumvention is simple. If the manufacturer's servers have an issue, will the car refuse to start? Will the data be the property of the driver, not the manufacturer? (hahaha, I'm kidding, of course the data will belong to the manufacturer, ready to be sold to anyone who wants it) edit: clarified first question

Obscurity4340 3y ago
But do all cars need and have to process any fucking data locally. I don't want that shit. I wanna drive a car not a computer Having said that, there are arguments to be made for a standard that uses heuristics to detect impaired driving for sure. Its harder to make the case if theres like a homomorphic data situation going on where your car can 1) use data and processi locally to detect potential impaired driving, 2) it stipulates loss of function in terms of abillity to further drive (pulls you over) in exchange for eliminating the potentialitt for crime, damage, and criminal chsrging process. Its a goddamn loss of time, energy, and life to still have this problem. A car should not need to necessarily measure your BAC as evinced by breath to detect you're driving like a maniac and maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). The criminal aspect is bullshit because yes its a fucked up thing but people who are impaired are not thinking clearly or able to consent to committing a criminal act in th same way they can't consent to something as simple and hands-off (no pun intended) as being sexually fucked and still be considered to have had the agency to have been lawfully able to consent to that in the first place. It really makes zero sense: 1) simple thing: receiving sexual intercourse 2) complex thing: driving car You can do both these things drunk but your only assumed to have lacked agency in #1. Makes no sense to me, you're almost guranteed to fuck (up) your car [car non-consensually] if not yourself as the end result lol EDIT: i'd appreciate if any lawyer or legal person or someone you know could critique this rationale and discuss how/why it is or isnt cogent and elaborate on the extent to which it could even be theoretically implemented, even [GASP?!] if it costs us all a lil bit of money/taxes/legislation to get us to that point in legal dtae of affairs

38321003thrw 3y ago

Michael Foucault - Crime and Punishment - The Means of Correct Training [formatting for emphasis mine]: [A surveillance and hierarchical control] architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (cf, the geometry of fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control - to render visible those who are inside it; in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals: - to act on those it shelters, - to provide a hold on their conduct, - to carry the effects of power right to them, - to make it possible to know them, to alter them. Stones can make people docile and knowable. The old simple schemaof confinement and enclosure - thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, of filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies. Foucault has written tomes on this topic — the transformation of the ‘architectures of surveillance and control’ and its internalization as a means of unconscious self-policing. He didn’t live to see the internet and the pervasively present microphones and cameras and “surveillance capitalism”, but he did write the book on it. — See also (for a contemporary consideration of Foucault’s “Panopticon”): Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon, Connor Sheridan , 2016 (thesis) https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1564&context=theses https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

EGreg 3y ago

Same question for CSAM scanning onboard the phone then

34679 3y ago

Data sales. Insurance companies would love to pay for info from these systems.

whatevaa 3y ago

Boiling the frog. They suck a bunch of data so it's okay to suck more...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> How exactly does this violate your privacy This is a nitpick, but it seems relevant given how the word "privacy" is actually being used in the article (and by lawmakers). "Privacy" means to be free from intrusion or interference. It's the latter word that people are talking about when saying that this violates privacy. https://iapp.org/about/what-is-privacy/ https://iapp.org/about/what-is-privacy/