Hacker News Reader

Comment by sili | Hacker News Reader

If the primary use for these really is to help find the car in an event of an accident then why are there penalties in place for circumventing the tracking. Shouldn't this be as politically controversial as forcing me to buy health insurance?

View on HN

No, the primary purpose of these is to determine the events that lead up to an accident. The penalty is because the only people with an economic incentive to remove the boxes are the ones likely to cause accidents.

Seriously? This statement is synonymous with, "If you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to fear." I expect this fallacy from politicians but I'm pretty surprised to hear it from you.

I've noticed you seem to dedicate a lot of time to denouncing privacy and civil liberties issues on HN lately, but that statement is absurd.

I care about real privacy and civil liberties issues. Compared to drug dog probable cause searches, this is a tinfoil hat concern. My guess is that many of the people denouncing EDRs the loudest have EDRs in their cars and didn't even know about it.

If you feel like I spend a lot of time shouting down civil liberties issues, consider that maybe that has less to do with me --- a liberal ACLU supporter and donor --- and more to do with the tenor of civil liberties discussions on HN.

... I mean, if you care enough to consider why I'm on the other side of this issue. If you just want to yell at me, that's fine too. (Really, it's fine; I'm not being snide).

Well the point was to call out that offensive fallacy, not to berate your own views. To be honest though, I feel like you are the guy referred to in the top post, in every thread on (what I and many others, including the EFF consider) real privacy and civil liberties issues.

I also don't understand why you keep using "they can already do this" as an argument against those who are opposed to these issues. The fact that many people are unknowingly already equipped with EDRs is completely irrelevant. Or that companies already share breach data. Your logic is such that if X is already doing Y, being opposed to X is an invalid position. What?

I don't think you can call anything a tinfoil hat concern without understanding every individual's reasons for being opposed to something.

I don't want someone logging everything I do and everywhere I go, and not being in control of that data (yes I own a cell phone; see previous). Why? The same reason many people want the right to own a gun.[1] "Because fuck you, that's why." The fact that I have nothing to hide, to me, is all the more reason I deserve to be left alone.

[1] I personally don't actually believe society is better off with guns. I think the "protection" argument is equivalent to what tinfoil hats say. But it doesn't matter what I think. That's what it means to be a civil libertarian. I don't care what your voter registration says or who you donate to, if you don't understand this, you are not a civil libertarian.

"Hacker News comment threads: where people apply 'works on my machine' to social problems."

https://twitter.com/#!/jcoglan/status/192408075917983744

It would have been helpful if you had read the legislation we're commenting on before forming an opinion about me based on my position on that legislation.

If this is really the case wouldn't they be designed with exceedingly short memories (a few minutes at most)?

Don't forget about hit and runs.

This. The EDRs would serve no purpose if access to data could be eliminated right after an accident.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com