Leaving aside the concerns about the tech not working well, I'm really not a fan of this pre-crime stuff. This feels very Big Brother, where someone (or some system) is watching over you so you don't break any laws.
Things like this lead to cultural ossification and are a nightmare scenario for me.
> This feels very Big Brother, where someone (or some system) is watching over you so you don't break any laws
Is having a speed-limit in the first place 'pre-crime prevention'? Regulating technology that can have public health implications is standard for governments, so to me it seems normal that they might site this regulation in the vehicle itself, rather than at usage-time. Is requiring cars to have like an ABS system preventing users from committing the crime of vehicular manslaughter? Or is it protecting the pedestrian from being killed by a negligent driver?
There's no downside to ABS. There's plenty of downside to a system that blanket bans speeding, even when the operator knows better than the system and is taking a calculated risk.
That's a subtle change of framing; I'm talking about this idea of the thing as a 'pre-crime' tool. I agree that the implementation you describe (ex. a hard cap on speed based on ex. GPS speed limit data) is a 'bad idea', but I don't agree that it's like a 'big brother bad idea', just that it's a bad implementation of an otherwise normal idea. There's plenty of ways one can imagine a gentle system of pushback against speed limits (ex. a warning bell, haptic feedback, mechanical governor impeding the engine from exceeding a certain RPM) that would not have the risks you're using to differentiate this from ABS.
I agree, if it's just a reminder, it's not as bad, it's just a step in the wrong direction. If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit, that will really be a nightmare scenario.
> If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit
But your ability to break the limit is fully predicted on the capabilities of the car? It's not like it's some kind of natural right you have to go 80 in a 65, you need someone to make and sell you a vehicle which will do that for you, and regulatory bodies limit the capabilities of consumer goods all the time (ex. radio transmitter devices).
Again say they required a mechanical governor in the car which capped the limit at say 60mph for all vehicles sold, it's going to prevent you from accelerating faster than that always (so no 'braking' at any point, but at 60mph your engine will no longer by able to apply acceleration). Is this also a nightmare scenario? Or is it specifically the telemetry required to localize that to the roadway speed limit?
That's not so much a nightmare scenario as it is a car that's not fit for purpose. Making the car always obey the speed limit assumes that a) speed limits are always correct (they are definitely not) and b) there is never a valid reason to exceed the speed limit (also obviously wrong).
That's why this is a nightmare scenario. You have an unthinking, unfeeling machine enforcing laws, without regard for nuance or extenuating circumstances. Laws shouldn't work that way.
I dunno I take issue with (b), I think you're leaning too hard on "obviously". IMO it's reasonable to say that like 70MPH is the fastest a car is allowed to possibly go on public roads and cap it there. Possibly I lack imagination, but what's the actual harm that results from that? I can see cases where it would be inconvenient, but actually harmful in a way that warrants an exemption? On its face that seems pretty unlikely (to me).
Moreover, you continue to frame this as a 'subtractive' restriction, taking away something that a person has access to by default. But technology regulation like this is capping the 'additive' function of a tool. Cars add to your capabilities, and this regulation limits the extent to which they do that. Circling back to my previous point, it's tough for me to think of a case where limitations applied to your technological augmentation qualify as a 'harm', especially given the nature of the specific tech.
That's specifically not a valid (or legal) reason to speed (in the US at least) because driving recklessly in an emergency is a great way to create two emergencies. Emergency vehicles exist because of this fact; they get sirens, visible markings, right of way, and professional drivers, all to help ensure that cases where the speed limit is overridden are done so as safely as possible for all parties. None of this is true about your consumer car; people don't know to get out of your way, and may not be aware how fast you're actually approaching. Moreover, you are not a professional driver (and if you happen to be then pretend you're someone else). Driving at like 80MPH under a highly novel and stressful situation is TBH probably beyond your capabilities to do safely unless you're operating on like a straight road with no other drivers. An overwhelming majority of the time you're going to be better served calling an ambulance in this case, and I think pretty much any emergency professional will agree with me. At the very least the people who make money by reducing car accidents do: https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/speeding-i....
Yea I've noted that there doesn't have to be a camera pointed at the driver... there does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location.
So the individual privacy at risk is the privacy of not having your location at any given time being knowable to a car manufacturer/ government agency.
