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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by B1FIDO »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #41
colechristensen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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). Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.

I find this a very odd and non compelling argument Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?

It seems like a moot point --

If you are driving off-road, or completely on private property, you're not really driving the vehicle to "go somewhere" or commute or transport people/goods.

It isn't really feasible to use a vehicle for actual transportation without using public roads, at least in these United States.

So what possible cause or reason would any law enforcement have, for going into a vehicle like that and searching it? I mean, compared to someone driving on a public road and "going somewhere" while "carrying stuff" in there? Nearly none, right?

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

#132

Post by B1FIDO »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #97
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…

The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out. "Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"

One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops.

I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it?

Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries.

So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!

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

#133

Post by HaZeust »

baubino wrote: post #126
SoftTalker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles.

When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".

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

#134

Post by bdangubic »

bluGill wrote: post #42
scotty79 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.

What makes you think the army will go along with it? Sure some will, but expect many soldiers will rebel.

0 of them will “rebel”

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

#135

Post by lp0_on_fire »

nkrisc wrote: post #95
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population. How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?

What’s your point? It’s true.

It’s true in the same way that it’s technically true anyone* can buy a football team.

* anyone with a few hundred million in the bank.

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

#136

Post by lp0_on_fire »

mmmlinux wrote: post #81
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this a very odd and non compelling argument Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?

basically every farmer.

So is the argument that only farmers should be able to have a vehicle?

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

#137

Post by lp0_on_fire »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #97
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…

The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out. "Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"

That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.

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

#138

Post by lp0_on_fire »

singleshot_ wrote: post #115
quantumfissure wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior? No, but recent actions in the last 20 years, and certainly the last year have absolutely proven to me the Executive Branch, as I've been saying since the Reagan administration, has always had too much power. > I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy. While I agree, the point is the methods are t…

> INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly. INS does not exist. While an agency may be exempt from (some) warrants, it is an undisputed fact that the raid that resulted in the capture of Elián González included a valid search warrant.

You’re being pedantic. INS was rolled into the homeland security umbrella in the early 2003s. The poster was obviously using an old name.

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

#139

Post by direwolf20 »

scotty79 wrote: post #121
amenhotep wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Green…

GP is implying if you aren't committing terrorism, you support the regime. Which is... certainly an opinion.

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

#140

Post by maxerickson »

bluGill wrote: post #82
iamnothere wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just be aware that newer vehicles often have more things that can and will fail, and parts seem less standardized these days, so you may not be able to keep it running past the expected service lifetime. Older vehicles (depending on the platform) often use common parts that are shared even across manufacturers. And third party manufacturers keep cranking out new stock for them. I am hoping that this type of system de…

Parts were mostly never standardized. The difference is when a production run ends they would sell all the tooling to a third party that makes parts under their own name. (and even before production ends parts that break often are worth duplicating). With computers when the production run of the LCD, CPU, ... ends nobody is making more. Even if you could get the software to install, nobody makes the computer at all a…

I know someone that installed an aftermarket touch screen in their Cadillac.

The OEM part arguably has a flaw where it dies when it gets too hot (Cadillac didn't do a recall though).

I think there were more than one third party options.

Post reply on HN