Autonomous Cars - Are They Realistic?

[redpoint5]

I don't think the government has an interest in people's porn habits since it isn't illegal, and isn't associated with illegal behavior. Besides all that, you don't want a lot of "suspects", you want as few as possible so that attention is appropriately focused.

[Piotrsko]

Been my experiences that a casual investigation usually becomes a major investigation because you can be investigated for "suspicion" of illegality.

[redpoint5]

That's why we elect judges to restrain the law and to make judgements as to when someone is reasonably a suspect for further investigation. The government has no right to gather personal information when an individual is not suspect and there is no warrant to gather the information.

For instance, when a police officer performs a traffic stop, they have no right to search the vehicle simply due to a traffic violation. They may observe what is clearly visible through the windows, but that's where their right to search ends. If they were to open a trunk and find criminal evidence, it would be inadmissible because they did not have the authority to search it. Due process must be followed.

I'm not involved in any criminal activity, so I would not likely be a suspect. There would be no reason to subpoena my Google searches.

Perhaps someday the government (people) will become corrupt and declare freedom of speech illegal and then use that as cause to subpoena my Google searches and proceed with criminal prosecution against me. If that happens, I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to stand up for the freedom to think (which is what the First Amendment is about, and protected by the Second Amendment), and I won't slink into the shadows and hide in a totally corrupt and dangerous society.

My responsibility to resist evil exceeds all other responsibilities, even to preserving my own life. The threat of death is merely physical, whereas evil threatens the meaning of life, which is far more dangerous than death. Abiding in evil is worse than death. Just think, would it be worse to be a Nazi SS murderer, or to simply be dead?

[freebeard]

That's why we elect judges to restrain the law and to make judgements as to when someone is reasonably a suspect for further investigation. The government has no right to gather personal information when an individual is not suspect, and there is no warrant to gather the information.

How quaint. [cough]FISA[cough]

The warrant just gives permission for the government to delve into the information/metadata residing in the World Brain. Internet never forgets, it just gets rebranded as IOT or 'the cloud'. The record continues with it's exponential growth, even if nobody looks.

[Piotrsko]

Try traveling anywhere with $11,000 cash in your pockets and see what happens, especially if you are a minority.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

How quaint. [cough]FISA[cough]

The warrant just gives permission for the government to delve into the information/metadata residing in the World Brain. Internet never forgets, it just gets rebranded as IOT or 'the cloud'. The record continues with it's exponential growth, even if nobody looks.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, only saying that it's up to us to police it via elected officials.

That said, I don't believe there is a widespread problem of innocent people being spied on and convicted, and am therefore not (much) concerned of the government using the data I share online against me.

I'm more likely to meet my demise from my own doing rather than an evil outside force, and statistically most likely from heart disease and cancer.

If someone evil wanted to "get me" via "cyber methods", they could just as easily (or more easily) fabricate the whole thing. Since the internet is forever, it at least provides a means for me to document fairly consistent behavior, or at least snapshots in time into my position on things.

Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.
If an application is denied by one judge of the court, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court, but may appeal to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was made in 2002 (In re Sealed Case No. 02-001), 24 years after the founding of the court.
Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.[4] This does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court.

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Try traveling anywhere with $11,000 cash in your pockets and see what happens, especially if you are a minority.

I'm an extreme minority. In fact, I'm one of a kind. I've travelled in excess of $11k several times.

I don't know what $11k has to do with anything.

[freebeard]

$10K is a trigger for confiscation.

I'm more likely to meet my demise from my own doing rather than an evil outside force, and statistically most likely from heart disease and cancer.

I'm my own worst enemy, as well.

[NeilBlanchard]

Another major part of autonomous cars, that will be a difficult hurdle, is fleet intelligence. This would be a HUGE benefit - not only for traffic and correction and coordination, but in improving autonomous driving, over time.

That sounds great - but what standard will we use? Who determines how cars even communicate what they "learn", let alone how the information gets used?

[redpoint5]

There will probably be (at least) 2 wireless communication systems at play.

One will run from cell or satellite for a WAN connection to the manufacturer's AI where databases will store heaps of data. The AI will compute improvements to driving behavior and send those updates back to the vehicles. These will be targeted to specific geographic location, vehicle model, and perhaps even take into account individual considerations. A crash that closes down a road will be reported to the AI, and then vehicles in that geographic location will receive updates to avoid that route. Even things like potholes or other road hazards of note will be stored in a database and distributed to vehicles. All of the data will be encrypted to preserve the intellectual property and prevent malicious or unapproved updates to the vehicle.

The other wireless communication will be shorter range and a universal protocol, with all nearby vehicles able to send and receive info such as current location, heading, speed, intentions, etc. A basic standard of operation will need to be adopted so that cars can mesh through an intersection without causing undue disruption to traffic flow. An ambulance for instance will have the highest priority, and all vehicles will adjust their behavior to accommodate the ambulance. In normal operation though, each car will be given the same priority, so behavior through an intersection for instance will distribute the wait or slowdown evenly between the other vehicles. The longer a vehicle waits or is slowed relative to surrounding cars, the higher the priority it will be given so that instead of being the vehicle to slow down to accommodate another vehicle going through the intersection, it will speed up, with the other cars slowing. Their priority status will fluctuate near to the average in this way.

Potential hazards could also be communicated to nearby vehicles. A dog running toward the street could be identified by the cameras in one car that isn't visible to others, but the hazard type, location, bearing, and speed could be disseminated to nearby vehicles so they can avoid the hazard despite not detecting it.

[freebeard]

Another major part of autonomous cars, that will be a difficult hurdle, is fleet intelligence. This would be a HUGE benefit - not only for traffic and correction and coordination, but in improving autonomous driving, over time.

When they take out the traffic lights and every intersection is a circle-eight race, they'll have to opaque the windshields to prevent heart attacks among the occupants.