Hacker News Reader

Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

One thing I do not see being mentioned, perhaps I missed it, is the potential for 3rd parties to financially benefit from this in the future.

I envision insurance companies running batch queries against Mercedes future API to determine which drivers have unlocked higher speeds and then adding a "High Risk" fee/tax to their policy. Mercedes could charge for access to this API and who knows what it could be used for.

Even more dystopian would be a future where governments can access some API that allows them to Geo-fence drivers into an approved area after a traffic conviction or limit the drivers speed. The more evil side of that coin would be access to a secret encrypted application API bug to stuck throttle accident dissenting voices.

View on HN

We already have some sentencing that allows drivers with a series of DUIs to be allowed to have a limited license which permits them only to drive to/from work, medical appointments, and specific categories of shopping and to, if stopped, breath-test below epsilon BAC at all times.

Having technology aid in enforcing those sentences (such as the breath-test ignition interlock required by some sentences) seems OK to me. I think I'd include geo-fencing into that same level of balancing society's interests and the freedom of someone convicted of multiple DUIs.

It's not going to be for people convicted of multiple DUI's.

If you have multiple DUIs, you should absolutely not be allowed to drive until you’ve been proven sober for a long time (many years). And honestly, even one DUI is enough to remove your driving privileges for years in my opinion. There’s no excuse for driving once you’ve had alcohol. You can just choose not do it, it’s not like you can accidentally drive after having too much alcohol.

We should have significantly better public transit, to make this more humane. But so many people drive dangerously and cause huge amounts of deaths. I think a better long-term fix is to have good public transit so that people have better options and don’t feel like they need to drive everywhere.

Without good transit though...

And of course this is motivation for drunks to oppose transit, if there is minimal transit the law is more likely to take away a license. Minimal transit of course it so bad you wouldn't use it unless after 5 DWIs you have no other options, and that punishment means everyone else sees no value and so won't vote to expand it.

Your city needs a serious transit redesign in favor of getting as many people as possible on because it is a better option (cheaper and not much less convenient). Then get those riders to support expansions. Good luck though.

I agree with this prima facie. My cynical view based on my own witnessing of history is what concerns me. When people are required to install an interlock, that makes sense and is a good balance of enforcement and allowing a person to still function in society.

My concern is that when such a process starts to utilize a simple remote computer interface, it will just be a matter of time when the scope of such controls are broadened and abused by humans, or worse, by some machine learning that makes decisions based on calculated risk rather than an in-person court hearing. Maybe this never happens, I surely hope it doesn't. Over time I have lost confidence in people to do what is right vs. what is easy.

Another concern is that computers will set the Geo-fenced parameters by specific GPS limits that cut off some streets required for access to work or the store without implementing soft-limit buffer zones. At least I could see people accidentally leaving out such a safety feature and then the former DUI convict crosses over an arbitrary line, their car signals the police, the police press a button, car pulls over and driver is off to jail thus forcing that person to feed the prison industrial complex even more.

In short, when they implement this, there had best be a buffer-zone warning alert to keep drivers away from the edge. [1]

[1] - https://youtu.be/ChgNB_7bcOU?t=88

> Even more dystopian would be a future where governments can access some API that allows them to Geo-fence drivers into an approved area after a traffic conviction or limit the drivers speed

That doesn’t seem dystopian at all. Drivers are expected to follow the law but kill tens of thousands of people annually and injure at least an order of magnitude more. Requiring a high-powered bit of heavy equipment to be geofenced like a 20 pound rental scooter often is would save a city’s worth of lives and billions of dollars every year, and it’s not doing anything outside the democratic process which sets traffic laws in the first place. It also does so without any of the well-founded concerns that traffic enforcement will be inconsistently applied to different ages, ethnicities, income levels, etc. and would have zero privacy implications.

Tesla already does this.

They snoop at how you drive your car - and take appropriate action with their tesla insurance company.

Additionally, they do the same thing for "self-driving" firmware - not allowing you to use it unless you are a "safe driver"

This should be more publicized!

I was shopping for a new car couple months ago and skipped Tesla because I don’t like Elon as a person. I certainly would not buy a car that does that!

> API to determine which drivers have unlocked higher speeds and then adding a "High Risk" fee/tax to their policy.

That already exists. It's the horse power figure on the sticker.

Since the 60's, those kids modifying their mustangs for extra horsepower have not had these problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com