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

House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#121

Post by scotty79 »

amenhotep wrote: post #102
scotty79 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment the government with 15% hardcore support is rounding up people on the streets en masse, violating decades of established practices, while harming industrial base that depend on work of those people. And somehow pretty much everyone peacefully goes along with it. Or get occasionally shot.

That is exactly the point. It's working because everyone is peacefully going along with it. They have the consent - or at least acquiescence - of the governed. That's why they have no issues. It is, therefore, not remotely relevant to your post starting this whole thread off saying that the consent of the governed is irrelevant and all you need is tanks.

> They have the consent - or at least acquiescence - of the governed.

They don't have the consent. And all they needed to get acquiescence was a bunch of poorly trained goons with masks, weapons, suv-s and official mandate. Not a single tank was needed yet.

Consent is irrelevant.

The only saving grace is that actual people with tanks (ie military) might at some point say 'nah'. Which I think they did in case of Greenland. Simply because it was too weird for them as opposed to Venezuela and Iran.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#122

Post by Tadpole9181 »

baby_souffle wrote: post #33
gruez wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?

> Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)? Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant

And, to be clear, an administrative warrant IS NOT A WARRANT. It's essentially a memo.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#123

Post by DauntingPear7 »

pandaman wrote: post #106
uriegas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transportation influences urban development. That is why most houses have a garage. There is no such thing as private transport (streets are public). Transportation has been heavily centralized since the New Deal. The bicycle was okay for most people living in cities in the 30s, now it is not because the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades. I think we need to start with not letting gov…

Where I live there is plenty of bike infrastructure. I and many others don't use bike for transportation because of crime. Homeless steal bikes and parts of bikes if they cannot defeat the lock somehow. Recently a cyclists got killed in a "bike-jacking". People even get bikes stolen from their balconies on the 2nd floor. Reign in crime if you want people to use bikes more.

By “plenty of bike infrastructure” do you mean gutter lanes for bikes or proper, separated, useful and safe bike infrastructure?

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#124

Post by pandaman »

DauntingPear7 wrote: post #123
pandaman wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live there is plenty of bike infrastructure. I and many others don't use bike for transportation because of crime. Homeless steal bikes and parts of bikes if they cannot defeat the lock somehow. Recently a cyclists got killed in a "bike-jacking". People even get bikes stolen from their balconies on the 2nd floor. Reign in crime if you want people to use bikes more.

By “plenty of bike infrastructure” do you mean gutter lanes for bikes or proper, separated, useful and safe bike infrastructure?

I don't know what you mean by proper, but there are bike lanes, often separated with curbs or bollards going everywhere.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#125

Post by avidiax »

direwolf20 wrote: post #110
avidiax wrote: post #87

I'd prefer something with a slightly more libertarian bent: The hardware is required in new cars. It's illegal to make it report false values or for someone other than the driver to record. When you press the start button, an LED shines into your skin and records fingerprint hash, and blood alcohol. This data is recorded/reported only when a public road has been entered or crossed, and erased from local storage in 24…

Wouldn't it have to be opt-in, and opt-in to buy, to be libertarian?

I wouldn't describe myself as libertarian. To make a libertarian strawman, such a strawman might claim that all safety features in cars ought to be provided by the free market. Of course, the predictable outcome is that most people won't prioritize safety in cars, so cars that spend their production budget on non-safety features will outsell those that spend on safety features, leading to at best a niche market for safety cars.

So no, I don't think any libertarian is OK with being forced to do almost anything, in principle. The very idea that you'd need to wear seatbelts or have a license or be compelled to have insurance or not have an open bottle of vodka in your cup holder is anathema. The free market should simply operate through the courts and put those that can't drink responsibly and cover the damage they cause into debtors prisons, to continue the strawman.

I would actually prefer much stricter enforcement of insurance and licensing laws, akin to say, the UK or Germany. I don't think you need hardware interlocks to do it, but you would have to have police willing to actually pull over people with fake license plates or missing insurance. That is not the case in much of California.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#126

Post by baubino »

SoftTalker wrote: post #6
unstyledcontent wrote: post #3

Here in Minneapolis, there have been multiple anecdotal reports of ICE being able to remotely unlock cars, disable them, and even open windows. Whether its true, its certainly seems possible. Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Im picturing a world where…

Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window. It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).

> It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle.

You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#127

Post by DauntingPear7 »

thangalin wrote: post #19
alistairSH wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beg to differ, they're viable for basically all local use cases... Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc. They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.

> that's about it. Avid cyclist here. * Extreme Weather: Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make biking unsafe or impractical without specialized gear and high physical endurance. * Accessibility & Mobility Issues: Individuals with certain physical disabilities or chronic health conditions may find traditional cycling impossible. (This also affects an aging population.) * Time Constraints: For those with…

There is definitely something to be said about bike theft. People see cars as a private space with serious social repercussions for violating. Bikes on the other hand are treated like normal belongings. This may have something to do with car-centric bike hatred and possibly the reflexive/reactionary tendency to completely dismiss the utility of bikes for transit. We have laws dedicated to the theft of cars, largely due to the fact the theft removes people’s mode of transport. Why not have the same for theft of other modes of transportation?

Additionally, I personally would have less issue with people driving due to a lack of physical fitness if they didn’t tend to 1. Drive recklessly and fast (35 on a 25 is not okay) and 2. Drive tank-like SUVs and Trucks

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#128

Post by DauntingPear7 »

recursive wrote: post #21
mhurron wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bicycles are also not a viable replacement for almost all the uses of a vehicle. None of this advice is useful.

Almost all? I think most car trips could have been bike trips.

This, from what I can recall seeing about average car trip distance, is actually correct.

(Excluding you rural people, but depending on your city could be true if people had smaller lots and denser less car centric business areas, or more businesses in general)

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#129

Post by Ancapistani »

larkost wrote: post #90
Ancapistani wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You underestimate both the capacity of an armed citizenry and the hardware that we have at our disposal. There are in fact privately owned tanks in the US.

This is misleading. While there are privately owned tanks, they are all old, and lack any weapons (other than as a battering ram). They likely could cause a lot of trouble for a local police force, but would not stand up to any infantry force in the world. So in an actual conflict with the U.S. government, none of those tanks would be more than symbolic. And whole a general gorilla insurrection in the U.S. would be n…

It is misleading, but not for the reasons you state.

There are private tanks in the US with functional weapons, including both mounted MGs and the cannon. In fact, there’s a place in Uvalde, TX that will let you come drive and shoot theirs for a couple grand.

> none of those tanks would be more than symbolic

Correct, but that’s not why. A tank would be worse than useless in an insurgency.

> The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.

No one is seriously suggesting going up against the US military with an irregular force in the US. The point is that an armed citizenry cannot be subjugated without destroying everything worth having. It’s a suicide pact between the People and the state.

Re: House vote keeps federal "kill switch" vehicle mandate

#130

Post by cucumber3732842 »

kittikitti wrote: post #24

In my car, I regularly get a notice that I'm not being attentive and that I should go for a coffee break. It's never right and my best guess is that it's always on a straight highway road for more than 15 minutes where I'm not moving the wheel very much. I don't think this kill switch is a good idea and might attract unnecessary attention from law enforcement who might ding me for something completely unrelated (goin…

My Japanese coworker's Japanese car consistently insists my coworker is asleep.

I think it's hilarious because presumably someone in an office somewhere in Japan was told it wasn't working on white people and said "you want it to work on white people, fine I'll crank it to 11." But I also didn't spend $50k on it so that probably makes it easier.

Post reply on HN