25 ms·

House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

115 points by mikece 8mo ago

antibull 8mo ago
These people are truly worse than the novel 1984 predicted. They will stop at nothing short of slavery. They must be our master at any and all costs. This is a war on freedom and the enemy is from within.
unstyledcontent 8mo ago
Here in Minneapolis, there have been multiple anecdotal reports of ICE being able to remotely unlock cars, disable them, and even open windows. Whether its true, its certainly seems possible. Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Im picturing a world where the US could mass disable vehicles based on the owners score in their fancy new palantir database. We should have the right to flee danger and use a vehicle for that. I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window. It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).
  - colechristensen 8mo ago
    >It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries). Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.
    - lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
      I find this a very odd and non compelling argument Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?
      - mmmlinux 8mo ago
        basically every farmer.
        lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
        So is the argument that only farmers should be able to have a vehicle?
      - davorak 8mo ago
        Farmers who own their farm is the traditional group that would qualify. That population is much smaller than it used to be to my understanding though.
      - iamnothere 8mo ago
        It’s pretty common to have unlicensed off road vehicles, especially in the mountain west. Farmers and ranchers often have at least one of these. There’s plenty of recreational users as well.
        lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
        Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population. How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?
        iamnothere 8mo ago
        That doesn’t mean that this isn’t true in a technical sense. It’s correct that it isn’t feasible for the majority of the population. You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.
  - tim-tday 8mo ago
    Having vehicle override would be an extremely concerning capability. (If confirmed) Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.
  - davorak 8mo ago
    > Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window. Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice. Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.
  - baubino 8mo ago
    > It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.
    - HaZeust 8mo ago
      "Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles. When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".
      - ndjeosibfb 8mo ago
        brass text?
        HaZeust 8mo ago
        brass tacks*. That's what I get for generating half of my comment with speech to text.
      - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
        > your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions. The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified. The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
- foogazi 8mo ago
  > Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant So we’re beyond concern now
  - gruez 8mo ago
    >ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
    - bhickey 8mo ago
      They wrote a memo saying they could.
      - boston_clone 8mo ago
        not saying you’re wrong, but we have to get in the habit of sourcing our claims! whistleblowers testified to Congress about this memo that began circulating around mid-2025. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-memo-1-21-26/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
        esalman 8mo ago
        Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.
        ghthor 8mo ago
        Pretty sure doing your own research turns you into a conspiracy theorist; so I don’t think we’re supposed to do that anymore.
        krapp 8mo ago
        No it doesn't. Conspiracy theorists don't actually do research. If they did, that might risk invalidating their theory.
- scotty79 8mo ago
  > if we allow our government This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that. Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy. I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that people have a say. But it's time to shake it off because this veil is one of the things used for control.
  - psunavy03 8mo ago
    Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - scotty79 8mo ago
      Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.
      - AngryData 8mo ago
        You really think the US government can bomb its own citizens with impunity and not completely destroy their own industrial base that makes bombing citizens possible? The US government would very quickly collapse. Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.
        tartoran 8mo ago
        Fear makes a lot of well intended people comply.
- SilverElfin 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - quantumfissure 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - DangitBobby 8mo ago
      People tend to believe that the direction of progress should be forward, I guess.
    - mmooss 8mo ago
      Finding some precedents doesn't address the major changes. Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior? > Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation. It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father. I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
      - quantumfissure 8mo ago
        > Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior? No, but recent actions in the last 20 years, and certainly the last year have absolutely proven to me the Executive Branch, as I've been saying since the Reagan administration, has always had too much power. > I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy. While I agree, the point is the methods are the same as they were back then. INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly. I mean, we can talk about other Executive branches abusing their power all day (Waco; Homeland Security/TSA searches; DEA Searches; Iran-Contra; CIA Operations in the 60s-80's) etc... the point is, nothing ever changes.
