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?"

29 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    1. Re:Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Snitching devices by PvtVoid · · 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.

    4. Re:Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Snitching devices by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not wanting your devices snitching != thinking it's moral to leave the scene of an accident when someone is hurt.

    6. Re:Snitching devices by HiThere · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re: Snitching devices by Opportunist · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Snitching devices by Jeremi · · 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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    10. Re:Snitching devices by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It would be a small price to pay just to have our lives back.

      It's only small until you lose a loved one, moron.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Snitching devices by dunkindave · · 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.

    12. Re: Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about don't run your car into stuff, dumbass. What, there's not enough road for you? You have to veer off? If your concern is your car ratting on you for driving illegally my pro tip is either learn to drive or stop driving. Your right to be a moron doesn't trump my right to not dying because of your stupidity.

    13. Re:Snitching devices by Endymion · · Score: 3, 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 - is one of the key problem of the modern world. Stop giving the benefit of the doubt when it it isn't deserved.

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
    14. Re:Snitching devices by dunkindave · · Score: 3, 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.

    15. Re:Snitching devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hillary "Your kid might die unless we ban encryption" Clinton, is that you?

      Because you're trying the same scaremongering clap-trap, a plea to emotional thinking ("dead loved one") rather than rational risk analysis, and you followed it up with an insult to try to add weight.

      Why wouldn't these devices give the user a 3 second cancel option before they report them to the police?
      Why should a dispatcher be able to cold call a person in a car and interrogate them like that?
      Why should that dispatcher be able to received details of their driving, location etc. reported by THEIR car AGAINST the owners wishes?

      At what point was the OWNER consulted by their CAR on this?

      How many other devices should report their owners to authorities? Taking it to extremes should your fridge report your eating habits to your health insurance company? But what if it might save you from a heart attack? It's all fine till you lose a loved one!

      Fuck off nanny MobileTatsu-NJG... there, see does adding an insult make the argument stronger? No? Then curb your moron language and make rational arguments.

    16. Re:Snitching devices by MobileTatsu-NJG · · 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.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:Snitching devices by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, instead you should be getting checked out for a possible concusssion. That is why you purchased this safety feature.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:Snitching devices by righteousness · · 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.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    19. Re:Snitching devices by mccalli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At what point was the OWNER consulted by their CAR on this?

      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.

  2. Re:Incrementalism by Sowelu · · 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.

  3. I'm kind of ambivalent about this. by hey! · · 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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:I'm kind of ambivalent about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      How about all guns automatically send a report when they were fired?

    2. Re:I'm kind of ambivalent about this. by sandbagger · · 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.

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  4. Re:Incrementalism by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  5. Re:Clippy returns! by rockout · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this had been an auto-driving car, in all likelihood the accident would never have happened.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  6. So confirming its for surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, 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.

    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.

    1. Re:So confirming its for surveillance by ranton · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  7. Re:Incrementalism by rockout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because he's an idiot.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.