- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
How about limiting the insanely bright headlights first?
Is it the bright headlights or the abundance of trucks raised so high that the headlights beam directly into your eyeballs…
Both. It’s both.
https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becomes-mandatory-in-new-cars-by-2027
Can we post the original sources and not middle men?
Open source hardware needs to be built up more. To do that we need more new people active in that to get different things done. Including vehicles
Be the change you want to see.
Also, loop me in. I have almost no free time at the moment but I’m building up a list of FOSS projects to work on when I retire.
True, alright I got to see how to help build that up. We all got this!!
Know any good online/in-person open source hardware, software, and Linux groups I can join that are established for other things? Need to learn and do as much as I can to make it happen
If you want to get involved in open hardware, a good first step would be to learn KiCad. It’s is used to create electronic circuit schematics and turn them into printed circuit board (PCB) designs. Here’s a pretty good tutorial to get started with it. Please ignore the instructor’s obnoxious Ronald Reagan quote in the second episode.
A PCB is usually not enough, of course. You should also learn FreeCAD so you can design the mechanical aspects of the hardware, whether that be a simple enclosure, or a more complex system with multiple moving parts. Here’s a good FreeCAD tutorial.
I mention KiCad and FreeCAD specifically because they’re both free and open source. You can check out this awesome list for a list of cool open hardware projects and learning resources. Two projects that really stand out to me are the LumenPNP pick and place machine and the Voron 2.4 3D printer.
For in-person groups, see if there are any makerspaces/hackerspaces in your city. That’s where you’ll most likely find like-minded people.
The used car market looks mighty good right about now.
as someone who has dealt with over 20 years of pulling victims, alive and dead, from crashes caused by drunks (am firefighter not terrible driver…) I can say this won’t help shit. Just give more data (profit) to corporations and be used in rights violating ways.
It’s never actually about safety
Nothing is perfect, but the GSR2 for example has undoubtedly saved many lives. The problem isn’t with the technology, but that you don’t have any real privacy laws in the US.
Like the EU is any better. Last I checked, France is passing the same kind of bullshit over and over, too.
Why do you think this will not help?
because drunks find a way to make trouble. they’ll get around the tech glitches in the imperfect deployments. they’ll be alert enough to trick it. etc. they’ll drink while driving and the system won’t see that and the impairment won’t be recognized till its too late. (i’m focused on system concerns because I am also a software engineer and know the realities of large scale tech like this.)
to counter the tech I think the punishments for impaired driving (including cell phone use) should be harsh and without kindness, if you cause another person harm. Federally. With no return of your privileges once convicted.
While I am very much anti-government, if I am not going to be allowed to “follow up” with someone who drank and ran over a family member, etc… then we might as well push the lawmakers to do their jobs with the laws we already have. Not make new ones that are clearly there to profit tech and not save lives.
Last year I drove my parent’s car which is equipped with one of these cameras that determine if the driver is distracted or dozing. And I can say for certain that it works. I honestly wish that my car had this sort of a system.
I view this tech like a padlock. Sure some people will do whatever they can to get around it, but it keeps honest people honest. If it can reduce deaths on the road from drunk and tired drivers even by a little bit then isn’t that worth it?
I’m not sure what you mean by not being able to follow up… Driving drunk and killing someone is already punished harshly, and you can even follow up civilly; it’s called a wrongful death suit.
Drivers in tatters.
I’ll just walk outside where there’s no surveillance.
Imagine this is what encourages people to ramp up public transit construction nationwide. Along with the Strait of Hormuz blockade.
Looking forward to all the good that will come from people refusing this stuff
LMAO
Is this just in America? Or worldwide?
Mostly the US. But if it ships to the US market from overseas, expect it there too.
So I’ll have reduced millage/charge and extra weight for carrying around this surveillance technology for the government and whose sole benefit will be the government?
Will I be compensated for this burden? No?
Would I be penalized for removing it from my car on my own?
What happens if it “breaks”? Will I be expected to fork over my own money to repair/replace the government’s surveilance device? Logically speaking, burdening the car’s operating with a regulatory requirement like this could constitute a taking. Then again, it could be a logical extension of Congress’s taxing and spending power, but it probably isn’t without a strict mandate from Congress to have those devices.
They will really do anything before investing in public transit
Automobile-centric infrastructure was such a colossal societal fuck-up.
Bad for personal health, physical safety, household finances, and the environment. Automobiles are not a symbol of freedom, they are a symbol of dependence.
While I agree about automobile centric structure, when rural living automobiles are absolutely the ticket to freedom. It’s a shame more populace areas get designed around maintaining dependence on cars.
Except there is absolutely no reason it has to be like that in rural areas. Period. At all. Even a little. Look at China (or if you still believe the NED puts out legitimate stories, Denmark or Sweden or Norway) which has public transit to nearly all rural areas at least a couple times a week, and inter-village public transit in pretty much all villages that have more than a dozen people.
Busses are more efficient than independent vehicle ownership in all settings. All of them.
More efficient, sure, but their argument was about freedom, which is just a different dimension. In an extreme example, private jets provide more freedom than public transportation does, even though it’s obvious which one is worse for the environment, more expensive, more intrusive, etc.
