SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the could-get-interesting-on-Halloween dept.
A police officer is directing traffic in the intersection when he sees a self-driving car barreling toward him and the occupant looking down at his smartphone. The officer gestures for the car to stop, and the self-driving vehicle rolls to a halt behind the crosswalk. "This seems like a pretty plausible interaction. Human drivers are required to pull over when a police officer gestures for them to do so. It’s reasonable to expect that self-driving cars would do the same." But Will Oremus writes that while it's clear that police officers should have some power over the movements of self-driving cars, "what’s less clear is where to draw the line." Should an officer be able to "do the same if he suspects the passenger of a crime? And what if the passenger doesn’t want the car to stop—can she override the command, or does the police officer have ultimate control?"
According to a RAND Corp. report on the future of technology and law enforcement “the dark side to all of the emerging access and interconnectivity is the risk to the public’s civil rights, privacy rights, and security.” It added, “One can readily imagine abuses that might occur if, for example, capabilities to control automated vehicles and the disclosure of detailed personal information about their occupants were not tightly controlled and secured.”
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:50AM
Or I could own a normal, older car, like I do now.
You need to own a really old, entirely mechanical car with carburetor for fuel mixture and an induction coil for ignition. Anything newer can be disabled with an EMP. An older car can be disabled only with a few .50 BMG rounds into the engine. Or with a few .22LR into the driver :-(
I definitely hear what you are saying about the proprietary software; and I do not advocate submission to it. However a common man needs to manage his survival needs vs. his preferences. If the food can be only obtained by parading naked in front of government X-ray cameras, after a week or so there would be more than enough people willing to parade - the alternative is worse.
In your case you are paying by increased consumption of gasoline; increased pollution of air; inability to use electric or hydrogen cars - as all newer vehicles come with super-secret and proprietary technologies, including software. This works for you, so far. This may not work for others, as not everyone is rebellious to such extent that he is willing to sacrifice his wants and needs to live according to his beliefs. One simple example: the needs of your child.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:08AM
However a common man needs to manage his survival needs vs. his preferences.
You seem to be saying that freedom is just about preferences. Principled people are willing to die for freedom, though there is no need here.
the alternative is worse.
The hypothetical scenario you describe is a particularly egregious violation of people's constitutional and fundamental rights. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
The problem is that lots of people tend to only think of their individual needs (and the needs of those close to them). But freedom fighters are fighting for everyone's freedom, and stopping rights violations helps many more people than just yourself. Oftentimes this comes at great personal expense. Submitting to oppressors helps the oppressors continue to oppress.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:53AM
You seem to be saying that freedom is just about preferences.
Perhaps not "about," but as you can clearly see from my examples, freedom and personal preferences share the same volume. Here is the complete example. A parent needs to buy milk powder for his baby. However the only type of powder available contains a secret ingredient. The parent:
That means that desire of freedom is not entirely unlike desire of orange color in your sneakers. Both are equally accessible (actually, orange color is more accessible, as the government doesn't care what color you wear) and in both cases if you choose to insist on them you risk being left without the product or the service. You want the freedom to carry beer into a stadium? You can enjoy your freedom of carrying beer... but outside. Is it right? For this political system (democratic, as opposed to libertarian or anarchy) it is certainly right - the system is designed to work like that. You want absolute personal freedom, like in idealized Wild West? I'm afraid there ain't no Wild West left for you to live in.
These examples are FAR from being contrived. A citizen of the "first world" is long entrapped in a maze of constraints, and the only way to escape those is either run for the hills in Montana, or to emigrate. Such a citizen has a job that is 50 miles away, which means that he has to buy a car and be bound by a myriad laws and regulations and taxes that relate to that. He cannot move because he can't sell his house and buy another because yet another bunch of laws and taxes makes that financially disastrous (market is down, brokers want 6%, house must be fixed up, etc.) He cannot find a job closer because there are no jobs in the little town where he could afford a house. While working, he is implicitly financing all the excesses of the government, no matter how much he agrees or disagrees with them. Nobody is asking him - he is nothing but a dairy cow that is forced to work and to pay taxes if he wants to stay alive.
