4 ms·
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. Speciall
by 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 agoLike 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 agoNo, 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 agoA 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 agoSo 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.
- major505 3y agoThere's already solutions for drunk drivers. Nca4sntust can be pny turned on if you blown in the device that measure y9ur alcohol blood level , and eve the.proibition of drivin, by removing the jndividual permission.
- whelp_24 3y agoStrictly speaking those are services not items you own. (The government can't suck back water you poured or power you used) More importantly, freedom violations should be treated as seriously and physical injuries and even deaths, it really is that important. The mild safety gain is worth the loss of your rights.
- lioeters 3y agoAutomobile as a Service - what a dream for the industry and government it would be. Pay every month and be a good citizen, or else your car will stop running.
- ChatGTP 3y agoI like my power and my water and that's why I make sure I don't need the government to do this for me.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> Only a fool thinks the goverment will not abuse this power. Why is it always government with you people, when 90% of abuses are private firms or control freaks. Visa and mastercard abuse their power daily, random people pay scammers to write fake reviews on amazon to shut down your listings, thousands of fraudsters abuse automated systems to nuke your account on Youtube for fake copyright violations, etc. The same things will happen with cars, and it will be used for extortion.
- thegrim33 3y agoSo, because group A does bad things, that means we're not supposed to worry about group B doing the same bad things?
- major505 3y agoOf course not. But we have tools to counter group B. Group A, not so much.
- major505 3y agoBecause the proposition for this explicitly comes from the politicians you are electing? I don't doubt private emtiriesmwoll abuse it but they can he stopped with lawsuits and civil litigation