Slashdot Mirror
Ford Patents Driverless Police Car That Ambushes Lawbreakers Using AI (washingtonpost.com)
Ford has developed a patent for a police car that issues tickets without even pulling you over. The same car could also use artificial intelligence to find good hiding spots to catch traffic violators (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) and identify drivers by scanning license plates, tapping into surveillance cameras and wirelessly accessing government records. The Washington Post reports: The details may sound far-fetched, as if they belong in the science-fiction action flick "Demolition Man" or a new dystopian novel inspired by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," but these scenarios are grounded in a potential reality. They come from a patent developed by Ford and being reviewed by the U.S. government to create autonomous police cars. Ford's patent application was published this month. Although experts claim autonomous vehicles will make driving safer and more rule-bound, Ford argues in its application that in the future, traffic violations will never disappear entirely. "While autonomous vehicles can and will be programmed to obey traffic laws, a human driver can override that programming to control and operate the vehicle at any time," the patent's application says. "When a vehicle is under the control of a human driver there is a possibility of violation of traffic laws. Thus, there will still be a need to police traffic."
The patent application says that autonomous police vehicles don't necessarily replace the need for human police officers for catching traffic scofflaws. Some "routine tasks," such as issuing tickets for failure to stop at a stop sign, can be automated, the patent says, but other tasks that can't be automated will be left to people. The application, which was filed in July 2016 and includes elaborate diagrams depicting the autonomous police car interacting with its environment, says officers could be inside the vehicle at all times and reclaim control of the car when necessary. But the application also shows how an autonomous police vehicle could be able to carry out many tasks we associate with human officers.
The patent application says that autonomous police vehicles don't necessarily replace the need for human police officers for catching traffic scofflaws. Some "routine tasks," such as issuing tickets for failure to stop at a stop sign, can be automated, the patent says, but other tasks that can't be automated will be left to people. The application, which was filed in July 2016 and includes elaborate diagrams depicting the autonomous police car interacting with its environment, says officers could be inside the vehicle at all times and reclaim control of the car when necessary. But the application also shows how an autonomous police vehicle could be able to carry out many tasks we associate with human officers.
we don't need cars to do this. We can just set up cameras everywhere. The UK already does this in a lot of places. This is just somebody at Ford patenting something so they can say they got a patent.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://tctechcrunch2011.files...
Your car could spy on you... and notify the police who could then issue the ticket for speeding, distracted driving, and all manner of things. It could even supply pictures/movies of you breaking the law.
Dystopian Big Brother future.
The article doesn't mention if they are fireproof and bulletproof. Cash register justice will provoke a violent and justifiable response.
A self-sufficient law enforcement robot, what could go wrong?
This doesn't exist, may never exist, but by ghawd we're going to patent it so nobody else can make one if we decide not to proceed or find out that we can't do it ourselves.
Glad to see that patents are promoting innovation and encouraging inventors.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
New stoplight upgrades are including camera assemblies on the pole, arm, or both now. And not just the redlight cameras like they used to have, but straight up bona fide ip cameras, based on the enclosure size, likely 2160p or above with extremely large camera sensors.
Next major city you visit, look for them. I haven't seen them much in minor cities yet, but you do see them at major stoplights along highways through smaller towns.
auto photo tickets are like parking tickets that go to the owner but are not moving ones that go to the driver.
programmed to obey traffic laws = to slow for roads. Like I-294 (55 parts) I-90-IL (Toll way) I-55 parts (that new part has people pushing 75-80 all day long)
Henry Ford was a well-known Nazi sympathizer.
Facism in its true form is the corrupt alliance of big business with big government.
Ford allying with the state to support the PIRACY RACKET that are traffic tickets is literal, actual fascism.
Ford Patents Driverless Police Car That Ambushes Lawbreakers Using AI
What about non AI using lawbreakers? Will they be safe from this police car?
And in other news the editors around here could use some AI (or even just I) of there own.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
As with red light cameras, there's the issue of proving who the driver was. Furthermore, a ticketed person has the right to contest the ticket in court. It's a lot easier for the police officer who pulled the driver over to testify in court rather than examine the AI that issued the ticket. I don't think that this is practical. However, reducing the number of traffic stops might have the benefit of fewer stops that turn into excuses to violate the fourth amendment.
