Hit-and-Run Suspect Arrested After Her Own Car Calls Cops (yahoo.com) 423
Trachman writes: This is a fascinating article about hit and run suspect arrested after her own car reported the crash to authorities. The crash system activates when sensors on the car detect a sudden change of speed or movement. An emergency call is automatically placed to local first responders who can pinpoint the precise location of the incident using information supplied by the vehicle's GPS unit. An audio recording released by the authorities reveals how Bernstein tried to convince the dispatcher that there was no cause for concern. When the dispatcher asks what'd happened, Bernstein responds, "Ma'am, there's no problem. Everything was fine." Suspecting there was more to the situation than Bernstein was letting on, the dispatcher responds: "OK, but your car called in saying you'd been involved in an accident. It doesn't do that for no reason. Did you leave the scene of an accident?"
Clippy returns! (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like you've been in an accident. I will call an appropriate representative of the local constabulary.
Re:Clippy returns! (Score:5, Funny)
"It looks like you've been in an accident. Would you like to hire a Bing lawyer or a certified Bing plastic surgeon? Press '2' if your mouth doesn't work. Press '3' if '2' is damaged. If your wallet flew out the window, please hang up."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm calling to report that a door is a jar!"
When is a door not a door? When it's a jar! If it was simply ajar, it would still be a door.
Snitching devices (Score:2, Insightful)
We live in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us
Unless we live in a cave inside a dense jungle somewhere, we no longer have the luxury to live *OUR OWN* lives
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't "her own" life that she hit with her car, so maybe her car SHOULD be reporting this to the authorities.
Re: Snitching devices (Score:3)
Some day the crime will be 'inciting a riot' through writing an insightful article, or annoying a politician, or being a member of an opposition party. Your car's systems can be instructed to lie, you know; it just doesn't occur to geeks that computers can be told to fake a result.
Re: (Score:3)
Your car's systems can be instructed to lie, you know; it just doesn't occur to geeks that computers can be told to fake a result.
Sure it does. I drive a Volkswagen!
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't want to get hit by a car? Don't drive.
Or walk, or bike, or be anywhere near roads including in buildings near roads? Right?
Maybe if you don't want to be reported for hit-and-run, don't hit people and run away?
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, what good is absolute freedom if we can easily be injured or killed by someone else - be it via negligence or malice - and they suffer no consequences? There's a reasonable compromise somewhere between the two, and I don't think your vehicle automatically calling the authorities is unreasonable. The only circumstance in which that works against you is if you want to deliberately flee the scene of the accident, which is A) criminal, and B) a shitty thing to do anyway. In which case, to hel
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
A car collision is a circumstance that requires reporting nearly 100% of the time. This is what you agree to when you use your license to drive. Not something that started today.
Spare me the Nanny State bullshit. Not only is this very far away from there but it's not even a gov't device. It was a privately designed add-on service that the customer was still paying for. Privately designed, privately agreed to. It is, without question, a safety feature. This is a stupid battle to fight, you should run all the way back to the fridge with your Doritos in it so you can hide your obesity from the internet.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Informative)
A car collision is a circumstance that requires reporting nearly 100% of the time. This is what you agree to when you use your license to drive. Not something that started today.
Not where I live. I'm only obligated to call the police if there's been injury to a person. If someone runs up my tail, we're supposed to stop (safely), make sure no-one's hurt or in danger of imminent hurt, exchange names, addresses, and insurance companies, make sure the vehicles are drivable, and then go our separate ways, or call for a tow if the vehicle is undrivable. The police do not want to know unless someone's been hurt, or (for example) you suspect the other driver/s have been drinking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The police do not want to know ...
Where I live, what the police wants to know and what the law requires are two different things. Just saying.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:4, Informative)
Here in California, it's not *required* to report if there's no injuries but it's still a good idea to have the highway patrol come and take statements to establish who's at fault. They were happy to come do so in my recent non-injury accident and it was important to have everything documented, especially since the other guy didn't have insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
A car collision is a circumstance that requires reporting nearly 100% of the time. This is what you agree to when you use your license to drive. Not something that started today.
Spare me the Nanny State bullshit. Not only is this very far away from there but it's not even a gov't device. It was a privately designed add-on service that the customer was still paying for. Privately designed, privately agreed to. It is, without question, a safety feature. This is a stupid battle to fight, you should run all the way back to the fridge with your Doritos in it so you can hide your obesity from the internet.
