Slashdot Mirror
Hit-and-Run Suspect Arrested After Her Own Car Calls Cops (yahoo.com)
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?"
It looks like you've been in an accident. I will call an appropriate representative of the local constabulary.
-- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
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
Apps!
Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:
1) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I sleep.
2) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pee.
3) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make kaka.
4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.
5) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I wash my body in the shower.
6) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I relax in the tub.
7) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my teeth.
8) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make passionate love to my wife.
9) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my hair.
10) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read a book.
11) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read Slashdot.
12) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I bake cake.
13) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I put in my contact lenses.
14) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I get ready to play golf.
15) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my laundry.
16) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I think about rugby.
17) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I tie my shoes.
18) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I celebrate the 4th of July.
19) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I water my flowers.
20) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I eat ham.
21) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I use my stapler to staple documents.
22) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I chew bubble gum.
23) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I check the oil in my car.
24) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I look for my TV remote.
25) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I blow my nose.
26) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I rearrange my stamp collection.
27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.
28) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my calisthenics.
29) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I search for a paper clip.
30) Internet of Things devices could send information about me to advertisers.
31) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I sleep.
32) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pee.
33) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make kaka.
34) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pleasure myself.
35) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I wash my body in the shower.
36) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I relax in the tub.
37) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my teeth.
38) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make passionate love to my wife.
39) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my hair.
40) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read a book.
41) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read Slashdot.
42) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I bake cake.
43) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly coll
How long until there are sensors for smoking, drinking(in general), not having both hands on the wheel, talking to passengers?
Sure cars being able to tell when and where you crashed are good, but reporting should be limited to crashes only. Nobody needs to be called if I turn my radio up or if I flip the bird at random.
And I should mention, this prevented no accident. This is the best this system can do, catch a hit and run. Just 1 situation where this helps. Unless you drove off a small cliff and nobody saw.
The dispatcher sounds millenial.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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 ... JESUS CHRIST HOW DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS HAVE THE VOTE?!
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 service may have mishandled customer information. What safety checks are in place to ensure the service doesn't just randomly manufacture these events?
--WooooHoooo--
You *are* allowed to leave the scene of an accident as long as nobody was hurt, and appropriate contact information has been exchanged between the affected parties so that it can be reported when they get home.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Long before the killings in San Bernardino by Muslim Extremists Young pot smoking "Barry" Obama "Interception" decided he hated the U.S.A. and all the crackers in it.
Now after 7 years, Barak Hussein Obama sees the fruits of his ambition dead on the streets in San Bernardino California.
The point is that Muslims are not ALL extremists killers of Caucasians. Mr. Obama's policies regarding immigration has let the Enemy infiltrate the U.S.A. and is waiting for a moment to strike.
Mr. Barak Hussein Obama, once called "Barry", is the Neville Chamberlain of our day and time. Being President of the U.S.A., does not absolve the holder of the Office, from having committed Crimes Against Humanity and Felonies against the Peoples of the United States of America, does not aid and protect the holder of the Office, from immunity of Local, State and Federal Laws of the United States of America and does not exonerate the holder of the Office, from aiding and abiding acts of evil on the Peoples of the United States of America by Terrorists.
Mr. Obama. If I were a Federal Prosecutor, I would gladly see you shackled and marched into a Gas Chamber or Electric Chair, for your "Last Act" on this Earth.
Find me, Kill me, if you can. I have doubt because I "know" your kind.
You would have to be on a road where nobody else is to be worthwhile and yet still have good cell reception.
And why would the dispatcher call the police? Is the spy in the car in there for my good or as police surveillance.
---
As a side now, OnStar can turn on the microphone and listen in whenever they want, the FBI has done that a few times (without warrant, you consent to Onstar snooping and they consent to FBI snooping on their snooping).
Sensors...
Like the one that kept on telling me that the Gas Cap for my Element wasn't on. It was. Like the IR LED in my old Sharp VHS that was supposed to sense End Of Tape. It didn't. Like all of the ones designed to detect Multipactoring in our LINAC. Not only did they fail routinely, eventually the Crowbar failed and blew out the Hard Tube Modulator. Like the one on my brand new Teamaker that is supposed to detect when the Boiler is empty... what is that burning plastic small? (This was just last week.)
