4 ms·

More likely is that the government will (via regulations) make it very hard to own cars. There are downsides to self-driving car though. Eventually you will h

More likely is that the government will (via regulations) make it very hard to own cars. There are downsides to self-driving car though. Eventually you will have to give up anonymity and the freedom to go where you want, when you want. The government will surely "own" the system that runs the self-driving cars network. Self-driving cars aren't autonomous.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Many governments already make it hard to own cars: Beijing as a lottery for the privileged of owning a car, given the traffic problems we have here (too many cars, not enough road, horrible smog). But I think I'm OK with that, it is necessary. Self driving cars could be autonomous, unless you believe that technology freezes in time from today and won't get better in the future. But the main value of self driving cars is optimizing road bandwidth, especially in dense cities like the one I live in, and it makes sense that they would be coordinated rather closely. It is unclear that the government would own the cars themselves though...just like governments often don't own taxi companies.
- mikerichards 12y ago
  It is unclear that the government would own the cars themselves though...just like governments often don't own taxi companies The government doesn't need to own the cars, since government will own the kill switch so you can't go anywhere. Oh, and nice downvotes for not going with the anti-car hive mind that infests HN.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    They already own the kill switch. Haven't you ever been subject to a road block before? Beijing was closing down a bunch a ring roads a couple of weeks ago because of visiting dignitaries; and there is always the occasional land slide/avalanche backing up traffic when travelling between cities through mountains.
    - mikerichards 12y ago
      They already own the kill switch. Haven't you ever been subject to a road block before? You seriously want to compare a government controlled kill switch to a landslide or a roadblock?
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Whatever you want to compare against or not compare against, the point is that the kill switch is already there; cars are useless without roads, and roads are fairly easy to shutdown.
        mikerichards 12y ago
        Except the kill switch isn't already there unless you think that there's a way for the government to shutdown every road. If you're fine with governments having real kill switches, then please make that argument, but please don't make these silly comparisons that are obviously false.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        > unless you think that there's a way for the government to shutdown every road. Isn't that what they* did in NYC during 9/11? And whenever the president comes to town, they'll shut down whole corridors. Now, it is inconvenient (not to mention expensive), and so they don't do it often. Also, our road systems are pretty fragile outside of cities, there are very few corridors where your car becomes basically useless if they happen to be shut. * I assume you are being US-centric here, correct me if I'm wrong.
        mikerichards 12y ago
        I assume you're being very non-US-centric since you brought up Beijing. But you're still not getting it. This isn't about martial law, which is what you're essentially describing. Even with martial law, the U.S. way too many road, way too many people, for that to be effective, but that's besides the point, so let's focus on the kill switch. Assume that self-driving cars would be not be really autonomous in the sense that you would have a very detailed local map or GPS that the government doesn't have their hands in. I think that's pretty reasonable considering what we know about government (at least the U.S. government and many other western governments). If that's a reasonable assumption say 45-50 years from now, then any individual, groups of individuals, any area (big or small), any groups of area can be kill-switched with the press of a button. That is not ANYTHING like what you are describing as possible now with "roadblocks". Don't you find that in the least bit disturbing, in that a fundamental of travel is very easily disabled for just about everybody and anybody? I love the idea of self-driving cars. Driving is a nuisance for me as well as most people out of their teens, but for people that value freedom, you have to take a realistic look at what the cost will likely be.
Broken_Hippo 12y ago
I agree that many governments will make it expensive to own cars - and make the requirements for owning them stringent. I think this is a positive step. As far as the freedom bits are concerned, I disagree. I think with the changing travel dynamics, walking and bicycle riding will increase and some roads will change to pathways. Why call for a car when you can just walk 15 minutes to the store? Still privacy. Besides, I do think we'll get used to surveillance once we get balance (as in, we'll be able to see government about as easily as they see us). Once that happens, most people's whereabouts will just fall in the broad range of 'normal'. This stuff isn't really doomsday scenario fuel: Data gives people the chance to point to the facts and then point to the law and say, 'hey, look, this law really doesn't follow the will of the people, change it please'. The problems that prevent change from happening are problems we have now and are separate from surveillance.
pkroll 12y ago
You're not anonymous when you drive a car today: it's got a license plate and there are cameras everywhere, never mind that you're probably carrying a phone that acts as a universal locator for you to any government agency that cares. I can't imagine a general restriction on going where you want when you want, but as others have pointed out there are roadblocks today when the need arises. Assuming some cost for the cars, and of course taxes on their use, no one's going to restrict a source of income for the heck of it.
- mikerichards 12y ago
  I pretty much am anonymous if I want to be. There's no system in place right now that can conveniently track me. Yeah, there's some cameras in some places, but for the most part I could drive to the store, pay with cash, and pretty much be anonymous. But what's disturbing about these replies to my comment is how many people are almost gleeful to have the government tracking every movement they make by making almost hysterically silly arguments that it's being done today. Just the fact that "well, it's done today, so I'm OK with it" is disturbing on what used to be site for Hackers.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Many governments already make it hard to own cars: Beijing as a lottery for the privileged of owning a car, given the traffic problems we have here (too many cars, not enough road, horrible smog). But I think I'm OK with that, it is necessary. Self driving cars could be autonomous, unless you believe that technology freezes in time from today and won't get better in the future. But the main value of self driving cars is optimizing road bandwidth, especially in dense cities like the one I live in, and it makes sense that they would be coordinated rather closely. It is unclear that the government would own the cars themselves though...just like governments often don't own taxi companies.