Kind of wish they would just get the Ford Explorer's transmission working before doing AI stuff
"When a vehicle is under the control of a human driver there is a possibility of violation of traffic laws. Thus, there will still be a need to police traffic."
So when a computer drives a car, there is no possibility of violation of traffic laws?
I guess if enough cars are programmed to safely obey traffic laws, then the speed limits could be raised. Then again, weren't speed limits reduced for the sake of fuel efficiency? Do today's cars even operate more efficiently at 55MPH than they do at higher speeds?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I've heard that Ford has patented an autonomous police car that can ambush Slashdot editors with dupes!
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Their use-case of issuing tickets for not stopping at a stop sign has already been covered by cameras and mailing out infringement notices. Same with running red lights. Same with speeding. Same with driving in bus lanes. etc...
I can't think of a single use for a police car with no officer that already isn't done better with existing technology.
In the past (at least where I live) the way that robocops got fucked up, was that they issued civil citations as a means of circumventing due process. This really pissed a lot of people off, since it was so blatantly illegal. Apparently the reason they did this, was that they were sure they would lose the case if it went to criminal court. I was never quite sure why that was, something about not having even a single witness for the prosecution, or something like that.
How can a Ford patent fix this? The problems are legal, not technical.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Repost from other thread, plus additions for the above:
OnStar has done this since the 90s, across the entire product line since... somewhere between 2006 and 2012, as well as to a lesser extent BMW, Mercedes, etc. Most of the exotics now have cellular immobilizer/tracking capabilities built into the PCM, or a module connected to it. Chrysler/Jeep has this as well, which is how that hack from a year or two back was performed. Besides that, Honda has started doing the same on most cars, as well as Toyota and possible a few other companies. The only ones I know of that are safe right now are Subaru on their 'base' models, and maybe Mazda, Hyundai and a few other budget/niche brands. Everybody else you need to be very thoughtful about what you say and do in your car because at minimum the newer ones are recording telemetry, and at worst they are recording/streaming your voice, telemetry, and have support for bidirectional firmware reading/writing, meaning they can find out if you hacked your ecu settings remotely, as well as updating your firmware, for instance if they need to make your death look like an accident. There are already a number of 'unintended acceleration' accidents that have happened that could have been criminal or government hits, and the capability of doing it with a car has become certain thanks to steering by wire taking away the final manual control you have left in some modern cars. The only ways you can possibly still have control at this point is a cable actuated clutch manual transmission car with the ABS fuse pulled.so you have direct braking control. Without both those features you can't be assured you can stop the car (and even then maybe not in time.) But if you have an automatic, abs brakes, and steering by wire, they can literally just operate the door locking mechanism to keep you from being able to get out, jam the accelerator down (since it is computer controlled), trigger the ABS pressure release valves (normally used to let the tires slip just enough to keep the car from skidding, but capable of reducing or eliminating brake performance, allowing the engine to accelerate you up to speed for a fatal crash.), then steer the car either off the road, or into oncoming traffic, as applicable to where the accident is triggered to take place.
Repost:
New stoplight upgrades are including camera assemblies on the pole, arm, or both now. And not just the redlight cameras like they used to have, but straight up bona fide ip cameras, based on the enclosure size, likely 2160p or above with extremely large camera sensors.
Next major city you visit, look for them. I haven't seen them much in minor cities yet, but you do see them at major stoplights along highways through smaller towns.
Do today's cars even operate more efficiently at 55MPH than they do at higher speeds?
Physics is, indeed, still a thing.
And a valid defense is "I wasn't driving the vehicle" (At least in CA).
There are some hoops to jump through, but in the end you can get out of the ticket if the driver is unidentifiable.
Further, I got a ticket for being stopped at the limit line, but the rain triggered the camera. That was a fun one to fight as well. Ultimately I simply had my front license plate stolen, and that resolved most issues with that intersection for me.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
yes, yes, and no (with qualifications for heavy vehicles and rear axle gearing).
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
ford will drive you federal prison after the legal in state pot shop visit.
It's going to get interesting when driverless cop cars issue tickets to driverless cars.
This is just extending the current legal trap.
If Speeding is dangerous and kills, put a speed governor in all cars.
Pick a federal maximum. On other streets, use existing map/gps tech wherever possible, and limit the speed to the "Speed limit". If we wanted to actually limit the speed we can do that my direct means. If you insist that speeding should be allowed in emergency situations, add an override switch that would be illegal to use in non-emergency situations, and alert authorities on use.
