[unstyledcontent]

Here in Minneapolis, there have been multiple anecdotal reports of ICE being able to remotely unlock cars, disable them, and even open windows. Whether its true, its certainly seems possible.

Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment.

Im picturing a world where the US could mass disable vehicles based on the owners score in their fancy new palantir database. We should have the right to flee danger and use a vehicle for that.

I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.

[OptionOfT]

Remote unlock is on many cars via an API.

It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc.

It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.

[foogazi]

> Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power.

ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant

So we’re beyond concern now

[gruez]

>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant

Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.

The second amendment only protects the right to arms. Firearms certainly, others as well (swords, if anyone gave a shit about them, body armor for sure, perhaps even others not normally considered to fall under its protection like grenades). If the Constitution protects encryption or un-pre-sabotaged vehicles, the 2nd amendment isn't the portion that does so.

[_DeadFred_]

The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out.

"Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"

[B1FIDO]

One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops.

I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it?

Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries.

So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!

[lp0_on_fire]

That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.

[SoftTalker]

Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window.

It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).

[davorak]

> Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window.

Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice.

Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.

[baubino]

> It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle.

You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.

[colechristensen]

>It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).

Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.

[direwolf20]

ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.

[tim-tday]

Having vehicle override would be an extremely concerning capability. (If confirmed)

Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc.

I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.

[scotty79]

> if we allow our government

This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that.

Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy.

I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that people have a say. But it's time to shake it off because this veil is one of the things used for control.

[Ancapistani]

You underestimate both the capacity of an armed citizenry and the hardware that we have at our disposal.

There are in fact privately owned tanks in the US.

[psunavy03]

Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington.

Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.