Will networked self driving cars become a surveillance nightmare?
Submitted by brad on Thu, 2019-08-29 11:23
Tags:
As I've written earlier, Tesla has the ability to load special "search" neural networks into the cars to hunt for things they want to use to train with. In this article on Forbes, I hypothesize the day when there's an Amber Alert, and police ask to load networks to search for the car and people involved, and it quickly works. And then police get a taste for this, not just in the USA but China and other places. Where does it lead and can we stop it?
Read Will networked self driving cars become a surveillance nightmare?
Share on:
Comments
FKA
Sat, 2019-08-31 17:44
Permalink
Three levels
Historical records possibly fall under Carpenter?
For live records though, I'm not sure you'd be able to convince SCOTUS that it's a search.
And for the "find the kidnapped girl" scenario, surely there'd be exigent circumstances.
--
For live searches, I'm not sure how you could stop this, and I'm also not sure why we should. I guess I've learned to love big brother. (Although not as much as 1984; I do draw the line somewhere before giving up being safe from surveillance in the privacy of my home or office.)
brad
Mon, 2019-09-02 15:02
Permalink
Illegal search
Yes, my concern is that "searching" in public spaces would not be illegal, because of a claim there is no expectation of privacy on the road. However, my point is, that regime may be due for a change. That you can have an "expectation" based on what used to be impossible, and wish to maintain that expectation.
It's clear to me that when constitutional protections against freedom from unreasonable search were defined, if you had said, "What if the government uses an army of robots located everywhere on every road to track everybody's movements" they would have included that as unreasonable search.
FKA
Mon, 2019-09-02 17:15
Permalink
Change
The regime has been changing. Slowly, but Carpenter v. United States was a big step.
I don't think tracking everyone's movements would be constitutional. Using the cameras to catch a wanted person in real time probably would be, though. And using the cameras to rescue a kidnapped child almost certainly would be.
I think the latter two are quite reasonable, too. And I'm much less concerned about the former than I used to be. There are so many ways to track our movements nowadays. Things that used to be impossible are becoming nearly impossible to prevent. We're not there quite yet, but we're getting there.
I do draw the line at private buildings. We should, I think, have privacy there.
Add new comment