Technology

378 readers

1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago

San Francisco protestors are disabling autonomous vehicles using traffic cones (www.techspot.com)

submitted 1 year ago by artillect@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read the article but I'm still not completely sure what the protestors' objective is. They don't like cameras and think cars are bad?

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure you read the article? Maybe you disagree with their objections, but the article lays them out:

A video from the group that has gained almost 5 million views on Twitter points out that AVs block buses, emergency vehicles, and everyday traffic. It also claims that they're partnering with police to record everyone all the time without anyone's consent. And, most importantly, they require streets designed for cars, not people or transit.

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, I had glossed over that part. The first point seems like an issue, the second and third just seem like normal life in the US. Most roads here are made for cars, and people should already expect that if you're in public you can or will be recorded, as recording in public is a first amendment right, and everyone already has a camera in their pocket.

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Turns out not everyone wants life to be that way in the US, hence, protestors.

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Presumably then the protestors have already given up their pocket cameras and make no use of the road network?

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imo, that's a silly false equivalence. Personally-controlled cameras in the pocket aren't the same as being routinely surveilled by law enforcement, and there are often no viable alternatives for transport in the US, given the existing infrastructure, which is a big part of the reason people are upset.

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Can you give a better source than the original article that the cars are being used ad surveillance for law enforcement? The original article had this to say:

It also claims that they're partnering with police to record everyone all the time without anyone's consent.

To me that seems very biased. I found another article that seems a little more nuanced (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-29/self-driving-car-video-from-waymo-cruise-give-police-crime-evidence?leadSource=uverify%20wall).

It says that police need a warrant to access footage, just like any other cctv you might find at a brick and mortar business, which are also filming you at every street corner 24/7.

In December 2021, San Francisco police were working to solve the murder of an Uber driver. As detectives reviewed local surveillance footage, they zeroed in on a gray Dodge Charger they believed the shooter was driving. They also noticed a fleet of Waymo’s self-driving cars, covered with cameras and sensors, happen to drive by around the same time.

Recognizing the convenient trove of potential evidence, Sergeant Phillip Gordon drafted a search warrant to Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo, demanding hours of footage that the SUVs had captured the morning the shooting took place. “I believe that there is probable cause that the Waymo vehicles driving around the area have video surveillance of the suspect vehicle, suspects, crime scene, and possibly the victims in this case,” Gordon wrote in the application for the warrant to Google’s sister company.

Back to your other point - people are free to be upset at our car based society. I just think it's arbitrary to take it out on driverless cars when it's our entire society they seem to have a problem with. They're free to protest however they see fit, my opinion is still that it seems hypocritical.

[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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:

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'.

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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).