- OptionOfT 8mo ago
  Remote unlock is on many cars via an API. It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc. It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.
- NedF 8mo ago
  [dead]
- _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
  The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out. "Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"
  - B1FIDO 8mo ago
    One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops. I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it? Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries. So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
      There was an app linked here a few months back that unlocks them from your iphone. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.
  - lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
    That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.
    - K0balt 8mo ago
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
  > I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc. I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
  >I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny. The second amendment only protects the right to arms. Firearms certainly, others as well (swords, if anyone gave a shit about them, body armor for sure, perhaps even others not normally considered to fall under its protection like grenades). If the Constitution protects encryption or un-pre-sabotaged vehicles, the 2nd amendment isn't the portion that does so.
lapetitejort 8mo ago
Bicycles do not have software to install a kill switch. They do not have license plates to be read by surveillance cameras. They do not require costly insurance to legally ride. They are not powered by fossil fuels. Buy a bike. Learn to maintain it. Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area.
- mhurron 8mo ago
  Bicycles are also not a viable replacement for almost all the uses of a vehicle. None of this advice is useful.
  - alistairSH 8mo ago
    Beg to differ, they're viable for basically all local use cases... Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc. They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.
    - newsoftheday 8mo ago
      Not in Texas, they're not viable for most uses, the parent commenter is completely correct. The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.
      - uriegas 8mo ago
        Agree. Texas is pretty bad. In most places you cannot exist without a car. No wonder Mcallen is the most obese city the US.
        lapetitejort 8mo ago
        Hence the last sentence of my post: > Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area. We built dangerous highways. We can build bikeways as well.
    - willk 8mo ago
kittikitti 8mo ago
In my car, I regularly get a notice that I'm not being attentive and that I should go for a coffee break. It's never right and my best guess is that it's always on a straight highway road for more than 15 minutes where I'm not moving the wheel very much. I don't think this kill switch is a good idea and might attract unnecessary attention from law enforcement who might ding me for something completely unrelated (going 6mph above speed limit).
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  My Japanese coworker's Japanese car consistently insists my coworker is asleep. I think it's hilarious because presumably someone in an office somewhere in Japan was told it wasn't working on white people and said "you want it to work on white people, fine I'll crank it to 11." But I also didn't spend $50k on it so that probably makes it easier.
shrubble 8mo ago
So imagine you attend a planned protest at the state capitol. You drive and when within 3 miles your car dies. You can start it again and drive away, turning around and leaving, but if you go further towards the capitol it dies again. The next day the press reports that the planned protest was very sparsely attended.
- pjc50 8mo ago
  Do protests have parking?
  - pseudalopex 8mo ago
    Cities have parking. And passengers can exit a car without the driver.
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      I've walked from the San Jose railway station to "The" Cupertino Hotel. 8.6 miles. I don't recommend it, the sidewalks were not consistently on the same side of the road, the heat was oppressive even in January, and even just the final crossing before the hotel itself was terrifying despite the presence of pedestrian lights. My experiences elsewhere in the US are similarly pedestrian-hostile over what I consider to be short distances. How will "passengers" being different people to "drivers" help, when most people have their phones on them at all times and can be traced, and it's the vehicle rather than any person in it which may (or may not) have an engine kill-switch?
  - scarecrowbob 8mo ago
    Our local municipality has (in the distant past) made all of the business park on-street parking into "no parking" zones. They also heavily enforce parking regulations in the area during actions...
    - xethos 8mo ago
      Wanting to discourage motorists being around where a massive group of people are expected to gather is reasonable. It's why streets will close for parades and parties. You're turning something designed to protect protestors into a conspiracy to scuttle a protest
dfajgljsldkjag 8mo ago
I have heard stories in Minneapolis about ICE remotely unlocking cars and opening windows. This seems technically possible to me. It makes me worry about public safety if the government has this control. I imagine a future where the government disables cars based on a score in a Palantir database. We need the right to use a car to escape danger. I also think encryption is important for defense against tyranny. The Second Amendment should protect encryption too.