So if I hit a young deer, my car detects a impact and decides to involve the cops who start to tele-interrogate me and I should not be bothered by this.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:4, Insightful)
No, instead you should be getting checked out for a possible concusssion. That is why you purchased this safety feature.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
At the point they turned on Emergency Assist, which is optional and which is opt-in. I've recently driven a car with this feature on it - got it as a courtesy car whilst mine was being repaired. I said no when the prompt first appeared, then did my reading. I then thought "hmm - I like the sound of that" and explicitly opted in.
It's entirely voluntary, and entirely opt-in.
Re:So confirming its for surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize that, by your comment, you are accepting that the purpose of this device is to spy on the driver, not *help* the driver in an emergency.
No, at best the AC was accepting it could be used for both.
Re: (Score:3)
...because they who think that the existence on the market of a car with this functionality is the same as forfeiting privacy; because they think through some form of delusion that any and all forms of data collection, even voluntary, must inherently lead to an Orwellian dystopia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, it's just terrible when I pick the high end car with too many gadgets and as a result can't commit the crimes I want. Can't believe I have to turn off my phone or leave it at home whenever I want to go murder or rape someone, completely invasive inconvenience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait until it's turning in you in for stating opinions which run contrary to the government mandated ones and you're being on trial for hate speech, heresy, blasphemy, or whatever thought-crime charges they decide to come up with.
Slippery slope and all that.
Re: Snitching devices (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you mean, repeal?
There was an old Soviet joke: There is freedom of speech in USA and USSR. The difference is that there is also freedom after the speech in USA.
I would not depend on that anymore.
Re: Snitching devices (Score:4, Informative)
You neatly illustrated why we do, in fact, have freedom of speech with a joke. Then, for no reason, you insert a completely unsupported "the sky is falling!" opinion that we will not have freedom of speech in the future.
Honestly, the internet is littered with the ramblings of irrelevant paranoid people predicting this or that catastrophe for the past 20 years. No one cares, because you're always wrong.
freeze peach (Score:2)
"I will prove that we have lost our free speech by saying whatever the hell comes into my head."
Re: (Score:2)
In Capitalist West new car informs on you.
Find the year the advanced phone home electronics become a standard, was introduced in your nation and try to buy a good car just before that year.
That nice decade of advanced engine computing, safe design but no phone home and constant logging.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV. At least it's not spying on me; it's actually mine.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV.
Because it's such a bummer to do a hit and run and get caught.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Not wanting your devices snitching != thinking it's moral to leave the scene of an accident when someone is hurt.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's quite fair to call this "snitching" -- the feature worked as advertised, performing the function that the driver had agreed to have it perform, and likely even paid extra for. It's not like this monitoring service was installed behind her back or without her permission.
If she didn't have the foresight to realize that her summon-help-after-an-accident feature would also make it more difficult to get away with a hit-and-run, that's on her, not on the car.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV.
Because it's such a bummer to do a hit and run and get caught.
Ah, the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" mentality.
How has that worked out for everyone who has lived under governments that have pushed that line? Or parents? Or significant-others? Or bosses? Or law-enforcement? Or any other authority figure?
Wanting privacy and doing something illegal are not the same thing. The trick is figuring out how to prevent the latter without sacrificing the former.
Re: (Score:3)
This person did something illegal, the car did was it was programmed to do, and they got caught. Show me an example, real-world, where a car calls the authorities and the person is unjustly imprisoned as a result.
It's complete hyperbole to call this "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". It's not the same thing at all.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
This person did something illegal, the car did was it was programmed to do, and they got caught. Show me an example, real-world, where a car calls the authorities and the person is unjustly imprisoned as a result.
It's complete hyperbole to call this "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". It's not the same thing at all.
