Mandating that your property disobeys you, and instead takes orders from someone else. They're starting with "benevolent" stuff like drunk-driving, then it'll be quarantine enforcement, then congestion control, and pretty soon your e-scooter will refuse to enter an area with a sanctioned protest taking place, and your TVs automatic content recognition will block channels spreading disinformation and malinformation.
I believe we currently do this in many places. There are many radios that will take orders from someone else. e.g. Many Wi-Fi routers will perform DFS and refuse to transmit on some frequency bands if they detect radar. Likewise, many printers and scanners will refuse to operate if they detect the Eurion Constellation. I imagine that the general form of the arguments that permitted those controls will also be used here.
The key distinction is that it is legal to build and sell a scanner that ignores the Eurion constellation, or a radio capable of transmitting in radar frequencies [1]. You may not be allowed to actually interfere with radar or counterfeit money, but that is a choice that is up to you, and it is up to the state to enforce it. It does not deputize your possessions, turning them into an omnipresent police to enforce the law and tattle on you.
[1] Though FCC regulations on radio may be a gray line here, but I'm not too familiar with them.
You might be able to sell it (not sure, probably depends on what it was officially being sold for), but it wouldn't be legal for it to transmit unless it fell under some FCC approved license or statute (e.g. Part 15).
My current philosophy supports the idea of individuals having the right to say what is good for themselves.
But it’s increasingly clear that the wealthy classes don’t think people should have this level of self-determination as they don’t appear to be able to govern themselves responsibly enough to consciously avoid catastrophic global consequences. Or perhaps the threat of various catastrophes are the mechanisms being used to implement policies even if they are simply being leveraged as an excuse to implement control.
In the words of Slovenian philosopher Slavoy Žižek:
> ‘To grasp the whole scope of this control and manipulation one should move beyond the link between private corporations and political parties…, to the interpenetration of data-processing companies like Google or Facebook and state security agencies. … The overall image emerging … provides an adequate and terrifying vision of new forms of social control that make the good old twentieth-century “totalitarianism” a rather primitive and clumsy machine of control’.
Yes, but what saves us from that is there will always be a class too poor to afford any of that and nobody wants to subsidize them getting access to it. They are significant enough that we must continue to support the old methods and technologies.
If you want to be free, vote with your wallet and stop buying this intermediate and compromised junk. On this site we all love technology and have a vision for the future that's possible now, but until we fix the governments of the world, it's just a pipe dream.
It's really time for fully self driving cars. Then it won't matter anymore how drunk you are, there's no more need for speed cameras, or other traffic violations. And we can finally take back all that time wasted on driving by relaxing with a glass of beer and a good book or some Netflix. Or just take a nap after work on our way home.
Because really, there's so much tech second-guessing the driver in a modern car, I wish it would just do the driving itself instead of constantly checking up on me. And I hate driving anyway.
Unfortunately this seems perpetually "only a few years away" but never seems to actually get closer.
I got access to Waymo recently and it is astoundingly good, it has replaced Uber for me (in SF).
I suspect it will be some time before we can get insurance policys for privately owned autonomous vehicles. If Google own the car and wrote the AI software then there’s only one party who is ultimately responsible should a collision occour. This is more complicated if you privately own an autonomous vehicle which is in an accident. Does the AI share culpability with the owner? How will insurance claims work?
Tesla requires users “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle” while autopilot is on, and it feels like that is a CYA hedge should autopilot fail (“see, we told them to stay in control”).
> I suspect it will be some time before we can get insurance policys for privately owned autonomous vehicles. If Google own the car and wrote the AI software then there’s only one party who is ultimately responsible should a collision occour. This is more complicated if you privately own an autonomous vehicle which is in an accident. Does the AI share culpability with the owner? How will insurance claims work?
I understand it will require a bit of a legal rethink, but I don't give a shit. The industry will just have to figure this one out. And in the end it's the insurance company that's financially responsible anyway, whether it's a human driver or computer in control.
But the legal issues are really the least thing that should hold this back. Don't forget it will actually make roads a lot safer by no longer having people in a hurry run red lights or cut off other drivers. And it will be good for the environment as well, as autonomous vehicles will be able to coordinate together on optimal speeds in busy conditions, alleviating the need for stop & go traffic jams.
Legal stuff is really meant to serve society, not hold it back.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims will be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
What if you're speeding because of legitimate emergencies? On your own rural property? Race tracks? It gets trickier when you need to draw these lines no matter how you draw them.
Defaulting to creating laws or enforcement that takes away your personal autonomy is tyranny. Getting rights back will always be harder than losing them.
Your rural property or a racetrack would not have a speed limit so there's no issue there. A simple governor is not so useful anyway, the most dangerous speeding is in densely populated areas (e.g. going 40 in a 25).
Having an emergency button is a great idea. Lights could flash to let people know they should get out of the way...
I don’t think that quote applies to this situation. Lewis is talking about forcing people to do things for their own benefit. But speed limits are not mainly for your own benefit as the driver. They’re to protect others from the driver’s dangerous decisions.
Some laws I could see falling under the scope of the Lewis quote might be laws against birth control, homosexuality/sodomy, or maybe even gambling. But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes stochastically.
You think he opposed being tormented for his own good, but would have happily endured it for some other (purely hypothetical) person? Is this your reading of Lewis, or a projection of your own collectivist ethos?
