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

Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#141

Post by bryanrasmussen »

sellmesoap wrote: post #98
dylan604 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be a funny-or-die kind of script. They find a Waymo car that is feeling outcast and looking for friendship so it joins a gang. The Waymo car is constantly looking out for rival gang members while on the job, then swings by to pick up its fellow gang members for the hit, but then must obey all of the traffic laws during the get away.

Or worse the waymo gets put in to 'gang mode' by someone bribed on the inside, the car rolls the window down for the drive by, delivers the duffle bags of drugs, auto darkens the windows for a drive by kidnapping, think of the UX possibilities!

just needs to implement a shoot-first, verify later algorithm and everything is good to go!

https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-illuminati-ganga-automa...

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#143

Post by lemmetellya »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #135
Rebelgecko wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, it's surprisingly hard to be a legal, responsible gun owner if you don't own your own car. Rideshare bans weapons via TOS, public transit (even unloaded in a locked container) is illegal.

That's the point (like for all this stuff, going back a hundred years, not just in CA). Don't extend the right to anyone who doesn't have a bunch of wealth to lose that the state can threaten to get compliance.

[dead]

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#144

Post by lemmetellya »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #134
lemmetellya wrote: post #26

Wait, can I not carry in a Waymo? Found their rules page: "Do not carry weapons of any kind in the car" That seems... naive? Plenty of people carry pepper spray or a knife with them. Not even ever intending to use them as a weapon. When I go to the range, I travel with a locked case that contains my pistol, which inside has a cable lock. I couldn't take that through a waymo? What about some kid buying a goofy mall ka…

>Found their rules page: "Do not carry weapons of any kind in the car" Corporate speak for "concealed means concealed"

[dead]

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#145

Post by Arainach »

kelnos wrote: post #4
MostlyStable wrote: post #2

As far as I can tell here the ghost portion is basically a non-sequiter. The waymo vehicle called the cops because it detected e passengers had a gun. The vehicle did not know or care about its status as a ghost gun or not. I'm sure that the Waymo terms of service prohibit carrying weapons into the vehicle. I'm pretty sure that if you were brandishing a realistic looking enough gun, an Uber driver would kick you out…

There's a big difference between a human present who can make a decision based on a situation literally in front of their eyes, and a computer flagging a video feed for someone in what amounts to a call center to look at and decide on. Not to mention the mass surveillance this sort of stuff continues to help enable.

People are awful when they think they aren't being watched, especially with communal or other people's property. It's why things are covered in lame low-effort graffiti tags, why bathroom mirrors have things scratched into them with keys, and why bridges over highways all have metal grates to stop people from throwing rocks at oncoming cars.

When people know they're being watched and there will be immediate consequences if they do something bad, their behavior changes. If they don't, they're awful. We've seen this for decades (arguably millennia, as we know Pompeii had graffiti too)

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#146

Post by bravura »

harshreality wrote: post #129

Maybe we need very clear, standardized signals for entering a surveillance zone (where someone not obviously present, possibly a corporate stooge or AI or simpler-than-AI automated detection system, is judging behavior) so that people realize that private behavior (like casually showing off guns to each other, safely, which I've seen done myself and was not cause for alarm—guns were legal) is no longer private. The s…

"Maybe we need very clear, standardized signals for entering a surveillance zone." [proceeds to give a libertarian pro-2A perspective and then the "what would a cab driver do perspective]

I have a suggestion. Perhaps if you enter an autonomous vehicle, it has a display with your name and will not drive until you buckle your seatbelt and click the button acknowledging?

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#147

Post by stackghost »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #131
stackghost wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens when cops are allowed real-time access to Waymo's in-car video footage? Same thing that happens whenever cops get new surveillance powers. They’ll use it to stalk and harass women.

The size and scale of that problem absolutely pales in comparison to the number of people who will be screwed by a better ability to enforce unpopular or rarely enforced laws. And the sick part is how many useful idiots will go to bat for all of it because "well they broke the law after all"

No, I know this is a minority opinion on HN but I think violence towards women is a larger problem than seldomly enforced laws being enforced more often.

You can repeal a law. The courts can strike it down. The same cannot be said about cops abusing women, which is statistically well established.

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#148

Post by gwbas1c »

dylan604 wrote: post #47
anon84873628 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you do any of those things in a regular taxi or subway car? Imagine the alternative headline saying the murderers used Waymo for their drive-by assassination. There is only one option for Waymo here, and the idiocy of the US police is not within their power to solve.

That could be a funny-or-die kind of script. They find a Waymo car that is feeling outcast and looking for friendship so it joins a gang. The Waymo car is constantly looking out for rival gang members while on the job, then swings by to pick up its fellow gang members for the hit, but then must obey all of the traffic laws during the get away.

Self-driving cars don't "feel"

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#149

Post by qball »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #135
Rebelgecko wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, it's surprisingly hard to be a legal, responsible gun owner if you don't own your own car. Rideshare bans weapons via TOS, public transit (even unloaded in a locked container) is illegal.

That's the point (like for all this stuff, going back a hundred years, not just in CA). Don't extend the right to anyone who doesn't have a bunch of wealth to lose that the state can threaten to get compliance.

Which is why "just build your own infrastructure" is never a good faith argument.

Re: Waymo pulls over, calls cops on juvenile riders who had 'ghost gun"

#150

Post by seanmcdirmid »

willsmith72 wrote: post #126
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google would probably be held 100% liable if it happened from their car. . What I don’t get is why Waymo allows unaccompanied juvenile riders at all? That seems like a huge risk for them.

> What I don’t get is why Waymo allows unaccompanied juvenile riders at all? Why not? They can already take an uber. It's questionable which is safer

I wasn’t talking about the kids’ safety, I was referring to Waymo’s liability.
Post reply on HN