The thread was about living "in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us", which somebody responded with "I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV. At least it's not spying on me; it's actually mine". They are talking about the loss of privacy such monitoring technology causes, and other such consequences, not the criminal actions of this lady. While snitch can mean to disclose criminal or immoral activity, its dictionary definition is "to snatch or steal; pilfer; to turn informer; tattle", and I think the meaning of 'spying' is self-explanatory. A car that tells Ford that I have been using a non-Ford service center for my oil changes is "snitching" on me. A car that tells the cell phone company, and therefore anyone with access to their records, where it is at all times, via cell tower logs is "snitching" on me (you do realize this feature works by having an always-on cell phone system in the car, right?) Whether what I am doing is legal, or illegal, it is still snitching, and destroying a facet of my privacy. Just because the person in this story was caught by a technology she may or may not have understood or agreed to (see article about how it is a standard feature now on Fords and the EU will make it mandatory on cars there) doesn't mean there are not other concerns about such technologies "in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us".
Having my car travel records tell my wife I went to such-and-such store the week before Christmas might ruin the surprise. Having her see the credit card charge for the honeymoon cruise I was hoping to surprise her with, oh well, too bad? Typing a website on the computer and having it suggest/autocomplete to another site about how to escape an abusive relationship, not good for the abused partner.
Now, instead of a significant other, how about a nosy government, or ISP/cell provider willing to sell you out for a few bucks from advertisers. You are suddenly getting junk mail for that little (LEGAL) problem you have, and now everyone in the house knows too. Too bad you checked the agenda for the AA meeting while at work, since now they are getting junk mail sent to you at your work address about that problem too. Oh, you were in the neighborhood where a crime occurred around the same time (according to your car), sounds like probable cause, better come down the station for a few hours while we ask you some questions. Don't worry, you will get it all settled (maybe), and lose a few hours of your life. After all, you didn't do anything illegal, did you?
But don't worry, since I can't show "an example, real-world, where a car calls the authorities and the person is unjustly imprisoned as a result", there must be nothing to worry about "in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us", right? No innocent person has ever gone to jail or prison on misleading circumstantial evidence, right? Or been tasered or shot, right? Right?
Still sound like hyperbole?
BTW: My vehicle is older than Mars Saxman's, and probably has five times+ as many miles as yours (assuming national averages). I actually like being able to work on my own car, and it's cool to refer to the mileage by what fraction of a million it is. Having it not snitch is a side-benefit.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:4, Insightful)
Hyperbole? Only if "call the authorities" is the only thing that spyware like this does. Given the news of the last few years, you should know that there are a lot more risks from spyware than a simple broken crash sensor.
As for your insistence on seeing an "example, real world" - why is it that apologists like you always freak out any time someone suggest that at problem needs to be fixed before it injures someone? Are you only willing to care about something after someone has their life ruined? Are you so suspicious of others that you won't believe them when they point out problems?
Beliefs like this - a just-world hypothesis [wikipedia.org] - is one of the key problem of the modern world. Stop giving the benefit of the doubt when it it isn't deserved.
Re: (Score:3)
Car is loaded with forbidden plants and is involved in a single car accident.
Two parties in a fender bender, nobody hurt, agree that the fault is equal and part amicably. Cops ticked off that they didn't get to salt the wounds with a few tickets.
Re: Snitching devices (Score:3)
How would you know if anyone's car falsely colluded with police to fabricate evidence? By definition meaningless. Once it's possible, it will be done. It's like trying to prove you've been spied on so you can sue for being spied on. You CAN'T.
What would stop a car, momentarily overriden and driven by a hostile, from being driven into a crowd, then driven away, for instance?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you ask some? Tell us which of your freedoms have been denied you that you, personally didn't willingly give away.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanting privacy and doing something illegal are not the same thing. The trick is figuring out how to prevent the latter without sacrificing the former.
And that is why we have privacy laws that are a companion to technologies that can monitor us. And may it always be so.
But when you get in a car and drive on a road that your fellow taxpayers paid to have constructed, you have to accept that a certain level of scrutiny of your actions will occur. Get over it.
Re: (Score:3)
No. It's the old "Don't be a shitbag who hits and runs, and you've got nothing to fear" mentality. Most people don't have a problem with technology that catches people who committed actual crimes, that have actual victims, especially when it was the result of a system performing as advertised when a person chose to have that system installed. Also, you seem to be unaware of this, but there is no "Right to hit and run without
Re:Snitching devices (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, you seem to be unaware of this, but there is no "Right to hit and run without consequence."
Blatant strawman. I never said that, nor do I believe it.
No. It's the old "Don't be a shitbag who hits and runs, and you've got nothing to fear" mentality.
