Did you guys even read the bill? It's not a remote kill switch anybody can flick. It's some vaguely defined system to detect when the driver is driving unsafely. The bill is so vauge about what the thing actually is that I don't believe this is ever gonna happen. Atleast not before AIs start driving more cars than people do safer than people are.
You are right. I’m glad that the article has a prominent link to the bill’s text. It’s short, please read it before jumping to any conclusions.
It is a requirement for new vehicles to “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” when the vehicle either measures the driver’s blood alcohol content and it’s above the limit OR detects that the driver may be impaired. That’s all. It doesn’t mention anything about law enforcement or remote access.
> Miss a car payment, remote shut down( this is already a thing for certain high risk buyers).
This doesn't really bother me. I don't like when people don't have total control over things they own, but if you default on a secured loan, you don't own the collateral anymore.
I'm more than okay with them physically taking the car from you, but imagine a nightmare scenario where your wife has a stroke and instead of being able to drive her to the hospital 5 miles away you watch her die since your Tesla XL couldn't verify payment status.
Mistakes happen, Stripe API down, no driving for you .
I suppose, as with "self driving" technology, you have to balance the "nightmare scenarios" with the positive impact and consider the net result. I don't think it would be defensible to disable a car over missing payments, for the reason you describe, but disabling a car because the driver is clearly inebriated would save far more lives than it costs.
Of course, but in this scenario you can clearly see the physical asset is gone.
We have an entire legal framework around how to repossess a car, No one knows what's going to happen once you let Tesla remotely shut off your car since they think you might have missed a payment or something.
I’ll be first in line for a tool or device that neutralizes this. I buy it, I own it. I feel the same about software updates that remove functionality as well as products which are tamper resistant.
Another prediction that Minority Report got absolutely right. I would give anything to read the 2054 Bible the creators made for that movie, as they clearly had some prescient minds.
The police already have the authority to chase you, shoot your tires, throw spike strips in front of you, ram you, and anything else they deem necessary to forcibly stop you. Formalizing this power in the form of technology which obviates the need for such hazardous measures doesn't really seem like some terrible encroachment on civil liberties.
They already have the authority (if they get a warrant) to bug your home, too. Wouldn't it be so much easier if all homes came with bugs pre-installed (and illegal to remove), and the warrant would just allow the police to remotely activate them?
In fact, they have the authority to arrest you, too. But that can involve a dangerous chase, the subject can resist, etc.. wouldn't it make sense to obviate the need for such hazardous measures if everyone had to wear a shock collar? Then instead of a dangerous physical confrontation, non-compliant subjects can be subdued with a safe, remotely-triggered shock.
Forcibly resisting authority is never legitimate (that's what democracy and the legal system are for), and certainly never legal, so such measures wouldn't infringe on any rights. After all, they only enable already legal police actions, and the only civilian activity that they hamper is illegal.
Legal systems are just violence with blood spill that's more metaphorical than most care to get up in arms about. I really wish people would keep solidly in minds eye that what we've got is the worst.... Besides everything else we tried.
It sounds to me like the equivalent of taking your guns away. A zero effort kill switch makes the cost to the state much closer to zero if they don't have the counter force of individuals - and forget bad actors or actual criminals, I'm speaking to the safeguard and mechanism of making sure the individual is adequately equipped to take on a potential tyrannical threat with other sovereign individuals.
It’s all about making this empowerment as frictionless as possible, preferably with a press of a button, no need to hot pursuit and then filing reports. Which to me is troubling.
