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/
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.
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!
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)
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?
Kind of wish they would just get the Ford Explorer's transmission working before doing AI stuff
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
You change the law so the registered owner of the vehicle is liable and must prove the real driver if it wasn't them.
Do today's cars even operate more efficiently at 55MPH than they do at higher speeds?
Physics is, indeed, still a thing.
and I want the source code / system logs / calibration log / config settings for that system. and if an red light also the same for the traffic light system as well.
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
I'm foreseeing a future where driverless cop cars pursue and stop driverless vehicles...
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.
and officially they're being used to detect how many vehicles are at the light so it can cycle. It's an updated version of the wires in the road surface.
No one expects the Robot Inquisition!
No man. All machine. All cop. The future of law enforcement.
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.
So, the question is, how do we get to this capitalist nirvana?
It is the same story any utopia. Human nature gets in the way.
Many things could work, if people would cooperate.
But, we have human nature intervening, people grabbing power and more than they need and being jerks to others.
It is the same here, you cant get over the hump very easily, and there are always those who want power, things, control, and will abuse your ideal utopia.
It requires work. Hard work, by all of us, to watch, think, and not let things go down the slippery slope.
We have not done a very good job of that, have we?
emt 377 emt 4
Not in California. That's why they still require front plates. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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/
I'm foreseeing a future where driverless cop cars pursue and stop driverless vehicles...
Hello, Captain Obvious. AV will, of course, have a system where emergency vehicles can force them to pull over and stop. There will still be ambulances and police cars that run "code 3" and need all the traffic to get out of the way. The only difference between getting all vehicles to pull over and stop so an emergency vehicle can get through and an emergency vehicle stopping YOUR vehicle is that they'll pull in behind you.
This system will have to be implemented before the first driverless car is allowed on the streets for real. Imagine the fun when an ambulance is on the way to a heart attack and an AV is going smack at the speed limit blocking the lane and won't pull over for the flashing lights. That will be one of the many laws that will have to be programmed in, and some method of reliably detecting when it is necessary to obey.
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
But, we have human nature intervening, people grabbing power and more than I think they need and being jerks to others.
FTFY.
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 ...
Thank you for fixing that for me.
How much power should peple have, then? Do we have a good system that treats all with something approaching fairness, dignity and respect?
Or do we have abuse?
emt 377 emt 4
How much power should peple have, then?
You missed the point completely. I thought it was obvious by showing it was your opinion -- how much people "need" is an opinion, everyone's got one, and yours is no more special than anyone elses. That's why saying someone has "more than they need" is a waste of time.
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.
Imagine the fun when an ambulance is on the way to a heart attack and an AV is going smack at the speed limit blocking the lane and won't pull over for the flashing lights. That will be one of the many laws that will have to be programmed in, and some method of reliably detecting when it is necessary to obey.
Not to mention that pulling over is different in different countries. In some countries (like the US), you pull over to the right, but in others, you pull over to the left if in a left lane.
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
I got the point. I thought it was apparent that there are those who seek more to the detriment of many.
Yes, mine is an opinion, an no more special than that of others. But yours and theirs is no more special either.
emt 377 emt 4
You have 10 seconds to comply!
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.
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
Cops are gonna love this. They won't have to interrupt the coffee and donuts to give out tickets!
Just another day in Paradise
Yes, mine is an opinion, an no more special than that of others. But yours and theirs is no more special either.
I didn't try making my opinion of how much people need more important than anyone else's by trying to denigrate people for having "more than they need". My reply didn't say there weren't people who sought more than was good for everyone else, so arguing with me about that point is a waste of time.
Obviously ...
Wow. Woosh to the tenth power.
I expressed an opinion, I am not seeing how that equates to "making my opinion more important".
In "fixing" my statement to point out that what I wrote [ my opinion ] didn't you denigrate me and seek to make your opinion more important?
And didnt that reply imply that the opinion that there people who sought more than needed was incorrect?
emt 377 emt 4
I expressed an opinion, I am not seeing how that equates to "making my opinion more important".
Because you are defining what they need in terms of your opinion of what they need. Your opinion of what they need is more important than theirs under that definition.
didn't you denigrate me and seek to make your opinion more important?
No. I pointed out that it was your opinion, which is a fact -- that it is your opinion -- and you have actually agreed with that fact that it was your opinion.
And didnt that reply imply that the opinion that there people who sought more than needed was incorrect?
No, I already covered that. It pointed out that your definition was based on your opinion. It did not say that the opinion, when actually stated as such, was wrong. In fact, it implicitly supported the claim that people will seek more than you think they need.
That's nice.
But if you want to drive on a public road, you must obey all traffic laws. It's a privilege, not a right. A judge won't care what you want.
The laws about speed cameras, etc, usually all state the equipment must be compliant to certain standards, tested and calibrated.
and there must be a log of that and it's my right to see it.
Good for you.
Obviously ...
Wow. Woosh to the tenth power.
I think he was triggered before his sarcasm detector could fire.
Operating a vehicle on public roads may be a privilege, but due process of law is a right. That said, getting the state to acknowledge your rights is always a dicey thing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
process of law is a right.
Hence the reference to a judge, whose job it is to interpret and apply the law.