6 ms·
Focusing on privacy is a weak angle of attack in this case. The issue of privacy is solvable anyway so time spent on this argument is ultimately time wasted. T
by throwaway_ab 3y ago
Focusing on privacy is a weak angle of attack in this case. The issue of privacy is solvable anyway so time spent on this argument is ultimately time wasted.
The real issue here is the issue of our liberty being violated in a substantial way.
The ability for the state to remotely kill your means of transportation, thus remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control.
You might be wondering how is this different from the current system, the government already has the power to determine who can drive.
A few things:
- The current system works solely via the legal system. The law determines who can drive, there is no technological system to force compliance, yes you can be pulled over by the cops, but this is a case by case process that can't be applied to entire swaths of the population.
- a kill switch allows the possibility that transportation is denied to entire regions, specific minorities, a government could use this power to control people in ways make the power imbalance between state and individual even more extreme.
- The kill switch is a constant threat against our freedom of movement.
- The system could be abused or hacked, exposing us in this way for more power is abhorrent.
- timnetworks 3y agoI too, am very concerned about a 'not authorized to drive to zone 4' error for specific income brackets. However, I am concerned those same zones will be Green Zones that don't let ICE vehicles in either way. . . . Kit cars?
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoThe concept of freedom of movement was already thrown out during covid, as we learnt with the patriot act if you capitulate "Ok, just this one time because it's a special circumstance" then you lose that freedom forever.
- beej71 3y agoFreedom of movement was restricted multiple times in the last 200 years; COVID was hardly the first. I'm not arguing that this case is ok, though.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoWhere was freedom of movement restricted in the United States? I heard of restrictions in other countries, but not here. I spent all of peak COVID in North Dakota and Minnesota, so I understand things were likely different in other places, but I don't remember hearing about any sort of travel bans within the country.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoThere were technically curfews in big cities. But they were never enforced, to my knowledge.
- ryandrake 3y agoI’d guess at most a single digit number of people faced any enforcement consequences of violating stay-at-home in all of the USA. It was purely government performance art to say they were Doing Something.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agohttps://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/order-safe-travel.html#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20as%20of,flight%20to%20the%20United%20States https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/order-safe-travel.html#:~:tex....
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago"noncitizen nonimmigrant air passengers"
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoOh ok that time they restricted movement didn't count, yeah ok. The gaslighting about something that was barely 3 years ago that we all saw happen is getting wild.
- sieabahlpark 3y ago[dead]
- cabalamat 3y ago> The system could be abused or hacked E.g. by a hostile foreign power.
- AnAaaaardvark 3y agoOr even a cop that really dislikes another cop. This is pandoras box.
- scott-smith_us 3y agoI think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime. In the foreign invasion (or US govt goes full fascist) case, people can remove these devices. Meanwhile many if not most high-speed chases won't happen any more, because the person being chased didn't plan ahead. There will still be getaway cars, etc. where the device was removed. That's no different to what we have now, and it'll be an extra violation to charge them with when they're caught. Since driving is, and has always been a privilege and not a right, I don't see a problem with having a remote kill switch that cops can use in specific cases.
- outime 3y ago>I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime. >In the foreign invasion (or US govt goes full fascist) case, people can remove these devices. I don't follow this logic. Would it stop being a crime then? If anything, it'd start being more severely punished.
- marcosdumay 3y ago> Meanwhile many if not most high-speed chases won't happen any more High-speed chases don't happen anymore, unless you are talking about helicopter chases in uncontrolled airpsace. There has been no reason to chase a car for at least half a century. That is, unless you have adrenaline-hungry cops that care more about having fun than actively hurting people. Car chases only happen if you don't criminally persecute cops for them.
- jorvi 3y agoYup, my instant reaction was “kill switches are a violation of autonomy, not of privacy”.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoI think that is a choice because privacy is more established in constitutional law than autonomy. Note that privacy was the mechanism for Wade v Roe.
- salawat 3y agoAnd look at how Wade v Roe turned out. And Privacy isn't explicitly mentioned once in the Constitution, except indirectly via the 10th, meaning that at the end of the day, without the will to fight and prevent encroachment, it's as fair game as anything else.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> And Privacy isn't explicitly mentioned once in the Constitution That's because the particular definition we are using for "privacy" wouldn't be attached to the word "privacy" for another 25 years. https://www.etymonline.com/word/privacy https://www.etymonline.com/word/privacy > Meaning "state of freedom from intrusion or interference" is from 1814. So instead they used phrases such as "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in the 4th amendment for the same general meaning. Edit to make the specific point explicit: A right to "privacy" does exist in the US Constitution, however this right can be broached with a warrant and a "reasonable" search and seizure. The right, in and of itself, does not protect against any particular laws, including laws against abortion.
- salawat 3y agoJust responding to say thank you, because I think you articulated the point I was trying to make better than I could.