- bluGill 8mo ago
  The devil is in the details. The democrats for this (that didn't vote for this) need to change the existing law so it has strong privacy requirements. Right now the law is that regulations must be created - but what those regulations are is up to whatever bureaucrat decides to make them: they could be good or bad.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Ha! The government still classifies encryption as a munition, which means you have a constitutional right to own it. Nice!
carimura 8mo ago
Maybe we should pass laws to ban driving. Then nobody will get hurt!
4d4m 8mo ago
Very gross, overstepping, and creepy.
tmaly 8mo ago
Imagine driving in a remote road on a cold night, no cell signal, a deer crosses the road and you swerve to avoid it. The car thinks your drunk and kills the car. You're stuck, no cell signal, good chance of hypothermia.
- ErroneousBosh 8mo ago
  A bigger, real-world problem is that cars with lane-keeping assist will steer you back towards the deer. Some of the earlier EVs I tried had lane-keeping assist so brutal that it was like trying to steer a car with a broken power steering pump belt, if it didn't want you to change lanes - genuinely dangerous. The Kia EV I tried a few weeks ago just felt like it was tramlining a bit when I changed lanes without indicating (no real need to indicate, on a completely empty road).
  - thegrim000 8mo ago
    I was visiting my parent's home recently and driving their new car. Was driving down a road and there was some debris in my lane, so I started to steer to the outside of the lane to avoid hitting it, and the car decided to apply counter steering input to keep me in my lane, pushing me back towards the debris, ignoring my commanded steering input. The fact that stuff like this exists and is common now and is wildly accepted is absolutely insane to me.
avidiax 8mo ago
I'd prefer something with a slightly more libertarian bent: The hardware is required in new cars. It's illegal to make it report false values or for someone other than the driver to record. When you press the start button, an LED shines into your skin and records fingerprint hash, and blood alcohol. This data is recorded/reported only when a public road has been entered or crossed, and erased from local storage in 24 hours. The reporting is optional. You can turn it off. You set it up to report to your insurance company. If you don't, your insurance rates will probably rise. What does society get out of this? People are strongly encouraged not to drink and drive. They get a clear and unambiguous signal if they are over the legal limit or not. We get some insurance data about how many people are drinking and driving nonetheless, and their actual accident rates. Insurance rates can be higher for people at higher risk, and lower for those who are not. There's no emergency situation where someone can't activate their car. Drivers' "freedom" to drive without insurance or without historical monitoring isn't infringed. You can still drive drunk on private property without consequence. We could probably also partially do away with constructive DUI (DUI where you are drunk, but asleep in the vehicle and in possession of the keys). You can set a maximum startup BAC in the car computer. You can lower it, effective in 8 hours. Your sober self can agree that future you shouldn't drive drunk, and even if you sleep in your car, the police can't show that you were in control of the vehicle.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Wouldn't it have to be opt-in, and opt-in to buy, to be libertarian?
  - avidiax 8mo ago
    I wouldn't describe myself as libertarian. To make a libertarian strawman, such a strawman might claim that all safety features in cars ought to be provided by the free market. Of course, the predictable outcome is that most people won't prioritize safety in cars, so cars that spend their production budget on non-safety features will outsell those that spend on safety features, leading to at best a niche market for safety cars. So no, I don't think any libertarian is OK with being forced to do almost anything, in principle. The very idea that you'd need to wear seatbelts or have a license or be compelled to have insurance or not have an open bottle of vodka in your cup holder is anathema. The free market should simply operate through the courts and put those that can't drink responsibly and cover the damage they cause into debtors prisons, to continue the strawman. I would actually prefer much stricter enforcement of insurance and licensing laws, akin to say, the UK or Germany. I don't think you need hardware interlocks to do it, but you would have to have police willing to actually pull over people with fake license plates or missing insurance. That is not the case in much of California.
ivansmf 8mo ago
The existence of a kill switch plus tracking in legislation very likely means the manufacturers wanted to track and sell user data and needed a scapegoat to avoid customer backlash. I would profoundly surprised if we don't find a lobbyist at the bottom of this.
- Ancalagon 8mo ago
  I think the bigger incentive was repos, but this was considered a side-benefit.
exabrial 8mo ago
> A Republican attempt to cut off federal funding tied to vehicle “kill switch” enforcement failed in the House this week, leaving intact a law directing the Department of Transportation to develop mandatory impaired-driving prevention systems in new vehicles.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Apparently on the basis that it makes no sense to have a law mandating something and then another law prohibiting any money being spent on that thing. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-15/house-section/article/H1297-1 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/iss...
direwolf20 8mo ago
The debate: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-15/house-section/article/H1297-1 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/iss...

