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
It's also pretty helpful if you wrap your car around a tree and are too busy bleeding out to call for an ambulance.
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.
Oddly relevant, but I don't think you're the actual apps guy! What does the cow guy have to say about this?
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--
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.
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'
It was mooooving violation! You cows! You all cows! You FINE CORINTHIAN LEATHER cows!
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.
"We had a slight weapons malfunction here, but everything is all right now. We're all fine here. How are you?"
(Shoots console)
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.
I have some bad news for you. You've let Republican propaganda aggravate your condition, and you need to get some help. Sadly, you're too paranoid to get the help you need, so you're trapped in a fantasy world.
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.
Because he's an idiot.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Not really. The dispatcher sounds like they have been on the job for more than a few weeks, and knows that people lie when they call quite often, while computer systems never do that. Sure, both can make mistakes. But only one is actually likely to be lying. Also, it is called erring on the side of caution. You should try it next time.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This brings us to the Gattica Premise: Do we want to live in a world where our tools could report us to the Government because our DNA doesn't fit a certain profile? It might be a safer world if our things tell authorities its user is a serial killer. But go from that to the fact that we carry the polio gene, or cancer genes, or who knows what else. These questions are rapidly approaching.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Well, considering you've been monitored 24/7 since a few months after 9/11... you're only two options at this point are to kill yourself now, or keep being a hypocrite. Sucks to be you.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Highly unlikely. If you *do* manage to generate a crash sufficient to destroy the "black box", you will almost certainly be dead.
61 The IoT could watch me while I commit crimes.
Learn to love Alaska
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
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?
Emergency dialers just end up pocket dialing emergency services for no practical benefit. A decade ago I would have seen the point of emergency dialers realistically today everyone either has their own cell phone or they know how to use the one that is available. While there is no doubt one can conjure up a scenario where this does not hold you would have to try really hard to do so.
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.
It was a boring conversation anyway
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
You realise you're arbitrarily applying a single purpose to a multi-purpose device.
Whereas I would have thought you'd have to have a monumentally poor imagination not to be able to come up with a half dozen or more.
Not really. The dispatcher sounds like they have been on the job for more than a few weeks, and knows that people lie when they call quite often, while computer systems never do that. Sure, both can make mistakes. But only one is actually likely to be lying. Also, it is called erring on the side of caution. You should try it next time.
So as more and more of our lives are automated, you want me to be more welcome to the idea of erring on the side of gullible?
A perfect example would be automated traffic camera ticketing systems (red light cameras). We all thought those were installed for "safety". Half a dozen cities were caught illegally tampering with the timing of yellow lights which are programmed and delayed based on the speed limit for safety. Essentially computers were "lying" and issuing red-light tickets via automated systems due to yellow lights times being shorter than they legally should have been. On top of that, this was also likely causing people who wanted to avoid a ticket to try and come to a stop very quickly, which likely caused accidents to happen when trying to brake for yellow lights programmed illegally and unsafely.
Essentially a "safety" device was not only caught "lying", but it also made certain situations even more dangerous.
Computers can "lie" because humans still program them. And as more of our lives are automated in a society hell-bent on capitalistic greed, it may happen more often than you think.
Alright, suppose there's a dialog coming up: systems have detected an accident and will call for help in 15 seconds. Press CANCEL to abort the call.
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.
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."
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?
The GP did not say it was a bad thing. It is however, really annoying having an extra button there to accidentally hit.
Perhaps we should put emergency buttons everywhere! One on every wall of every room of my house! Oh my God! How was mankind able to survive for millions of years without emergency call buttons on their cell phones????
Note that while you can't opt out of a specific incident, you can opt out of the service entirely.
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.
There's no need for a warrant when *you* call the police. The driver had this feature in the car voluntarily -- you have to pay for it to keep working. This was the driver's choice.
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
"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.
My son ( and many other children under the age of 12 ) do not have a cell phones but most know how to dial 911 ..... on phones that have an emergency dialer screen.
That scenario took me longer to type up than it took to pop into my head ... oh and no my son does not know my wife's nor his grammy's nor my unlock pattern but I can trust him to dial 911 if something does go really really bad.
Seriously your own children don't know how to use your cell phone?
That scenario took me longer to type up than it took to pop into my head ...
It makes no sense.
oh and no my son does not know my wife's nor his grammy's nor my unlock pattern but I can trust him to dial 911 if something does go really really bad.
Next your going to tell me you have a land line and he uses that to call people?
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.
"Spy" is why they sell it. "Help" is how they sell it.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
I simply expect that you, a clearly highly intelligent and technical person because you read Slashdot (I miss the 90's) who knows that people are more likely to lie than systems, not to be an idiot. My expectations have been shattered, BTW. You are acting as though a person sits in jail based solely on the information from the vehicle. Stop being a douchebag. If this was a false positive it isn't the doomsday scenario to which you allude. The fact that there was no accident and no victim would have cleared the driver before they were ever even contacted by the police if it was a false positive. To hear you tell it the system could somehow be a detriment to society. Can you give an example?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I simply expect that you, a clearly highly intelligent and technical person because you read Slashdot (I miss the 90's) who knows that people are more likely to lie than systems, not to be an idiot. My expectations have been shattered, BTW. You are acting as though a person sits in jail based solely on the information from the vehicle. Stop being a douchebag. If this was a false positive it isn't the doomsday scenario to which you allude. The fact that there was no accident and no victim would have cleared the driver before they were ever even contacted by the police if it was a false positive. To hear you tell it the system could somehow be a detriment to society. Can you give an example?
I just gave you an example of automation being a detriment (downright dangerous) in society with the manipulation of traffic camera lights. And from a "safety" program to boot.
Want another more specific example? OK, how about when automobile insurance companies simply start taking the computer's word for it, and before you even make it 100 yards past a false positive reading, your insurance rates have already been adjusted due to an "accident" you were involved in. Don't worry though, it'll only take you a policemans report stating there was no accident, a doctors report showing no injuries from the imaginary accident, and some form of Federal approval waiving the "inherent authority" or whatever the hell they'll define in the future to make a computer's word absolute, all in order to fight an automated system designed to maximize revenue. The refunds should only take 6-12 months, tops.
Oh wow! You got one of those new IoT pacemakers?!? Cool, did you know those things have their own website? Yeah, they tie right into your Obamacare program really easy with this FREE app!
Your future awaits. Don't worry though, I'm certain greed and corruption will be extinct by then.
GATTACA (not Gattica). The name of the movie is composed entirely out of nucleotide symbols.
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.
I served 8 years in my nation's armed forces, asshole. Not that you're reading this, but I wanted to illustrate for anyone else who might be: those who talk about "the freedom that some of us are willing to fight for" never fought for fucking anything. Because I don't know a single person I served with that would ever utter that stupid cliche. We all know better.
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.
This system isn't monitoring you 24/7. It detects accidents, presumably via a set of rules, and only when they are triggered does this system kick in.
IME most adults are just overgrown children who don't know what's best for them (and good for them being like that!) and they make terrible decisions.
And this system either is for your own good (you crashed and are 'bleeding out'), or for society's good (you hit someone/thing, and they need help ; no point running from the scene because you know this will happen).
Note that many cars will keep a history of your driving, replayable, in case you have an accident. Many people choose to install car cams that do the same, out of their own choice, because it actually protects them in the case of disputes.
"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.
You can't even quote without being disingenuous. Off you go now little douchebag ...
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Nothing more to say on the matter the subject says it all.