M0oP0o comments on How To Opt Out Of Your Car’s Surveillance State (Before It’s Too Late)

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

Or americans can grow a spine and stand up to this overreaching bullshit. Stating there is a law and nothing can be done is american capitulation. You ether roll over or fight this sort of stuff, but if you roll over you don't get to sit on a high horse.

People have been making stuff since stuff was made, or do you think everything ever was made from a company's factory? This "nothing can be done" shit has gotten to such a degree of putting the boot on your own neck that you are saying its not possible for people to make a motor vehicle without backing.

If people did make there own cars (or more likely use old frames) and did not put spy tech into their own stuff what's the government's recourse? Enforcement at this degree is not possible, hell you americans hardly have a rule of law left.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

The first paragraph is not really relevant to this thread. Yes, people should be fighting back. Sure. Things are happening regardless though.

People have been making stuff since stuff was made, or do you think everything ever was made from a company's factory?

Making things to function at home is great! We should do more of that, and more FOSS. However, driving on a public road requires that you meet certain conditions. You can't just throw a lawnmower engine on a set of wheels and call that enough. Yes, it'd drive, but it wouldn't be legal. There are many types of vehicle that function that are not road legal. It is possible to meet those requirements with something built at home, but it requires serious technical knowledge, skill, and equipment. It also still has to conform to state and federal regulations.

Also, I agree with this, assuming it isn't abused. I'm an Anarchist, but even I see the need to regulate vehicles people should be allowed to drive. We're driving tons of steel at each other at high speed, just inches apart. You're subjecting others to the danger you create. If your car breaks and swerves into incoming traffic at 60mph, that isn't something the other party willingly consented to. It is the government's role to protect people from harm. We go too far usually, but it needs to exist. I don't want to be on the road where a bunch of homemade junk that hasn't been regulated is driving around.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

Regulating a car to spy and make actions based on that spying is not a valid regulation outside of a nightmare.

And no it is not the government's role is to protect people from harm, this is "think of the children" sort of shit that leads to bad law. Ether we are responsible for our actions or are under control. I don't want to share the road with these new vehicles but apparently have no say, this nonsense is why we all get to live in clown world.

The single greatest safety invention in automobiles by reduced death and injury was the collapsible steering column, everything since has had diminishing returns. In the last 10 years we have seen auto accidents increase (lots of pedestrian strikes) due to stupid new vehicle design. Yet we don't see the demand that new stuff is pulled from the road, instead we see the demand for new rules putting more bad ideas in. This is and never had been about safety.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

Regulating a car to spy and make actions based on that spying is not a valid regulation outside of a nightmare.

Obviously. I'm pretty sure I stated that. Regulations are needed though, so people making shitty cars in their garage is not a reasonable expectation. It's just like I don't expect people to build their own graphics cards on their own. Is it possible? Sure. Is it feasible? Hell no.

And no it is not the government's role is to protect people from harm, this is "think of the children" sort of shit that leads to bad law. Ether we are responsible for our actions or are under control.

Ok, I'll throw you a softball. Let's say there's a corporation that wants to use your labor, but doesn't want to pay you. They buy up all the housing in the area, and all the stores, and they refuse to allow you to buy food or shelter unless you give them your labor, and they'll give you a credit that you can only use at their stores. That's bad, right? The government should be there to protect the people from this exploitation, right? If not, the people end up with no freedom.

Again, it should be limited, but it is necessary.

This is and never had been about safety.

Some of it has. You can watch vehicle safety tests and see the improvement. Crumple zones, for example, are pretty great. I agree though, the new designs should be regulated to be less likely to kill pedestrians. Front ends should not be allowed to be that high or flat, like they are now. Do you not agree? Sure, this isn't being done right now, but you would agree with it being done, right?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

Ok, I’ll throw you a softball. Let’s say there’s a corporation that wants to use your labor, but doesn’t want to pay you. They buy up all the housing in the area, and all the stores, and they refuse to allow you to buy food or shelter unless you give them your labor, and they’ll give you a credit that you can only use at their stores. That’s bad, right? The government should be there to protect the people from this exploitation, right? If not, the people end up with no freedom.

The company store is small back (called loyalty programs), all this is again happening it stopped before due to some very violent incidents and the political fallout forcing legal change. Like most of the government backed rights given. You are discribing the difference between a well run nation (where this shit gets regulated due to the betterment of the state) and the us. Its not the government's job to protect its people from themselves, but to govern a nation towards a better future while keeping outside powers in check. It can look like the government is protecting people, but having that mindset is how you get a police state (see america).

We both agree that regulation is needed, but we don't agree on why and the clear limits that have been crossed. Automobiles are not safer, in fact there are more "accidents" then ever due to blinding lights, over reliance on automation/sensors and limited visibility. What the new standards have done is make crashes more survivable, basicly the idea of fuck you I got mine in large metal and plastic form.

The more people just roll over and take it the more of a circus we all live in. Clown world is going strong just on the inertia of inaction. Americans used to stand up against things they did not agree with, it was called civil disobedience (and more) and got shit done. Now the people of the states get new horrors a dystopian novel would have a hard time coming up with on the regular and they treat it as if its some other peoples issue.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 months ago*

The company store is small back (called loyalty programs), all this is again happening it stopped before due to some very violent incidents and the political fallout forcing legal change. Like most of the government backed rights given. You are discribing the difference between a well run nation (where this shit gets regulated due to the betterment of the state) and the us. Its not the government's job to protect its people from themselves, but to govern a nation towards a better future while keeping outside powers in check. It can look like the government is protecting people, but having that mindset is how you get a police state (see america).

How do you say that this is prevented from happening again due to legal changes, but also say the government shouldn't be doing that? Do you think they should be allowed to? Do you think people should just fight them every time they try it? If the latter, what's the difference between that and a government? (Hint: there isn't one. That is a government.)

Yes, the US is failing to fulfill its obligations to the people. I've made that point. Saying that this means they have no obligations is insane though.

We both agree that regulation is needed, but we don't agree on why and the clear limits that have been crossed. Automobiles are not safer, in fact there are more "accidents" then ever due to blinding lights, over reliance on automation/sensors and limited visibility. What the new standards have done is make crashes more survivable, basicly the idea of fuck you I got mine in large metal and plastic form.

I don't recall stating where I think the limits should be. To be clear, my limits are where it helps protect other people. I don't give a shit if you choose to drive a personal deathtrap, as long as others are as safe as possible, who did not consent. We are failing this but, again, that doesn't mean we should do nothing. It means we need to change things. I'd rather not live in a Mad Max style free-for-all.

Edit: Also, there should be privacy protections. Even if it helps other people, there's no need to destroy all privacy. Your privacy should have protections, just as other people's rights need protecting from your vehicle.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent