Olive Badger on Car "Kill Switches"

My comment:

I need to listen to this again because I got to the end and I was thinking "but wait, why do you need to id the driver at all? Don't you just need to check that the person sitting behind the wheel, whoever they may be, is not drunk, impaired, asleep, whatever?" This is a decision that can be made entirely locally by some "logic" in the car can't it? Or do these systems need really big AI back-ends to function. The answer would be for the legislation to mandate a "Chinese wall" between the DADSS subsystem and the vehicle ownership data, and to forbid the logging or transmission of the data. That might be a bit hard to enforce in practice, but there is technology that can do this and do it verifiably, however it seems we aren't allowed to talk about it. 

Subscribe to Olive Badger.

The Supreme Court getting into difficulties trying to treat personal data as property:

The problem is because data (it's really information describing data) is not an object with a location, it is a relation between entities. 

The Fourth Amendment does not cover things like information about someone's location at a particular time. It does mention "papers" but someone's location at a particular time is not a "paper" even though someone's personal papers may refer, either explicitly or implicitly, to their having been at some particular place at some particular time. 

See Jazz Maia on Identity and the Illusion of Duality. 

Subscribe to Forbes Breaking News.