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

61–70 of 168 posts

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

#61

Post by AngryData »

scotty79 wrote: post #55
AngryData wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think the US government can bomb its own citizens with impunity and not completely destroy their own industrial base that makes bombing citizens possible? The US government would very quickly collapse. Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.

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.

And? Minnesota is under strike right now and Arizona's AG just told its citizens that they can legally shoot ICE if they don't properly identify themselves or have a warrant or legal cause to arrest them. Still 95% of the nation is operating as normal, but that isn't possible when people are being actively bombed.

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

#62

Post by boston_clone »

bhickey wrote: post #31
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)?

They wrote a memo saying they could.

not saying you’re wrong, but we have to get in the habit of sourcing our claims! whistleblowers testified to Congress about this memo that began circulating around mid-2025.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...

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

#63

Post by lapetitejort »

uriegas wrote: post #20
newsoftheday wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in Texas, they're not viable for most uses, the parent commenter is completely correct. The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.

Agree. Texas is pretty bad. In most places you cannot exist without a car. No wonder Mcallen is the most obese city the US.

Hence the last sentence of my post:

> Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area.

We built dangerous highways. We can build bikeways as well.

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

#64

Post by pjc50 »

scotty79 wrote: post #35
psunavy03 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.

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.

Jan 6th worked, and they didn't even successfully take and hold the Capitol.

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

#65

Post by OptionOfT »

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…

Remote unlock is on many cars via an API.

It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc.

It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.

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

#66

Post by dttze »

scotty79 wrote: post #35
psunavy03 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington. Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.

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.

[dead]

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

#67

Post by mmooss »

quantumfissure wrote: post #43
SilverElfin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Finding some precedents doesn't address the major changes. Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior?

> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez

Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation.

It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father.

I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez

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

#68

Post by Ancapistani »

scotty79 wrote: post #14
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…

> if we allow our government This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that. Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy. I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that peop…

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.

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

#70

Post by quantumfissure »

mmooss wrote: post #67
quantumfissure wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Finding some precedents doesn't address the major changes. Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior? > Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a fathe…

> 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 the same as they were back then. INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly.

I mean, we can talk about other Executive branches abusing their power all day (Waco; Homeland Security/TSA searches; DEA Searches; Iran-Contra; CIA Operations in the 60s-80's) etc... the point is, nothing ever changes.

Post reply on HN