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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
I'm puzzled why there is so little emphasis on prioritizing bikes and other means of non-licensed transport among libertarians. Driving consents you to various things like forced ID checks, drug tests, and sometimes searches, and cars are relatively easy to track down compared to humans. In effect, car-centrism reduces civil liberties as it necessitates licensing for participating in society. And no, privatizing everything will not improve it. It will just make it worse since you'd be forced to allow insurance companies to track you to be allowed into private roads, etc.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
16 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 40.7 ms ] threadIts 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.
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.
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.
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.
You're stuck, no cell signal, good chance of hypothermia.
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.