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

U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#151

Post by AnthonyMouse »

woodman wrote: post #47
stegosaurus wrote: post #6

Same deal in the UK with the national ANPR system (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). Ostensibly to reduce the amount of uninsured/untaxed drivers on the roads. Don't want to sit around in databases? Well, here's a nice list of just a few of the things you can't have: Bank account; Car/motorcycle; Mobile telephone; Internet-connected computer; Credit/debit card; Visible face (oh, we might be safe there, for a few y…

There is no way to reverse this. Trying to cage this with paperwork will just lead to more of the same creative interpretations à la NSA. So the rulers don't feel the rules apply to them, big surprise. With that in mind, the futility of fighting the tide, what is the next step? As the ideal solution of reversal is unavailable, we need to go with harm reduction - but what is the harm that we would reduce? Most would s…

> There is no way to reverse this.

It's easy to reverse some of this. If they're recording license plates and they or someone else will do it regardless, then stop having license plates. The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway.

Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical. That clearly isn't the case -- the constitution has been preventing police from searching your home without a warrant since 1789, even though they absolutely do have the operational capability to do that.

More to the point, even if they're not prohibited from spying, as long as we're not prohibited from defending against that spying we haven't lost. Encryption works. Tor works. In many cases the lack of prohibition on spying would be irrelevant if not for the existing prohibitions and impediments to strong anonymity, as with regulations on digital money transfers.

What's interesting is that your conclusion is still mostly right. Government secrecy is the cancer of democracy. But governments being transparent to their people in no way requires people to be transparent to their governments.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#152

Post by sroerick »

superuser2 wrote: post #142
wahsd wrote: post #103

Can we please stop acting like the USA is somehow a "good guy" anymore? We have to realize that the authoritarian demons have the battering ram at the door and I really don't want to find out what happens when the USA turns into an authoritarian militaristic regime. We're way more than half way there already and people support it. Our very own government is a threat to us all, or at least those who will find themselv…

Do you read the news? Because here are some things that other states are up to that we aren't (at least, not in this decade): - Systematic execution for the crime of belonging to a particular ethnic group or religion - Open and openly arbitrary disappearing, detention, and torture of intellectuals for the crime of writing articles critical of state-sponsored religious and political doctrine - Use of force against peo…

1. The War in Iraq killed over a million people. We have death robots that kill people from the sky.

2. Snowden, Manning, Barrett Brown, Jeremy Hammond

3. Don't know about this one. I think it's worth mentioning Racism, Islamophobia and Islam or race related violence here.

4. #opDeathEaters

5. I don't know about this one either, but school seems mostly like a tool to incur debt. So not necessarily a plus.

6. You watched the Healthcare debate, right?

7. Surveilled reading is more dangerous than censoring books, full stop. But if you're looking for censorship, there's plenty to go around. Try finding a copy of the Sony leaks these days. Look at what is happening to social media.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#153

Post by knorby »

I'd rather have tracking of cars than most things. As a frequent pedestrian, cars scare me. Few common things can cause as much damage to humans and property. Would these efforts be more palatable if the goal was Vision Zero rather than the various low-output anti-terrorism efforts?

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#154

Post by sroerick »

girvo wrote: post #34
ihsw wrote: post #4

> The law-enforcement scanners are different from those used to collect tolls. Much to the chagrin of our rent-seeking overlords, whom see speed traps and red-light cameras as a means of revenue generation rather than safety measure.

Speed traps I'll grant you, but how are red light cameras not a safety measure?

I first learned about automobile tracking from red light cameras here in Montana.

A company called RedFlex installed cameras here. They subsidized the installation cost in exchange for a cut of tickets.

RedFlex admitted to bribing city officials to get them to install cameras.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#155

Post by superuser2 »

flycaliguy wrote: post #148
superuser2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you read the news? Because here are some things that other states are up to that we aren't (at least, not in this decade): - Systematic execution for the crime of belonging to a particular ethnic group or religion - Open and openly arbitrary disappearing, detention, and torture of intellectuals for the crime of writing articles critical of state-sponsored religious and political doctrine - Use of force against peo…

Can somebody good with their logical fallacies let me know if this falls under "Fallacy of relative privation"? This definition [1] even uses this very argument as an example: "The counter to the relative privation argument when applied, for example, to compare America with other more tyrannous countries is to note that the proper comparison to make should not be between America and other tyrannies but between Americ…

This is specifically in response to the question:

> Can we please stop acting like the USA is somehow a "good guy" anymore?

I am arguing the specific assertion that surveillance makes America morally equivalent to or less than the countries we oppose. That does not seem to be true. Apologies if that's not what parent meant.

