SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The old gray lady reports that the people of Tempe AZ, a popular testing location for self driving cars, are fighting back. Here are a couple of snippets from the longer article:
The [tire] slashing was one of nearly two dozen attacks on driverless vehicles over the past two years in Chandler, a city near Phoenix where Waymo started testing its vans in 2017. In ways large and small, the city has had an early look at public misgivings over the rise of artificial intelligence, with city officials hearing complaints about everything from safety to possible job losses.
Some people have pelted Waymo vans with rocks, according to police reports. Others have repeatedly tried to run the vehicles off the road. One woman screamed at one of the vans, telling it to get out of her suburban neighborhood. A man pulled up alongside a Waymo vehicle and threatened the employee riding inside with a piece of PVC pipe.
[...] "There are other places they can test," said Erik O'Polka, 37, who was issued a warning by the police in November after multiple reports that his Jeep Wrangler had tried to run Waymo vans off the road — in one case, driving head-on toward one of the self-driving vehicles until it was forced to come to an abrupt stop.
His wife, Elizabeth, 35, admitted in an interview that her husband "finds it entertaining to brake hard" in front of the self-driving vans, and that she herself "may have forced them to pull over" so she could yell at them to get out of their neighborhood. The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac.
"They said they need real-world examples, but I don't want to be their real-world mistake," said Mr. O'Polka, who runs his own company providing information technology to small businesses. "They didn't ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test," added his wife, who helps run the business.
It looks like The New York Times used this article from December 11 as part of their story:
A slashed tire, a pointed gun, bullies on the road: Why do Waymo self-driving vans get so much hate?
This seems to be happening everywhere Waymo is testing, not just Tempe.
Lots of comments about this article on other sites, SoylentNews should get in on the fun too! A quote from a "media analyst" suggests that driverless cars are like scabs, hired to break a union strike.
Also at The Hill.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 01 2019, @09:48PM (30 children)
The company that made the dangerous machine is the obvious choice, unless someone's negligence elsewhere created the risk. Sounds like a solved problem to me.
Sorry, but I think more that it's the typical aversion to change that happens. Self-driving cars? It's icky until people get accustomed to them driving about.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 01 2019, @10:05PM (29 children)
When was the last time you saw a CEO or programmer held criminally liable for bad code? So, yeah, not really a solved problem. And how many people would be willing to take the jobs if jail time were a risk for any bug?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 01 2019, @10:52PM (28 children)
When's the last time they churned out criminally liable bad code? I don't think that happens so often in the first place because it needs to be a crime first. Same goes for driving. Just because something bad happens or someone dies doesn't mean a crime happened. There's plenty of cases where people die on the road without a crime occurring.
Why would there be jail time? What crime happened? In US law, one has to show a certain level of negligence in order to win a civil case. That wouldn't be any different for cars no matter who drives them. There is such a thing as criminal negligence, but it requires things like a disregard for human life or safety as part of the negligence. Ignoring a bug that kills a thousand people a year? Gross negligence. Turning the business's annual review of the deaths known by the business to be caused by said bug into a drinking game? Criminal negligence.
As I see it, the same sort of people who'd jail someone for dropping a semicolon in the code are a small subset of the people who will grow accustomed to self-driving cars eventually. Just because I live in a democracy doesn't mean that I should respect the passing hysteria of the public or that private projects should be subordinate to this hysteria.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 01 2019, @11:16PM (2 children)
You're not a Microsoft customer, I take it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:28AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @09:55AM
Ecce [nypost.com] a man of little needs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @02:53AM (3 children)
Uber's coders did that. Their code disabled the Volvo's factory automatic braking function, silenced the alarm (so that the test driver will not be warned,) and told the system to not brake for "insignificant" objects. Death resulted. The guilt of the programmers is separate from the guilt of the operator. One did not warn when they could; another did not look when she was required to.
In this case the relatives of the victim took the blood money. The guilty persons were not determined, everything was swept under the rug. Perhaps some other incident will result in a trial, and the whole country will be watching it. Many dirty secrets will be revealed. Techies know some of them, but once the whole country knows, the Waymo/Uber/etc. will be in trouble.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:42AM (2 children)
Ok, what makes that a crime? There's not a law explicitly to criminalize that. And they no doubt had ideas about how to compensate for the disabling of those systems.
It's worth keeping in mind that disabling safety systems is not evidence of a crime because the safety systems can fail to work properly in context. Consider the situation of a fire alarm that starts generating false alarms every fifteen minutes. One can't empty a busy office building or hotel every time and conduct a search by the fire department each time. And prohibiting habitation for the few days while the alarm is repaired can result in huge hardship while the problem is resolved. So a common approach is to manual patrol the building on a regular basis through the full day (for example [ua.edu]) till the fire alarm is repaired.
The alarm has been circumvented, but no crime has occurred because the people responsible have implemented alternate procedures for the alarm system's task.
