You're using a highly regulated piece of equipment that kills over 40,000 people in America annually. What do you feel is the appropriate balance?
How is this different to driving around with a mobile phone on?
How is this different to driving around with a mobile phone on?
My opinion is irrelevent as I do not live in Virginia and am not a lawmaker, but I would want this to be tied to a vehicle telematic privacy bill that restricted how cars use telemetry data and gives consumers rights to control what is logged and who sees it and who it can be sold to.
Until we own the data our cars generate, I don't want active speed and acceleration constraint software for "chronic criminals" because inevitably it will be mandatory on all cars and remotely controllable by law enforcement.
The only answer is to make this kind of thing illegal at the level of the state constitution and/or federal case law, at least until we bring back tarring and feathering government officials who violate their oaths.
Is that what the bill proposes? everyone's vehicle is now monitored all the time?
It's a very simple problem with a very simple solution. If someone proves multiple times they won't follow the rules of the road, revoke their ability to legally drive. Most states go to jail time on the first or second offense of driving without a valid license.
This whole argument smacks of "let's not make things too hard on these people willfully violating our laws over and over and over again."
>I drove 300 miles in rural Virginia, then asked police to send me their public surveillance footage of my car. Here’s what I learned.
https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur...
That is a 100% strawman argument. NO ONE is proposing such measures
No proposal, even the blanket EU requirements eliminate privacy in travel. The devices all work entirely locally with GPS to monitor speed vs local limits, and upon exceeding local limits, output an audio/tactile alert and/or limit accelerator input. I have never seen any mention of reporting speeds or positions, and would be very alarmed if I had; if you've seen any, please provide citations.
Again, no one is proposing monitoring everyone all the time. The proposal is only for temporary monitors/limiters to be placed on cars of people convicted o related offenses after due judicial process, and only for the time of their sentence. Again, if you have citations on more extensive restrictions, please post them.
The only real difference is that old vehicles need to be retrofitted, while the hardware and software needed to do this is largely already present in new vehicles (or soon will be in the remaining exceptions on the market).
It is impossible to implement a backdoor to a broadly-used encryption method for only specific criminal individuals - it is being implemented across the entire usage base.
Adding a device to a specific criminal's vehicle for a limited time is highly specific.
I absolutely oppose any general application, and am favorable towards the slippery slope argument. I'm only responding to the above comment which falsely claims that we've already gone entirely down the slippery slope.
A user controllable software limiter is already in Tesla vehicles for example. It would not take much to go from it being user controllable to being controlled by state law. That brings us to an issue analogous to the issue opponents of backdoors in encryption want to avoid, which is that there is nothing stopping it from being used indiscriminately.
That said, this would likely start with adding devices to “criminal’s” vehicles because older vehicles do not support this, but it would end with these “device” being integrated into every vehicle from the factory, since the other safety equipment being included in vehicles makes it easy to deploy this in software. I find it odd that people who are opposed to encryption backdoors do not see this.
For the topic of the post, YES
The article was specifically about laws allowing a JUDGE to add a device to a specific convicted person's vehicle for a limited time.
OF COURSE there is the slippery-slope argument you describe very well.
The slippery slope danger is real, and I've stated that I oppose any motion down it.
But I also oppose posts which wrongly scream that we have already slid down it entirely when in fact the article is about taking a single limited step down the slope.
Descending every slippery slope is not inevitable. Falsely declaring that it's already done is at best a strawman argument.
Yet, evidently as soon as any surveillance topic comes up, hordes of HNers are happy to discard reading comprehension and act as if any hint that a step might be taken onto a slippery slope is a full endorsement of speedrunning down it.
I expect there will be a LOT of push-back on that one, and there are still also many areas without cell coverage. Would you expect all cars would stop running without cell coverage?
Here's at least one entirely new car, with Bezos' backing, that AFAICT will have zero internet connection. [0] Considering the cost trajectory of cars, and the general distaste for surveillance, a low-cost car without those add-ons may be very popular.
And, AGAIN, the point was entirely about the GP post's massive exaggerations, not about a general implementation which I strongly oppose. You and GP evidently think it is OK to exaggerate and speak like every bad thing related to the topic has already happened; I think at least some adherence to the facts makes sense. It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. Particularly since we do seem to agree on the broader topic that general implementation of speed limiters is awful and to be avoided
[0] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64564869/2027-slate-truck...
I repeat: that ship has sailed
>I drove 300 miles in rural Virginia, then asked police to send me their public surveillance footage of my car. Here’s what I learned.
https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur...
And yes, I oppose those also, in large part because they are 1) a general dragnet against every traveler, 2) have zero specificity to any particular individual, and 3) have no judicial check or due process on their use.
Adding an individual device to an individual's car after repeated breaking of laws (and perhaps more importantly, repeated failures to keep it discreet enough to not be repeatedly caught) has zero of those properties. It is for a specific individual, for a specific time, after due judicial process. As long as it stays confined to those parameters, it seems more acceptable than many alternatives.
Driving a car on public roads has not resembled this phrase for over a century in most of the world.
Walking is free. Pretty private too. Lace up.
Are you serious? I can choose to leave my mobile phone home if I want to. I can't do that with my car.