If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Obama: "Trust us. If we make it so that every car can be tracked, the government will not use it for nefarious purposes"   (cnsnews.com) divider line 185
    More: Scary, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Obama, senate commerce committee, John Holdren, Infrastructure Committee, White House Office, commercial vehicles, autonomous vehicle  
•       •       •

1559 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 1:03 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-20 03:59:25 PM

ShardingGreat: This country has become the very thing we once abhorred.


Beets?
 
2013-11-20 04:01:07 PM

4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

the government

Have to say I assumed "moron" was directed at Jimmy.  He's a moderator who -- in 2013 PSE (post-Snowden era) -- says move along, move along ya paranoid Fark.  Am I posting on the wrong site here?  Or is this his way of trying to pump up the thread, like how you get the green with headlines that misstate or overstate what is linked?


Did you read the article? It's about the government deciding if they want to get involved with vehicle to vehicle communications technology.

Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.
 
2013-11-20 04:01:58 PM

Snarfangel: ShardingGreat: This country has become the very thing we once abhorred.

Beets?


I abhorred Brussels sprouts when I was a kid.  I like them now.
 
2013-11-20 04:07:28 PM

James!: Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.


Hey, I can call Obama if I lose track of where I parked in the lot.  What's the problem here?
 
2013-11-20 04:09:24 PM

Fart_Machine: James!: Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

Hey, I can call Obama if I lose track of where I parked in the lot.  What's the problem here?


Wouldn't it just suck terribly if the authorities could switch this on and track your car down in case of a carjacking.
 
2013-11-20 04:12:17 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Fart_Machine: James!: Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

Hey, I can call Obama if I lose track of where I parked in the lot.  What's the problem here?

Wouldn't it just suck terribly if the authorities could switch this on and track your car down in case of a carjacking.


People pay for that already.  shiat, Gieco will give you a discount if you plug in a monitor for your car.
 
2013-11-20 04:13:19 PM

Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.


So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.
 
2013-11-20 04:14:45 PM

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

the government

Have to say I assumed "moron" was directed at Jimmy.  He's a moderator who -- in 2013 PSE (post-Snowden era) -- says move along, move along ya paranoid Fark.  Am I posting on the wrong site here?  Or is this his way of trying to pump up the thread, like how you get the green with headlines that misstate or overstate what is linked?

Did you read the article? It's about the government deciding if they want to get involved with vehicle to vehicle communications technology.

Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.


Yeah... I'm sure the info would never be used unethically.  You're right.  We must have a mental illness to ever think about the US Government ever doing anything untoward.
 
2013-11-20 04:15:43 PM

Relatively Obscure: I will have to look at other sources for this, because CNS.  But, yeah, if something ends up required that ALLOWS that car to be tracked, then there's a pretty good chance it's going to be used to track some cars.


Nobody working for the government could ever user their position for evil.

Relax, Citizen
 
2013-11-20 04:17:59 PM

4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.


Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.
 
2013-11-20 04:19:03 PM

dittybopper: Magorn: Jesus christ stop and think for a minute.   V2V is a necessary step in the widespread use of of Self-driving cars such as the ones Google is making.  Cas, which will, by the way do absolute farking miracles for the congestion plaguing most major cities.  Computer controlled cars can be driven much closer totogether since the can react much faster than humans can to changing conditions on the road meaning you can fir roughly three cars into the space occupied by one now, and drive them all at highway speed

So long as it's an option, and not mandatory, I've got zero problems with that.

If it becomes mandatory for every new vehicle, though, then I've got a problem with it.


My guess is it will probably start with special lanes just for Self driven vehicles or exemptions that let them use the HOV lanes  and the adoption problem will take care of itself.   Va made the Main route into washing ton DC (Rt. 66) HOV-2 only many years ago.   As a result, first we saw the rise of hitchiking as a viable commuting option come into being (We call it "slugging" around here but that's essentially what it is, you line up at certain known sports and cars needing extra passengers to use the HOV lanes stop and pick you up)  .  The n a few years back, Hybrid vehicles were also allowed to use the HOV lanes (they get special plates)   and suddenly every third car I saw on the No. Va roads was a Prius
 
2013-11-20 04:20:14 PM

James!: Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.


You know how I know you don't know much about technology?
 
2013-11-20 04:21:24 PM

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.


Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)
 
2013-11-20 04:34:08 PM

Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.

Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)


Right now they have prototypes.  Getting one car to drive a route is far easier than getting thousands to safely navigate thousands of routes.
 
2013-11-20 04:36:06 PM
Magorn:   guessing most states switching to "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner

Grok wonder how friends will make big piles of rocks if no-fault
 
2013-11-20 04:36:57 PM

James!: Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.

Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)

Right now they have prototypes.  Getting one car to drive a route is far easier than getting thousands to safely navigate thousands of routes.



So it's ok to allow government overreach because they lack the real-world capability of actually making it work...  Sort of like the ACA, right?
 
2013-11-20 04:42:04 PM

skylabdown: James!: Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.

Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)

Right now they have prototypes.  Getting one car to drive a route is far easier than getting thousands to safely navigate thousands of routes.


So it's ok to allow government overreach because they lack the real-world capability of actually making it work...  Sort of like the ACA, right?


I'm not not going to lose any sleep about hypothetical overreach involving technologies that don't exist yet.
 
2013-11-20 04:47:43 PM
Hmmm, the coolness of having my car drive itself vs a record of my every movement. That's a toughie. Maybe the answer is to put a dummy inside the car and have it drive from your house to random locations so that no trip can be definitely ascribed to you.
 
2013-11-20 04:48:12 PM

James!: skylabdown: James!: Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:

So it's ok to allow government overreach because they lack the real-world capability of actually making it work...  Sort of like the ACA, right?


Siri, generate invoice for $39 to skylabdown for: new keyboard
 
2013-11-20 05:05:23 PM

James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.


But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!
 
2013-11-20 05:06:55 PM
I just assume the government can already track our cars whenever they damn well please without telling us.

why do stories like this surprise people?
 
2013-11-20 05:07:10 PM

Gyrfalcon: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!


And anyone who doesn't is a fascist.  That's what I've learned today.
 
2013-11-20 05:59:03 PM

Gyrfalcon: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!


Wouldn't it be nice to have the discussion, make some decisions, and have a policy in place before something bites us in the ass instead of trying to scramble around and fix it afterward? Maybe just once?
 
2013-11-20 06:02:15 PM

BizarreMan: I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?


You know how when you sit in a seat and the car goes "bong-bong-bong-bong!" because your seatbelt isn't fastened? That.
 
2013-11-20 06:25:38 PM

dittybopper: OK, so it's pretty obvious you don't really have a clue here.

First, a bit of my background:


i159.photobucket.com
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-20 06:57:22 PM

HeartBurnKid: Zeb Hesselgresser:
My god... conservative humor that's actually pretty funny.
Has the world gone topsy turvy?


Heh, what I thought. I actually laughed.
 
2013-11-20 08:36:09 PM

jjorsett: Gyrfalcon: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!

Wouldn't it be nice to have the discussion, make some decisions, and have a policy in place before something bites us in the ass instead of trying to scramble around and fix it afterward? Maybe just once?


Sure, but can we have a discussion, make decisions, and implement a policy based on rational thinking and not on paranoid freakouts? That research could go in a lot of other directions, some of which we may need, so panicking about how it MIGHT be misused and shutting it down based on that fear would be a really bad idea.

For instance, if we had freaked out about how satellite technology MIGHT have been misused, we'd never have developed any of it, and would likely now be under Soviet rule, having let them go ahead with their tech (however half-assed that was) while we pondered how best to proceed without potentially violating anyone's rights or having tech that could be misused in any way. Sometimes, you need to parallel your policies and your plans.
 
2013-11-20 09:47:31 PM

dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.

Ignore him, he's a moron.

Yes, because the NSA isn't actually pulling all of the metadata from your phone calls, e-mails, and texts and it isn't building a huge facility in Utah to store and analyze all that data.

That's just a figment of my imagination.

And V2V is going to use magical frequencies and modulation techniques that will only be able to be used for its intended purpose and it won't be physically possible for the government to intercept that information and store it.  It's just going to be impossible.  Just like it is impossible for EZPass to be used for purposes other than collecting tolls.


You might remember, but I tend to agree with you on most of this "Keep out of my business" attitude.

That said, I've been rethinking it more lately.  Soon, the issue will be that we're drowning in data, that the easiest way to flag someone is conspicuous absence from the big participation network we live in today.  So I say... let em bite of as much as they want, it only makes regular folks more and more anonymous and obscure.

A guy with a police planted GPS on his car driving back and forth from city to city can be used to find drug dealers and gang connection patterns.

A million people, driving from home to the city to work to home to the beach to god knows where, is just noise.
 
2013-11-20 10:12:19 PM

BeesNuts: A million people, driving from home to the city to work to home to the beach to god knows where, is just noise.



The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20 13 0805

And this is based on the databases and domestic blanket spying the government has done on 340+ million Americans.

How hard can it be to filter out the noise out of those 1 million drivers so you can focus on the 100k or so who might be up to no good based on data already collected?
 