If you never do hit-and-run, you have nothing to fear? No worries about your car constantly reporting its location to the cell provider which can be accessed by law enforcement, or lawyers in lawsuits, or hackers, or sold ("anonymized" of course) to others, or be intercepted and tracked, or ...? No innocent person has ever suffered negative consequences due to information being misconstrued, or misrepresented, or just wrong? So "you've got nothing to fear"?
Most people don't have a problem with technology that catches people who committed actual crimes, that have actual victims
So I assume you will be the first one to volunteer for government cameras to be installed in every room of your house? And be proud to be always wearing a GPS tracker for Mr. Gov? And to install software for the government to monitor all communications from your devices before they get encrypted? I am sure if people did that, the technology would be very effective at catching people that commit actual crimes against actual victims. Am I missing something?
especially when it was the result of a system performing as advertised when a person chose to have that system installed.
Given that this thread is about the privacy implications of such technology, and not this specific crime, this comment is off-topic. But even so, are you sure it was a separately paid option, and not part of a common package, or a standard feature of that model of car, or not on an automatic first month/quarter/year free so it is automatically on? Are you sure she knew about it before it activated, and if so, that it would send her GPS location automatically, and not perhaps just establish a phone call with a response person? The problem is people tend to know about the advantages of features since that is what the makers tout, but they normally don't know about the consequences since the makers try to hide those, and the general population doesn't have the tech background to figure it out themselves. Holding up a case of the technology causing a person to be caught breaking the law doesn't dismiss all the privacy concerns that also come with the same technology.
Re: (Score:3)
I like how you don't even pause for breathe after
Re: (Score:3)
I've read about a couple of cases recently where people have crashed their cars into ditches. They've been injured and unable to get out of the car, and have died *slowly* because no-one knew that they were there. A gadget like this might have saved their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
This. I've got a 15 year old GMC pickup truck. It's getting a little worn around the edges but it actually works fine. Bits fall off from time to time but it really has been pretty cheap on a per mile basis. Looking at the new trucks - they're close to $50K, basically the same truck in terms of engine and frame, have stupid electronic gizmos that I neither need nor want and really don't offer me much. Given the hassle of actually buying a truck, I've pretty much given up on the idea unless the thing dr
Re: (Score:2)
Friend of mine bought an F150 with all the bells and whistles. Yup, 50k. What the ever living fuck. It's an F150. Shouldn't that be along the lines of maybe 30k for the high end model?
And I'm sure you've heard the acronym.. extra money, heh. Bust out another thousand!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we live in a cave inside a dense jungle somewhere, we no longer have the luxury to live *OUR OWN* lives.
It's been a least a century since you had the right to live your "own life" on the public roads. You're expected to drive responsibly, obey the traffic laws, maintain your vehicle in a safe condition, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine if you want to live in a tyrannical nanny state where you can't legally drink a fifth of whiskey and drive home at 100mph on the wrong side of the road.
But some of us prefer our freedoms, with which we have been endowed by our creators and the Founding Fathers.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:4, Interesting)
We live in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us
Unless we live in a cave inside a dense jungle somewhere, we no longer have the luxury to live *OUR OWN* lives
Technically the car didn't "snitch" on her -- it sensed she was in an accident and called for help. She gave an inconsistent story to the 911 operator and made her suspicious, but the car didn't report any details about the accident.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what? I don't give a flying fuck about the privacy, or lack thereof, of people who commit hit-and-runs. And neither should you. The car did exactly what the society would like the modern car to do. If you pull a hit-and-run on me, I certainly want your car to fucking snitch on you. The car offers a viable technological solution to irresponsibility of drivers. I'm all for it.
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the real problem. Hit-and-run drivers *should* be caught and prosecuted, but I don't like any of the automated ways to do this. And, to be honest, I also don't like many of the manual ways to do this.
Only a part of the reason that I dislike these things is that some laws should not exist, but that is a part of the reason.
P.S.: I dislike being tracked on the internet sufficiently that I won't allow flash to be installed, and I ran with javascript disabled until too many web sites required ti to function. Now I use an ad blocker, and enable things on a site by site basis, and am quite annoyed at the need. And this isn't because I want to be able to hit-and-run someone over the internet, it's because I don't like intrusive spying.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the real problem. Hit-and-run drivers *should* be caught and prosecuted, but I don't like any of the automated ways to do this. And, to be honest, I also don't like many of the manual ways to do this.
