It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc.
It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.
ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant
So we’re beyond concern now
Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
They've come up with a memo saying that non-judicial warrants can let them break in. This has historically been very much not allowed.
Edit: As a quick explanation, this is more or less a separation-of-powers thing. The rule has been that for the executive to enter someone's home they need a warrant from a judge, a member of the judicial branch. They now say that an "administrative warrant" is enough, issued by an immigration judge -- but immigration judges are just executive branch employees, so this is saying that the executive can decide on its own when it wants to break into your house.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
The word for it is cherry-picking and it is better classified as a fallacy.
Most people… eh. I don't know about the rest of the world, and my experience was in the 90s, but for me GCSE triple science was a list of facts to regurgitate in exams, and although we did also have practical sessions those weren't scored by how well we did Popperian falsification (a thing I didn't even learn about it until my entirely optional chosen-for-fun A-level in Philosophy; I don't know if A-level sciences teaches that).
The people who replied to you provided the source: upvoted them.
Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc
The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant
"Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"
I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it?
Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries.
So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!
It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).
Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice.
Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.
You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.
When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".
Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.
Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?
How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?
You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.
* anyone with a few hundred million in the bank.
If you are driving off-road, or completely on private property, you're not really driving the vehicle to "go somewhere" or commute or transport people/goods.
It isn't really feasible to use a vehicle for actual transportation without using public roads, at least in these United States.
So what possible cause or reason would any law enforcement have, for going into a vehicle like that and searching it? I mean, compared to someone driving on a public road and "going somewhere" while "carrying stuff" in there? Nearly none, right?
Related: 20 days until the Daytona 500!
Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc.
I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.
A brief fact check: Elián González was and is not a US citizen, nor was he the child of US citizens, nor was he arrested by ICE, nor was the raid that resulted in his capture performed without a warrant.
I might wait to hear about him until I encounter someone with more accurate information.
> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez
Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation.
It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father.
I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.
No, but recent actions in the last 20 years, and certainly the last year have absolutely proven to me the Executive Branch, as I've been saying since the Reagan administration, has always had too much power.
> I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.
While I agree, the point is the methods are the same as they were back then. INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly.
I mean, we can talk about other Executive branches abusing their power all day (Waco; Homeland Security/TSA searches; DEA Searches; Iran-Contra; CIA Operations in the 60s-80's) etc... the point is, nothing ever changes.
INS does not exist. While an agency may be exempt from (some) warrants, it is an undisputed fact that the raid that resulted in the capture of Elián González included a valid search warrant.
This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that.
Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy.
I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that people have a say. But it's time to shake it off because this veil is one of the things used for control.
There are in fact privately owned tanks in the US.
They likely could cause a lot of trouble for a local police force, but would not stand up to any infantry force in the world.
So in an actual conflict with the U.S. government, none of those tanks would be more than symbolic. And whole a general gorilla insurrection in the U.S. would be nasty, examples like Wako demonstrate that even mid-sized stands would be severely overwhelmed.
The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.
There are private tanks in the US with functional weapons, including both mounted MGs and the cannon. In fact, there’s a place in Uvalde, TX that will let you come drive and shoot theirs for a couple grand.
> none of those tanks would be more than symbolic
Correct, but that’s not why. A tank would be worse than useless in an insurgency.
> The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.
No one is seriously suggesting going up against the US military with an irregular force in the US. The point is that an armed citizenry cannot be subjugated without destroying everything worth having. It’s a suicide pact between the People and the state.
This idea that citizens would somehow unite against a tyrannical government has always been a fantasy, even during the revolutionary war.
Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
As Ukraine has demonstrated, a shaped charge and consumer drone is highly effective against even heavy mechanized armor. ERA doesn't work well for multiple hits, and drones and HMX/RDX are cheap.
People sign up for a variety of reasons; to keep their own safe is one of them, and that reason is incompatible with being the aggressor in a civil war.
Did you think you would ever so casually brush off the US Navy straight murdering people with 'sure, we're doing that but...'?
Edit: A large group of Federal agents just murdered a 37 something American on the street, on video. He had a permit to carry, and his largest crime appears to have been traffic tickets. Prior to shooting him to death they were video'd pistol whipping his face.
These people are just fine with murdering Americans.
As I'm not American, I was already in the set of people they'd be willing to kill when ordered.
Are *the military* more likely to kill other Americans today? I do not think so.
But as I'm not American, I'm more worried that the chance of a B83 heading my way has gone from "No way!" to "3%".
> A large group of Federal agents just murdered a 37 something American on the street, on video. He had a permit to carry
There was a kid a few years back, killed for a toy in an open-carry state.
My country of birth is not, contrary to what some claim, envious of the 2nd amendment; rather, it is glad to ban firearms. Even so, we see the hypocricy of killing those who exercise their rights.