Airbags. Hitachi Diode String bias regulators. O2 sensors for Fuel Injection.
Sensors _Fail_, routinely. The more that are added, the more likelihood that one of them will screw up.
Ford probably use some sort of Accelerometer feeding some sort of Computer, with some sort of GPS. Any number of things can happen; the odd bump in the road, a spark elsewhere in the System, Bad Code, and all of a sudden, you are a Hit And Run. In this case, she was.
But say everybody on Road gets to depend on these systems, like they are planning to do in Europe by 2018. And say you wrap yourself around a Moose.
And the System _doesn't_ send out an Alert. And that Moose is getting _pissed_.
Sensors _Fail_, routinely.
I should know- I designed them. I designed some really good ones. A sensor for Moisture Levels in SF6 Insulating Tanks. A Vacuum System that explodes a Slammer Valve for use with radioactive Targets. (Funny- the Old System tripped for no good reason, until the second time that I noticed that it happened when somebody used the Building PA from the Pump Room.) A Paschen Discharge detector for Satellite Electronics. A Synthetic Ruby Scintillator for Beam positioning. A Plate Current Drift Alarm.
We had an Engineering Rule of Thumb- Say you build a System that has a MTBF of One year. You start adding Sensors and Protection. The First Sensor had to have a MTBF of Ten years. Add a Sensor, and now each one has a MTBF of Twenty years. And so on. We learned from the Multipactor Disaster. The Risk of Sensor Failure is Low, and it stays Low, until it gets to ridiculous levels, and then we have a plan for routine Sensor testing and replacement. (BTW, I often spent more time documenting these Sensors than designing and making them...)
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.
I think we're past the stage where people can claim these surveillance devices are there "in case you crash alone and are unable to call for help", and are really about tracking and surveillance and control.
I assume the next step will be to make it a crime to disable these devices, and after that make it a crime not to report when you see one of these devices disabled.
I also think its safe to say, your location track is stuck in a military database just like your phone records, and credit card records. Lest you become upperty about all this surveillance.
"We had a slight weapons malfunction here, but everything is all right now. We're all fine here. How are you?"
(Shoots console)
http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
"I will prove that we have lost our free speech by saying whatever the hell comes into my head."
You are welcome on my lawn.
https://youtu.be/j2zlPNGuPbw
You are welcome on my lawn.
Open the toilet stall door, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
61 The IoT could watch me while I commit crimes.
Learn to love Alaska
I seem to recall this was basically the plot of a 1976 short story by Robert F. Young called "P R N D L L" ... anyone know for sure?
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.
"She gave an inconsistent story to the 911 operator "
It reported a bump to 911 operators, it reported her location, and the dispatcher interrogated her (without a lawyer present) and decided they didn't like her story, and would as a result it violated her privacy and give private details away, no search warrant.
It gave her no opportunity to override it too. And it reacted to a minor bump that neither stopped the car from working, or resulting in any death or major injury.
So no 3 second "I'm calling the police to report you, override? 3....2....1.... you are so busted".
Now you can say "well she hit and run", but this snitch will snitch whenever IT THINKS it should. And we will only hear the reports when it actually is an offense. So should it snitch if she hits the curb in her house? What about bad driving, if it thinks she's driving badly should it snitch on her then? If she hits a tree in the wild, should it snitch on her?
And Ford presumably know people don't want this surveillance shit, because they lobby behind closed doors to make it compulsory. Not even claiming it will save lives, but rather than it could speed up response time. Because if there's a road and cell reception then there are people to see and report it, and if the car was so badly wrecked that the person couldn't call, the chances of it being able to make the call would be tiny too. So this is useless for its claimed purpose, yet a very useful snitch.
Ford Snitch: "You are speeding, I am calling the police!".
That this feature is opt-in on Ford vehicles right? It's called 911 assist and you can turn it on or off, it's part of Sync and My Ford Touch.
It was a boring conversation anyway
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No, it nags you till you turn it on.
There's a similar spyware technique used in Android, if you refused to let Google have your GPS location in previous versions*, then whenever you turn on the GPS it asks if you agree to give Google the location, making it sound like to use Here Maps you also need to let Google have your location too.