So, in effect, you just said that although they should be prosecuted, you don't want them to be, most of the time. Unless they turn themselves in, I guess.
Re: Snitching devices (Score:3)
It's not worth the cost.
Re: (Score:3)
In the same way that you opposing mandatory DNA registration and personal GPS trackers being required for the entire population would be you saying you don't want to catch as many murderers etc as possible; any protection of privacy could in theory make prosecuting someone for a crime harder, that doesn't automatically mean we should throw them all out.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what's the point of licensing?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you willing to sacrifice freedom to make laws easier enforceable? Because that is essentially in every case the choice you have. You may say that you do, that's all right. You're far from alone, it seems to be the general tenor today that we can hand over freedom to gain some more protection.
Personally, I'd say that price is too high for my tastes, but it seems that the majority is willing to pay it.
I thought this was America! (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/j2zlPNGuPbw [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
And whatever you do, do not buy chemicals for PCB etching. Or at least get a plywood door first, it's cheaper to replace.
Re: (Score:2)
With all the services now that can etch or mill a one-off PCB design from circuit CAD files, PCB etching isn't really for electronics hobbyists any more anyway. It's really more of an art project now.
Re: (Score:2)
But but but... she broke the law!
Shud-up! You are MY CAR and you don't turn your owner in....
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Snitching devices (Score:5, Informative)
You are allowed to own guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Open the toilet stall door, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing (Score:3)
Bus I was on last week: computer wouldn't let the back door close. Bus driver, acting from experience apparently, shut the bus off, then turned it back on to reboot the computer and get the bus going again.
I'm kind of ambivalent about this. (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand the idea that something that belongs to you handing you over to the authorities is distasteful. On the other hand hit-and-run drivers really suck; one of my college buddies was killed hit by one of them and left to die in ditch. He was just 29.
Driving is one of those things where your actions can affect others so severely that you have to accept that they're regulated; but this shouldn't be something that just happens because law enforcement suddenly discovers it can. We should, as a society, decide that this is something we are willing to accept and mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Oddly, I'm tempted to go with authoritarianism over this. I am a CDL holder. I've driven vehicles from two wheelers to eighteen wheelers.
Deaths in vehicle collisions are iirc the number one killer in the USA. I don't think 90% of operator license holders should have those licenses. We should focus on mass transit and city architectures that make owning a massive metal missile unnecessary.
I also know someone who was injured in a pedestrian-vehicle collision. Thankfully, not fatally. Yet
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Driving is one of those things where your actions can affect others so severely that you have to accept that they're regulated
Thank God that doesn't apply to firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who want to fire in secret would simply disable the transmitter anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know, I know. Let's make it illegal to disable the transmitter. Then nobody can do it without breaking the law! That's gonna keep people from murdering others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Liability / Obligation (Score:2)
Interesting lawsuit potential here, since there may have been no obligation for the "service" to notify authorities when "crash detection" occurs. So does the driver then have any recourse against the service for publishing here data without consent? It seems highly suspect that the service would willy nilly report an accident after talking to the driver and being specifically told that the situation was "all clear."
In this case, the car did exactly what it was designed to do. The issue is that the servi
Re: (Score:2)
What safety checks are in place to ensure the service doesn't just randomly manufacture these events?
If the service "manufactured" an incident, there would be no victim. This lady wasn't arrested simply because her car tattled, she was arrested because there was a hit and run accident with a victim, and her car's data put her at the scene.
Re:Liability / Obligation (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Ford website, the feature is only used when you have (1) linked your mobile to the car's bluetooth, AND (2) have turned the Emergency Assistance on. It calls the standard emergency telephone number of your country (e.g. 911 in US, 112 in UK, 000 in Australia, etc).
For example, from the Australian entry on the site [ford.com.au]: "In the event of an accident severe enough to either trigger airbag deployment or shut off the fuel pump, Emergency Assistance uses your mobile phone, which must be within mobile reception range, to dial triple zero (000). Once connected, Emergency Assistance then transmits a message stating that your vehicle has been in an accident and provides the emergency services operator your precise GPS coordinates. The phone line remains open so that anyone in the vehicle may speak to the operator using the vehicle’s receiver."
