Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gimpei | Hacker News Reader

I dunno. This doesn’t bother me in the same way that flock cameras do. A Waymo car is a private space that you don’t have to use if you don’t want to. Seems pretty reasonable to me that Waymo doesn’t want their cars used for drive by shootings. If a drive by were to happen in a Waymo, this would be compelled by law anyway.

View on HN

It starts to become a problem once you’ve replaced public infrastructure to a sufficient degree by private infrastructure like waymos that avoiding to use them starts to seriously inconvenience people.

What public infrastructure is replaced by Waymo? All the roads, traffic lights, signs, etc are all still there. Seems equivalent to any other vehicle that is not replacing public infrastructure.

Taxis are a part of transportation infrastructure. Like a system that allows public and private healthcare, a private option pulls the rich people off the public system causing them to neglect and vote against the public system.

So waymos means less busses/trains, which means a bunch of people stuck in the middle - they would prefer to take a bus or a train but the service is poorly maintained so they are forced to take a waymo.

Taxis, busses, and trains are all private spaces with cameras in them.

Public infrastructure has been run by private companies for a long time.

Yes. And the use of cameras has traditionally been: if something happens, there is a record that can be consulted.

That has changed. Networked cameras and AI means that cameras can be constantly monitored: license plates logged and mapped in realtime, faces scanned and profiled, symbols and objects detected.

I have no problem with calling the cops on someone with a gun. But that same kind of tech can (and has already been) seamlessly be turned on protestors, journalists, political opponents, union organizers, and ex girlfriends.

a taxi driver will call the police if you do anything stupid inside them, usually after dropping you in the middle of the street, your argument doesn't hold any water.

Yes. Totally. Will a taxi driver call the police to let them know where I was if I am a journalist on my way to meet a source?

Networked cameras with ai monitoring is begging for totalitarian oppression. A cabby calling the cops because I did something shitty in their cab is not.

Yeah I don’t get it. You’re getting into a privately owned vehicle. You agree to the terms of service when you sign up and ask for a ride. You should assume you have zero privacy in those cars.

Do you defend LG telescreens too? After all, by using the TV, you agreed to LG watching your every move.

Sure, but the Waymo is taking intrusive video of much more than the inside of the car. And unlike a mast-mounted camera, it can be sent almost anywhere at almost any time.

>Sure, but the Waymo is taking intrusive video of much more than the inside of the car.

The alternative is having a driver in the car, which is equally intrusive.

> The alternative is having a driver in the car, which is equally intrusive.

Would you rather have one random stranger see you naked, or have a video of you naked passed around to every cop in your city?

Unless you feel the same about those two scenarios, it seems like a driver and a camera are not equally intrusive.

>Would you rather have one random stranger see you naked, or have a video of you naked passed around to every cop in your city?

Half the ubers I've been now has a "you're being recorded" notice. Public transit is far worse.

You seem to have missed the point. A recording is one thing. A networked camera being ai-monitored in realtime is another.

Your uber driver is using the video to protect their in-app reputation (also dystopian, but unrelated), and in case a crime is committed against them or they are accused of one.

A networked ai monitored camera system is a panopticon. It will be (or already has been) turned against journalists, protesters, political opponents, ex girlfriends, union organizers, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com