Same thing for running red lights, stop signs ... Yes, it all heads towards autonomous driving. Let's not pretend.
No one expects the Robot Inquisition!
Especially when most facial recognition apps are preloaded to presume people with dark skin are lawbreakers and have had people with light skin successfully removed from said databases.
You're always guilty of something. This will end up with class action lawsuits.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The question wasn't whether physics is still a thing, but rather whether the assumptions the earlier speed limit reductions were based on, i.e. the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, might no longer be valid. The questioner is suggesting that, 40-some years later, most cars in use today are more fuel efficient, and probably more efficient at higher speed, than the gas guzzlers that filled the roads back in the '70s, so a re-evaluation of the speed limits might be in order.
No man. All machine. All cop. The future of law enforcement.
So if your car is stolen this will identify the thief. Nice!
Did you report the vehicle stolen? No.... then you're responsible.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Courts in the US (and possibly other countries?) have already ruled that knowing the owner of a car (e.g. via license plate) is not sufficient to issue a ticket for a violation. You have to ticket the driver, not the registered owner of the vehicle.
Exactly. The problem is that we have a widespread attitude that says "speed limits are voluntary" and it's corollary "when I choose to ignore the clearly posted maximum speed and get a fine as a result of my personal choice, this is somehow indicative of bad government/police and not personal stupidity and ignorance". We need to lose both, and if that comes about through increased automation that is a good thing.
And a valid defense is "I wasn't driving the vehicle" (At least in CA).
California native here. About 10 years ago I sold my pickup truck and filed a waiver of liability with the DMV. Six months later I received an $80 ticket for driving the truck on the Orange County Toll Road without paying the fee. WTF? So, I called the phone number on the ticket.
Me: Hey, I sold that truck six months ago!
Toll Road: It's registered to you. Pay up!
Me: No, I filed the DMV paperwork. It's not mine, and I wasn't driving it.
Toll Road: DMV says it's yours. Pay up!
So, I called the DMV.
Me: Hey DMV, WTF??
DMV: You're the registered owner. Pay up!
Me: But I filed a waiver of liability 6 months ago!
DMV: We have no record of that. Maybe it got lost in the mail. Pay up!
Me: Lost in the mail? Seriously?
DMV: Well, if the writing on the form is illegible, the data entry clerk discards it. Maybe that happened. Pay up!
Me (under my breath): I bet a lot of forms processed on Friday afternoons are illegible. (Out loud): OK, thanks.
So I filed another waiver, this time through the Auto Club, and got a receipt. That was the end of it.
TL;DR: "I wasn't driving the vehicle" is only a defense if you can prove it.
In the US, this will suffer the same issue the cameras at stoplights do: they are unconstitutional.
You have the right in the face your accuser in court.
I can't speak for the UK, but in America a lot of our Crime reduction strategies are really just backhanded racial segregation. Our entire drug policy is. This is why black people are several times more likely to serve time for minor drug offenses and serve more time to boot. One way to keep people in their place is to have selectively enforced laws that let you target undesirables.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
thank god in the US you're guilty before proven innocent.
I loaned my truck to my sis.
Red light camera popped her.
I wasn't driving and my gender didn't match the driver.
I was also not compelled to disclose the driver, all I had to do was show the obvious "not me".
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I wasn't driving and my gender didn't match the driver.
This is so un-PC that I cannot imagine the CA government allowing it to happen. It doesn't matter that your sister looks like a girl and you look like a boy, your sister can be a boy if she says she is. I mean if he says he is. And you could be a girl even though your existing /. nick says you are a boy -- things change, sometimes on a daily basis. You can no longer tell just by looking at a photograph what gender anyone is, even if you limit it to a binary decision. When you consider that you might have a 37%/63% in-between ...
As Scotty once said, "The more you overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." I predict people will regularly hook lengths of chain to these things and the nearest tree.
Guys, I'm raising the flag
The last thing I want is to live in a world where I am under constant surveillance and being issued violations for every little thing I do wrong.
It's happening faster than I expected. Self-driving cars are not yet mass deployed. Already it appears some of the very first of these monsters will be hunting us. Robots hunting human beings. There are some among us who welcome this new tyranny with open arms. Truly those men are enemies of mankind.