> [T]here does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location.
Used by whom? The mechanic who services my car?
I see the problem if the location data is being broadcast to some central server... so don't do that. But that's not necessary for implementation. The ideal implementation in my mind would be to have speed limit signs broadcast speeds on some short-distance frequency and have cars read that passively: much more reliable than cameras, no violation of privacy.
Incidentally, cars broadcasting location to a central server is already a problem--they don't need speed limiting to do that. OnStar has been doing this for decades.
It seems like a lot of HN users who likely happily broadcast their location to Google Maps are suddenly worried about location privacy when it's used to prevent them from speeding. Minor convenience? Sure! Take my privacy! Can't put other people's lives at risk to get to my destination a few seconds faster? How dare you! Privacy is a human right!
That's where the concern is. If the government is mandating it, it seems reasonable to think that more likely than not, they will want access to it. Even if for no other reason than to hand out tickets. The potential for that data to leak out is there.
> so don't do that
It's nice that you have a solution that would respect privacy concerns, but where should we be getting confidence from that a government will protect/enforce a system that is privacy-first? Look at how the EU has been handling encryption in messaging apps, they don't really seem to be in favor of protecting privacy as a "right".
> cars broadcasting location to a central server is already a problem
Correct, it's a problem that exists, and it's a problem that is made worse by this legislation. There are currently options that exist that don't use OnStar, or that don't phone home to their manufacturer. This legislation opens the door for further reduction in privacy, and that's the concern. Just because something is already going down a concerning path, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned when things seem to be getting worse.
FWIW I don't use google maps, primarily because I don't want them tracking where I am
> Correct, it's a problem that exists, and it's a problem that is made worse by this legislation.
Sorry, how? You keep claiming this is a privacy concern, but so far, I see no evidence whatsoever that implementation of this anti-speeding regulation requires violations of privacy rights, or is planned to include violations of privacy rights.
It's beginning to sound like you just want to speed and are trying to justify that position by claiming that it's a violation of privacy when it simply isn't. If some form of enforcement violates people's rights to privacy, I'll oppose that, but I'm not going to oppose speeding regulation that saves lives on the basis that hypothetical enforcement options violate privacy rights. There are plenty of ways to implement anti-speeding enforcement that don't violate privacy rights.
Your argument right now is tantamount to claiming we can't have laws that might be enforced by violating people's privacy, but that logic applies to a whole lot of laws which you obviously don't support reversing. Should child pornography be legal? Should blowing up planes? Laws against those things have been implemented in ways that violate people's rights to privacy far more often than speeding. And I do agree that we should enforce those laws without violating people's privacy, but obviously we agree we can't just legalize those things because they might be enforced using methods that violate the right to privacy.
Brother, I don't even currently own a car. I couldn't care less about speeding.
I re-wrote this to the top to try and find common ground between us, rather than just bickering:
I think that what would immediately dissolve any difference in opinion that you and I have would be this: legislation is also passed that expressly defines privacy-preserving requirements that car manufacturers (and the government) need to obey. That would mean a blind (no PII), no-backdoor, encrypted, non-tracked system for implementing a speed-limiter (bonus points if it applies to any/all phoning home that cars do). If something like that was clearly defined, the privacy concerns I (and others) have are actually accounted for.
.
And then to clarify what I've been trying to say/ respond to what you've written:
We have laws against speeding, those are laws regardless of if speed limiters exist. You're painting my argument out to be "I don't like the enforcement of this law, so it shouldn't be a law at all" and that is just simply not what I am saying.
It's the method of enforcement that causes the privacy concern, not the law itself. We can (and always will/should) have laws against speeding. We do not have to mandate every new car have a new privacy risk added to effectively enforce speeding laws.
Constantly adding ever more invasive mandates to enforce laws just takes us further and further down the path of privacy violations. You say that there's no evidence that this regulation requires violating privacy rights, but when the legislation doesn't expressly account for preserving privacy, than it's a safe bet that privacy will not be protected, and will (eventually) be abused.
> Brother, I don't even currently own a car. I couldn't care less about speeding.
And that's a problem: car accidents are the #1 killer of people under 40 in the US and speeding is one of the top 3 reasons for that (the other two being drunk driving and distracted driving).
