Cars and the Fourth Amendment • Hacker News Board

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#41

Post by SubiculumCode » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #13

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. To what, hit a person?

Perhaps you have ignored all the EU terror attacks that used vehicles on pedestrian streets.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#42

Post by dint » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #29

adrianpike wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How would you expect a car to handle such a stop command issued while traveling on a busy road at highway speed?

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#43

Post by snagglegaggle » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #40

snagglegaggle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while I have struggled with how vehicles in the US are treated. A national ID system and the requirement to ID onesself is opposed for many likely valid reasons but a national ID system for cars and the requirement to ID yourself is in some way materially different? As I just recently commented elsewhere: There is a right to travel and a right to engage in interstate commerce. Sure, you can argue there is no ri…

There is no right to operate a printing press on the public roadways.

Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#44

Post by braindeath » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 12:22 AM UTC

snagglegaggle wrote: post #43

gowld wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no right to operate a printing press on the public roadways.

Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.

You don't have a constitutional right to operate a vehicle in the US.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#45

Post by snagglegaggle » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 12:44 AM UTC

braindeath wrote: post #44

snagglegaggle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.

You don't have a constitutional right to operate a vehicle in the US.

That's debateable, did you read my comment? If you take exception to a specific point speak to it.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#46

Post by owenmarshall » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

snagglegaggle wrote: post #45

braindeath wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a constitutional right to operate a vehicle in the US.

That's debateable, did you read my comment? If you take exception to a specific point speak to it.

It is debatable, has been debated by the courts and settled: you have a right to freely travel, but there is no right to use any particular mode of transportation without government regulation.

This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#47

Post by snagglegaggle » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

owenmarshall wrote: post #46

snagglegaggle wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's debateable, did you read my comment? If you take exception to a specific point speak to it.

It is debatable, has been debated by the courts and settled: you have a right to freely travel, but there is no right to use any particular mode of transportation without government regulation. This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

Ok, that's great, but jurisprudence only stands inasmuch as there's no new arguments. Those rulings could be overturned.

Nothing is ever truly settled. Pointlessly respecting jurisprudence without regard for time and society is a recipe for contempt of the law.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#48

Post by owenmarshall » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

snagglegaggle wrote: post #47

owenmarshall wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is debatable, has been debated by the courts and settled: you have a right to freely travel, but there is no right to use any particular mode of transportation without government regulation. This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

Ok, that's great, but jurisprudence only stands inasmuch as there's no new arguments. Those rulings could be overturned. Nothing is ever truly settled. Pointlessly respecting jurisprudence without regard for time and society is a recipe for contempt of the law.

Okay, overturn the case law - state your thesis and advance a novel argument.

So far I’ve seen driving:traveling::printing:speech. Not only is that not an argument, it conveniently overlooks that we have restrictions on speech today - libel and slander, incitement, etc.

What is your thesis? Driving should be completely unconstrained by the state? Why? Or is it that we should have national IDs? Why?

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#49

Post by vanniv » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 11:49 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.

The ticket is legal, because by the time you get the ticket, they know you've committed the offense.

The chalk is only illegal because they have to mark your car before you've overstayed, and at that time, the search is unreasonable, since they're just assuming that you're going to overstay.

Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment

#50

Post by greggman2 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

megablast wrote: post #35

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…

Why do they even need to pull it over, their might be no one in the car. And talk about being abused, cars are already being abused. They kill 40,000 people every single year, and injure or disable 2.5million in the USA alone. Somehow this is acceptable to people. > Also scary to me is the ability to use a self driving car as a slow moving cruise missle No different to now.

I don't agree it's no different to now. The difference is, availablilty, anonymity, and action at a distance. A bad guy can send a car a couple hundred miles away full of explosives or they can remotely drive it. When it's ubiqitous things maybe change. People were arguably not as jerky before the net. The ability it sit at a screen and type anonymous invective unleashed or amplified supressed behavior. Self driving cars (and drones) might do the same, make it so easy to do certain types of bad things that more people will do them than happens today.