81–90 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privately owned boats and autonomous cars are government property?
That post probably means public roads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For development/debug, yes. How/why would a production car need to process it differently and why couldn't all processing be done in real time? Safety certification means the car's functionality has to be static, until the next certified software update. Data does not need to leave the car, since the purpose of the data is for the car to drive, which is a transient state.
If you're driving a production car version 1.23, then the manufacturer (obviously) wants data from that car to be used in development of production car version 1.24. The technology needs improvements, and the process of making those improvements is hungry for data. Every manufacturer will be in development/debug mode of their self-driving systems at least for the coming decade, so sensor data from every mile of every…
Each society can decide whether to permit this particular product to collect unlimited data. The presumption is that the data belongs to no one. Let's see what happens when more than one large corporate entity lays competing claim to the same data subset, embedded by a wide-ranging data dragnet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aircraft, even private aircraft, are tracked and recorded. Why should automobiles be any different? Far more people are killed and injured by vehicles than are killed by aircraft. In general I'm pretty pro-privacy but I've had way too many close calls and accidents with bad drivers who were found to be at fault. Maybe there's a better way to get to vision zero, and if so I'd love to hear it.
I highly doubt you are pro privacy even a little bit, and it is foolish endeavour to trade liberty for promised safety.. You start off on the assumption that everyone agrees that aircraft should be tracked, and that data should be open to law enforcement review with no warrant. To the extent the data can be justified for safety it should be limited to that purpose only and barred by law from being used in any other m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly doubt you are pro privacy even a little bit, and it is foolish endeavour to trade liberty for promised safety.. You start off on the assumption that everyone agrees that aircraft should be tracked, and that data should be open to law enforcement review with no warrant. To the extent the data can be justified for safety it should be limited to that purpose only and barred by law from being used in any other m…
I donate hundreds of dollars annually to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, so I have a vested interest in privacy protection. That said I ride public transit routinely. There are cameras in the buses and trains. There are smart cards that store a record of every station and bus line I tag in and out of. There are cops with bomb and drug sniffing dogs. The point is there is a strong and historic precedent that trans…
Do you want a gold star? that in no way proves you have a "vested interest" in privacy, that just proves you have give some money to charity.
> The point is there is a strong and historic precedent that transportation systems are monitored
Yes and people that have a "vested interest" in privacy are concerned about and have problems with the current levels of surveillance on these systems,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what the police reaction will be to the same tracking on police cars. Using their lights to get though red lights and traffic jams when there is no emergency etc will be nicely logged.
Love the sentiment, but that suggests that the public has access to these tracking data. (We also need access to police emergency calls and locations, which we might already have, IDK.) I'd be quite surprised if the vehicle data would be made public.
One department tried to claim that their cameras were "malfunctioning" in the majority of FOI / criminal cases where they were requested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly doubt you are pro privacy even a little bit, and it is foolish endeavour to trade liberty for promised safety.. You start off on the assumption that everyone agrees that aircraft should be tracked, and that data should be open to law enforcement review with no warrant. To the extent the data can be justified for safety it should be limited to that purpose only and barred by law from being used in any other m…
I donate hundreds of dollars annually to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, so I have a vested interest in privacy protection. That said I ride public transit routinely. There are cameras in the buses and trains. There are smart cards that store a record of every station and bus line I tag in and out of. There are cops with bomb and drug sniffing dogs. The point is there is a strong and historic precedent that trans…
You do realize there is a difference between public and private transportation, right?
I have yet to see a precedent that supports the government getting as much data as TFA talks about while using my private transportation system. Or the Supreme Court deciding that making a person wait until "cops with bomb and drug sniffing dogs" show up to a traffic stop without probable cause is an "unreasonable search". I could go on and on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're driving a production car version 1.23, then the manufacturer (obviously) wants data from that car to be used in development of production car version 1.24. The technology needs improvements, and the process of making those improvements is hungry for data. Every manufacturer will be in development/debug mode of their self-driving systems at least for the coming decade, so sensor data from every mile of every…
That logic applies to every product ever made in the history of technology. Somehow their R&D departments did not need 7x24 data feeds. Each society can decide whether to permit this particular product to collect unlimited data. The presumption is that the data belongs to no one. Let's see what happens when more than one large corporate entity lays competing claim to the same data subset, embedded by a wide-ranging d…
A 24/7 data feed from your toaster is not going to make your toaster better. It might help an R&D department identify some ways how the next toaster model should be different, but that's about it.
However, a self driving car is data-starved and is still going to be data-starved years from now. At any moment of time, your car could drive better and safer simply if it had more "experience" - the v1.24 software release can be meaningfully better than the v1.23 software release even if R&D department does nothing else but simply import the data received from millions of other cars; if your car is allowed to learn from what other cars saw.
Ensuring that the quality of driving systems increases as fast as it can is important for the society, with a major impact on injuries and casualties. I feel that it would be best for the society if we ensure that this learning (and the required data transfer) is not prohibited, as long as we can solve/restrict the potentially harmful uses of the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aircraft, even private aircraft, are tracked and recorded. Why should automobiles be any different? Far more people are killed and injured by vehicles than are killed by aircraft. In general I'm pretty pro-privacy but I've had way too many close calls and accidents with bad drivers who were found to be at fault. Maybe there's a better way to get to vision zero, and if so I'd love to hear it.
> Aircraft, even private aircraft, are tracked and recorded. Why should automobiles be any different? FAA and NTSB agencies aren't known for abuses of power. Local law enforcement, on the other hand, routinely abuse power (civil forfeiture, unwarranted traffic stops, racial profiling, police brutality, falsifying evidence, lying under oath, illegal search and seizure...). Self driving cars should reduce accidents, be…
That suggests one possibility would be to separate law enforcement agencies responsible for the management of automotive violations from law enforcement agencies for everything else.
Highway patrol + DMV enforcement arm for registration, safety, and moving violations. Normal police only have jurisdiction for vehicle stops for things like stolen vehicles or reckless endangerment.
Might solve a bunch of other civil liberty issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That post probably means public roads.
I guess I can understand the argument but I don't see what kind of world view thinks that you can go out into the world r have privacy. Roads are what connect the vast majority of all land. It's not like you can just trespass into other people's land and expect privacy either
If you go to a public concert, people can look at you, note that you were here and tell that to others. That doesn't violate privacy because you had no privacy there to begin with. And in a similar manner, if you drove last thursday on a particular road, whoever bothered to look at you and your car is allowed to do so, note that you were there, write it down and tell that to others.
Privacy is about your private stuff - what you do in your private space, what you have in your private items. If you go out in the public, the things that you do (and where, and when, and with whom) are not private anymore.
'I felt like I was in heaven,' the cop said. 'It's like instant replay in the NFL, I can tell what happened.' The engineers looked at each other like, 'Aw, crap.' As engineers, we have an obligation to think through privacy concerns. These (and nearly all) devices should either not retain data or should encrypt it. Also my self-driving car better not be phoning home or getting updates over the air. I've seen what hap…
The public roads aren't private spaces. We allow you to drive on the public roads, in exchange for you giving up your driving privacy. This is why cops can stop you and give you a breathalyzer at will, because that's the trade-off you agreed to when you got your driver's license. If you want to encrypt your driving data, you should only drive on private roads. I never assume that driving is a right, instead of a priv…
Uh-huh...
It's been a long time so perhaps I missed the part where I signed away my constitutional protections in exchange for my privilege to operate a motorized vehicle.
Unless by "at will" you mean "under reasonable suspicion" and/or "with probable cause"?
Yet again you people make me sad...