Everything you are claiming is delusional. Your assertion is rabid wingnut foaming at the mouth.
Just to take a guess, I would say that you have a KKK tattoo rather then a swastika. You reek more of nativist ignorance then worldwide paranoia.
If you don't know all the words just use a dictionary, or find someone who knows what they mean.
Why is Snark Required?
I think there is prior art for this
Who is supposed to shoot the colored person in this scenario?
And yet the co-efficient of drag has significantly changed since 1970. Something about cars no longer looking like boxes but looking more like ovals. Who'da thunk that changing the shape of the car could significantly improve fuel mileage at high speeds?
Well, physicists know this but, of course, they don't write the laws except, apparently, in the 70s, and now they can't undo what was clearly a mistake (since their law didn't take into account advances in technology). Guess in 1000 years when we create matter transporters they'll have to keep you in suspension for several hours to ensure they don't violate the speed limit either, you know, for fuel mileage sakes.
Funny, my son gave me the complete Knight Rider collection on CD for Christmas this year and I've been re-watching them. They need to build the cars with the Cylon light and give them a voice with a bit of attitude.
We don't need a better traffic cop when we have self driving cars. When we focus on self-driving cars and we can eliminate these parasitic for profit policing which treat drivers as an income stream.
Look at the red light camera scandals:
https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-red-light-cameras-john-bills-sentencing-20160828-story.html
You have 10 seconds to comply!
As if there is not enough swatting of the American homes.
On the other hand, air has a chance to be smarter.
yes, yes, and no (with qualifications for heavy vehicles and rear axle gearing).
Feel free to show evidence of the fact that most cars fuel efficiency is better at 75MPH than it is at 55MPH.
Let's put it this way, those that engage in hypermiling drive in the extreme right-hand lane for a reason.
, a human driver can override that programming to control and operate the vehicle at any time" At the start but once it wokes well no controls in the car at all.
No traffic duties hard to justify a cop no weed arrest we wont need even a quarter of them of course they will justify them at first with the usual terror but you can only bluf for so long.
If a government boot is on my neck there's going to be a God damned person's foot in it, I'll fight a robot.
Ditch the car idea, mount it on a bipod and I'm all sold.
It will fail a lot, but coolness factor will go through the roof.
Why buy something that's going to give someone else a money stream from your wallet? Goodbye Ford.
It's finally here!
Actually the vast majority of consumer passenger vehicles are roughly flat efficiency from 55 through about 70-75MPH (depending on displacement).
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
The real problem is that, in many cases, speed limits are purely arbitrary. I commute on a highway with a 55mph speed limit. All other similar highways in the area are 65. A few years back, a study found that, outside of rush hour conditions, just about nobody goes less than 65mph. They declined to increase the speed limit to 65 out of fear that people would respond by driving 10mph faster, completely ignoring the typical speeds on the nearby 65mph highways (which tend to be slower because the posted limit is more reasonable). When you make the limit 55 and traffic moves at 75 (with virtually no enforcement activity for anyone going less than 85), all you accomplish is training drivers to disregard the posted limit. Automated ticketing isn't the solution, especially when there's no valid reason for the rules that are currently in place. If anything, rigidly following arbitrary rules would create far more problems than it would solve. Fix the problem at the source and the system will settle into a stable state without the need for blatant cash grabs.
IMHO there would be absolutely NO GAIN if people can still drive driverless cars. The only way to make things better is to remove the human element from it completely. I know a lot of people wont be happy with it, but it IS THE ONLY way. So police cars will be useless for traffic infractions. They should only be used to get somewhere and at that point since everycar will drive itself even the police wont have to drive, the car will make other cars get out of their way, no need for flashy lights and sirens... only markings signalling that this is a cop car.
Cops are gonna love this. They won't have to interrupt the coffee and donuts to give out tickets!
Just another day in Paradise
Obviously ...
Wow. Woosh to the tenth power.
Obviously ...
Wow. Woosh to the tenth power.
I think he was triggered before his sarcasm detector could fire.
If people in general would actually obey that "arbitrary" speed limit (along with various other "arbitrary" rules which routinely go unenforced and get disregarded but which do get used to determine who to blame for collisions), then you would not have everyone in the road attempting to force their way in front of each other, forming tightly packed groups, and randomly wrecking and/or forcing each other down to a very slow speed.