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

591–600 of 683 posts

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

#591

Post by jstummbillig »

14 wrote: post #266
jstummbillig wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any tangible reason that would actually weight enough to justify not actively wanting to provide basically free resources in help of uncovering (and in effect: preventing) a violent crime? Because, if not, this is about as "creepy" as those nerdy guys sitting in their bedrooms and basements, tinkering with their silly computers all day, meaning: Non-conformist and something you might just not be ready to thi…

yes there is a valid reason to be opposed to this. Yes everyone one wants to stop violent crimes and murders and that is not a bad thing. But as history has shown time and time again if the people in power decide to become a tyrant and start to abuse the technology then we have a problem. Imagine if this was around 60 years ago. You go into a bar. Some cars have driven past the bar right as you entered a few weeks pa…

What you are good at picking up is incidents. That is how we work. How many lives would be saved by using Tesla for surveillance is a lot less tangible, and thus, meaningless in direct comparison. Because there is no comparison, if we don't feel it compares.

Whenever I see people seriously argue against statistics by leaning on stories, it tends to be complicated and sinister. If you are that afraid of your government, if you deem your government to be that irresponsible and also out of your control, that on average you would rather not default support it when fighting crime, then I think you are you confused about what battle you should actually be fighting.

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

#592

Post by adrianN »

sokoloff wrote: post #489
adrianN wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if safety requirements will gradually tighten until every car will need most sensors. Manufacturers have an interest in selling expensive difficult to manufacture cars and politicians like to reduce traffic fatalities.

The average age of a car in the US is 12.6 years old right now. History shows that we’ve not forced safety items into existing cars. (I have one car where I would be permitted to pass safety inspection without seat belts (any) because it wasn’t originally equipped. [I have chosen to add them.])

After the 15 year mark, give or take, it becomes a luxury to maintain the car. There will hopefully be a point in the nearer future where ICE will become a luxury.

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

#593

Post by sokoloff »

adrianN wrote: post #592
sokoloff wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average age of a car in the US is 12.6 years old right now. History shows that we’ve not forced safety items into existing cars. (I have one car where I would be permitted to pass safety inspection without seat belts (any) because it wasn’t originally equipped. [I have chosen to add them.])

After the 15 year mark, give or take, it becomes a luxury to maintain the car. There will hopefully be a point in the nearer future where ICE will become a luxury.

If I understand your point about luxury correctly, I agree that there’s a crossover point, but I think it’s more like 35 years (1990 model year or earlier) rather than 15 (2010 MY or earlier).

I don’t think many people driving a 20 model years-old 2005 (including myself) are treating maintaining that car like it’s a classic car hobby.

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

#594

Post by lotsoweiners »

singleshot_ wrote: post #364
xboxnolifes wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sometimes safer to speed up 5mph over the limit to get through a yellow light, than to slam your brakes with someone behind you. It's frequently safer to speed to match people speeding around you then to match the stated speed limit (usually on freeways).

If you’re speeding up for yellow lights, you are a terrible driver and you should seek out some better skills and practices.

I dunno. I’d rather speed up to make it through than slam on my brakes and have someone rear end me. That’s how I drive and I’ve never been in an accident in around 30 years of driving.

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

#595

Post by thunder-blue-3 »

libria wrote: post #561
thunder-blue-3 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connecticut - I've never felt safer walking around at 3 am and I've made more friends in the last 2 months (without trying) than I probably have in the last 6 years of living in the bay area.

Good to hear! Are the comparable areas of similar population density? I'm wondering what incremental steps (non-partisan hopefully) can be brought to the Bay Area to slowly move it towards a similar environment.

I lived in the Bay Area for about 30 years, so here's my (probably biased) opinion. The biggest issue is the lack of community, and in my experience, this is due to the high turnover of residents. From my high school graduating class of 400, fewer than 100 are still in the community; everyone else has moved to Florida, Phoenix, Austin, etc. You can't encourage long-term planning (good public education policies, systematic reductions in the drivers of crime, etc.) if the community changes every two decades. My personal opinion is that the Bay Area won't improve because everyone is out to get 'theirs' and then leave. While I do miss the weather, the lack of humidity, and, honestly, a more educated population, I believe raising children in a strong community is more important. So, I'm more than happy with the trade-offs for a better overall quality of life.

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

#596

Post by gWPVhyxPHqvk »

lolinder wrote: post #308
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…

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…

One of the first things you learn when you get your drivers license is that you don't have the same rights on public roads as you do off the roads, or in private (such as requirements for carrying up-to-date license, breathalyzers, etc).

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

#597

Post by lern_too_spel »

monkeywork wrote: post #423
lern_too_spel wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should expect to be filmed in public more than people not carrying weapons. This already happens.

Would you have that same viewpoint if the goal of the person with the camera was to setup outside of addiction centers, abortion clinics, strip clubs, casinos, etc and publically identify people anyone coming or going? I mean they are public so should they "expect" to be filmed or should there be some sense of privacy?

You keep misreading things. First, you thought that people said that people who are committing crimes should wear body cams. Now you think I said that everybody in public should expect to be filmed. Neither of those things are true.

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

#598

Post by tptacek »

msrenee wrote: post #574
tptacek wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're towing cars pursuant to warrants issued when the owners of those cars can't be identified and the cars contain evidence of homicides. "Reasonable" search and seizure is almost literally "whatever a judge decides".

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

#599

Post by rad_gruchalski »

righthand wrote: post #565
klyrs wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that I can lie to get out of any spurious law enforcement pursuits, and that is freedom. You know that police are known for their brutality in both rural and urban environs, right? My dad lied to the cops when he lived out in the boonies and he got the shit kicked out of him and was thrown in jail on bullshit charges. He was released the next day, but his rib wouldn't heal for weeks.

And that applies everywhere in every case? All of this anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with people’s romanticization of the idea that you can isolate yourself pretty well in the remote US.

And you just escalated a drone flying above your house into a full out gun fight with swat teams and what not. It's not like you're going to win that fight.

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

#600

Post by RHSeeger »

iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #530
RHSeeger wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Insurance in general is a whole racket. Its literally only works due to the fact people on average pay more than they receive. "Oh but what if a bad thing happens" way to live your life, disregarding economics and averages. That's literally the _entire_ point of insurance. You pay a little more than the average you're expected to actually need so that, in the event of a catastrophic event, your not on the hook for…

I am saying insurance as a concept is stupid and anyone who has insurance is dumb except in few rare cases caused by government tipping the scales of the market. The only thing baffling here us your reading comprehension bud. You missed my entire point. You think I think that? Well, if I was on another website I would say something about you as a person about the type of human being who can't even understand what the…

> I am saying insurance as a concept is stupid and anyone who has insurance is dumb except in few rare cases

I disagree with this completely. I have a car. I drive safely. It is unlikely that I will get in an accident and hurt someone. But I pay for insurance because it's _possible_ it will happen anyways. If something goes wrong, I could either

- Have the insurance I pay for cover the expense of handling it, or

- Have everything I own taken from me to cover the expense of handling it

The cost of insurance is above the the cost of ( * ), but still very much below the cost of (). As such, it is my belief that it makes sense for me to pay for that insurance.

I find it confusing that anyone would believe otherwise. Unless perhaps you're saying that the government should cover all such catastrophic outcomes, which doesn't seem realistic to me.

> Well, if I was on another website I would say something about you as a person

So, you'll insult me and pretend like you didn't? What are you, 6 years old? Clearly you found it insulting that I could not comprehend your view on the subject (which was not my intent), but seriously?

Post reply on HN