The same occurs here. Sure, these systems were disabled by Uber personnel in the accident which killed Elaine Herzberg. But the vehicle wasn't traveling fast and there was a human driver at the wheel. On paper, I'm sure they thought they had covered the dangers that these safety systems were supposed to address - which is particularly innocuous-looking since these systems aren't required for safe driving. There probably is a consistent pattern of taking short cuts and complacency, but that isn't usually good enough to qualify as a crime in the absence of criminalizing regulations.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 02 2019, @12:36PM (1 child)
That is precisely the problem. Removing accountability is bad, m'kay.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:03PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @02:58AM (10 children)
> When's the last time they churned out criminally liable bad code?
How about Boeing and their jet that insisted it needed to crash into the water, even after the pilots managed to keep it up during several previous dives? While the investigation isn't over yet, I'd say there is a good chance that there will be time in court (somewhere, maybe not in USA).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:43AM (9 children)
What's the crime? Did Boeing personnel deliberately crash the jet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @08:08AM (8 children)
Only a court can tell what their crime is, if any. [Lion Air case] But they can be accused of a few misdeeds. For example, they haven't mentioned the new stability system in pilot manuals. They haven't said a word during the difference training. (Pilots of American Airlines and Southwest did not know either. It's already clear that all MAX were dangerous from day 0 just because of lack of training on a new system that can override the pilot.) The prosecutor will add several more from the book, just for the fact of a crash and multiple deaths.) One lawsuit is already in process, per Wikipedia:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:03PM (7 children)
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday January 02 2019, @08:46PM (4 children)
So if an Uber/Waymo car hit you and killed you, your family should just shrug and go "meh, whatever"?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:14AM (3 children)
They can sue. The act doesn't need to be criminal to generate legal liability.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:50PM (2 children)
You've obviously never lost anyone close if you think any amount of money can come close to being justice.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @02:15AM (1 child)
Back at you. What's supposed to be special about jail time (or perhaps more exotic punishments) that when added to said amount of money comes closer to being justice? Dead person is still dead no matter how much you punish someone or some business. Meanwhile excessive punishment means businesses die, jobs lost, peoples' lives aren't bettered, society has to take up unreasonable burdens (for jailing people for what should be non-crimes), and so on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @02:36AM
To correct this, I have an observation to make. Do we in the developed world have huge troubles with businesses killing people because it's only money? To the contrary, death rates from typical business-related areas like workplace deaths, are at an all-time low. For example, workplace deaths [osha.gov] in the US are at their lowest point of the last 40 years (and they weren't getting better before that!).
A factor of three improvement despite this lack of justice. Something is working. I think that same something will work with self-driving vehicles as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @01:52AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 03 2019, @02:38AM
And yet, it's odd how no one has mentioned such a misdeed which was actually a crime. The prosecutors tend to decide otherwise.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:44AM (9 children)
The Toyota Prius unintended acceleration issue that is commonly attributed to user error or floor mats causing the accelerator pedal to get stuck was neither limited only to the Prius nor involved any user error or mechanical issue at all. Instead the ECU software was so poorly implemented that a bug existed (among tons of others later discovered during audit because of the trial) that could cause both the current throttle position variable in memory to become corrupted with the value that was intended to be stored in another memory location it would also prevent that value from being properly set again to the current value from the throttle position sensor. The ECU defines what the current power output of the propulsion system will be and there is no mechanical override.
That didn't even kill people and that is criminal.
This is why computer people should not be allowed in the real world where stuff has mass and/or stored energy and consequences are extreme. The very notion of brushing off a design defect that kills thousands of people as not being criminal is utterly fucked. Roller coaster kills 1,000 people per year - is that ignored? Airplane kills 1,000 people a year? Building? Elevators?
All of those things are engineered by professionals who go to jail if they fuck up. And fucking up is defined as not working hard enough to ensure you've defined exactly how to make it not fuck up, that it won't fuck up outside what you expect it to, that you've proved it mathematically, and also were not wrong in the proof.
That's how airplanes stay in the sky. Since the robot car is supposed to be so good because airplanes are so good I suggest they start with the parts that make airplanes good. That includes throwing people in jail for mistakes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @04:18AM (3 children)
Ok, what's criminal about it?
Why? Brushing off still means liability of around $10 billion per year (at $10 million per life). Autos kill around half a million people a year global. There's a lot of brushing off happening here.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday January 02 2019, @04:43AM (2 children)
I did some searching and in 2013 in Oklahoma - nothing. There was a trial, it was civil, Toyota was found liable for producing software that was utterly unfit for purpose and lots of money changed hands, just as you say. I recall a trial in Japan that led to conviction but I can't find any reference for it. It also looks like I was wrong - at least one person did die. I'd call this criminal negligence. It seems a Jury does not disagree that Toyota screwed up really bad. Would a grand jury vote for a trial if one were conveyed for this? I give it better than 50/50 chance.