In this aspect what freedom are you talking about? The freedom is long gone; the only freedom you have left is to run in a rat race until you get old and die. You want freedom? Then you have to live where there is no government. Hard to even say where that might be, as governments spring up all the time because it is just so immensely profitable to rule over others. Maybe Antarctica, or north of Canada? Nobody will find you there. Nor will you find anyone else. All other places are governed; that means that you dance to someone else's music - or else.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:02AM
Perhaps not "about," but as you can clearly see from my examples, freedom and personal preferences share the same volume.
You can certainly prefer freedom and value certain freedoms more than others. I guess what I took objection to was the notion that survival is necessarily more important than standing up for freedom, which is how it appeared to me, and wasn't necessarily what you meant.
You want absolute personal freedom, like in idealized Wild West?
I have no idea what you mean by this. I simply will not use non-free proprietary user-subjugating software.
The freedom is long gone; the only freedom you have left is to run in a rat race until you get old and die. You want freedom? Then you have to live where there is no government.
The real solution is to fight against injustices, even if it might mean your rights get abused. That is for the overall good of society. Just running away will not truly solve the problem. I don't think anarchy is the solution, as that would bring with it all sorts of other problems.
Even if you go somewhere where there is no government in practice, governments claim just about every piece of land in the world. You had better hope they don't find you, or that if someone does find you, they don't care.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:02AM
I guess what I took objection to was the notion that survival is necessarily more important than standing up for freedom, which is how it appeared to me, and wasn't necessarily what you meant.
Well, don't we know from history that all slave-owning societies fell because slaves, instead of choosing personal survival, chose to stand up and fight for their freedom?
Sorry, I mixed up the worlds. This is not how it unfolded on this Earth. Here slaves were slaving away until the world around them crumbled, and slaves one day discovered that they have no masters anymore. Rebellions of slaves were extremely rare, and not that large.
Why is it so? I guess it's because when the choice is between living and dying, most people choose life, no matter how bad it is. True rebels are rare; and when they do appear, they often are flooded with so many injustices that they have difficulty sorting them out. You choose to fight for software freedom, as an example - but how much does that matter if the router upstream is monitoring every byte that you send? How much that matters if a policeman is watching for everything that you do on your "free" computer? My point is that you cannot focus on one aspect of freedom and ignore all other. And when you defocus and see the large picture you may realize that software is just one tiny aspect of freedom; so tiny that most people do not even understand what you are talking about.
I simply will not use non-free proprietary user-subjugating software.
You need to talk to Teela Brown about that. Don't you see the similarity of her problems to this one? If you have to save Earth from destruction, but the laser cannon that can shoot that asteroid down runs on Windows 10, will you boot that computer up?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @07:05AM
Sorry, I mixed up the worlds. This is not how it unfolded on this Earth. Here slaves were slaving away until the world around them crumbled, and slaves one day discovered that they have no masters anymore. Rebellions of slaves were extremely rare, and not that large.
Many people still fought against slavery. Slavery didn't just magically disappear; that's not how it happened.
True rebels are rare; and when they do appear, they often are flooded with so many injustices that they have difficulty sorting them out.
The majority usually gets little done. It's mostly the "true rebels" that move things along, though the process is still very slow.
but how much does that matter if the router upstream is monitoring every byte that you send?
It matters a lot, because I desire freedom in and of itself. A victory for software freedom is one victory. We might need to be victorious in other areas too, but that doesn't mean it's less of a victory.
My point is that you cannot focus on one aspect of freedom and ignore all other.
Then you are arguing with a point I did not make.
And when you defocus and see the large picture you may realize that software is just one tiny aspect of freedom
Tiny to you, but I see great significance in it in the Age of Information.
You need to talk to Teela Brown about that.
I speak of reality, not insanely unlikely hypothetical scenarios. But I'll address that anyway. Software freedom is gravely important, but there are a few instances where I think an individual might choose to make a sacrifice. For instance, in a world where no Free Software exists, maybe an individual would have to use proprietary tools to create some; their freedoms are infringed upon, and that is bad, but it is a net good for freedom. Likewise, you might choose to use Windows 10 to stop the asteroid so humanity can live and you can continue fighting against non-free software and other injustices. Likely, if you don't stop the asteroid, someone else will; it doesn't make much difference.
But absent such situations, I will not use non-free proprietary software. And which rights this sort of logic apply to depend on how much I value those rights, which isn't always the same.