The latter half is a purely speculative opinion piece and, in my opinion, trues to blend too well with the facts in the article.
> The ultimate dystopian scenario involves giving police the power to utilize similar technology to completely disable the functioning of a vehicle if the driver is deemed to have committed an infraction. This doesn’t need to be a criminal offense, if the pursuit of social credit score schemes continues to become more invasive, it would eventually be used as a form of punishment for everything from unpaid utility bills to offensive comments posted on social media.
I didn't see a mention of remote access, but if one is to assume that's possible then that's a huge vector for a major terrorism attack. Disable every vehicle with a black box from driving. Near term effect is preventing those vehicles from operating, long term effect is the distrust in those systems and vehicle manufacturers it'll bring.
I am surprised no such widely-publicized attack happened yet on CPUs. The Intel Management Engine and AMD Platform Security Processor allow remote access.
These are already commonplace in the US. They're called Event Data Recorders. While they're technically optional, I'm not sure there's been a car sold in the last decade without one. If you get in a wreck it will record data about the cars speed, seatbelts, etc from the last moments before the crash. Otherwise, it's a ring buffer that isn't retained.
I don't really see a problem with this, as long as it is only used after an incident and only available to law enforcement. Of course it's a slippery slope, first this, then something else, but that's a different story. If you want to drive a 2+ ton vehicle that can easily kill or seriously injure innocent people, then you should be responsible for your actions and dangerous driving should be taken seriously.
In many EU countries there is already so much CCTV that the authorities know exactly where you are driving and how fast (average over a distance) you are driving, so this doesn't really change anything there.
If we had the technology to implant tamper-proof devices in people that recorded location, audio and video, and some basic bio data, but that data could only be be made available to law enforcement under specific circumstances, would you really see a problem with making that mandatory for everybody?
It would be a great tool for crime solving. Almost all violent crimes and property crimes could be immediately solved by data mining when and where a person was killed or injured or property was damaged or stolen, who else was around.
Finally some sources, thank you. Point b of chapter 2 seems to be the most interesting for this kind of discussion
2. Intelligent speed assistance shall meet the following minimum requirements:
(a)
it shall be possible for the driver to be made aware through the accelerator control, or through dedicated, appropriate and effective feedback, that the applicable speed limit is exceeded;
(b)
it shall be possible to switch off the system; information about the speed limit may still be provided, and intelligent speed assistance shall be in normal operation mode upon each activation of the vehicle master control switch;
(c)
the dedicated and appropriate feedback shall be based on speed limit information obtained through the observation of road signs and signals, based on infrastructure signals or electronic map data, or both, made available in-vehicle;
(d)
it shall not affect the possibility, for the drivers, of exceeding the system’s prompted vehicle speed;
(e)
its performance targets shall be set in order to avoid or minimise the error rate under real driving conditions.
The fact that most of the things normally put here in HN on this kind of topic are already in the article tells me that the general tone of "privacy is a government Vs private individual battle" is starting to become widespread public knowledge.
This has been on the cards for a while, I can’t see how this is so controversial.
It’s fairly easy to pass a driving test. You can then buy a 2 tonne monster with heaps of power and very little to police how you’re driving. You can be speeding, intimidating other people etc and you’re unlikely to get caught.
As someone who strives to drive safely, I welcome this.
Oh and Big Bad Government track my phone and the Covid vaccine microchip already so what’s another tracker?
That's quite a country-specific statement. Here in Norway[1] there's a non-trivial 17 hour mandatory course required, including at least 13 hours of driving with a licensed instructor, as well as a theory test and a final 1-hour driving test.
They've extended the mandatory parts quite a bit in recent times as part of Vision Zero[2].
Lots of people are subservient to authority so I absolutely understand why you and a lot of people have this opinion and I can see there are pros to doing such things.
Do you accept that there are people who place value on privacy from government and believe that governments can abuse their powers, and that they have a valid opinion so a balance which takes that into account should be found, including the possibility that existing surveillance might already be too much?
I sort of agree in principle, but with some practical caveats that bother me.
