4 ms·

> 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 p

by 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.
        abduhl 3y ago
        Cato is no doubt biased but your comment is the thing with FUD, not the study. They post exactly the question they asked in their study: do you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household in order to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity. Regardless, the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state. Even if the study question is worded in a way you disagree with or that you think is biased, you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.
        shortcake27 3y ago
        > the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis? > you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond. I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world. I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.
    - tapland 3y ago
      It was interesting because acceptance of surveillance in public was increasing with age, aside from GenZ > GenY. It was apparently part of the Swedish Internet Foundations yearly survey ( https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/english/ https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/english/ ).
- serf 3y ago
  >Nonsense. This is like saying people who’ve been oppressed all their lives don’t care about being oppressed because they’ve never known another life. it's not the same comparison; oppression is a 24/7 conditional facet of life, but only a slim percent of companies will have a data breach that results in a QoL decrease for the individual. spotty/sporadic bad treatment is a tough condition under which to spark revolution -- if it works and keeps most people happy, it likely won't change. look at ring cameras for example. it's a visual portal for law enforcement to enact all sorts of privacy-concerned mostly-unauthorized abusive actions, but their customers are thrilled due to the value sell of the thing itself. this can be seen all over tech in nearly every sector, people trade their rights for a convenient/shiny/popular/trendy object willingly and brag about the transaction -- I haven't seen much evidence of the newer generations breaking this cycle, if anything they seem to be leaning-in.
  - a2tech 3y ago
    Most ring owners have no idea their door camera is participating in a massive police surveillance network.
- rootlocus 3y ago
  Data hoarding doesn't immediately or visibly affect you. It's a mistake to compare it to oppression. > Gen z and alpha will be the ones to solve these problems after the boomer luddites making insanely uninformed decisions are out of the picture. That's a very optimistic hope, and I dare say naive. Aside from name-calling, I don't see an argument for your prediction.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    For thousands of years people have been fixing problems caused by the previous generation. Why does the buck stop with gen z?
    - coldtea 3y ago
      For thousands of works people have also been making problems worse in each next generation (take the environment or traffic or surveillance as examples).
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Aside from name-calling, I don't see an argument for your prediction. In a thread that is filled with derision and contempt for gen z, directing criticism back the older generation is name calling? Seems the hypocrisy has been internalised and become invisible. The broad and well-fanncanced campaign of slander against younger generation has been going on for decades, and unfortunately it is very successful. There has never been a time in human history where old generation holds this much power and wealth relative to the younger one. Congress has never been this old, there has never been this level of exclusion of younger people from owning real estate, the future of younger generation has never been this much under threat and this ignored.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Oppression takes on many faces, are you so sure we haven't been living with some level of oppression in the US that everyone is okay with because it's all we know? Would you consider income taxes oppression? Or maybe mandatory schooling? What about universal surveillance? Mandatory vaccinations? By no means am I likening the US today to the many examples of much worse oppression, but oppression is a spectrum and ultimately defined by the individual who either does or does not feel oppressed.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
- pif 3y ago
  Oppression is against people's will. Democracy is the expression of the people's will. Please, do not confuse the two concepts.
  - itsumoiru 3y ago
    "The people" are not one. It's entirely possible to have an oppressive democracy.
    - pif 3y ago
      As long as it cannot be oppressive to the majority of the population, and until you are free to emigrate taking your belongings with you, calling "oppressive" a modern democratic country is a huge lack of respect to those people who lived their entire life with no choice at all.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        > you are free to emigrate taking your belongings with you So Russia/China/Saudi are not oppressive? There are very few places that you can't leave, except maybe North Korea and Palestine
- api 3y ago
  I’ve heard for a long time that gen-Z just doesn’t care about privacy at all. (Statistically) Is that actually true?
- coldtea 3y ago
  >This is like saying people who’ve been oppressed all their lives don’t care about being oppressed because they’ve never known another life. Which is also correct. They're conditioned to consider it "normal", e.g. victims of abuse. Doesn't have to absolutely apply to everyone in the group to be true - just to have a large effect on a significant share of group members.
- monksy 3y ago
  Nonsense. They're fully on board and playing with that technology. They're full on working with the face recognition with the face filters, they're advocating and promoting for the use of that at airport boarding (the new accounts on flyer talk at least are aggressively approving of it), and they're submitting pictures and selfies of their IDs as "account verification" to Facebook, linked in, and Instagram. Not sure how old you are... But when you first signed up for Facebook would you have sent them a picture of your ID and yourself?
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.

