this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
472 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
3090 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh, stop being sensationalist. A car is a car, that's all it ever will be. It's clear you didn't even read the article because its not talking about remote kill switches.

[–] ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Cars kill 43 000 people a year in the U.S.

I'm talking about people's reactions in this thread when they haven't read the article. All of those people opposing a hypothetical "cop presses a button" remote kill switch are insane.

Private citizens do not have a right to operating a motor vehicle any way they see fit. You license it, you license your skills, you get it looked at periodically and you use it on public roads with the state's blessing only if you can manage to get along with other people using that same road. There is no sense opposing a kill switch for "freedom".

We can't trust cops with their stupid car chases that result in crashes, and their maneuvers for flipping cars over on the freeway.

You give them a killswitch

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely oppose universal kill switches and I'm not insane. Something about that pesky "innocent 'till proven guilty" thing. If you lose that privilege, you get a breathalyzer lock. That's fair. But I haven't used "smart" tech in a car that hasn't bugged out in unpredictable ways and this won't be an exception. Technology that overrides driver input is a risk to those the vehicle belongs and that's unacceptable to me.

[–] ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with it. When a cop stops you he's not indicting you. Switching your gas off remotely replaces chasing calling in reinforcements and chasing you over several blocks when you start speeding up, or flipping your car over. Both of those already impair or override the driver's input quite a bit.

Having the opinion that your driver input should override the cop's order to stop, and that society should trust you to stop instead of putting a kill switch in your engine is an insane opinion, and prime driver entitlement.

And I would love the same for drivers without insurance, license removals and cars that didn't pass the tech inspection