Sooner or later you'll accidentally tap "yes" and then you'll find out you can never turn it off. After that the phone even powers up every now and again to get a location from GPS or Wifi or cell tower and sends that on the next data connect to Google.
So Ford lets you turn it off, but if you do, it will nag you till you turn it back on.
(*Android Version 6 does not let you have the choice, it always reports your location to Google and you cannot say no).
*handrubbing intensifies*
So basically you ignore HIS wishes, and hypothesize that his family might prefer the in-car snitch, and PAY ATTENTION to THEIR wishes?
These hypothetical people whose views you value over GP.
So basically a fucking nanny selectively paying attention to views that suit you.
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.
Damn, and I told them to ditch Windows!
The whole idea of having some device calling the authorities for you is the correct one if the _intent_ were that of helping people.
If that were the case I would volunteer to get tracked, and I would install cameras in my own home.
Unfortunately, in the current climate it is not. This push for everything being spied on/intercepted/unencrypted is not pushed by law enforcement, but by the corporations behind the politicians. Remember the original conditions to have an Xbox One working ?
The webcam must be always on, or you can't play on it.
Take the latest knife attack in the London Tube. It seems that the family of the attacker has actually warned the police that he was up to something. Yet he was not stopped. Was any encryption hampering the cops ? Was GPS tracking needed ?
Law enforcement does not care about collecting data, but they have to say that they do, as ordered by the politicians which are in turn owned by personal data obsessed corporations.
and i still believe a car that tattles on its owner or driver to be wrong.....
the next step in this, of course, is for the car to call the cops ahead of you and tell them to ready their radar guns for a speeder... hell, don't even need the radar gun when the car's sensors and gps become certified to provide 'admissible evidence'..
and then, won't need the cops either, the car will just deduct the fine from your bank account and send it to the local authorities, alert the state dmv of the violation, and then disable itself if the dmv says to (too many 'points', etc).
the car is still in good enough shape to make the call'... that's a bullshit made up scenario to justify it
You're just silly now. Even in major airline accidents, where you have big debris fields, there is plenty of self-contained electronics units that survive almost unscathed. And we're talking of shit falling down and hitting the ground at hundreds of miles. In car accidents, most of the car's electronics are just fine. Most modern OnStar-like implementations have their own power source. They get information about the crash while the car has only begun the deceleration phase and hasn't been damaged yet. After storing the event, the module initiates the call. It has the capacity to act autonomously from that point onwards: you could remove the module and its antenna from the car and it'd still work.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Responding to List O'Stuff. All the more relevant, since Googles Nest camera NEVER turns off. Oh, the light goes off, but the camera NEVER does. Huh, imagine that. (And if you believe Googs denial, I've got a bridge (slightly used) that you have to purchase.
You don't get out much, do you? I get great cell reception at home. Home is way out in the boondocks and in an unincorporated township that has a total of six houses that are occupied by residents (there are a few hunting camps).
It's not a bullshit scenario and you know it.
That said, I'd rather suffer the consequences than enable OnStar. I know and accept the risks. Given the number of animals, specifically moose and deer, on the road at night, the risks are not zero. There's no made up scenario needed, it exists right now. I'd still not opt for it but I'm simply pointing out that you're a frothing at the mouth moron.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
i would point out things like onstar transmit at 3 watts instead of around 0.6 for a normal cellphone. and so onstar can get signal and place a call in many places a cellphone would not be able to.
There's no reason not to input a step allowing the driver to cancel the alert before making the call. If the driver doesn't respond in a period of time (say 15-20 seconds), the notification gets sent. But if the driver has the presence of mind and body to override, they should be allowed to do so.
I was blind as to how common hit and run accidents are. If we took the three counties from Palm Beach to Miami, Fl. on the east coast of Florida we have more than 20,000 hit and run cases every year. Imagine loading our prisons if we could catch all 20,000 every year. Maybe we really do the types of camera surveillance that we see in use in London.
While true, I'm not sure that has anything to do with what I said. I do see it as an odd statement coming from a Slashdot poster, now that I think about it. Mission creep, additional features, and all that. I'm not sure that's related either. But, as I said, I've made no statement concerning that functionality as far as I know. Should it then be user-configurable for disabling entirely and changing the times? There are some whom, I assume, would argue that every second counts in an emergency.