I agree privacy is a good thing. I care about my privacy. However, it must be balanced against other things too. I care about my health as well, and won’t keep secrets from my doctors, or prohibit them from sharing information, as strictly necessary. So there’s a balance, nothing is absolute. Even my right to live isn’t absolute, if I threaten someone or am called by my country to fight in a war, that right is trumped by something larger.
Two, I’d argue the problem is more with the government than in the privacy. We form societies, with customs and governments, because somehow being together is better than in your own. In a democracy, the government is supposed to be for the people, not an enemy. I’m not a starry-eyed optimist, I’d just rather focus on “how do I fix government trust”, rather than “how do I better keep secrets from the government about a mundane daily activity such as driving”.
Finally, I’ve been tailgated, ran off the road, intimidated by too many morons on the road. Never had an accident bout could have done many times, possibly killing me and people I care about. Again, I prefer a right to get morons off the road to the illusory privacy - I’m already traceable to the government.
I’d rather focus on privacy safeguards. For example, if my data is accessed, it needs a court warrant, and if the investigation doesn’t lead to conviction, I am told about it, with a right to pursue unlawful use. I believe that’s how phone taps work in Europe - is this fundamentally different?
>if I threaten someone or am called by my country to fight in a war, that right is trumped by something larger.
So how do you feel about conscription? Would you be alright if say, the government in question were capable of disabling your vehicle for draft dodging? How about protest attendance getting you on a no-drive list?
In the intelligence world, one does not assess an enemy based on their current motivations, but on their capabilities. No one can know another's true intent, but you can plan for what they'll do when they decide to throw principles to the wind and pull out all the stops.
A government should fear its people. Not the other way around.
I never said I don't want accountability, I totally do. I want courts to be in control of this, oversight, etc. But with those things in place, I do want this.
Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I don't see the government as fundamentally against me. Yes, it has serious agency issues, and goes wrong from time to time, but essentially the government is "us", not "them". The opposing sentiment seems to be particularly popular in the US, perhaps that's part of the divide. I want the society, through appropriate representatives, to be in control of people abusing the roads, and I value that more than individual's illusory rights to road privacy (since if the government wants to track them, they'll do it anyway with barely more difficulty).
This breaks down in oppressive states, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Interesting comment, just so I understand a little better -- do you have a dash cam and have you used it to get footage of any of the many road rage incidents you find yourself in to give to the police? If so, did the police achieve any result, and if not do you expect the police and courts would be inclined to get the morons of the road for you if you were able to furnish them with such evidence?
I don't have a dash cam, as for a variety of reasons it's impractical. For example, to capture someone tailgating me, I'd need a read- and forward-facing cam, remember to switch it on every time, and ideally also remove from the car each and every time, due to theft considerations. I know police reception of such evidence varies a lot by locale.
I'd hope a black box would effectively serve a few purposes:
- Aggressive drivers would know that, should they cause any accident, their whole (recent?) driving history will also be scrutinised, deterring them from such behaviour in the first place.
- Should they cause a serious accident, their fault would be more obvious; road accidents often don't have great evidence for fault (few quality eye-witnesses etc.), either inspiring caution, or otherwise eliminating them from driving.
- Finally, as a standardised device, it would be far more effective at providing evidence than ad hoc cameras.
Okay. I don't think this type of black box surveillance will be used for what you're hoping for. Do you really expect them to get a warrant and pull the private data for everyone who complains about every fender bender and road rage incident and does not result in major crash or injury? I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it would provide better evidence than cameras for this type of incident.
You could get yourself a dash cam (which are not the massive headache you think they are) and reflect on your own driving too (not saying you're at fault but if you're attentive and courteous and de-escalate incidents, it can really avoid most incidents). That will get you much better results.
I suspect knowing that, should you cause even a minor infraction, your whole driving history will be assessed, will be a major deterrent.
It’s not like companies go with a fine comb through employee activity logs, but just knowing every http request and email is logged is enough to put most people off bad behaviour. Not all, but most.
Anyway, my point isn’t that it’s trivial, rather that it’s easy to pass for someone determined to do it. The expectation is that almost every able-bodies adult, and many disabled, should be able to do it with some work. And that’s all you need to get your hands in an SUV or an old-but-powerful Audi.
A bit like with guns in parts of the US, any crazy person with time and money can get one.
Without additional, reliable, sources I'll keep this in my skeptical folder.