- 404mm 3y agoWhere does this reference to remote kill come from? I didn’t see it in the bill itself. It mentioned that the vehicle itself decides based on some (not clearly defined) factors but I did see anything about remote kill.
- jvanderbot 3y agoAdding a specific clause would be self defeating. A poorly worded, overly broad clause which can be twisted to mean whatever they might want later is much better. In this case "decide" can mean "did the local government ask nicely" or anything else.
- lost_tourist 3y ago[dead]
- scott-smith_us 3y ago> remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control. *Freedom of movement* doesn't require that you are able to drive your own car. It's not *new* either. Get pulled over for a DUI, and you won't be allowed to drive for a while.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoYou won’t be allowed to drive legally on public roads after you are found guilty in court. There is a world of difference between that and not being able to operate the vehicle you own on private or public areas after a computer receives a command.
- Volundr 3y ago> not being able to operate the vehicle you own on private or public areas after a computer receives a command. Which is not a feature described by the bill or claimed in the above article.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoIt doesn’t really specify anything. It is very vague, and interpretation is left to the regulator. If the AI or whatever determines that you are impaired is offloaded to the cloud, then it can send a stop command remotely, and will almost certainly be abused by malicious actors (and some governments). If it is onboard, then it is still likely going to be a closed source software or hardware module that can send a stop command to the car. In any case it creates a mechanism within cars for disabling it outside the control of the owner or operator
- lost_tourist 3y ago[dead]
- stratigos 3y ago> The ability for the state to remotely kill your means of transportation, thus remotely controlling our freedom of movement, is a new dystopian level of government control. Indeed, this is the reason they are forcing EVs onto us.
- Robotbeat 3y agoThere’s nothing fundamentally about EVs that make them more conducive to government control. In fact, EVs can be charged from any AC power source, and it’s trivial to make electric yourself these days but nearly impossible to make gasoline in your backyard.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> a new dystopian level of government control. I always knew that USA opposed USSR because it's dystopia. I didn't know that USA wanted to have a monopoly on dystopias. but seriously, if you read cyberpunk dystopias of the 80's, it pppears some people are treating them as a manual
- undersuit 3y agoThey've already killed you means of transport; you're not complaining about walking.
- Volundr 3y ago> a kill switch allows the possibility that transportation is denied to entire regions, specific minorities You and I read about very different things. In the bill I read, the vehicle was making the decision locally, not a government power, remotely.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> the vehicle was making the decision locally Based on what? Are you asserting that data determining the decision, isn't in any way guided by law or regulation?
- Volundr 3y ago> Are you asserting that data determining the decision, isn't in any way guided by law or regulation? Of course not. Airbags and when they deploy are also guided by law and regulation. That doesn't mean that the government can suddenly deploy all the airbags in Arizona like the parent is claiming this mechanism could be used for.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> Airbags ... are also guided by law and regulation. This clarifies that 'local decision' is actually a 'government decision' - and that local refers to it's application. That helps. With some tweaking tho, I think we can improve on that comparison. In order to accommodate the inevitable mission creep, we'll want nextgen airbags systems to accept updated programming - to always be ready for new mandates. Airbags could then deploy whenever officer determines the public is at risk. And then whenever an officer fears for their safety. And then whenever the State fears for it's safety. With these changes I absolutely see the similarities.
- Volundr 3y ago> (and juuuust in case you're going to do the Law Doesn't Say thing again about accepting programming, it doesn't need to. it's already a thing.) In other words your arguing against a hypothetical that only exists in your own mind, and by your own admission, software updates are already and thing and this law already wouldn't be required to issue a software update that disables your car, and this doesn't actually bring us any closer to that. So already a moot point I guess?
- otterley 3y agoThe law has never interpreted “freedom of movement” as “freedom to move using whatever means you prefer.” If it did, airlines wouldn’t be able to refuse to carry ill-behaved passengers. So far, what little law has been written has guaranteed only that you can do so on your own two feet.
- bhpm 3y agoYou’ve got that the wrong way around and your airline analogy isn’t apt. In the first place, rights are not granted by interpretation of the law. They exist naturally unless circumscribed by it. In the second place, airlines are private companies and have a wide mandate to deny service based on various conditions stated in their terms.
- otterley 3y ago> rights are not granted by interpretation of the law. They exist naturally unless circumscribed by it. The legal system in the U.S. isn't based on some Hobbesian philosophical notion of "rights," even if the Founders were inspired by it. It's based on interpretations of how our rights, enumerated in law or a Constitution or otherwise, may or may not have been violated under the circumstances of a case. If you said what you just said to a judge in court, they'd either laugh in your face, or laugh about you with staff in chambers after you leave.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- bhpm 3y ago> may or may not have been violated under the circumstances of a case. And if no case is before the court? What then? Is it automatically illegal?
- otterley 3y agoIt’s unclear. Life is full of ambiguity.