Safe Streets Rebel's protest comes after automatic vehicles were blamed for incidents including crashing into a bus and running over a dog. City officials in June said...
Amazon’s Ring devices are not just personal security cameras. They are also police cameras—whether you want them to be or not. The company now admits there are “emergency” instances when police can get warrantless access to Ring personal devices without the owner’s permission. This dangerous policy allows police, in conjunction with Ring, to decide when access should be granted to private video. The footage is given in “cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person.” The company has provided videos to law enforcement, without a warrant or device owner consent, 11 times already this year. This admission comes in response to a series of critical letters from Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). Markey chastised the company over many of the same privacy problems that EFF has brought up, including the far-reaching audio capabilities of Ring devices, and the company’s refusal to commit to not incorporate facial recognition technology into their cameras.
I don’t have more information on this particular company’s dealings with law enforcement, but I certainly think it’s reasonable to be concerned.
I also think most cars can’t be stopped dead with a traffic cone, so these protesters are highlighting the unpredictable and sometimes dangerous behavior of these vehicles in mixed traffic. While I’m sure the folks involved would like to see steps taken to address cars and transport infrastructure more generally, it’s hard to see why you would call this ‘hypocritical’.
I don’t have more information on this particular company’s dealings with law enforcement, but I certainly think it’s reasonable to be concerned.
I see your point, if the company is ok with handing data without a warrant, then they might as well be a surveillance company for the police. That may or may not be the case for these companies at the moment, but there’s nothing stopping them from changing their mind tomorrow.
I also think most cars can’t be stopped dead with a traffic cone, so these protesters are highlighting the unpredictable and sometimes dangerous behavior of these vehicles in mixed traffic.
This is another fair point, and I think you’re right that it does highlight a deficiency in these vehicles.
I think self driving tech has a lot of potential to save lives in the future if it can perform better on the road than humans. But I do agree with you now that maybe it’s good that the protestors are highlighting some of the glaring issues that are popping up along the way.
Self driving cars have the potential of killing even more people.
if it can perform better on the road than humans.
Sure! Let’s see how these automatic cars drive when there is fog, or snow, or rain, during the night…you know all these cases that no AI ever trained for. Because when was the last time a CAPTCHA tried you with images with snow, or fog, or night, or rain? Never. I will never allow a self driving car on the road, I will vote against it at every opportunity.
How is a self driving car different from a robot? So you want to release robots in the city and maybe they will kill some of us? Not okay. We have enough problem, ban it.
The problem is the car itself, we need smaller cities and to rely less on cars. We don’t have the resources anyway to keep the cars model running.
Humans die in car crashes all the time. It’s one of the leading causes of premature death. If a self driving car is proven to have a statistically lower rate of accidents than a human, then that’s enough for me. A microprocessor can make much quicker decisions than a human, it’s just a matter of giving it the right information (cameras, lidar, radar).
If a self driving car is proven to have a statistically lower rate of accidents than a human, then that’s enough for me.
You take your chance in your country, not in mine. I refuse to be a statistic. Also cars kill trough cancer, by the pollution they emit through their construction, usage and elimination. See cancer in the figures above. These cancer don’t popup for no reason.
A microprocessor can make much quicker decisions than a human, it’s just a matter of giving it the right information (cameras, lidar, radar).
Your microprocessor was fooled by a traffic cone, see the picture of the article. I won’t let this robot decide the cause of my death.
So, you may not be aware, but these days Police are in the habit of dodging the legal requirement for a warrant to obtain similar data:
I don’t have more information on this particular company’s dealings with law enforcement, but I certainly think it’s reasonable to be concerned.
I also think most cars can’t be stopped dead with a traffic cone, so these protesters are highlighting the unpredictable and sometimes dangerous behavior of these vehicles in mixed traffic. While I’m sure the folks involved would like to see steps taken to address cars and transport infrastructure more generally, it’s hard to see why you would call this ‘hypocritical’.
I see your point, if the company is ok with handing data without a warrant, then they might as well be a surveillance company for the police. That may or may not be the case for these companies at the moment, but there’s nothing stopping them from changing their mind tomorrow.
This is another fair point, and I think you’re right that it does highlight a deficiency in these vehicles.
I think self driving tech has a lot of potential to save lives in the future if it can perform better on the road than humans. But I do agree with you now that maybe it’s good that the protestors are highlighting some of the glaring issues that are popping up along the way.
Self driving cars have the potential of killing even more people.
Sure! Let’s see how these automatic cars drive when there is fog, or snow, or rain, during the night…you know all these cases that no AI ever trained for. Because when was the last time a CAPTCHA tried you with images with snow, or fog, or night, or rain? Never. I will never allow a self driving car on the road, I will vote against it at every opportunity.
How is a self driving car different from a robot? So you want to release robots in the city and maybe they will kill some of us? Not okay. We have enough problem, ban it.
The problem is the car itself, we need smaller cities and to rely less on cars. We don’t have the resources anyway to keep the cars model running.
Humans die in car crashes all the time. It’s one of the leading causes of premature death. If a self driving car is proven to have a statistically lower rate of accidents than a human, then that’s enough for me. A microprocessor can make much quicker decisions than a human, it’s just a matter of giving it the right information (cameras, lidar, radar).
Source for that. Are you talking for your country?
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/death-rates-road-accidents_v25_850x600.svg
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-in-USA-vs.-media-coverage.png
You take your chance in your country, not in mine. I refuse to be a statistic. Also cars kill trough cancer, by the pollution they emit through their construction, usage and elimination. See cancer in the figures above. These cancer don’t popup for no reason.
Your microprocessor was fooled by a traffic cone, see the picture of the article. I won’t let this robot decide the cause of my death.
deleted by creator