The grocery store she shopped at literally had to setup special hours people like my mom could shop without being harassed and pushed to tears. She died knowing most of her community didn't care if she died if it inconvenienced them. 1 million Americans died and today they say 'COVID wasn't a thing'. 1 million Americans died and they say it's nothing.
Americans don't care who dies. They/we are fucking trash now. My grandfathers' generation were good people but whoever we are now, we are so lost. I grew up on Star Trek TNG American ideals and grew up Catholic and believing in the 'be kind' parts and thought my neighbors shared that but they don't.
That said, you've shifted the goalposts here: the one and only thing I was disagreeing about was the military. The military are the final arbiter of what happens, when the civilian government turns evil.
Seeing all the toadying and the way red hats are becoming the new brown shirts… I hope the ocean separating us is sufficient to keep me safe.
I cannot say, an am not saying, for certain that *the US military* are going to be not-evil, because unlike everyone else in the US federal government today the majority of the US armed forces are competent enough to keep quiet, and quiet makes it impossible to tell.
But what little gets out, from specifically the military? It suggests they take their oath of allegiance to the constitution seriously.
If the military is as bad as all your other non-military examples… well, even 25 years ago I was wondering how a new American civil war would play out, and if nukes would get involved.
"We knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction when we rolled up and didn't immediately get gassed"
If the White House keeps up current threats against allies it may find nobody willing to lend them money, and therefore the government will be forced to inflate its way to balancing the books each year; if they follow through with kicking out the undocumented migrant workers (even if they improve their current behaviour and limit themselves to *only* undocumented migrant workers), they mess up US agriculture at the same time; there is also visible corruption and self-dealing within the government.
The question is the level, rather than the existence of these factors.
There's been another authoritarian in my lifetime who messed with farms by actually kicking out non-native people in the way Trump threatens, demonstrating even worse corruption, and that actually did try to fund the government with inflation rather than my hypothetical of "will be forced to": Mugabe. It didn't go well for Zimbabwe, and the US military can observe what happened there and decide if that's what they want to see in the US.
Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.
It is, therefore, not remotely relevant to your post starting this whole thread off saying that the consent of the governed is irrelevant and all you need is tanks.
They don't have the consent. And all they needed to get acquiescence was a bunch of poorly trained goons with masks, weapons, suv-s and official mandate. Not a single tank was needed yet.
Consent is irrelevant.
The only saving grace is that actual people with tanks (ie military) might at some point say 'nah'. Which I think they did in case of Greenland. Simply because it was too weird for them as opposed to Venezuela and Iran.
You drive and when within 3 miles your car dies.
You can start it again and drive away, turning around and leaving, but if you go further towards the capitol it dies again.
The next day the press reports that the planned protest was very sparsely attended.
How will "passengers" being different people to "drivers" help, when most people have their phones on them at all times and can be traced, and it's the vehicle rather than any person in it which may (or may not) have an engine kill-switch?
I have a wonderful cargo bike (urban arrow - splurge purchase for my 35th birthday and second kid) - I use it for most in-city transportation tasks, including picking up kids from daycare/school, groceries, trips to restaurants, etc.
I also have a 2011 truck with ~200k miles on it. It's well take care of, and shows no signs of stopping any time soon. It hauls stuff from home improvement stores, help family move, and takes us on vacation.
I've been debating getting bumper stickers for each of them along the lines of:
"My other ebike is a truck" - for the bike
and
"My other truck is an ebike" - for the truck
Older vehicles (depending on the platform) often use common parts that are shared even across manufacturers. And third party manufacturers keep cranking out new stock for them.
I am hoping that this type of system develops for simple no-frills electric vehicles over time. Although laws like the one mentioned here keep piling up, increasing vehicle complexity and cost of maintenance.
Other parts were sourced from outside suppliers, which also supplied the same or similar parts to other automakers. Some of them were direct replacements, some were easily modified to work, and some could be robbed for components to refurbish your old part.
The OEM part arguably has a flaw where it dies when it gets too hot (Cadillac didn't do a recall though).
I think there were more than one third party options.
I do agree that the vehicle should not be the default transportation even if I do consider myself a "car guy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo
Car centrism TAKES AWAY independence of kids, elderly, and disabled people.
It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.
Everyone always assumes that individual choices and consumer behavior drives this stuff, and then they wonder why nothing changes even though we all started using reusable tote bags and LED bulbs. Stop blaming the consumer!
(The DoD is the largest institutional polluter in the world, by the way.)
Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc.
They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.
Avid cyclist here.
* Extreme Weather: Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make biking unsafe or impractical without specialized gear and high physical endurance.
* Accessibility & Mobility Issues: Individuals with certain physical disabilities or chronic health conditions may find traditional cycling impossible. (This also affects an aging population.)
