2 ms·

Interesting perspective. As others have noted, I believe the brightline is less “general purpose computer…” and more “…that is remotely accessible & modifiable

by malwrar 1mo ago

Interesting perspective. As others have noted, I believe the brightline is less “general purpose computer…” and more “…that is remotely accessible & modifiable effectively anywhere in the world”. I worry not just about OEMs and cops, but also criminals, foreign intelligence agencies, etc. Honestly potentially anyone at this point, now that folks have figured out you can use LLMs to do analysis. This is a sound foundation for concern by itself, don’t you think?

jameshart 1mo ago
I think that’s a very different concern - your take is more ‘governments shouldn’t deploy these things because they are incompetent’ whereas the original concern seemed to be ‘governments shouldn’t deploy these things because they are malicious’. Neither philosophy seems to have a good limiting principle for what they mean governments should be allowed to do to efficiently enforce traffic law
- malwrar 1mo ago
  Don’t get me wrong, governments putting these things up for one purpose and then using them for another (my read on your use of “malicious”) is a major concern I have. It is broader than that though, and is the distinction I sought to capture with “anyone with access” in my original post. They are connected to the internet, and to a cloud no less! Anyone could be the NSA now, from anywhere in the world. I bet we’ll see these used to collect marketing data too. Perhaps a limiting principle can be that we simply do not use ALPRs or other surveillance tech, or at least that we don’t connect them to the internet and require a warrant to access and use their data? Personally, I’d just prefer cops enforce traffic law the old fashioned way.
  - jameshart 1mo ago
    The old fashioned way cops enforce traffic law is, typically: unevenly, ineffectively, expensively, and with a large dose of racism. So we’re talking about trading off your concerns over potential abuse and misuse of technology vs concerns about potential abuse and misuse of police powers vs just allowing traffic to kill more cyclists and pedestrians. The nihilistic libertarian says ‘precisely - government doesn’t work - we can’t hope to make things better by concentrating power’ An optimistic democratic-institutionalist says ‘we can constrain governments at the ballot box and with constitutional limitations’. I suspect our disagreement lies somewhere in the chasm between these world views.

by malwrar 1mo ago

jameshart 1mo ago

I think that’s a very different concern - your take is more ‘governments shouldn’t deploy these things because they are incompetent’ whereas the original concern seemed to be ‘governments shouldn’t deploy these things because they are malicious’. Neither philosophy seems to have a good limiting principle for what they mean governments should be allowed to do to efficiently enforce traffic law

malwrar 1mo ago
Don’t get me wrong, governments putting these things up for one purpose and then using them for another (my read on your use of “malicious”) is a major concern I have. It is broader than that though, and is the distinction I sought to capture with “anyone with access” in my original post. They are connected to the internet, and to a cloud no less! Anyone could be the NSA now, from anywhere in the world. I bet we’ll see these used to collect marketing data too. Perhaps a limiting principle can be that we simply do not use ALPRs or other surveillance tech, or at least that we don’t connect them to the internet and require a warrant to access and use their data? Personally, I’d just prefer cops enforce traffic law the old fashioned way.
- jameshart 1mo ago
  The old fashioned way cops enforce traffic law is, typically: unevenly, ineffectively, expensively, and with a large dose of racism. So we’re talking about trading off your concerns over potential abuse and misuse of technology vs concerns about potential abuse and misuse of police powers vs just allowing traffic to kill more cyclists and pedestrians. The nihilistic libertarian says ‘precisely - government doesn’t work - we can’t hope to make things better by concentrating power’ An optimistic democratic-institutionalist says ‘we can constrain governments at the ballot box and with constitutional limitations’. I suspect our disagreement lies somewhere in the chasm between these world views.