115 points by mikece 8mo ago

These people are truly worse than the novel 1984 predicted. They will stop at nothing short of slavery. They must be our master at any and all costs. This is a war on freedom and the enemy is from within.

unstyledcontent 8mo ago

Here in Minneapolis, there have been multiple anecdotal reports of ICE being able to remotely unlock cars, disable them, and even open windows. Whether its true, its certainly seems possible. Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Im picturing a world where the US could mass disable vehicles based on the owners score in their fancy new palantir database. We should have the right to flee danger and use a vehicle for that. I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.

SoftTalker 8mo ago
Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window. It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).
- colechristensen 8mo ago
  >It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries). Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.
  - lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
    I find this a very odd and non compelling argument Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?
    - mmmlinux 8mo ago
      basically every farmer.
      - lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
        So is the argument that only farmers should be able to have a vehicle?
    - davorak 8mo ago
      Farmers who own their farm is the traditional group that would qualify. That population is much smaller than it used to be to my understanding though.
    - iamnothere 8mo ago
      It’s pretty common to have unlicensed off road vehicles, especially in the mountain west. Farmers and ranchers often have at least one of these. There’s plenty of recreational users as well.
      - lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
        Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population. How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?
        iamnothere 8mo ago
        That doesn’t mean that this isn’t true in a technical sense. It’s correct that it isn’t feasible for the majority of the population. You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.
- tim-tday 8mo ago
  Having vehicle override would be an extremely concerning capability. (If confirmed) Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.
- davorak 8mo ago
  > Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window. Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice. Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.
- baubino 8mo ago
  > It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.
  - HaZeust 8mo ago
    "Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles. When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".
    - ndjeosibfb 8mo ago
      brass text?
      - HaZeust 8mo ago
        brass tacks*. That's what I get for generating half of my comment with speech to text.
    - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
      > your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions. The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified. The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
foogazi 8mo ago
> Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant So we’re beyond concern now
- gruez 8mo ago
  >ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
  - bhickey 8mo ago
    They wrote a memo saying they could.
    - boston_clone 8mo ago
      not saying you’re wrong, but we have to get in the habit of sourcing our claims! whistleblowers testified to Congress about this memo that began circulating around mid-2025. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-memo-1-21-26/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
      - esalman 8mo ago
        Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.
        ghthor 8mo ago
        Pretty sure doing your own research turns you into a conspiracy theorist; so I don’t think we’re supposed to do that anymore.
        krapp 8mo ago
        No it doesn't. Conspiracy theorists don't actually do research. If they did, that might risk invalidating their theory.
scotty79 8mo ago
> if we allow our government This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that. Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy. I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that people have a say. But it's time to shake it off because this veil is one of the things used for control.
- psunavy03 8mo ago
  Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 8mo ago
    Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.
    - AngryData 8mo ago
      You really think the US government can bomb its own citizens with impunity and not completely destroy their own industrial base that makes bombing citizens possible? The US government would very quickly collapse. Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.
      - tartoran 8mo ago
        Fear makes a lot of well intended people comply.
SilverElfin 8mo ago
[flagged]
- quantumfissure 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - DangitBobby 8mo ago
    People tend to believe that the direction of progress should be forward, I guess.
  - mmooss 8mo ago
    Finding some precedents doesn't address the major changes. Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior? > Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation. It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father. I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
    - quantumfissure 8mo ago
      > Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior? No, but recent actions in the last 20 years, and certainly the last year have absolutely proven to me the Executive Branch, as I've been saying since the Reagan administration, has always had too much power. > I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy. While I agree, the point is the methods are the same as they were back then. INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly. I mean, we can talk about other Executive branches abusing their power all day (Waco; Homeland Security/TSA searches; DEA Searches; Iran-Contra; CIA Operations in the 60s-80's) etc... the point is, nothing ever changes.
OptionOfT 8mo ago
Remote unlock is on many cars via an API. It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc. It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.
NedF 8mo ago
[dead]
_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out. "Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"
- B1FIDO 8mo ago
  One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops. I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it? Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries. So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
    There was an app linked here a few months back that unlocks them from your iphone. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.
- lp0_on_fire 8mo ago
  That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.
  - K0balt 8mo ago
ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
> I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc. I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.
NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
>I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny. The second amendment only protects the right to arms. Firearms certainly, others as well (swords, if anyone gave a shit about them, body armor for sure, perhaps even others not normally considered to fall under its protection like grenades). If the Constitution protects encryption or un-pre-sabotaged vehicles, the 2nd amendment isn't the portion that does so.

