741–750 of 954 posts
Thank God. People on the roads are extremely reckless and we don't do anything about it. Our highways are lawless for the most part. People can drive however they feel like it. You literally have to kill someone AND be drunk before you actually get in trouble and are locked up. If you kill someone sober though, it's totally fine under our current system. In my opinion, if you get caught driving recklessly, the punish…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you apply the same logic to backdoors in encryption? I am sure you could say no one is proposing implementing and using back doors on the general public as a whole, as they would only be for criminal elements. The reason that people oppose this is because the shift from only affecting criminal elements to affecting everyone is so easy to do that nothing would stop it once the infrastructure is in place.
Backdoors for encryption have mathematical impossibilities relying behind them. Speed regulators on cars are not mathematically impossible. Your analogy is fatuous, like most HN analogies. Argue the actual incident, not your made up analogies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you apply the same logic to backdoors in encryption? I am sure you could say no one is proposing implementing and using back doors on the general public as a whole, as they would only be for criminal elements. The reason that people oppose this is because the shift from only affecting criminal elements to affecting everyone is so easy to do that nothing would stop it once the infrastructure is in place.
OF COURSE NOT! It is impossible to implement a backdoor to a broadly-used encryption method for only specific criminal individuals - it is being implemented across the entire usage base. Adding a device to a specific criminal's vehicle for a limited time is highly specific. I absolutely oppose any general application, and am favorable towards the slippery slope argument. I'm only responding to the above comment which…
A user controllable software limiter is already in Tesla vehicles for example. It would not take much to go from it being user controllable to being controlled by state law. That brings us to an issue analogous to the issue opponents of backdoors in encryption want to avoid, which is that there is nothing stopping it from being used indiscriminately.
That said, this would likely start with adding devices to “criminal’s” vehicles because older vehicles do not support this, but it would end with these “device” being integrated into every vehicle from the factory, since the other safety equipment being included in vehicles makes it easy to deploy this in software. I find it odd that people who are opposed to encryption backdoors do not see this.
There are cars that can go way over 100 mph, and they almost all speed controlled by software. High performance cars are often speed limited by software to about 150 mph. How is this legal? Cars with speed limits that high belong to the track, not public roads, with a possible exception for emergency vehicles. There are some rare (emergency) situations where "superspeeding" might help, but I can think of many others…
The primary reason is political: people don't like the idea of the government living inside our cars 24x7, telling us how fast we're allowed to go. Even though most of us don't speed. Other examples of this phenomenon include: * A government mandated alcohol, cigarette, and BMI limit to prevent major health issues. * Government surveillance of our emails, messages, phone calls, bank accounts and internet activity. *…
So if I have this device installed is it enough proof that I can never speed again in my life ? If yes, I will volunteer to get one. Will also order a raspberry pi, for a project I have in mind.
I doubt it, police departments issue tickets as a major source of revenue. I've heard it said if you want to get rid of police departments, just have everyone follow the driving laws. I suspect they'll allow just enough over so that police can still get their sweet, sweet tax revenue in this brave new world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately That is a 100% strawman argument. NO ONE is proposing such measures No proposal, even the blanket EU requirements eliminate privacy in travel. The devices all work entirely locally with GPS to monitor speed vs local limits, and upon exceeding local limits, output an audio/tactile alert and/or limit accelerator inp…
>Again, no one is proposing monitoring everyone all the time. I repeat: that ship has sailed >I drove 300 miles in rural Virginia, then asked police to send me their public surveillance footage of my car. Here’s what I learned. https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur...
And yes, I oppose those also, in large part because they are 1) a general dragnet against every traveler, 2) have zero specificity to any particular individual, and 3) have no judicial check or due process on their use.
Adding an individual device to an individual's car after repeated breaking of laws (and perhaps more importantly, repeated failures to keep it discreet enough to not be repeatedly caught) has zero of those properties. It is for a specific individual, for a specific time, after due judicial process. As long as it stays confined to those parameters, it seems more acceptable than many alternatives.
