Cars and the Fourth Amendment • Hacker News Board

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#21

Post by SilasX » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

kempbellt wrote: post #19

SilasX wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That puts them in a weird, paradoxical position: 1) Illegal: Placing a mark on your tires that will quickly fade with time and invades your car just enough to reveal whether you adhered to the limits. 2) Legal: Monitor the area with video surveillance and take pictures of every license plate that ever parked there, with timestamps and a photo of the occupants, and store that information for eternity, to be shared wit…

Strange how a chalk mark is illegal, but placing a ticket under the windshield wiper, or sticking a "vehicle to be towed" sticker on the window isn't. To add: I'd personally much rather local LEOs use the chalk method than the camera method.

In fairness, the argument is about what you can do to a car before you have evidence of wrongdoing, and the sticker/tickets happen after they have observed an infraction, so that's less problematic in the context of the ruling.

Edit:

>To add: I'd personally much rather local LEOs use the chalk method than the camera method.

Me too!

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#22

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #17

mytailorisrich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think it is a given that when actual self-driving cars become a reality they will have to include a system allowing police and emergency services to control them. It will no doubt be a criminal offence to temper with that system. This is a reasonable adaptation to self-driving cars, though.

I really really don't like that, and I really hope it'll never happen here. The possibilities for abuse are amazing. (Congrats on 1k karma)

Hey, thanks.

I think this is an unavoidable and perhaps unintended consequence of having self-driving cars because the alternative will be deemed unacceptable.

I'm also willing to bet on a system to locate any self-driving car at any time, which the police and emergency services will have access to.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#23

Post by rpmisms » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #22

rpmisms wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really really don't like that, and I really hope it'll never happen here. The possibilities for abuse are amazing. (Congrats on 1k karma)

Hey, thanks. I think this is an unavoidable and perhaps unintended consequence of having self-driving cars because the alternative will be deemed unacceptable. I'm also willing to bet on a system to locate any self-driving car at any time, which the police and emergency services will have access to.

In Europe, absolutely.

In the US, there's no way that could pass.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#24

Post by owenmarshall » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

bennylope wrote: post #7

owenmarshall wrote: post #5

An old parking enforcement technique is to put a chalk mark on a car's tire: if you come back after two hours and see the same car with the marked tire you know that it has parked too long and can be ticketed. The 6th circuit recently ruled that is an unconstitutional search[1]: a government agent is physically intruding on a private area (your car) and searching it for information (how long it's been there). Neat st…

The court later issued a clarification basically upholding the logic of their ruling but stating that because the chalking was part of valid [regulatory] activities (below) the chalking is okay[0]. > Rather, we hold, based on the pleading stage of this litigation, that two exceptions to the warrant requirement—the “community caretaking” exception and the motor-vehicle exception—do not apply here. Our holding extends…

I don't think that's the right reading. At least, that's not how I read it.

> Alison Taylor, a frequent recipient of parking tickets, sued the City and its parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The City moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted the City’s motion, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE

The sixth circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal that the search was reasonable. Both the sixth circuit and the lower court agree that marking the tire is a search; the lower court dismissed and held that the search was reasonable.

The amended decision says that once the case advances the city can argue that their actions fall under 4th amendment exceptions, but that their current motion did not sufficiently make that argument.

The chalking may be found OK during further proceedings, depending on how the city argued, but at the time that decision was issued it was not.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#25

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #23

mytailorisrich wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, thanks. I think this is an unavoidable and perhaps unintended consequence of having self-driving cars because the alternative will be deemed unacceptable. I'm also willing to bet on a system to locate any self-driving car at any time, which the police and emergency services will have access to.

In Europe, absolutely. In the US, there's no way that could pass.

Well, owners will demand it because no-one will want their car to drive off and disappear and they don't know where it is. The question really is then how long before police forces lobby for access... Though indeed this may end up conditional on getting a warrant depending on the jurisdiction.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#26

Post by Diederich » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #8

A friend was and LAPD detective for 35 years. He said it gets a lot more sticky in regards to RVs, because then you can claim is is your home.

I'd love to hear more anecdotes about this if you have any.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#27

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #25

rpmisms wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, absolutely. In the US, there's no way that could pass.

Well, owners will demand it because no-one will want their car to drive off and disappear and they don't know where it is. The question really is then how long before police forces lobby for access... Though indeed this may end up conditional on getting a warrant depending on the jurisdiction.

You can already buy a GPS tracker for your own car if you're worried about where it ends up. My guess that adoption of that technology is in the single digits. Not really seeing the demand for this.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#28

Post by crooked-v » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

greggman2 wrote: post #11

It's going to be interesting how it will work with self driving cars. Arguably the police will push for some kind of police only "pull over and stop" feature they can aim at any car which I'm sure will get absued. If you're in a self driving taxi you'd arguably not be the one abliged to pull over, rather the taxi's virutal driver is the one that needs to pull over. In fact with perfect self driving the passenger migh…

The short story 'Car Wars' explores some of the implications here. https://this.deakin.edu.au/self-improvement/car-wars

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#29

Post by alasdair_ » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

adrianpike wrote: post #20

greggman2 wrote: post #11

It's going to be interesting how it will work with self driving cars. Arguably the police will push for some kind of police only "pull over and stop" feature they can aim at any car which I'm sure will get absued. If you're in a self driving taxi you'd arguably not be the one abliged to pull over, rather the taxi's virutal driver is the one that needs to pull over. In fact with perfect self driving the passenger migh…

> Also scary to me is the ability to use a self driving car as a slow moving cruise missle[sic]. I wouldn't worry about the spread of level 4/5-automation changing the calculus here on a small actor basis. VBIED's are already a serious threat, and require no significant technical innovation, but outside of conflict zones we don't see a ton of them. Assuming we don't require physical failsafes though and truly airgap…

>Assuming we don't require physical failsafes though and truly airgap driving systems from any network connectivity (which we won't, I guarantee it) there's definitely a worry on the state level actor front.

I think it's quite plausible that any autonomous vehicle will have something akin to a big red STOP button, just like most other automated machinery.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#30

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #27

mytailorisrich wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, owners will demand it because no-one will want their car to drive off and disappear and they don't know where it is. The question really is then how long before police forces lobby for access... Though indeed this may end up conditional on getting a warrant depending on the jurisdiction.

You can already buy a GPS tracker for your own car if you're worried about where it ends up. My guess that adoption of that technology is in the single digits. Not really seeing the demand for this.

Cars do not drive themselves yet... I'm really discussing that: full self-driving cars that can drive around with no-one inside.

When that becomes a reality I'm sure everyone will want a tracker.