• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    You realized you just proved my point. “We already have nannies for X, why not for Y” leads quickly to “Why not have nannies in all cars”, and then to “We have nannies in all the cars why can’t we turn off cars with criminals in them?”.

    Can you imagine how much worse things could be if Trump’s gestapo could disable cars remotely?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      And yet they’re talking about a nanny as a local device temporarily attached to a car and that does not necessarily “phone home”. Not everything is a “slippery slope”

      And yes, speed governors were all too common after the 1970s fuel crisis. As far as I know they still are on trucks, like rental moving trucks. This is not a new thing, except to allow a court to mandate it for repeat egregious offenders

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        And yet they’re talking about a nanny as a local device temporarily attached to a car and that does not necessarily “phone home”.

        Oh, my sweet summer child. You don’t actually believe that, do you? Read up on the stuff coming to new cars in the US next year …

        • incompetent@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          For those unfamiliar:

          TL;DR: The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires all new cars sold after September 2027 to include technology that monitors whether you’re impaired or distracted—and can prevent you from driving. Infrared cameras will track your eyes, breath sensors will measure alcohol, and your car can refuse to start or limit its speed. Privacy advocates warn this biometric data could be shared with insurance companies, law enforcement, or sold to data brokers.