lapetitejort 8mo ago

Bicycles do not have software to install a kill switch. They do not have license plates to be read by surveillance cameras. They do not require costly insurance to legally ride. They are not powered by fossil fuels. Buy a bike. Learn to maintain it. Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area.

mhurron 8mo ago
Bicycles are also not a viable replacement for almost all the uses of a vehicle. None of this advice is useful.
- alistairSH 8mo ago
  Beg to differ, they're viable for basically all local use cases... Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc. They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.
  - newsoftheday 8mo ago
    Not in Texas, they're not viable for most uses, the parent commenter is completely correct. The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.
    - uriegas 8mo ago
      Agree. Texas is pretty bad. In most places you cannot exist without a car. No wonder Mcallen is the most obese city the US.
      - lapetitejort 8mo ago
        Hence the last sentence of my post: > Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area. We built dangerous highways. We can build bikeways as well.
  - willk 8mo ago

kittikitti 8mo ago

In my car, I regularly get a notice that I'm not being attentive and that I should go for a coffee break. It's never right and my best guess is that it's always on a straight highway road for more than 15 minutes where I'm not moving the wheel very much. I don't think this kill switch is a good idea and might attract unnecessary attention from law enforcement who might ding me for something completely unrelated (going 6mph above speed limit).

cucumber3732842 8mo ago
My Japanese coworker's Japanese car consistently insists my coworker is asleep. I think it's hilarious because presumably someone in an office somewhere in Japan was told it wasn't working on white people and said "you want it to work on white people, fine I'll crank it to 11." But I also didn't spend $50k on it so that probably makes it easier.

shrubble 8mo ago

So imagine you attend a planned protest at the state capitol. You drive and when within 3 miles your car dies. You can start it again and drive away, turning around and leaving, but if you go further towards the capitol it dies again. The next day the press reports that the planned protest was very sparsely attended.

pjc50 8mo ago
Do protests have parking?
- pseudalopex 8mo ago
  Cities have parking. And passengers can exit a car without the driver.
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    I've walked from the San Jose railway station to "The" Cupertino Hotel. 8.6 miles. I don't recommend it, the sidewalks were not consistently on the same side of the road, the heat was oppressive even in January, and even just the final crossing before the hotel itself was terrifying despite the presence of pedestrian lights. My experiences elsewhere in the US are similarly pedestrian-hostile over what I consider to be short distances. How will "passengers" being different people to "drivers" help, when most people have their phones on them at all times and can be traced, and it's the vehicle rather than any person in it which may (or may not) have an engine kill-switch?
- scarecrowbob 8mo ago
  Our local municipality has (in the distant past) made all of the business park on-street parking into "no parking" zones. They also heavily enforce parking regulations in the area during actions...
  - xethos 8mo ago
    Wanting to discourage motorists being around where a massive group of people are expected to gather is reasonable. It's why streets will close for parades and parties. You're turning something designed to protect protestors into a conspiracy to scuttle a protest

dfajgljsldkjag 8mo ago

I have heard stories in Minneapolis about ICE remotely unlocking cars and opening windows. This seems technically possible to me. It makes me worry about public safety if the government has this control. I imagine a future where the government disables cars based on a score in a Palantir database. We need the right to use a car to escape danger. I also think encryption is important for defense against tyranny. The Second Amendment should protect encryption too.

bluGill 8mo ago
The devil is in the details. The democrats for this (that didn't vote for this) need to change the existing law so it has strong privacy requirements. Right now the law is that regulations must be created - but what those regulations are is up to whatever bureaucrat decides to make them: they could be good or bad.
direwolf20 8mo ago
Ha! The government still classifies encryption as a munition, which means you have a constitutional right to own it. Nice!

carimura 8mo ago

Maybe we should pass laws to ban driving. Then nobody will get hurt!

4d4m 8mo ago

Very gross, overstepping, and creepy.

tmaly 8mo ago

Imagine driving in a remote road on a cold night, no cell signal, a deer crosses the road and you swerve to avoid it. The car thinks your drunk and kills the car. You're stuck, no cell signal, good chance of hypothermia.

ErroneousBosh 8mo ago
A bigger, real-world problem is that cars with lane-keeping assist will steer you back towards the deer. Some of the earlier EVs I tried had lane-keeping assist so brutal that it was like trying to steer a car with a broken power steering pump belt, if it didn't want you to change lanes - genuinely dangerous. The Kia EV I tried a few weeks ago just felt like it was tramlining a bit when I changed lanes without indicating (no real need to indicate, on a completely empty road).
- thegrim000 8mo ago
  I was visiting my parent's home recently and driving their new car. Was driving down a road and there was some debris in my lane, so I started to steer to the outside of the lane to avoid hitting it, and the car decided to apply counter steering input to keep me in my lane, pushing me back towards the debris, ignoring my commanded steering input. The fact that stuff like this exists and is common now and is wildly accepted is absolutely insane to me.

avidiax 8mo ago

I'd prefer something with a slightly more libertarian bent: The hardware is required in new cars. It's illegal to make it report false values or for someone other than the driver to record. When you press the start button, an LED shines into your skin and records fingerprint hash, and blood alcohol. This data is recorded/reported only when a public road has been entered or crossed, and erased from local storage in 24 hours. The reporting is optional. You can turn it off. You set it up to report to your insurance company. If you don't, your insurance rates will probably rise. What does society get out of this? People are strongly encouraged not to drink and drive. They get a clear and unambiguous signal if they are over the legal limit or not. We get some insurance data about how many people are drinking and driving nonetheless, and their actual accident rates. Insurance rates can be higher for people at higher risk, and lower for those who are not. There's no emergency situation where someone can't activate their car. Drivers' "freedom" to drive without insurance or without historical monitoring isn't infringed. You can still drive drunk on private property without consequence. We could probably also partially do away with constructive DUI (DUI where you are drunk, but asleep in the vehicle and in possession of the keys). You can set a maximum startup BAC in the car computer. You can lower it, effective in 8 hours. Your sober self can agree that future you shouldn't drive drunk, and even if you sleep in your car, the police can't show that you were in control of the vehicle.

direwolf20 8mo ago
Wouldn't it have to be opt-in, and opt-in to buy, to be libertarian?
- avidiax 8mo ago
  I wouldn't describe myself as libertarian. To make a libertarian strawman, such a strawman might claim that all safety features in cars ought to be provided by the free market. Of course, the predictable outcome is that most people won't prioritize safety in cars, so cars that spend their production budget on non-safety features will outsell those that spend on safety features, leading to at best a niche market for safety cars. So no, I don't think any libertarian is OK with being forced to do almost anything, in principle. The very idea that you'd need to wear seatbelts or have a license or be compelled to have insurance or not have an open bottle of vodka in your cup holder is anathema. The free market should simply operate through the courts and put those that can't drink responsibly and cover the damage they cause into debtors prisons, to continue the strawman. I would actually prefer much stricter enforcement of insurance and licensing laws, akin to say, the UK or Germany. I don't think you need hardware interlocks to do it, but you would have to have police willing to actually pull over people with fake license plates or missing insurance. That is not the case in much of California.

ivansmf 8mo ago

The existence of a kill switch plus tracking in legislation very likely means the manufacturers wanted to track and sell user data and needed a scapegoat to avoid customer backlash. I would profoundly surprised if we don't find a lobbyist at the bottom of this.

Ancalagon 8mo ago
I think the bigger incentive was repos, but this was considered a side-benefit.

exabrial 8mo ago

> A Republican attempt to cut off federal funding tied to vehicle “kill switch” enforcement failed in the House this week, leaving intact a law directing the Department of Transportation to develop mandatory impaired-driving prevention systems in new vehicles.

direwolf20 8mo ago
Apparently on the basis that it makes no sense to have a law mandating something and then another law prohibiting any money being spent on that thing. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-15/house-section/article/H1297-1 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/iss...

direwolf20 8mo ago

The debate: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-15/house-section/article/H1297-1 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/iss...