4 ms·

Brother, I don't even currently own a car. I couldn't care less about speeding. I re-wrote this to the top to try and find common ground between us, rather tha

Brother, I don't even currently own a car. I couldn't care less about speeding. I re-wrote this to the top to try and find common ground between us, rather than just bickering: I think that what would immediately dissolve any difference in opinion that you and I have would be this: legislation is also passed that expressly defines privacy-preserving requirements that car manufacturers (and the government) need to obey. That would mean a blind (no PII), no-backdoor, encrypted, non-tracked system for implementing a speed-limiter (bonus points if it applies to any/all phoning home that cars do). If something like that was clearly defined, the privacy concerns I (and others) have are actually accounted for. . And then to clarify what I've been trying to say/ respond to what you've written: We have laws against speeding, those are laws regardless of if speed limiters exist. You're painting my argument out to be "I don't like the enforcement of this law, so it shouldn't be a law at all" and that is just simply not what I am saying. It's the method of enforcement that causes the privacy concern, not the law itself. We can (and always will/should) have laws against speeding. We do not have to mandate every new car have a new privacy risk added to effectively enforce speeding laws. Constantly adding ever more invasive mandates to enforce laws just takes us further and further down the path of privacy violations. You say that there's no evidence that this regulation requires violating privacy rights, but when the legislation doesn't expressly account for preserving privacy, than it's a safe bet that privacy will not be protected, and will (eventually) be abused.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> Brother, I don't even currently own a car. I couldn't care less about speeding. And that's a problem: car accidents are the #1 killer of people under 40 in the US and speeding is one of the top 3 reasons for that (the other two being drunk driving and distracted driving). > Constantly adding ever more invasive mandates to enforce laws just takes us further and further down the path of privacy violations. You say that there's no evidence that this regulation requires violating privacy rights, but when the legislation doesn't expressly account for preserving privacy, than it's a safe bet that privacy will not be protected, and will (eventually) be abused. Wouldn't it be easier to simply have blanket laws regulating what data can be collected by companies and law enforcement, and what data can be sent to law enforcement, not specific to speed limiters? To be clear, I'm a personal privacy absolutist: I share your concerns with privacy, but I don't think the approach you're suggesting, of having privacy baked into every individual law, is particularly effective for a few reasons: 1. It dissipates the fight for privacy across a million different small laws, spreading resources being used to fight for privacy rights too thin. 2. It pits privacy against a bunch of other legitimate causes: if you hold up this law because of privacy concerns, you're making privacy the enemy of car safety advocacy. That's obviously not your intent, but car safety advocates are going to view it that way. If you hold up a law forcing insurance companies to pay for gene therapy because there are genetic privacy concerns, you're now making enemies of families of people with genetic diseases. If you hold up a law forcing employers to give sick leave because there are medical privacy concerns, you make an enemy of workers rights advocates. Spread across a bunch of different political issues, this create a ton of political enemies for privacy, and adds real grassroots support to the anti-privacy movement. 3. It's ineffective in actually enforcing privacy, because it isn't at a high enough level. Invaders of privacy need only find a loophole in one law and then collect all the data they want in that context, or even collect that data in a context where it's illegal and then pretend it was collected in a context where it's legal (i.e. parallel construction[1]). Privacy doesn't need to, and shouldn't, permeate every law that is made. Instead what we need is comprehensive privacy legislation that blanket prevents companies and law enforcement from collecting data on people and storing it in central repositories, and provides real penalties for violating that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

kerkeslager 2y ago

> Brother, I don't even currently own a car. I couldn't care less about speeding. And that's a problem: car accidents are the #1 killer of people under 40 in the US and speeding is one of the top 3 reasons for that (the other two being drunk driving and distracted driving). > Constantly adding ever more invasive mandates to enforce laws just takes us further and further down the path of privacy violations. You say that there's no evidence that this regulation requires violating privacy rights, but when the legislation doesn't expressly account for preserving privacy, than it's a safe bet that privacy will not be protected, and will (eventually) be abused. Wouldn't it be easier to simply have blanket laws regulating what data can be collected by companies and law enforcement, and what data can be sent to law enforcement, not specific to speed limiters? To be clear, I'm a personal privacy absolutist: I share your concerns with privacy, but I don't think the approach you're suggesting, of having privacy baked into every individual law, is particularly effective for a few reasons: 1. It dissipates the fight for privacy across a million different small laws, spreading resources being used to fight for privacy rights too thin. 2. It pits privacy against a bunch of other legitimate causes: if you hold up this law because of privacy concerns, you're making privacy the enemy of car safety advocacy. That's obviously not your intent, but car safety advocates are going to view it that way. If you hold up a law forcing insurance companies to pay for gene therapy because there are genetic privacy concerns, you're now making enemies of families of people with genetic diseases. If you hold up a law forcing employers to give sick leave because there are medical privacy concerns, you make an enemy of workers rights advocates. Spread across a bunch of different political issues, this create a ton of political enemies for privacy, and adds real grassroots support to the anti-privacy movement. 3. It's ineffective in actually enforcing privacy, because it isn't at a high enough level. Invaders of privacy need only find a loophole in one law and then collect all the data they want in that context, or even collect that data in a context where it's illegal and then pretend it was collected in a context where it's legal (i.e. parallel construction[1]). Privacy doesn't need to, and shouldn't, permeate every law that is made. Instead what we need is comprehensive privacy legislation that blanket prevents companies and law enforcement from collecting data on people and storing it in central repositories, and provides real penalties for violating that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction