4 ms·

Is it "pre-crime" if it activates once you are speeding? Surely we can agree that is a crime

by Boltgolt 2y ago

stavros 2y ago
Not if it makes it so you can't speed.
its_ethan 2y ago
Is it a crime where "100% enforcement" is worth surrendering (even more) individual privacy?
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  Sorry, what individual privacy is being surrendered here? Note that observing the driver is in no way necessary to implement a speed limiter.
  - its_ethan 2y ago
    Yea I've noted that there doesn't have to be a camera pointed at the driver... there does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location. So the individual privacy at risk is the privacy of not having your location at any given time being knowable to a car manufacturer/ government agency.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > [T]here does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location. Used by whom? The mechanic who services my car? I see the problem if the location data is being broadcast to some central server... so don't do that. But that's not necessary for implementation. The ideal implementation in my mind would be to have speed limit signs broadcast speeds on some short-distance frequency and have cars read that passively: much more reliable than cameras, no violation of privacy. Incidentally, cars broadcasting location to a central server is already a problem--they don't need speed limiting to do that. OnStar has been doing this for decades. It seems like a lot of HN users who likely happily broadcast their location to Google Maps are suddenly worried about location privacy when it's used to prevent them from speeding. Minor convenience? Sure! Take my privacy! Can't put other people's lives at risk to get to my destination a few seconds faster? How dare you! Privacy is a human right!
      - its_ethan 2y ago
        > Used by whom? That's where the concern is. If the government is mandating it, it seems reasonable to think that more likely than not, they will want access to it. Even if for no other reason than to hand out tickets. The potential for that data to leak out is there. > so don't do that It's nice that you have a solution that would respect privacy concerns, but where should we be getting confidence from that a government will protect/enforce a system that is privacy-first? Look at how the EU has been handling encryption in messaging apps, they don't really seem to be in favor of protecting privacy as a "right". > cars broadcasting location to a central server is already a problem Correct, it's a problem that exists, and it's a problem that is made worse by this legislation. There are currently options that exist that don't use OnStar, or that don't phone home to their manufacturer. This legislation opens the door for further reduction in privacy, and that's the concern. Just because something is already going down a concerning path, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned when things seem to be getting worse. FWIW I don't use google maps, primarily because I don't want them tracking where I am
        kerkeslager 2y ago
        > Correct, it's a problem that exists, and it's a problem that is made worse by this legislation. Sorry, how? You keep claiming this is a privacy concern, but so far, I see no evidence whatsoever that implementation of this anti-speeding regulation requires violations of privacy rights, or is planned to include violations of privacy rights. It's beginning to sound like you just want to speed and are trying to justify that position by claiming that it's a violation of privacy when it simply isn't. If some form of enforcement violates people's rights to privacy, I'll oppose that, but I'm not going to oppose speeding regulation that saves lives on the basis that hypothetical enforcement options violate privacy rights. There are plenty of ways to implement anti-speeding enforcement that don't violate privacy rights. Your argument right now is tantamount to claiming we can't have laws that might be enforced by violating people's privacy, but that logic applies to a whole lot of laws which you obviously don't support reversing. Should child pornography be legal? Should blowing up planes? Laws against those things have been implemented in ways that violate people's rights to privacy far more often than speeding. And I do agree that we should enforce those laws without violating people's privacy, but obviously we agree we can't just legalize those things because they might be enforced using methods that violate the right to privacy.
Camlinked 2y ago
No we don't agree. Also once this is in place what is "legal" today will be "illegal" tomorrow. We have much better cars than 50 years ago and speed limits remained the same. Now they are lowering them bit by bit. Think of the children, think of the environment etc Won't matter anyway when all there is are robotaxis.

Is it "pre-crime" if it activates once you are speeding? Surely we can agree that is a crime

stavros 2y ago

Not if it makes it so you can't speed.

its_ethan 2y ago

Is it a crime where "100% enforcement" is worth surrendering (even more) individual privacy?

kerkeslager 2y ago
Sorry, what individual privacy is being surrendered here? Note that observing the driver is in no way necessary to implement a speed limiter.
- its_ethan 2y ago
  Yea I've noted that there doesn't have to be a camera pointed at the driver... there does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location. So the individual privacy at risk is the privacy of not having your location at any given time being knowable to a car manufacturer/ government agency.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > [T]here does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location. Used by whom? The mechanic who services my car? I see the problem if the location data is being broadcast to some central server... so don't do that. But that's not necessary for implementation. The ideal implementation in my mind would be to have speed limit signs broadcast speeds on some short-distance frequency and have cars read that passively: much more reliable than cameras, no violation of privacy. Incidentally, cars broadcasting location to a central server is already a problem--they don't need speed limiting to do that. OnStar has been doing this for decades. It seems like a lot of HN users who likely happily broadcast their location to Google Maps are suddenly worried about location privacy when it's used to prevent them from speeding. Minor convenience? Sure! Take my privacy! Can't put other people's lives at risk to get to my destination a few seconds faster? How dare you! Privacy is a human right!
    - its_ethan 2y ago
      > Used by whom? That's where the concern is. If the government is mandating it, it seems reasonable to think that more likely than not, they will want access to it. Even if for no other reason than to hand out tickets. The potential for that data to leak out is there. > so don't do that It's nice that you have a solution that would respect privacy concerns, but where should we be getting confidence from that a government will protect/enforce a system that is privacy-first? Look at how the EU has been handling encryption in messaging apps, they don't really seem to be in favor of protecting privacy as a "right". > cars broadcasting location to a central server is already a problem Correct, it's a problem that exists, and it's a problem that is made worse by this legislation. There are currently options that exist that don't use OnStar, or that don't phone home to their manufacturer. This legislation opens the door for further reduction in privacy, and that's the concern. Just because something is already going down a concerning path, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned when things seem to be getting worse. FWIW I don't use google maps, primarily because I don't want them tracking where I am
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        > Correct, it's a problem that exists, and it's a problem that is made worse by this legislation. Sorry, how? You keep claiming this is a privacy concern, but so far, I see no evidence whatsoever that implementation of this anti-speeding regulation requires violations of privacy rights, or is planned to include violations of privacy rights. It's beginning to sound like you just want to speed and are trying to justify that position by claiming that it's a violation of privacy when it simply isn't. If some form of enforcement violates people's rights to privacy, I'll oppose that, but I'm not going to oppose speeding regulation that saves lives on the basis that hypothetical enforcement options violate privacy rights. There are plenty of ways to implement anti-speeding enforcement that don't violate privacy rights. Your argument right now is tantamount to claiming we can't have laws that might be enforced by violating people's privacy, but that logic applies to a whole lot of laws which you obviously don't support reversing. Should child pornography be legal? Should blowing up planes? Laws against those things have been implemented in ways that violate people's rights to privacy far more often than speeding. And I do agree that we should enforce those laws without violating people's privacy, but obviously we agree we can't just legalize those things because they might be enforced using methods that violate the right to privacy.

Camlinked 2y ago

No we don't agree. Also once this is in place what is "legal" today will be "illegal" tomorrow. We have much better cars than 50 years ago and speed limits remained the same. Now they are lowering them bit by bit. Think of the children, think of the environment etc Won't matter anyway when all there is are robotaxis.