Sounds ridiculous. What happens if you have a home camera? Do they take your home? Really?
Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
541–550 of 683 posts
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sound and reasonable judgement" to save a couple seconds? That still just seems like rationalization of bad behavior. You're right that the basic premise of democracy is that citizens can be trusted as the source of the law, but it seems to me that this particular citizen can't actually be trusted? I mean, they're demonstrating a lack of integrity, are they not?
> That still just seems like rationalization of bad behavior. I think the issue is that you're taking as fact that "in order to be safe, you must come to a full stop at a red light before turning right", and that not doing so is, indisputably, "bad behavior". I dispute that. I think in many situations it is just as safe to nearly-but-not-completely come to a full stop before continuing, and it's entirely fine behavio…
> I think in many situations it is just as safe to nearly-but-not-completely come to a full stop before continuing, and it's entirely fine behavior.
I'm sure the multiple people that would have hit me if I hadn't jumped out of the way because they were looking the ither way to see if cars where coming thought the same.
> Let's take a related example: jaywalking.
When walking one is not impaired in one's vision of the surroundings, and you're not operating heavy machinery. The worst you can do is get yourself killed. With a car, the most likely scenario is to kill someone else.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
While self driving cars are provided by private companies, self driving cars will first work in the profitable cases, and then years later will still only work in the profitable cases.
The Model 3 and Model Y will eventually be self driving... any anyone that wants to can simply buy one. Obviously many other manufacturers will also sell consumer cars that can completely drive themselves. Even a person who lives in Tok, Alaska will just be able to buy one and then sleep in the car as it drives down the Alaska Highway* * Trust me, once you've driven it a handful of times it's a chore.
Having given this some thought recently, I don't actually think anyone will sell self driving cars for a long time, if ever.
I don't think there will be a big bang moment where self driving is suddenly here and it works everywhere. Instead I think it looks like what waymo is doing now, self driving taxi services that expand to cover specific regions and then expand more as they begin to handle more edge cases and more extreme weather.
By the time self driving is actually to the standard needed to sell it with a car a younger generation will probably have grown up using self driving taxi's and wonder what they need to own a car for.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, it is legal to film anywhere public (out on the street, in a government building, etc). You can even film inside of private establishments (restaurants, stores) until you have been asked to stop. This is part of the protection of free speech and press. You cannot use the footage gathered for commercial purposes without permission of people you filmed. Journalism for pay, and art for pay are not considered…
It is in Sweden too. And everywhere I know of in democratic countries. But here it applies so long as I’m there doing the filming myself. The law here isn’t about filming but regulation of surveillance, and is only about installing equipment that films public spaces without permit. For example: a ring doorbell can film my driveway and porch but not the street. The thing about the Tesla is that it counts the same as m…
The us doesn’t differentiate between creating media with a handheld camera or creating media by permanently mounting an unattended 360 surveillance cam in the middle of a busy street. It is all seen as protected speech. You don’t have to see or agree with the connection, that distinction is for the US courts, and they have interpreted it VERY broadly.
The other difference is that in the states, you largely don’t have a right to privacy in public or anywhere visible from public.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes my prediction remains to be seen if there is a dramatic effect. People can still leave nyc, the city can still grow in population and get terrible for surveillance free life. And people can still leave to avoid that. It doesn’t have to be a substantial event. It’s like ad blockers, a lot of people don’t use them doesn’t mean there aren’t a significant portion of the population that doesn’t like ads. And who cares…
Mad Max explores the possible consequences of your "I can shoot anything my bullets feel like hitting" brand of libertarianism. You can't invalidate an analogy by taking it quite so literally. Is my analogy a stretch? Yes, if you keep your bullets within your property line. But fantasizing about moving to the country where you can shoot whatever thing you don't like at this moment is an entire trope that is broadly p…
It’s not a fantasy, because a lot of people who move to the city, are from the country. People don’t care about every inch of life being surveillance free. They care about their square being a bastion for themselves.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares prove that it wasn’t on the ground when I destroyed it. My story will be: I saw it fall to the ground. When I walked up it looked like a bunch of spinning blades. I thought someone was attacking me so I destroyed the device.
> I thought someone was attacking me so I destroyed the device. Funny thing about that government property you destroyed... it was broadcasting the evidence it collected.
The police department won’t have sophisticated government drones for at least another 20 years, that is if expensive drones prove to be worth the effort and cost to allow civilian level law enforcement to have one.
The point of this conversation isn’t to trump how you can get around my lie. The point is that I can lie to get out of any spurious law enforcement pursuits, and that is freedom. A drone isn’t impossible to take down covertly. I don’t have to answer every technical use case to make a point.
If a member of a small community goes against the federal government that believes government overreach is happening, they can get the community to protect them.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure it's the FAA that dictates that one. It's federally illegal. And how motivated are they? Well I'm assuming someone will complain that you shot down their drone. And most police are very interested in firearm crimes. The FAA is also very interested in people who shoot at aircraft of any kind.
It’s remarkable how many people seem to think that drones are fair game. Also, thank you for a kind and thoughtful comment you made to me in the past. It’s heartening to be reminded that civil decency is alive and well. I hope you have a memorable and fruitful day.
It hasn’t been proven that drones aren’t fair game. So go ahead and down vote me for noticing this, but just because the FAA says the airspace is for any aircraft doesn’t mean I can’t shoot down your drone on my property in rural Nebraska and get away with it.
It will be on the feds to pursue a low level crime not worth their time. Until it’s proven you can’t shoot down a spy drone, then you can shoot down a spy drone. How do I know it’s not some Chinese spy drone? I’m just doing my part to protect my country.
Really the “not uh the FAA” stuff is irrelevant.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.
Drones are legally classified as aircraft. 18 U.S. Code § 32 makes it specifically illegal to damage or interfere with the operation of aircraft. The FAA takes this quite seriously, as not taking it seriously compromises their position of being able to regulate drones per se. Lax enforcement of protection of drones as aircraft is a potential legal argument that efforts to regulate drone activity outside of the scope…
So you agree, I can shoot down a drone over my property and make an argument to get away with it and there isn’t enough legal reason or capital to pursue. There may come a day where I would get in trouble but I think right now spies are smart enough not to mass surveil with drones.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#549Genuine 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…
Seems like a great idea. The police should do this… bring back red light cameras and automated speed traps.
Sure, only if they take a look at every speed limit in America and readjust them to be realistic for modern cars.
Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is already in the US Constitution. 4th Amendment.
Sure by some interpretations. Unfortunately the current SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way, they think webcams and electronic surveillance should be in the constitution or authorities can do anything. If there isn’t a law or constitutional text to the effect then it doesn’t exist to them. So we have to approach this from actually getting a law passed.
TFA is about camera footage obtained via warrant (thus following due process). Do you think evidence should not be obtainable via warrant?
> Unfortunately the current SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way, they think webcams and electronic surveillance should be in the constitution or authorities can do anything.
Citation needed.