> But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes
Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime.
> …stochastically.
The implied syllogism is deeply authoritarian. Few acts victimless stochastically.
> You think he opposed being tormented for his own good, but would have happily endured it for some other (purely hypothetical) person?
He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality. That said, putting aside the law, he was a believer in morality, and I’m confident he would have opposed putting others’ lives at risk for one’s own selfish reasons.
> Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime.
Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year.
> He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality.
He was, more or less, a classical liberal. He may well have supported some common sense speed limits (as do I), but he would have been appalled at the idea of the government having the ability to remotely enforce speed limits in individual cars.
> Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year.
Millions of people exceed the speed limit every day without harming anyone. They are not responsible for deaths caused by other people, hence their speeding is a victimless crime. Attempting to blame all of society for the crimes of a feckless few is nonsensical.
This “first step” is publishing a notice that they are going to start gathering information about whether this is even possible.
> "If it's 99.9% accurate, you could have a million false positives," [Acting NHTSA Administrator Ann] Carlson said. "Those false positives could be somebody trying to get to the hospital for an emergency."
Don’t get the pitchforks out yet, the odds are still heavily against this ever happening.
Aside from pervasive intrusive surveillance questions and the reams of false positives that are going to emerge from this hideous nannying garbage, I can think of several scenarios in which the practical need to drive in an emergency might outweigh the stipulations of some absolutely defined machine's interpretation of "too much to drink so I won't let you."
31 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 74.9 ms ] thread[1] Though FCC regulations on radio may be a gray line here, but I'm not too familiar with them.
But it’s increasingly clear that the wealthy classes don’t think people should have this level of self-determination as they don’t appear to be able to govern themselves responsibly enough to consciously avoid catastrophic global consequences. Or perhaps the threat of various catastrophes are the mechanisms being used to implement policies even if they are simply being leveraged as an excuse to implement control.
In the words of Slovenian philosopher Slavoy Žižek:
> ‘To grasp the whole scope of this control and manipulation one should move beyond the link between private corporations and political parties…, to the interpenetration of data-processing companies like Google or Facebook and state security agencies. … The overall image emerging … provides an adequate and terrifying vision of new forms of social control that make the good old twentieth-century “totalitarianism” a rather primitive and clumsy machine of control’.
If you want to be free, vote with your wallet and stop buying this intermediate and compromised junk. On this site we all love technology and have a vision for the future that's possible now, but until we fix the governments of the world, it's just a pipe dream.
Because really, there's so much tech second-guessing the driver in a modern car, I wish it would just do the driving itself instead of constantly checking up on me. And I hate driving anyway.
Unfortunately this seems perpetually "only a few years away" but never seems to actually get closer.
I suspect it will be some time before we can get insurance policys for privately owned autonomous vehicles. If Google own the car and wrote the AI software then there’s only one party who is ultimately responsible should a collision occour. This is more complicated if you privately own an autonomous vehicle which is in an accident. Does the AI share culpability with the owner? How will insurance claims work?
Tesla requires users “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle” while autopilot is on, and it feels like that is a CYA hedge should autopilot fail (“see, we told them to stay in control”).
I understand it will require a bit of a legal rethink, but I don't give a shit. The industry will just have to figure this one out. And in the end it's the insurance company that's financially responsible anyway, whether it's a human driver or computer in control.
But the legal issues are really the least thing that should hold this back. Don't forget it will actually make roads a lot safer by no longer having people in a hurry run red lights or cut off other drivers. And it will be good for the environment as well, as autonomous vehicles will be able to coordinate together on optimal speeds in busy conditions, alleviating the need for stop & go traffic jams.
Legal stuff is really meant to serve society, not hold it back.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims will be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Fine, cars can let you speed but you get automatically fined, is that better?
Defaulting to creating laws or enforcement that takes away your personal autonomy is tyranny. Getting rights back will always be harder than losing them.
Having an emergency button is a great idea. Lights could flash to let people know they should get out of the way...
Some laws I could see falling under the scope of the Lewis quote might be laws against birth control, homosexuality/sodomy, or maybe even gambling. But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes stochastically.
> But speeding and driving recklessly are not victimless crimes
Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime.
> …stochastically.
The implied syllogism is deeply authoritarian. Few acts victimless stochastically.
He was against moral legislation, such as laws against homosexuality and laws promoting marriage, but, again, speeding laws are not moral legislation. They are there for public safety, not public morality. That said, putting aside the law, he was a believer in morality, and I’m confident he would have opposed putting others’ lives at risk for one’s own selfish reasons.
> Speeding is, by definition, a victimless crime. Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year.
He was, more or less, a classical liberal. He may well have supported some common sense speed limits (as do I), but he would have been appalled at the idea of the government having the ability to remotely enforce speed limits in individual cars.
> Over 10,000 people in the US die in speeding-related accidents every year.
Millions of people exceed the speed limit every day without harming anyone. They are not responsible for deaths caused by other people, hence their speeding is a victimless crime. Attempting to blame all of society for the crimes of a feckless few is nonsensical.
> "If it's 99.9% accurate, you could have a million false positives," [Acting NHTSA Administrator Ann] Carlson said. "Those false positives could be somebody trying to get to the hospital for an emergency."
Don’t get the pitchforks out yet, the odds are still heavily against this ever happening.
Self-driving cars really is the ultimate solution.