2013-11-20 11:22:10 PM
By the time you hear about it, they've already been doing it.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/report-n-j-man-discovers-e-zpa s s-is-tracked-all-over-nyc/
 
2013-11-21 12:14:34 AM
Noise ain't what it used to be what with them big processor thingamajigs they got nowadays
 
2013-11-21 01:26:16 AM

Vectron: Oh yeah. They are always so quick on the case!
And criminals won't know how to disable tracking.


Yeah, LoJack is a miserable failure.
 
2013-11-21 01:52:54 AM

dr_blasto: cman: dr_blasto: dittybopper: cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?

What makes you so sure we manage elect the lesser of two evils?  I mean, if you think that's the case, than you would have to admit that Bush was less evil than Kerry.

I think it's more accurate to say that we elect evil, and neither is lesser, they are just evil in different ways.

We all know, both sides are bad and equivalent.

One side is more evil than the other. It doesn't matter because they are both still evil. The fact that we Americans can live happily and proud knowing that evil was elected is kinda farked up.

Americans don't vote rationally. They vote single-issue "ABORTION" "GUNS" "SAFETY NET" or they vote team politics.

That is how it is. People look at any one of those items and see absolutes: "gun laws are akin to locking us up in FEMA camps, all freedoms are lost!" "Abortion is murder. You either outlaw it or you're condoning murder." "You cut welfare, you don't care if kids starve to death on the streets."

Team politics: "stupid libtard. I like this law because it pisses you off."

Figure a way to get around that shiat, then you've solved a big part of the puzzle. I don't think it will be solved. I see too many people who, in normal day-to-day conversation, are completely rational, thoughtful and in many cases actually very bright. If Obama, Obamacare, Tea Party or the like comes up, watch out. The same smart people repeat bullshiat and lies and batshiat insane conspiracy.

It just is and we deal with it.


In a first-past-the-post system such as we have for most federal elections, voting for the lesser of two evils is mathematically optimal - that is, your highest probability of a favorable outcome is to vote either for the candidate most likely to win or the candidate second most likely to win, even if the third-most-likely candidate is overwhelmingly superior. The top two candidates have to be almost precisely identical for that to break down. (I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this which this comment box is too small to contain.)

Fixing that system requires voting-system reform - IRV, approval voting, or really almost any alternative that allows you to express "I want candidate A to win, but if A has no chance, I'd rather B than C" at the ballot box. And since both major parties benefit from the FPTP duopoly, that pretty much requires the first move take the form of citizen initiatives. (Those typically have the problem of being beholden to big money, of course, but at least there's a chance.)
 
2013-11-21 07:22:58 AM
Even before he got elected, I found his stances on Civil Liberties alarming. President Obama simply cannot be the "trust me" President and not just because I think white people inherently distrust black men.

We've had too many years of the government, or any corporation who thinks they're entitled, invading our privacy. And for all the ways we're told it's for our own good, none of it ever is.

President Obama has confirmed my worse fears about his thoughts on privacy. He really doesn't believe we're entitled to privacy. His view seems to be only by being a "good citizen" do you deserve any of the benefits he determines you should get. In his view, at most you deserve is to be left alone, but in his world, just like with Bush, everyone is a suspect, everyone is a criminal.

It's pathetic and it's creepy. And extra weird coming from someone who I thought would be better than the Bush/Rove/Cheney cabal. I find his views on privacy and liberty appalling. No wonder he scares the shiat out of white people. He definitely scares the crap of me. I've never been a fan girl, but I did vote for him twice. He narrowly beat out McCain with me and Romney was a no-go from jump.

He has been no better or worse than any of the others. I expected more. I am very disappointed. Kinda like this lady:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/20/cnbc_town_hall_que st ioner_to_obama_im_exhausted_of_defending_you.html
 
2013-11-21 10:46:05 AM

Giltric: BeesNuts: A million people, driving from home to the city to work to home to the beach to god knows where, is just noise.


The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20 13 0805

And this is based on the databases and domestic blanket spying the government has done on 340+ million Americans.

How hard can it be to filter out the noise out of those 1 million drivers so you can focus on the 100k or so who might be up to no good based on data already collected?


Increasingly difficult the more noise there is.  And we're talking about adding an entirely new datastream to their already complex algorithms.

It's about the noise floor, as well as the noise level in the data.  This kind of shiat, blanket collection of cell phone and email metadata in a country that makes more and more phone calls and sends more and more emails and texts year after year, blanket collection of millions upon millions of hours worth of vehicle position data... it *dramatically* raises the noise floor.

And when the noise floor for the data you want gets too high, you start chasing other signals altogether, like taking a closer look at the 25 thousand people who don't own cell phones instead of the 250 million who do.
 
Displayed 35 of 185 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report