5 ms·

To take the counterpoint to most comments on this topic: It used to be impractical to track cars to fine granularity. Now that it is practical: maybe we want t

To take the counterpoint to most comments on this topic: It used to be impractical to track cars to fine granularity. Now that it is practical: maybe we want that? Cars are multi-ton, incredibly-expensive pieces of hardware that operate on shared roadways. There are about 42,000 deaths related to operating them each year. Increased tracking would simplify the challenges of * Finding stolen vehicles * Discovering the truth in accidents * Identifying unsafe drivers and removing them from the road * Identifying unsafe areas of the roadway and improving them Perhaps there is previously-inaccessible net societal good in not treating cars as a private space when they're operating on public roads that we should be tapping? There's already precedent for it; the legal reason the cops need a much lower standard to search your car than search your house is, practically, it's much easier to commit a crime and then exit the jurisdiction because the vehicle is mobile. So perhaps we should extrapolate that reasoning. Perhaps rights to privacy should be curtailed in the operation of large vehicles on public roadways. Maybe the status quo is bad, actually.

neuralRiot 2y ago
That’s a nice utopia but any uncontrolled power is ripe fo abuse, should cops be allowed to kick your door and search your home at any time because they think you’re a criminal? The previous is possible but not when a cop thinks it but a judge. Personally i’d live in a slightly insecure society rather than in a slightly more opressive.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  > That’s a nice utopia but any uncontrolled power is ripe for abuse Agreed. In the current status quo, it is abused by car owners who get away with literal murder. > should cops be allowed to kick your door and search your home at any time because they think you’re a criminal? No, but my home is my private space; I'm not driving my home down a shared road. Compare and contrast the relatively lax requirements to get a driver's license with the incredibly stringent rules around getting a pilot's license; the government has existing broad authority to regulate access to public thoroughfares and the use of heavy machinery when such use could jeopardize the health and safety of others.
  - M95D 2y ago
    > Compare and contrast the relatively lax requirements to get a driver's license with the incredibly stringent rules around getting a pilot's license And what is your argument? We should let the surveilance replace the driver exam? As in "you didn't speed this month, we'll let you keep your license" ?
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Let the surveillance augment the driver's test. Because Lord knows we aren't spending more money on the test or retesting, but the surveillance is cheap. > You didn't speed this month we'll let you keep your license Honestly, why not? Professional drivers are monitored; let's extend that to every vehicle on the road.
      - M95D 2y ago
        Because it won't apply to every vehicle on the road! There will be exceptions, and then even more exceptions, and then you will wonder why the inequality on the roads... Some people are more equal than others.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        Some people already are. We could have that inequality and a safer road at the same time as opposed to just the inequality. As it stands right now, those who should be trusted the least are the least monitored.
        M95D 2y ago
        In my country, if there's someone speeding, then I can safely follow him/her a couple hundred meters behind with the same speed. If there's police on the road, he/she will get stopped and get a ticket (or not, if he's "more equal") and I have the time to slow down. We're equal. If the car gives my location and speed, only those people will be able to break the law and I won't. More inequality than now.
liotier 2y ago
Cars are sufficiently dangerous to justify government interfence, but lets not go overboard - no need for realtime surveillance across a network: a local black box is sufficient, with adequate protocol and logs of each lawful access, maybe with the key on a government server so that no one with just local access can read the data without a record of that act... Essentially what paper disc recorders have done for truckers since ages, but with a few more parameters.
digging 2y ago
We could also just be less dependent on cars, but that's more difficult than mass surveillance. Also has the side effect of enabling dissidence rather than chilling it.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  I'd like to hope that increasing surveillance in car infrastructure would have this side-effect.
AlexandrB 2y ago
This same sequence of thought can be applied to a wide variety of things. In particular, "think of the children" is always effective. So as an absurd example: perhaps there is a net societal good in not treating a house with children in it as a private space? Most children are abused by their parents or other close relatives - shouldn't we want to protect children from their abusers?
Seattle3503 2y ago
Most of those don't preclude a warrant requirement.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
The concern is that if the government is tracking where you go while you're inside the car, they also have a pretty good idea of your actual destination, which could be a problem in e.g. states with laws against abortions even in other states or if, say, a school teacher was tracked to a known gay nightclub in Florida.

neuralRiot 2y ago

That’s a nice utopia but any uncontrolled power is ripe fo abuse, should cops be allowed to kick your door and search your home at any time because they think you’re a criminal? The previous is possible but not when a cop thinks it but a judge. Personally i’d live in a slightly insecure society rather than in a slightly more opressive.

shadowgovt 2y ago
> That’s a nice utopia but any uncontrolled power is ripe for abuse Agreed. In the current status quo, it is abused by car owners who get away with literal murder. > should cops be allowed to kick your door and search your home at any time because they think you’re a criminal? No, but my home is my private space; I'm not driving my home down a shared road. Compare and contrast the relatively lax requirements to get a driver's license with the incredibly stringent rules around getting a pilot's license; the government has existing broad authority to regulate access to public thoroughfares and the use of heavy machinery when such use could jeopardize the health and safety of others.
- M95D 2y ago
  > Compare and contrast the relatively lax requirements to get a driver's license with the incredibly stringent rules around getting a pilot's license And what is your argument? We should let the surveilance replace the driver exam? As in "you didn't speed this month, we'll let you keep your license" ?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Let the surveillance augment the driver's test. Because Lord knows we aren't spending more money on the test or retesting, but the surveillance is cheap. > You didn't speed this month we'll let you keep your license Honestly, why not? Professional drivers are monitored; let's extend that to every vehicle on the road.
    - M95D 2y ago
      Because it won't apply to every vehicle on the road! There will be exceptions, and then even more exceptions, and then you will wonder why the inequality on the roads... Some people are more equal than others.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Some people already are. We could have that inequality and a safer road at the same time as opposed to just the inequality. As it stands right now, those who should be trusted the least are the least monitored.
        M95D 2y ago
        In my country, if there's someone speeding, then I can safely follow him/her a couple hundred meters behind with the same speed. If there's police on the road, he/she will get stopped and get a ticket (or not, if he's "more equal") and I have the time to slow down. We're equal. If the car gives my location and speed, only those people will be able to break the law and I won't. More inequality than now.

liotier 2y ago

Cars are sufficiently dangerous to justify government interfence, but lets not go overboard - no need for realtime surveillance across a network: a local black box is sufficient, with adequate protocol and logs of each lawful access, maybe with the key on a government server so that no one with just local access can read the data without a record of that act... Essentially what paper disc recorders have done for truckers since ages, but with a few more parameters.

digging 2y ago

We could also just be less dependent on cars, but that's more difficult than mass surveillance. Also has the side effect of enabling dissidence rather than chilling it.

shadowgovt 2y ago
I'd like to hope that increasing surveillance in car infrastructure would have this side-effect.

AlexandrB 2y ago

This same sequence of thought can be applied to a wide variety of things. In particular, "think of the children" is always effective. So as an absurd example: perhaps there is a net societal good in not treating a house with children in it as a private space? Most children are abused by their parents or other close relatives - shouldn't we want to protect children from their abusers?

Seattle3503 2y ago

Most of those don't preclude a warrant requirement.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

The concern is that if the government is tracking where you go while you're inside the car, they also have a pretty good idea of your actual destination, which could be a problem in e.g. states with laws against abortions even in other states or if, say, a school teacher was tracked to a known gay nightclub in Florida.