Repeat offenders should not be allowed to drive. In the UK we have 12 points, and lose them for various offences. You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Speed again within 12 months and you get a fine and a minimum of three points (more if you are well above the limit). Speed again within four years and you will lose more points, and AFAIK pretty much guaranteed to be more than the m…
I will say this as a car guy, Virgina has an exceedingly bad reputation among gear heads. If you look at virtually any east coast rally, they will all route around Virginia to avoid driving through it. - VA is the only state to ban radar detectors - It has the lowest interstate speed limit in the country - It has some of the stiffest super speeder and reckless driving laws in the country. In most places if you go lik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed] Would-be tyrants get power (and stay in power) by gaining the support of people capable of projecting force and power onto the populace. From the perspective of tyranny, it is irrelevant if their supporters are i.e. the military or a bunch of militia guys who have acquired their guns privately. Source: Many, many civil wars across history. Trying to guard against tyranny by increasing private gun ow…
All democracies before the current era began as revolutions. Roman plebeians were well armed enough that the state could never become too abusive towards them. English democracy, and the entire modern idea of constitutional democracy itself, came about because the British public happened to be well armed enough with longbows, originally intended for times of war, that they could resist the tyrannical acts of the stat…
I'd continue to argue that widespread gun ownership within democratic societies is detrimental, not beneficial for their continued existence.
As for "starting" a democracy, there are certainly those that came about by violent means. But more often than not, the capacity for violence has nothing to do with the availability of arms in civilian hands. Much more relevant is the organizational capacity of revolutionaries and their support within the armed forces (or from actors that could provide well-trained and armed men prior to the widespread use of standing militaries).
>All democracies before the current era began as revolutions.
[citation needed]
>Roman plebeians were well armed enough that the state could never become too abusive towards them.
The roman republic was likely founded due to the support of the roman armed forces and nobility during a power struggle with the then-King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Roman_monarch...
The plebeians certainly played a part, but probably not because they were "well armed". Legitimacy is a real and important thing in politics and it derives from the willing support of your constituencies.
I would also question that plebeians were particularly well armed. Plebeians were (for the most part) not allowed to serve in the army, while higher social classes were required to and also required to provide their own weapons. Therefore it is likely that the higher social classes were both quite well trained, had combat experience and weapons and armor at their disposal, while most plebs likely hat little in the way of arms and/or training and experience.
>the British public happened to be well armed enough with longbows, originally intended for times of war, that they could resist the tyrannical acts of the state and the professional military that it commanded.
Not sure where you draw the line for democracy being established in Britain, but it would be hard to argue that this was before the British civil war starting in 1642. By then longbows were mostly outdated military technology and battles were fought with "pike and shot", which required quite a lot of training and substantial capital to be effective (and adequately supplied). Neither pikes, nor matchlock firearms were particularly widespread in civilian hands.
>Some of the most peaceful and healthiest democracies in the world are also the most heavily armed: look at Switzerland for an example.
Swiss reservists haven't had their service rifles at home for a couple of decades now. The justification for the Swiss system was also always based on repelling outside threads. The practice of keeping service rifles at home produced significant problems (suicides and gun violence) so it was abolished.
>The entire point of widespread civilian ownership of military weapons is that they can serve as a deterrent so that no tyrants, whether in the government or another private faction, can ever wield unassailable power over the masses
Which is dumb, because tyrants don't care how many people they have to kill. And having a lot of weapons in civilian hands gives them one more lever to kill their internal enemies. Private militias are an essential aspect of most genocides in the modern era (see Rwanda, Serbia, etc.).
>Civil institutions can be captured over time by corrupt interests, but it's quite difficult to capture an empowered public.
It is very hard to corrupt well-established institutions (that is the whole point of institutions), while it can be quite easy (in the right circumstances) to get critical shares of a population to support a murderous ideology.
There are cars that can go way over 100 mph, and they almost all speed controlled by software. High performance cars are often speed limited by software to about 150 mph. How is this legal? Cars with speed limits that high belong to the track, not public roads, with a possible exception for emergency vehicles. There are some rare (emergency) situations where "superspeeding" might help, but I can think of many others…
The primary reason is political: people don't like the idea of the government living inside our cars 24x7, telling us how fast we're allowed to go. Even though most of us don't speed. Other examples of this phenomenon include: * A government mandated alcohol, cigarette, and BMI limit to prevent major health issues. * Government surveillance of our emails, messages, phone calls, bank accounts and internet activity. *…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a rare case I support civil asset forfeiture: sue the car (in addition to criminal proceedings). Impound the car until fines are paid - which go into uninsured motorist funds - or else sell the car at auction and do the same. Will other parties' vehicles get impounded? Yes and that sucks. But either don't lend them your car, or else let the people closest to the offender pay the consequences more often than t…
I hope you don't wonder why civil asset forfeiture persists. It's like you're laying one brick on the road to hell. Multiply by everyone else and their pet issues and the whole damn thing gets paved. What even is the point of principals if you don't stand by them?
Slippery slope fallacy. Why don't you refute the central point of what I suggested?