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I'm aware.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state. Here is Kansas if there is more than $1000 in property damage you have to notify the police when it occurs, so that's pretty much anythink more than a small fender-bender with the rates body work goes for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Response: "we had a slight weapons malfunction..." (Score:4, Funny)
"We had a slight weapons malfunction here, but everything is all right now. We're all fine here. How are you?"
Re: Response: "we had a slight weapons malfunction (Score:2, Funny)
(Shoots console)
Re: (Score:3)
Happened to Bobby Fletcher too (Score:2)
"It doesn't do that for no reason." (Score:3)
Re:Incrementalism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also pretty helpful if you wrap your car around a tree and are too busy bleeding out to call for an ambulance.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also pretty helpful if you wrap your car around a tree and are too busy bleeding out to call for an ambulance.
You are probably going to think that this is absurd but, I would rather die than be monitored 24/7. I even hate the "emergency dialer" on my god damned lock screen. If it's my time, it's my time. Stop making decisions for me. I am an adult. Fuck off with your "for my own good" shit.
Re:Incrementalism (Score:5, Insightful)
You are probably going to think that this is absurd but, I would rather die than be monitored 24/7.
Yes I do if by "monitored 24/7" you mean "my car calls an ambulance if it looks like I've crashed". I would think your loving family, assuming you have one, might also agree.
I even hate the "emergency dialer" on my god damned lock screen.
That's there so anyone can use any phone to call emergency services even if the owner happens to be incapacitated. How could you possibly think that's a bad thing?
Re:Incrementalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you get a car new enough to dial the cops when you idiotically back into something, it should also be new enough to have a rearview camera. With one of those, you have to be really brain-dead to back into anything. There's a good reason rearview cameras will be mandatory starting 2018.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you the sonofabitch who dented up my trash cans? Maybe you should duct tape your side view mirrors back on. There's one hanging off my fence right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait! I know this one! Because that is exactly what any reasonably intelligent person would do in the same situation! I know ... it wasn't obvious. How could you know that?
Re: (Score:2)
The people who 'have the vote' are the soccer mom idiots who think the world owes them a hugbox and a blanket. I do not want to live in such an orwellian panopticon.
There shouldn't be a computer to debate with in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
"Soccer mom"s" are expected to follow the laws your dreamed of elitist society would enact. Are you really saying they should have no say in the matter?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's probably worth considering at this point that this very day, the leading Republican candidate for President has proposed calling up Bill Gates to "close up the Internet" in order to combat terrorism. And no, this was not "taken out of context" or some tweet by a staffer. It was in his own words in a speech he gave on the USS Yorktown.
https://news.yahoo.com/donald-... [yahoo.com]
So it's not the "s
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever had a human reaction? You know, one of those that ain't rational but emotional. If not, allow me to tell you how they work: You don't think. You act.
One such case is when you hit something with your car. You will want to get away from there. As fast as you can. Because you don't want to be guilty. You don't want to have done it. It's very natural to flee such a scene.
That's the reason why it has been decriminalized around here a few years ago if, and only if, nobody got hurt. If you only hit p
Re:First step towards solving a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
STOP DIGGING YOURSELF A DEEPER HOLE.
In no particular order: Stop lying, stop fleeing the scene of an accident, don't attempt to talk the computer out of what it has recorded ...
Not that I know first hand... However.... There actually is a good reason to leave sometimes. Most of the time, if you have been drinking, it's actually in your best interest to leave if you can. Go home, go to the nearest bar, go the local store buy and drink, a lot, and make sure you either have witnesses you where drinking AFTER the accident or make sure they don't catch you for a couple of hours by going home. But leave the scene and go drinking.
The legal costs for a DUI and leaving the accident are usually about the same, but the INSURRANCE costs are NOT and it's not likely to get your license taken away. If you have a creditable story that you left the scene and when drinking, there is no way they will try the DUI case because they cannot prove what your BAC was when you where behind the wheel so all you will get is leaving the scene charge. This may not be significant for the first DUI, but for second and third offenses, it very well may be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not RECOMMENDING folks do this, only pointing out that there is sometimes a huge financial incentive for leaving the scene of that accident, especially if you are drunk and already have a DUI or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)