> Constantly adding ever more invasive mandates to enforce laws just takes us further and further down the path of privacy violations. You say that there's no evidence that this regulation requires violating privacy rights, but when the legislation doesn't expressly account for preserving privacy, than it's a safe bet that privacy will not be protected, and will (eventually) be abused.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply have blanket laws regulating what data can be collected by companies and law enforcement, and what data can be sent to law enforcement, not specific to speed limiters?
To be clear, I'm a personal privacy absolutist: I share your concerns with privacy, but I don't think the approach you're suggesting, of having privacy baked into every individual law, is particularly effective for a few reasons:
1. It dissipates the fight for privacy across a million different small laws, spreading resources being used to fight for privacy rights too thin.
2. It pits privacy against a bunch of other legitimate causes: if you hold up this law because of privacy concerns, you're making privacy the enemy of car safety advocacy. That's obviously not your intent, but car safety advocates are going to view it that way. If you hold up a law forcing insurance companies to pay for gene therapy because there are genetic privacy concerns, you're now making enemies of families of people with genetic diseases. If you hold up a law forcing employers to give sick leave because there are medical privacy concerns, you make an enemy of workers rights advocates. Spread across a bunch of different political issues, this create a ton of political enemies for privacy, and adds real grassroots support to the anti-privacy movement.
3. It's ineffective in actually enforcing privacy, because it isn't at a high enough level. Invaders of privacy need only find a loophole in one law and then collect all the data they want in that context, or even collect that data in a context where it's illegal and then pretend it was collected in a context where it's legal (i.e. parallel construction[1]).
Privacy doesn't need to, and shouldn't, permeate every law that is made. Instead what we need is comprehensive privacy legislation that blanket prevents companies and law enforcement from collecting data on people and storing it in central repositories, and provides real penalties for violating that.
Also once this is in place what is "legal" today will be "illegal" tomorrow.
We have much better cars than 50 years ago and speed limits remained the same. Now they are lowering them bit by bit. Think of the children, think of the environment etc
Won't matter anyway when all there is are robotaxis.
But on the highway they are watching over you so you don't break any laws. They have police officers who patrol the highways and traffic cameras. If this had any implications on people's basic human rights, I might agree but driving is a privilege, not a right.
It's very different to watch 1% of drivers, 1% of the time, and to watch 100% of drivers, 100% of the time.
There's no room for change if law enforcement is absolute. Imagine if gay people could never sex, because a microchip zapped their brain whenever they got a sexual thought about a member of the same sex. Homosexuality would still be illegal.
Putting a microchip in people's brains is a completely different thing than putting a microchip in people's cars. People have a right to bodily autonomy; they don't have a right to drive a car. The first would violate human rights on principle alone, the second has no implication on human rights
I think that very much depends on what the chip in the car does. If it effectively broadcasts your movements to the government, I very much think that does have human rights implications (on the right to privacy).
However, if the chip just limits your car's speed, I have trouble imagining what rights that would violate. Your right to speed? C'mon.
Resisting the urge to be snarky, self defense is a legitimate answer. You may not live somewhere where it's common (or you may not frequently feel unsafe) but wanting the ability to have a weapon to defend yourself (or more commonly to show that you have the ability to defend yourself) from any assailant is a very real thing for people both in the US and around the world.
There are plenty of women with restraining orders against men who would do them harm who would very much suffer consequences, and be made much more afraid for their safety, if it weren't for "guns that shoot people".
I believe there should be stricter gun control, but that people should be allowed to carry other forms of self defense such as pepper spray or tasers (I understand these are illegal in some countries). If we invented a gun which allowed hunters to hunt but somehow didn't let people should other people, I can only see that as a positive
Because bad people exist and there are imminent dangers? There are legitimately good uses of people shooting people all the time. Hostage situations being the painfully obvious example.
Well obviously the police would have access to other kinds of guns, but if civilian guns were only capable of shooting deer then that would be a definite plus
Well if so many folks didn't speed all the damn time, and if speeding wasn't one of the top cause of vehicular accidents (in the US), then we wouldn't need this
"One of the top" is a nice weasel phrase. Lightning strike is one of the top causes of death in the US too, for a large enough number of causes. Not wearing a seat belt caused more deaths than speeding, yet cars don't refuse to start without a seat belt.
Things like this lead to cultural ossification and are a nightmare scenario for me.