mikerichards 12y ago
It is unclear that the government would own the cars themselves though...just like governments often don't own taxi companies The government doesn't need to own the cars, since government will own the kill switch so you can't go anywhere. Oh, and nice downvotes for not going with the anti-car hive mind that infests HN.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  They already own the kill switch. Haven't you ever been subject to a road block before? Beijing was closing down a bunch a ring roads a couple of weeks ago because of visiting dignitaries; and there is always the occasional land slide/avalanche backing up traffic when travelling between cities through mountains.
  - mikerichards 12y ago
    They already own the kill switch. Haven't you ever been subject to a road block before? You seriously want to compare a government controlled kill switch to a landslide or a roadblock?
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Whatever you want to compare against or not compare against, the point is that the kill switch is already there; cars are useless without roads, and roads are fairly easy to shutdown.
      - mikerichards 12y ago
        Except the kill switch isn't already there unless you think that there's a way for the government to shutdown every road. If you're fine with governments having real kill switches, then please make that argument, but please don't make these silly comparisons that are obviously false.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        > unless you think that there's a way for the government to shutdown every road. Isn't that what they* did in NYC during 9/11? And whenever the president comes to town, they'll shut down whole corridors. Now, it is inconvenient (not to mention expensive), and so they don't do it often. Also, our road systems are pretty fragile outside of cities, there are very few corridors where your car becomes basically useless if they happen to be shut. * I assume you are being US-centric here, correct me if I'm wrong.
        mikerichards 12y ago
        I assume you're being very non-US-centric since you brought up Beijing. But you're still not getting it. This isn't about martial law, which is what you're essentially describing. Even with martial law, the U.S. way too many road, way too many people, for that to be effective, but that's besides the point, so let's focus on the kill switch. Assume that self-driving cars would be not be really autonomous in the sense that you would have a very detailed local map or GPS that the government doesn't have their hands in. I think that's pretty reasonable considering what we know about government (at least the U.S. government and many other western governments). If that's a reasonable assumption say 45-50 years from now, then any individual, groups of individuals, any area (big or small), any groups of area can be kill-switched with the press of a button. That is not ANYTHING like what you are describing as possible now with "roadblocks". Don't you find that in the least bit disturbing, in that a fundamental of travel is very easily disabled for just about everybody and anybody? I love the idea of self-driving cars. Driving is a nuisance for me as well as most people out of their teens, but for people that value freedom, you have to take a realistic look at what the cost will likely be.

Broken_Hippo 12y ago

I agree that many governments will make it expensive to own cars - and make the requirements for owning them stringent. I think this is a positive step. As far as the freedom bits are concerned, I disagree. I think with the changing travel dynamics, walking and bicycle riding will increase and some roads will change to pathways. Why call for a car when you can just walk 15 minutes to the store? Still privacy. Besides, I do think we'll get used to surveillance once we get balance (as in, we'll be able to see government about as easily as they see us). Once that happens, most people's whereabouts will just fall in the broad range of 'normal'. This stuff isn't really doomsday scenario fuel: Data gives people the chance to point to the facts and then point to the law and say, 'hey, look, this law really doesn't follow the will of the people, change it please'. The problems that prevent change from happening are problems we have now and are separate from surveillance.

pkroll 12y ago

You're not anonymous when you drive a car today: it's got a license plate and there are cameras everywhere, never mind that you're probably carrying a phone that acts as a universal locator for you to any government agency that cares. I can't imagine a general restriction on going where you want when you want, but as others have pointed out there are roadblocks today when the need arises. Assuming some cost for the cars, and of course taxes on their use, no one's going to restrict a source of income for the heck of it.

mikerichards 12y ago
I pretty much am anonymous if I want to be. There's no system in place right now that can conveniently track me. Yeah, there's some cameras in some places, but for the most part I could drive to the store, pay with cash, and pretty much be anonymous. But what's disturbing about these replies to my comment is how many people are almost gleeful to have the government tracking every movement they make by making almost hysterically silly arguments that it's being done today. Just the fact that "well, it's done today, so I'm OK with it" is disturbing on what used to be site for Hackers.