Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 683 posts

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#571

Post by snozolli »

gruez wrote: post #68
snozolli wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how towing a car is any different Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted , based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".

They did investigate. A guy was stabbed nearby, and the car was suspected to be recording. On a more practical level, the car was recording a public area (ie. the road) anyways, so it's not like that much privacy was lost by granting access to the video.

and the car was suspected to be recording

That's the fishing expedition part. Again, from what the article said, there was no particular reason to believe it was in Sentry mode.

I don't know why you're bringing up privacy.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#572

Post by lolinder »

jonny_eh wrote: post #570
lolinder wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so very HN that we get into fits about Google and Facebook and Apple and so on tracking us to make a buck, but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because drivers that make us angry on the road get hurt by it. The obvious answer to this proposal is that I believe that I have a right to not be monitored and penalized by auton…

> to make a buck And to make roads safer.

So it's also okay for police to deploy large-scale facial recognition systems to help enforce the law and catch violent criminals, right? Or is there something special about cars or about insurance companies that makes them the exception?

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#573

Post by Spooky23 »

deeptechdreamer wrote: post #196
Spooky23 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speak for yourself. My ancestors pre-industrial revolution were half starved tenant farmers making a subsistence living on too small plots of farmland in colonized Ireland, subject to random slaughter when the English changed their plans. Now, our extended family is prosperous in the US, Australia and Ireland. We’re taller, healthier and mostly in professional or skilled trade jobs. The past is often seen through a s…

War, disease, famine were the norm for eras past. For those who lived during those times, I reckon their level of perceived suffering was no more than ours today. Humans are tragically skilled at adapting to new standards and shifting the threshold of struggle. People today get frustrated over a delayed plane departure likely just as much as people in the past were over a storm delaying their caravan by a few days. A…

When the English army or paramilitary militia came to burn the ancestors out of house and home to make room for settlers, I doubt their level of suffering was “adjusted”.

If they were lucky, they starved in the woods, hiding like animals.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#574

Post by msrenee »

tptacek wrote: post #304
lupire wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th Amendment

What does the 4th Amendment have to say about this? The guiding philosophy at the time 4A was framed is "the public is entitled to every man's evidence".

They're towing cars. You think they bring them back 30 minutes later and leave a friendly note? Unreasonable search and seizure. I'd say the seizure of property worth tens of thousands of dollars as evidence for a crime the owner was not involved in is pretty unreasonable.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#575

Post by backtoyoujim »

rbalicki wrote: post #263
pmichaud wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside the obvious dystopian next steps, I think the main problem with automated traffic law enforcement is that our laws are quite bad in the sense that they rely on enforcement being loose and somewhat subjective to even work at all. The speeds on various roads, the timing of traffic lights, the places one can park and for how long, etc, are not carefully planned or thought out enough to actually work if eve…

I would think that once enforcement becomes automated (and thus applies to those with resources, who currently get away with it), there would be a lot of pressure on the legislature (by those who currently get away with it) to make the rules better. Legislatures can move fast, but only when they're motivated. e.g. if every NYC taxi suddenly got a ticket every time they stopped in the street to pick up a passenger, th…

"Better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. In my town they took down the automated red light ticket machines on many corners because people quit running the lights. So the machines weren't gathering monies in tickets yet they still cost the city to have them.

Better needs to mean something other than gather revenue. And it don't with automated things.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#576

Post by lofaszvanitt »

rbalicki wrote: post #6

Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially dis…

People already police others, there is no need for a complete psycho society where everyone is a potential snitch. Plus, a few minutes of speeding and shouting helps to calm people. Now imagine that people cannot even use their expensive car for speeding... where will people vent their aggression?

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#577

Post by johnisgood »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #558
johnisgood wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No wonder people are not so willing to report a crime or be witnesses. They are getting punished for it.

A lot of places, talking to police is a very bad idea both because of the police and the other people in the neighborhood. You could very easily get shot for doing so.

In the US, absolutely. In Europe, not so much, thankfully.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#578

Post by lurking_swe »

croes wrote: post #361
lurking_swe wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you conveniently left out the fact that anyone driving a car or truck is driving a dangerous vehicle that can trivially kill or maim others. Driving is supposed to be a privilege, not a right. That comes with responsibility. How you think this is the same as “being naughty while walking outside” is hilarious to me.

Mobility is a right, that includes driving. And walking comes with responsibilities too, a ruthless walker also endangers others, it's just harder to kill somebody by bumping into them, until you bump them in front of a car or train or down the stairs.

It’s actually not a right. The proof is you need to pass a drivers test to get a drivers license. It’s not given to you at birth. I’d argue the tests are too easy in the US, but that’s a separate discussion.

I do not need a license to walk outside.

perhaps you’re thinking of “freedom of movement”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#579

Post by yuliyp »

iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #531
yuliyp wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of mandated auto insurance is that a lot of people don't have an extra 30k, but we want even those without that extra 30k to be able to drive without those they might get into an accident with having their car damaged through no fault of their own and no way to get back the money from the person who caused it.

Makes no sense. Just have a better court system that makes people who cause damages to other's car have to pay a certain amount to that person per month. Like car insurance but there isn't a middle man and you only pay when you get in an accident.

Garnishment can be too slow to deal with the victim's liabilities, and even still has no guarantee of ever repaying the loss.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#580

Post by vineyardmike »

grecy wrote: post #564
vineyardmike wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that’s assuming the technology on a Tesla Model 3 actually is capable of safely self driving. Today, Waymo is the clear winner, and the equipment costs a lot more than a Tesla. I know Elon/Tesla can be a charged topic, but teslas don’t self drive today. It might be true, but I don’t think we can assume they’re capable with just a software update based on the info we have today.

> Waymo is the clear winner, and the equipment costs a lot more than a Tesla. I don’t think that is true. What costs a lot more? Lidar? Call it $10k more on the very high end. So you have fully self driving cars for $50k. A very long way from your $100k

The LIDAR sensors are significantly more expensive than 10k. There are a lot of them on it too. Additionally, I expect that the GPUs or other compute requirements are an extra 10+k at least.

While I'm sure the prices can come down with mass production, the estimated BOM for a Waymo are speculated to be >200k per vehicle. Maybe we can that down to 100K, but I'd be very suspicious of a 50k vehicle anytime soon.

Post reply on HN