by klabb3 3y ago

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.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        Cato is no doubt biased but your comment is the thing with FUD, not the study. They post exactly the question they asked in their study: do you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household in order to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity. Regardless, the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state. Even if the study question is worded in a way you disagree with or that you think is biased, you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.
        shortcake27 3y ago
        > the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis? > you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond. I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world. I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.
  - tapland 3y ago
    It was interesting because acceptance of surveillance in public was increasing with age, aside from GenZ > GenY. It was apparently part of the Swedish Internet Foundations yearly survey ( https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/english/ https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/english/ ).
serf 3y ago
>Nonsense. This is like saying people who’ve been oppressed all their lives don’t care about being oppressed because they’ve never known another life. it's not the same comparison; oppression is a 24/7 conditional facet of life, but only a slim percent of companies will have a data breach that results in a QoL decrease for the individual. spotty/sporadic bad treatment is a tough condition under which to spark revolution -- if it works and keeps most people happy, it likely won't change. look at ring cameras for example. it's a visual portal for law enforcement to enact all sorts of privacy-concerned mostly-unauthorized abusive actions, but their customers are thrilled due to the value sell of the thing itself. this can be seen all over tech in nearly every sector, people trade their rights for a convenient/shiny/popular/trendy object willingly and brag about the transaction -- I haven't seen much evidence of the newer generations breaking this cycle, if anything they seem to be leaning-in.
- a2tech 3y ago
  Most ring owners have no idea their door camera is participating in a massive police surveillance network.
rootlocus 3y ago
Data hoarding doesn't immediately or visibly affect you. It's a mistake to compare it to oppression. > Gen z and alpha will be the ones to solve these problems after the boomer luddites making insanely uninformed decisions are out of the picture. That's a very optimistic hope, and I dare say naive. Aside from name-calling, I don't see an argument for your prediction.
- shortcake27 3y ago
  For thousands of years people have been fixing problems caused by the previous generation. Why does the buck stop with gen z?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    For thousands of works people have also been making problems worse in each next generation (take the environment or traffic or surveillance as examples).
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > Aside from name-calling, I don't see an argument for your prediction. In a thread that is filled with derision and contempt for gen z, directing criticism back the older generation is name calling? Seems the hypocrisy has been internalised and become invisible. The broad and well-fanncanced campaign of slander against younger generation has been going on for decades, and unfortunately it is very successful. There has never been a time in human history where old generation holds this much power and wealth relative to the younger one. Congress has never been this old, there has never been this level of exclusion of younger people from owning real estate, the future of younger generation has never been this much under threat and this ignored.
_heimdall 3y ago
Oppression takes on many faces, are you so sure we haven't been living with some level of oppression in the US that everyone is okay with because it's all we know? Would you consider income taxes oppression? Or maybe mandatory schooling? What about universal surveillance? Mandatory vaccinations? By no means am I likening the US today to the many examples of much worse oppression, but oppression is a spectrum and ultimately defined by the individual who either does or does not feel oppressed.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
pif 3y ago
Oppression is against people's will. Democracy is the expression of the people's will. Please, do not confuse the two concepts.
- itsumoiru 3y ago
  "The people" are not one. It's entirely possible to have an oppressive democracy.
  - pif 3y ago
    As long as it cannot be oppressive to the majority of the population, and until you are free to emigrate taking your belongings with you, calling "oppressive" a modern democratic country is a huge lack of respect to those people who lived their entire life with no choice at all.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > you are free to emigrate taking your belongings with you So Russia/China/Saudi are not oppressive? There are very few places that you can't leave, except maybe North Korea and Palestine
api 3y ago
I’ve heard for a long time that gen-Z just doesn’t care about privacy at all. (Statistically) Is that actually true?
coldtea 3y ago
>This is like saying people who’ve been oppressed all their lives don’t care about being oppressed because they’ve never known another life. Which is also correct. They're conditioned to consider it "normal", e.g. victims of abuse. Doesn't have to absolutely apply to everyone in the group to be true - just to have a large effect on a significant share of group members.
monksy 3y ago
Nonsense. They're fully on board and playing with that technology. They're full on working with the face recognition with the face filters, they're advocating and promoting for the use of that at airport boarding (the new accounts on flyer talk at least are aggressively approving of it), and they're submitting pictures and selfies of their IDs as "account verification" to Facebook, linked in, and Instagram. Not sure how old you are... But when you first signed up for Facebook would you have sent them a picture of your ID and yourself?

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.