* Time Constraints: For those with "trip-chaining" needs (e.g., daycare drop-off → work → grocery store → gym), the extra time required for cycling can be prohibitive.
* Infrastructure: Older adults are more sensitive to "heavy traffic" and "lack of safe places." Seniors don't stop cycling because they can't do it, but because they don't feel safe in traffic. (Good argument for upgrading roadways.)
* Care-giving: When parents become dependent on their children, often the children need to shuttle their parents around. A parent with dementia who escaped into the neighbourhood can be rapidly collected and ushered home in a car, not so much a bike.
* Theft & Vandalism: I've never had a car stolen. Two locked bikes, on the other hand...
Additionally, I personally would have less issue with people driving due to a lack of physical fitness if they didn’t tend to 1. Drive recklessly and fast (35 on a 25 is not okay) and 2. Drive tank-like SUVs and Trucks
The correct argument here is "if bicycles become the dominant transportation mode, then the government will absolutely mandate kill switches for them too." "Bicycles don't have software" hasn't been true for years. E-bikes and wireless deraillers have been around a long time.
My argument to my own post is that cameras that track cars and license plates could easily be reconfigured to track bikes and pedestrians. In that case there's no transportation mode that will save you from surveillance. The cameras have to go.
Also, why the hell have you got wireless derailleurs? What is the point? What possible advantage can they have over perfectly normal mechanical ones?
The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.
> Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area.
We built dangerous highways. We can build bikeways as well.
Moreover, time is a limited resource. Even adding 15 minutes here and there take away time I would have to spend with family, work on a project, etc.
I once lived somewhere that was half an hour from the store by car. Thankfully that isn’t the case anymore.
(Excluding you rural people, but depending on your city could be true if people had smaller lots and denser less car centric business areas, or more businesses in general)
A vehicle (presumably a car, since bikes are vehicles too) gets you and your stuff from point A to point B. Bikes do that too, though at a smaller scale.
If your commute or your errands aren't excessively long or require the use of a controlled-access highway, a bike's a perfectly fine alternative. The limiting factors are seasonal road or bike path maintenance and the discipline of other road users.
I hadn't heard of the requirement before. Mandatory registration originally seems to have been intended to address bike theft. All bicycles sold in California must have a serial number. A significant number of cities (most?) had ordinances requiring registration. But few people knew about it and even fewer registered their bikes.
You're stuck, no cell signal, good chance of hypothermia.
Some of the earlier EVs I tried had lane-keeping assist so brutal that it was like trying to steer a car with a broken power steering pump belt, if it didn't want you to change lanes - genuinely dangerous.
The Kia EV I tried a few weeks ago just felt like it was tramlining a bit when I changed lanes without indicating (no real need to indicate, on a completely empty road).
I think it's hilarious because presumably someone in an office somewhere in Japan was told it wasn't working on white people and said "you want it to work on white people, fine I'll crank it to 11." But I also didn't spend $50k on it so that probably makes it easier.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/iss...
The hardware is required in new cars. It's illegal to make it report false values or for someone other than the driver to record. When you press the start button, an LED shines into your skin and records fingerprint hash, and blood alcohol. This data is recorded/reported only when a public road has been entered or crossed, and erased from local storage in 24 hours.
The reporting is optional. You can turn it off. You set it up to report to your insurance company. If you don't, your insurance rates will probably rise.
What does society get out of this? People are strongly encouraged not to drink and drive. They get a clear and unambiguous signal if they are over the legal limit or not. We get some insurance data about how many people are drinking and driving nonetheless, and their actual accident rates. Insurance rates can be higher for people at higher risk, and lower for those who are not. There's no emergency situation where someone can't activate their car. Drivers' "freedom" to drive without insurance or without historical monitoring isn't infringed. You can still drive drunk on private property without consequence.
We could probably also partially do away with constructive DUI (DUI where you are drunk, but asleep in the vehicle and in possession of the keys). You can set a maximum startup BAC in the car computer. You can lower it, effective in 8 hours. Your sober self can agree that future you shouldn't drive drunk, and even if you sleep in your car, the police can't show that you were in control of the vehicle.
So no, I don't think any libertarian is OK with being forced to do almost anything, in principle. The very idea that you'd need to wear seatbelts or have a license or be compelled to have insurance or not have an open bottle of vodka in your cup holder is anathema. The free market should simply operate through the courts and put those that can't drink responsibly and cover the damage they cause into debtors prisons, to continue the strawman.
I would actually prefer much stricter enforcement of insurance and licensing laws, akin to say, the UK or Germany. I don't think you need hardware interlocks to do it, but you would have to have police willing to actually pull over people with fake license plates or missing insurance. That is not the case in much of California.
Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment.
Im picturing a world where the US could mass disable vehicles based on the owners score in their fancy new palantir database. We should have the right to flee danger and use a vehicle for that.
I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.