Of course this doesn't make America "good" or even okay, but it is entirely possible to have severe problems while still being a "good guy" relative to the likes of Iran.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#156

Post by code_duck »

themartorana wrote: post #146
superuser2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you read the news? Because here are some things that other states are up to that we aren't (at least, not in this decade): - Systematic execution for the crime of belonging to a particular ethnic group or religion - Open and openly arbitrary disappearing, detention, and torture of intellectuals for the crime of writing articles critical of state-sponsored religious and political doctrine - Use of force against peo…

These points are horrible, but have no bearing at all on whether or not the US government is friend or foe. The existence of worse does not make better good. The state of things in the US is scary, and Saudi Arabia existing doesn't make it less so. Edit: I'd argue that corruption of The State by lobbyists, special interest groups, and shadowy Super PACs cost thousands of lives a year in the USA.

On the last point (edit), absolutely when you consider that the 'drug war' and cannabis prohibition are basically a for-profit collusion between many corporate entities and government which result in significant harm to the populace.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#157

Post by AnthonyMouse »

woodman wrote: post #71
navait wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If security through obscurity is having secrets at all, all security is obscurity.

What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

> What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

Normal people don't have a moat.

A major reason that e.g. home invasions are risky (and thus are deterred) is that the criminal doesn't know when the mark or the neighbors will be away from home, what security may be in place or whether there is anything worth stealing. If you put that information on the internet for anyone then every time you come home from work all your electronics will be missing.

Replacing that "security through obscurity" with actual physical security is not something most people can afford.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#158

Post by flycaliguy »

superuser2 wrote: post #155
flycaliguy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can somebody good with their logical fallacies let me know if this falls under "Fallacy of relative privation"? This definition [1] even uses this very argument as an example: "The counter to the relative privation argument when applied, for example, to compare America with other more tyrannous countries is to note that the proper comparison to make should not be between America and other tyrannies but between Americ…

This is specifically in response to the question: > Can we please stop acting like the USA is somehow a "good guy" anymore? I am arguing the specific assertion that surveillance makes America morally equivalent to or less than the countries we oppose. That does not seem to be true. Apologies if that's not what parent meant. Of course this doesn't make America "good" or even okay, but it is entirely possible to have s…

I see, I often make that mistake actually of ignoring the context of a response relative to the parent, perhaps a fallacy itself!

I just get spooked by those comparisons. I think I agree with you in the end that ultimately we the relative good guys and it's important to keep that in mind. In Fact it's our role as the relative good guys that makes it so damn important to make sure we exercise our rights to free speech and political freedom to make sure we stay the good guys.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#159

Post by woodman »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #151
woodman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way to reverse this. Trying to cage this with paperwork will just lead to more of the same creative interpretations à la NSA. So the rulers don't feel the rules apply to them, big surprise. With that in mind, the futility of fighting the tide, what is the next step? As the ideal solution of reversal is unavailable, we need to go with harm reduction - but what is the harm that we would reduce? Most would s…

> There is no way to reverse this. It's easy to reverse some of this. If they're recording license plates and they or someone else will do it regardless, then stop having license plates. The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway. Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical. That clearly isn't the case -- the constitut…

> The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway.

You seriously believe that? You think the government makes common sense decisions? So ok, no more plates. How long until we hear about them logging the serial numbers broadcast by our tire pressure sensors? Or what about the unique magnetic signature of our vehicles detectable by all the loops already embedded in the road? If the government has the technical ability to do something that will expand power and responsibility, it will do it. It has been demonstrated time and time again.

> ... as long as we're not prohibited from defending against that spying we haven't lost.

Yeah we'll see. Tampering with NIST, clipper chips, export controls. This is not sustainable, people will eventually tire. Also, the argument sounds very similar to what was said about TSA security theater: "No, we aren't impeding your freedom of movement - you can take the bus!" Guess what, the TSA is at the bus station now. "No, we aren't violating your fourth amendment rights - if you want to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures than you can use encryption!" Guess what happens next. It is a bullshit argument - I shouldn't have to run myself ragged.

> Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical.

No, my point is that you can't prevent something technically practical while the government operates in secret, enjoying a monopoly on information. That is why warrantless home searches aren't extremely common, because it would be impossible to do in secret - old papers have very little to do with it.

Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

#160

Post by woodman »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #157
woodman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

> What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction? Normal people don't have a moat. A major reason that e.g. home invasions are risky (and thus are deterred) is that the criminal doesn't know when the mark or the neighbors will be away from home, what security may be in place or whether there is anything worth stealing. If you put that information on the internet for an…

What is more likely: I was suggesting that people secure their homes with a moat; or I was demonstrating that, contrary to the post I was responding to, not all security relies upon obscurity?
Post reply on HN