Waymo sues state DMV to keep robotaxi safety details secret
latimes.com
latimes.com
This is related to an unknown individual seeking the details of the permit application, not full censorship of what waymo does on the road or the accidents which do happen.
Surprise surprise, the headline is meant to get you all worked up
Happy Google fanboy here, much like a Apple user who has everything with one company. No one is perfect, but Google has done more good then most other companies on their way to success.
Some topics do come up more often than others, but that depends on the article.
The actual surveys that come out often show some of these big companies are trusted MORE than govt. Ie, folks (even the yellers) might not actually trust govt with their email accounts, but would put a lot of personal email through google.
But yeah, talk about a headline designed to wind folks up.
I trust google orders of magnitude more than Facebook.
And for Amazon I simply stopped reading the "reviews".
I frankly don’t trust FB, Google, or Amazon with my personal data. This becomes more frustrating when it’s difficult to avoid interacting with any of these companies given how widely used they are.
Google has lived that long, and many here were around before their inception, know what they were about (and marketed themselves as) and have seen what they've become. It's more visceral with Google as they used to really embody the "hacker spirit." It's lived long enough to morph into a corporate spirit and forsaken many of the attitudes that surrounded it during its early growth. That attitude will likely wane with time as those born with Google know no other Google.
Is it the worst probably not, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired.
Google tries its hands at everything from, well, autonomous vehicles to web browsers.
That gives them both more opportunities to piss off diverse groups of people and more opportunities to be in the news.
It just happens to be that Google search is much better, and having tried the alternatives, I've stayed with Google.
I didn't get the job despite having a perfect driving record. I probably wouldn't have taken it anyway, because I got the impression they didn't want safety drivers asking too many questions or really giving much input. I was satisfied however because my question about depending on a autonomous system to stop properly for an oncoming train was answered - that's not something I would trust yet. I ended up getting a retirement job at Uber and Lyft which was much more interesting and fun.
does "job" in this context mean programming or driving?
I'd still be doing it if it weren't for the pandemic. I never tried driving out of California because different states and cities have different rules. For example, Portland Oregon, if I remember, requires a fire extinguisher in the car. I'll probably do it again. I want to try driving in Las Vegas since I used to live there.
If i didn't hate to drive i'd be tempted to follow in your footsteps. I'll definitely think of exposure-retirement-jobs in the future though. Thanks for the insight :)
You could drive a bus in Las Vegas if you want to be around people in an environment you control and not have to talk to them. It's my pinned post on Twitter, which I'll copy here so you don't have to go to Twitter.
After the dot com crash in 2000, I did solitary travels around N. America by car. When my software money ran out, I got a job driving The Deuce on the Las Vegas Strip, which I did for a year before eventually returning to software. The Alan Watts quote is accurate.
Zen Philosopher Alan Watts
Imagine if you were a bus driver, a bus driver is ordinarily considered an absolutely harassed person. He’s got to watch out for the laws, the competing traffic, the cops, people coming on board giving him fares and he has to give them change, and if he has it in his head that this is work, it will be hell.
But let’s suppose he has a different thing in his head, suppose he has the idea that moving this enormous conveyance through complicated traffic, it’s a very subtle game, and he has the same feeling about it that you might have if you were playing the guitar or dancing. So he goes through that traffic, avoiding this and avoiding that, and he makes a music of the whole thing. He’s not going to be tired out at the end of the day, he’s going to be full of energy when he gets through his job. So the point is, therefor, that you can do everything you have to do in this spirit, don’t make a distinction between work and play. Regard everything that you’re doing as play and don’t imagine for one minute that you have to be serious enough.
I still think they should be public, though.
For this context though I agree, we as a society should have the right to inspect any algorithm that makes safety or life altering decisions (looking at you "AI" judges) about your person or in public spaces you might reasonably occupy.
I do think data used by an algorithm, or even potentially data that was used to train an algorithm should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The trained weights do become part of the algorithm in my humble opinion, and that does potentially lead to leakage about the source data, but that doesn't justify not allowing inspection of the algorithm.
It would. And it would also require an extreme leap of logic to go from "companies developing car technology with direct effect on road safety should be as public as possible" to "do you want to expose where you drove your car"
One example that would seem more important is Pfizer et al and the vaccine trial data, but more generally applications to the FDA
Absolutely. Also the "we in EU have a secret deal with Pfizer to buy vaccines, this is not public info"
Extreme silly example to make my point:
DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over"
Waymo: "Its a trade secret, sorry".
* New law gets passed
DMV: "Ok now tell us"
Waymo: "Ok well...it honks the horn automatically and gives the person 5 seconds to get out the way. We believe that should be sufficient for the majority of cases and if you're too stupid to move, well...natural selection ftw."
DMV: "..............really? that's crazy...it should really be more like...10 seconds."
DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over? This is a confidential process so that you can be as specific as possible in the name of public safety."
Waymo: "[REDACTED]"
Anonymous third party: FOIA request
Waymo: "WTF?"
DMV: "You can sue us to stop us from responding to this FOIA request. Please do."
Waymo: "OK"
Companies stretching the definition of "trade secrets" to hide uncomfortable information is hardly unprecedented.
Safety and secrecy don't mix well.
TLDR: DMV asked for proprietary details during permit process to which Waymo complied noting they were trade secret. A third party used California's FOIA to see Waymo's application in full, so the DMV asked Waymo to provide redacted copies. The third party has challenged redactions, so DMV told Waymo the only way to prevent them from releasing it is to sue to the agency.
They want it secret for competitors, not for the governement.
Granted I'd also be happy to have a judge make the call.
https://www.latimes.com./business/story/2022-01-28/waymo-rob...
Don't understand why I'm getting downvoted. This is some pretty evil shit. Safety and secrecy don't mix.
The irony on HN is that virtually every OTHER self driving car mfg / provider is taking far FAR more risks than google if you follow the space.
DMV asked for non-required proprietary info. Google said, sure, but emphasized this would include trade secret info. Govt agreed.
Of course, somehow the fact that you can't trust what govt tells you is google's fault. Hey, how about just keeping things simple.
This leads to that joke about the scariest things someone can here: "I'm the government and I'm here to help".