If I had to submit an idea, I'd suggest greater configuration and including the capacity to disable it entirely would be the best route. I'd also submit that off should be off, entirely. If one wishes to accept those risks then, by all means, I'm all for it. But, how much complexity is too much? I doubt there's any way to satisfy anyone. Later, in this thread, I proposed an alternative for those wishing to avoid this in its entirety.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But it was the door that wouldn't close, not the windows.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
.. accelerate and lock steering.
R.I.P. Michael Hastings.
"It doesn't do that for no reason." Bullshit... I've seen OnStar throw an emergency call for a crash because the driver took a turn too sharp and went over a curb. It most certainly will call for no reason.
So, using your brand of "logic" Bush and Cheney killed 3000+ Americans on 9/11, plus another 5000+ Americans in a false flag war, plus a million Iraqis.
And you're upset about 14 people in some shitstain town in California? Please.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Luke! We're gonna have company!!
(Captcha: destruct)
If you can't man up to responsibility, at least cars are starting to force it. Now if only my car would call the cops when shit gets stolen off of it... Like my roof rack basket and CB antennae.
Gary Webb: committed suicide, conspiracy theorists believe he was killed in retribution for suggesting the CIA had a hand in the crack-cocaine trade in LA. Of course, he was "killed" 8 years after the entire story had faded into obscurity, partly because Webb had made a lot of it up.
Thomas Drake: whistleblower, reportedly an inspiration to Edward Snowden. Still alive, still talking about his case and what went down. Hardly silenced by any stretch of the word's definition. If anything, an example that works against your crackpot theory, not for it.
After reading up on those two, I really don't care to waste time on the other two. You're a nut. That's it.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Wow, sounds like 1984 is very close to being real now.
It took a few seconds for me to realise that this wasn't a sarcastic comment about US gun laws.
"GPS and house-watch data shows you have repeatedly parked near a suspected narcotics distribution location. You have characteristics of a drug user contrary to the good of the state. Your vehicle will now provide transportation to the rehabilitation center."
(||) Nehmo (||)
So what happens if a sensor is bad and incorrectly detects an accident and calls the dispatch center and the person at the dispatch center decides that the driver is lying to them and calls the police. The police arrive and realize after wasting their time to respond that indeed the driver was right in telling the person on the other end that there wasn't an accident and there was just a bad sensor? Will the person who responded and asked the driver what happened and assumed the driver was lying when they said there wasn't an accident get in trouble for making a false police report? Will car owners be fined for false alarms like some cities do for home burglary systems that send out false alarms that the police respond to?
You swerve to avoid a deer, skid off the road and nearly go into a ditch. You calmly back your car out and pull back onto the road thankful you avoided the deer and didn't go into the ditch. As you are pulling off a voice asks: "Sir, are you okay?" You say: "Yes, I'm okay." the voice then says: "What happened?" you explain: "I swerved to avoid a deer and nearly ended up in a ditch?" The voice asks: "Are you really sure this is what happened?" You ask: "Why?" the voice explains: "You sound like you are drunk and I don't believe your story that you swerved to avoid a deer. I'm notifying the police." You plead: "I'm not making this up, this really happened and I haven't been drinking. Why do you think I sound drunk?" The voice doesn't answer. A few minutes later a police car pulls behind you and turns on it's lights and you pull over. The officer asks for your license and registration then says: "How much have you been drinking tonight?" You tell the cop that you haven't been drinking and the officer asks you to explain your story of the deer. The officer asks if you haven't been drinking then why did the dispatcher think you have been drinking. You tell the cop you have no idea. Since nobody else is there to confirm that there was indeed a deer in the road and the officer didn't observe any deer in the area he decides that your story is fabricated and notices an empty beer can in your car and explains to you that in your state there is an open container law that says if there is an open container in your vehicle he can automatically arrest you for DUI. You didn't drink this beer prior to driving and forgot to get rid of the can as you were working on your car a couple of weeks ago. Thanks to a deer being in the road, deciding to have auto-alert in the event you crash, a 911 dispatcher and police officer not believing your story, and your own stupidity of forgetting to remove a beer can from your car, you are now arrested for DUI even though you didn't drink.
Nothing more to say on the matter the subject says it all.