You know, I never thought about the surveillance and privacy violations that AVs bring along with them. It was a big deal with the Google map cars, but there was a person inside. It never crossed my mind that these cars would be in constant contact with law enforcement. I just thought all that information would be used for image processing locally to keep the car intact.
Just goes to show (yet again) that human beings are required to mind the machines to keep them from being used for dubious or nefarious purposes. Someone needs to be responsible for them and their actions because they’re essentially children.
Makes me think of this one.
Exactly! I’ll admit, it’s kind of terrifying to me how quickly people, even very technical people, accept autonomous systems in the name of convenience (or at the very least dismiss them as “harmless”).
I’ve often said that fully autonomous vehicles can’t coexist with human-driven vehicles because there’s no way they can account for human randomness/recklessness/stupidity. It’s all or nothing, because humans and machines don’t play by the same rules and there are deadly consequences when those rules come into conflict.
Yeah, the rolling surveillance tool wasn’t expected by me either.
I think it’s the case that police and other LEOs regularly subpoena Ring and other cloud-based door cameras without ever contacting the actual ‘owner’ of said camera. With this part in mind, it makes way more sense. Waymo needs local buy-in, I imagine ‘I’ll call the cops for you’ is a big bargaining chip for them.