Also if you are curious this is a nice summary of the defects in the software: https://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer-firmware--Bad-design-and-its-consequences [edn.com]
Automobile fatalities in total right? Not number of automobile fatalities that have a root cause or were made worse by a defect in the machine? From what I remember when GM makes an ignition lock that malfunctions and locks the steering column and a few hundred people died over a few years they couldn't cover it up anymore and they fixed it. Seems like 10s of thousands of people per year dying because of defects is a reasonable guess.
Though that just makes you right again because there was no criminal trial. Though did anyone ask a grand Jury?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @06:29AM (1 child)
And includes regions that are a lot slacker about quality of cars and road safety. Point is that a lot of death is acceptable in automobile travel and engineering bugs aren't normally going to respect country borders.
It's also worth noting that there are serious problems with how the developed world handles the liability of bug fixes. We already have various critics conflating research into a problem as proof of negligence or worse and some of that occasionally gets [nytimes.com] into the courts. Even mistakes made by a virtuous company which aggressively pursues dangerous bugs and flaws in its products is enough to end up in the courts. And there will be mistakes.
These are two big reasons why criminalizing car design and construction is a bad idea. Perfection is not possible and people will die due to flaws in design or code. Similarly, detection isn't perfect either and more people will die before a virtuous business can fix the problem. That's why all these examples of dangerous flaws in products mentioned in this thread shouldn't be considered crimes.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday January 02 2019, @05:17PM
You are correct that criminalizing any mistake or anything that leads to injury is a mistake. For instance when the Dehaveland Commet started exploding a little bit while flying people died. Turns out square windows in a pressure vessel isn't a very good idea. Who knew? Well, nobody. We got some new science from that and oval windows in every airplane that follows. Ignorant? Yes. Criminal? No.
Toyota produces a control system for a machine that is intended to have humans inside of it, the control system manages the high power output propulsion system, and there is no mechanical override. It turns out that writing shoddy code that ignores the lessons of the past and further ignores industry practices that were created to avoid those very problems is a bad idea. Who knew? Essentially everyone that's a professional software developer and anyone that is an electrical engineer creating software for control systems. Ignorant? No. Criminal? Yes. At least in my eyes. I don't see how Toyota can get a pass here as if the situation they created was full of unknown results or surprises.
In the case of GM it is possible the engineers were not entirely aware the product had a design flaw. Though there is the pesky issue where GM corporate laid down some rules regarding the adjectives engineers are allowed to describe the machines they produce. For instance the term "rolling sarcophagus" is right out, can't say that anymore. You have to say "does not work as intended." Hmmmmm. Maybe they do know something isn't right in this process and culture?
Another example of a non-crime dangerous machine I think is the Corvair. Dangerous at any speed like Nader wrote about or just a twitchy rear-wheel drive car that's prone to oversteer? It's the latter. I also drove a car that was rear wheel drive, twitchy and prone to oversteer. It's called a sports car. As the driver of one it comes with responsibilities. It's not the car's fault it is a handful.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday January 02 2019, @07:49AM (2 children)
I don't believe that is the law. Yes, you can go to jail if your work is so sloppy it is criminally negligent, but that is a high bar. It also doesn't only apply to professional engineers: anyone can be criminally negligent for their actions.
Your PE stamp might be evidence against you in the trial, but I think that's it. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in this area, but I can't find any particular statutes criminalizing actions by negligent PEs. If anyone can find a statute specifically articulating criminal liability for negligent PEs, I'd love for you to reply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @08:31AM (1 child)
Here is an example of piercing the corporate veil [wbtv.com] of a tiny corporation. One of the owners personally committed a crime. It's very difficult to do with a publicly traded corporation. At best the company, like Microsoft, can be convicted of wrongdoing, fined and sentenced to (something with IE in MS case - a null punishment in the end.)
This means that when self-driving cars start to kill [more] people, the grieving families will be written a check. Nothing more. The businessmen who manage the self-driving empire are safely isolated from the incident; and the money is just running expenses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 02 2019, @03:12PM
You don't need to pierce the corporate veil when someone personally commits a crime.
Only because they usually aren't committing crimes (hint hint).
An example of a non-crime.
And that differs from any other situation like it how? If the machine made by my small business or personal hobby kills someone, that's the likely outcome as well (except of course, I might not have the money to pay that check!).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @02:23PM (1 child)
Good example, but not for your side. There never was any criminal indictment in that case, it was settled out-of-court. Worse, to this day, Toyota remains publically "of the opinion" that there never was a software error.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday January 02 2019, @05:27PM
Yeah I hate it when I prove someone else's point :-) I'd like to find the case I recall in Japan that was criminal but I just can't.
Oh boy and when I was at a Toyota dealer somewhat recently and the sales droid claimed that the unintended acceleration was not Toyota's fault I really let him have it. It was somewhere around where the guy was explaining the truck had so many computers on it that if I didn't get the warranty I'd be an utter fool because they will fail and cost a fortune to replace.
He got an earful about shoddy software, court cases, and people being hurt for no good reason. Then he got an earful of "why the hell would I buy a machine that I expect to break in a small number of years?" and I walked off.