Except that’s not freedom.
It is not freedom to have a, and this really isn’t an exaggeration, more than 10,000x personal cost for transportation. It’s freedom for the rich, but the rich aren’t a part of society and cannot be generalized into society.
It is not freedom to have to personally rely on the US to do the right thing.
It is not freedom to take on the massive legal and financial risk that is driving a death machine.
It is only freedom in the most infantile, ‘Anarkiddie’ sense of the word freedom. The ‘Hurr durr we’d all be more free if we had less laws’ kind of idiocracy most humans abandon by the age of 15 when they learn about the concept of government.
I think the point is choice. Even those living in suburban and urban areas have a difficult time opting out of car-dependence.
If you choose to live rural, I would say that automobiles are part and parcel to that decision. It’s just the nature of low population density.
Yup, drunkards in a tram are annoying but they almost never kill people and cause tens of thousands in damage.
almost never
thank you for that almost. jackasses like me see words like always and never as challenges and this is not one i want to take
It’s not a good solution to traffic fatalities but I guess at least it’s something.
*I guess the privacy of new car buyers is more important than human life. God forbid the thing that already tracks and sells your location also check if you’re drunk driving.
**this story/outrage is even dumber than I thought. Not only does this regulation not exist yet, it seems to only have resurfaced because of the NHTSA reporting to congress that they need another extension because passive BAC detection isn’t real yet. This yahoo story is pure clickbait fantasy ragebait. Here is a writeup closer to reality.
This is like saying that “age verification” is for protecting the kids
I don’t think online porn kills 40,000 americans every year. I even suspect that maybe theoretical impairment detection tech that doesn’t exist yet is not the same thing as facebook wanting to tie all of your online activity to your ID.
The point is age verification is not for protecting the kids, and it doesn’t. It either makes kids easier to find or excludes them from learning tech in their free time so they don’t inderstand how computers work, taking tech control and ownership of em.
The government couldn’t give less of a fuck about them, except for actually fucking them. Same for this, it won’t protect anyone, it’ll just dynamically increase gas prices or some shit.
Same for this, it won’t protect anyone, it’ll just dynamically increase gas prices or some shit.
So you agree with everything else I said?
Sure whatever, everything else was unrelated to anything I’ve said.
There have to be accepted levels of risk in the world or no one can do anything. No one should drive at all, nor fly planes, ride a boat at sea, or ride a horse. No one should run any heavy machinery etc etc. The list goes on and on. But just because someone else makes bad choices, does not mean all people need to sacrifice their rights.
Driving was never a right. If you don’t want a car that checks if you’re impaired then don’t buy one.
Yeah, it’s something dystopian.
40,000 deaths per year is worse than needing to give up some privacy for access to public roads. 99% of people are fine with giving up more privacy for a hell of a lot less. In the abstract it sucks but in a society that has given up on the concept of privacy at least it’s being applied for something other than targeted advertising.
People that really give a shit can continue to use old cars or other means of transportation.
You can’t honestly believe that mass surveillance will help prevent those deaths, right?
It won’t. It’ll be used punitively.
Until we actually know what the implementation looks like you’re just talking out of your ass and have no right to be condescending.
The entire story is that the NHTSA is obligated to make rules for the implementation of impairment detection. It absolutely does not follow that ‘obviously it won’t detect impairment’
Demanding the specifics of what can be broadly understood is a waste of time.
Yeah man fuck reality you’ve got the world in your head where you can imagine stuff that doesn’t exist to get mad at
If the cameras and tracking systems inside cars don’t stop them, why will this one?
By preventing engine startup or with a very low speed limiter presumably.
And how do they know you’re drunk? Cameras? Mandatory blood samples?
Only drive cars made before Onstar and similar systems were added in the early 90s. They have been tracking you for a long time. But even then you need a license plate, which is constantly collected in most urban areas, stored and sold. It’s really impossible to travel anywhere even if you have no phone giving away your location. Flock and all the surveillance systems also tie into the license plate data. Cars began having cell connections and other ways to broadcast data after the onstar type systems were added. Now it’s a whole other world with the amount of data cars like Tesla can collect. /OldManRant
Another system to allow hackers into your automobile. The federal government could use the biometric data from car for passport photos. On the other hand, I despise drivers under the influence.
Every technology is eventually used against you by the state
It’s so difficult to get excited about new tech anymore.
Big tech is the problem. Indie tech is still cool as shit.
I am driving my 2018 car which doesn’t even have auto stop start until it dies.
deleted by creator
Why is the government over reaching it’s authority.
It isn’t. This is power fully vested in federal agencies by the legislature and endorsed by the courts.
As noted up about, it’s an end run around implementing any kind of public transit, by offloading the external costs of privatized vehicle operation into the consumer.
But you don’t have some kind of inalienable right to a public highway free of state surveillance. That’s never existed.
But you don’t have some kind of inalienable right to a public highway free of state surveillance. That’s never existed.
I’d make the argument that that would violate anything about searches seizures.
Sure. But you’d lose the case.
You don’t have right to privacy in public.
