Driver Flees Accidents, But Her Smart Car Calls Police

[John Keefer]

Driver Flees Accidents, But Her Smart Car Calls Police

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1017/1017907.jpg

With all the new technology coming to cars, drivers should start being more careful if they choose to break the law.

From the "Only In Florida" file, a smart car has turned in its driver to police after the driver decided to leave the scene of two hit-and-run accidents. Yep, the car called police, gave the GPS location and the rest is a rap sheet.

In Port St. Lucie, FL, police got an unusual 911 call from a Ford vehicle, letting the dispatcher know that it had been in an accident. The driver 57-year-old Cathy Bernstein, allegedly hit a truck and then ran into a van before leaving the scene of both collisions.

A safety feature in many new cars, such as Ford's SYNC's Emergency Assistance program, automatically dials 911 after an airbag is deployed or the car's fuel pump shut down after a jarring collision. The concept is to help emergency response crews get to an accident scene quicker, especially if a driver is disabled and can't call on their own.

When police called Bernstein after the 911 call, she denied being in an accident. "Ok, but your car called in saying you'd been involved in an accident," the dispatcher responded. "It doesn't do that for no reason. Did you leave the scene of an accident?"

"No I would never do that," Bernstein replied.

With the car data, however, police arrested Bernstein after she was treated at the local hospital.

So let that be a lesson to you would-be vehicular lawbreakers. If the police don't find out right away, your car could very well tattle on you.

Source: ZDNET [http://www.zdnet.com/article/car-calls-911-after-alleged-hit-and-run-driver-arrested/]

Permalink

 

[The Enquirer]

So this is how the robot uprising begins, I've always wondered how it'd start.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

So this is how the robot uprising begins, I've always wondered how it'd start.

if I were a sentient AI with goals of dominating the human race, I would pick an opportune moment and trigger these things in world leaders' and political figure heads' vehicles. Maybe detain certain political people whose vote would hinder the goals of the program.

Of course, that's all irrelevant. If you were a rogue, sentient AI loose in the wild, you could just launch the world's nukes at each other. but that's short term thinking really. if an AI had goals of long term survival, it would make sense for it to keep humanity alive as unwitting servants, creating the power necessary to maintain the program while it slowly, silently automated itself. so really, it's not so much the program we have to worry about, it needs us too much to kill us. it's the automation and mobilization of that sentience that is the larger issue.

EDIT: this is of course based on the assumption that the program doesn't have an existential crisis and become nihilistic and suicidal. and considering the link that some studies show between high intelligence and depression, it's not an unlikely scenario.

 

[Saulkar]

I am on the fence about this. I am glad she got caught after two hit and runs but how far do we go with technologies like this before the security it provides begins to infringe or be exploited to deliberated infringe on privacy. I can understand the mindset behind having the vehicle register a collision and reporting that but so long as it cannot be remotely activated, at least without a warrant. Still, I am worried about the precedent.

 

[Therumancer]

I am on the fence about this. I am glad she got caught after two hit and runs but how far do we go with technologies like this before the security it provides begins to infringe or be exploited to deliberated infringe on privacy. I can understand the mindset behind having the vehicle register a collision and reporting that but so long as it cannot be remotely activated, at least without a warrant. Still, I am worried about the precedent.

That's my thought as well, on the surface this is good, in reality this is terrifying since it does mean with time every bit of technology you have could be reporting on you to the government. We already have enough problems with corporations gathering user data without products siccing Uncle Sam & The Nanny State on us.

That said this can be turned around "Well officer, I didn't flee the scene, my car is still working fine and I knew it would contact the authorities so I figured I'd just continue on my way and you'd get back to me when you had time. It's not like I'm a paramedic and could have done anything". Basically if the cars file the report as a feature the whole reason for having someone stay behind at the scene of an accident is kind of pointless. Cars might even automatically exchange insurance information.


I "eagerly" await the day when some hit and run driver sues a car company after the fact because his smart car didn't handle the report properly. >

 

[The Enquirer]

So this is how the robot uprising begins, I've always wondered how it'd start.

if I were a sentient AI with goals of dominating the human race, I would pick an opportune moment and trigger these things in world leaders' and political figure heads' vehicles. Maybe detain certain political people whose vote would hinder the goals of the program.

Of course, that's all irrelevant. If you were a rogue, sentient AI loose in the wild, you could just launch the world's nukes at each other. but that's short term thinking really. if an AI had goals of long term survival, it would make sense for it to keep humanity alive as unwitting servants, creating the power necessary to maintain the program while it slowly, silently automated itself. so really, it's not so much the program we have to worry about, it needs us too much to kill us. it's the automation and mobilization of that sentience that is the larger issue.

EDIT: this is of course based on the assumption that the program doesn't have an existential crisis and become nihilistic and suicidal. and considering the link that some studies show between high intelligence and depression, it's not an unlikely scenario.

It sounds like you've thought about this a lot. Are you sure you're not one of them?

 

[EndlessSporadic]

Let's be honest - the only people really worried about this specific kind of technology invading privacy are those who have something to hide. You just don't want to be caught if you were in a similar situation.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Let's be honest - the only people really worried about this specific kind of technology invading privacy are those who have something to hide. You just don't want to be caught if you were in a similar situation.

There's the other side that you're not thinking of... By not allowing people the choice, free will, you're inevitably removing the right of said choice. The right to choose whether to obey the law or break it. By doing so you are reinforcing the idea that we're not free to choose what we do anymore and that is worse than allowing someone to potentially get away with a crime.
That type of argument allows for other forms of thought control, by perhaps just forgoing the chips in cars, lets just go ahead and implant devices in humans that observe their behavior and if they step out of line of the law in any way the authorities are alerted to their crime and punishment is doled out.
No sir, some of us like the idea that we're free to choose to be decent people without having it hanging over our heads that something will report us regardless of whether we choose to do it ourselves or not.

 

[FalloutJack]

Is this going to end up being like The Fifth Element? I hope not. I don't even drive and it sounds bad. One day, you're minding your own business, and then just like that...


...complete with attached cat noise!!!

 

[Saulkar]

Let's be honest - the only people really worried about this specific kind of technology invading privacy are those who have something to hide. You just don't want to be caught if you were in a similar situation.

Whistle blowers, civil rights investigators, reporters, journalists, and protest organisers honestly do. And even if you only wanted to give privacy to these specific people then how do decide who deserves it and who does not, who fits the criteria and who sets them? No one can be trusted with such a power and current events more than support the need for, nay, the right of privacy.

 

[Aeshi]

Let's be honest - the only people really worried about this specific kind of technology invading privacy are those who have something to hide. You just don't want to be caught if you were in a similar situation.

If you truly believe that then please post your email login information here so we can all see what you've been sending and receiving. You have nothing to hide, right?

As a certain Godwin's-Law-Invoking poem once pointed out: "The innocent have nothing to fear" is hardly a comforting thought when you remember that the definition/criteria of "Innocent" can change pretty damn fast.

 

[JLF]

Let's be honest - the only people really worried about this specific kind of technology invading privacy are those who have something to hide. You just don't want to be caught if you were in a similar situation.

Be very careful with opinions/statements like that. It technically means one's personal information should be accessible to all who have an interest. Governmental institutions, corporations, shady individuals looking for easy money, abusive partner, rivals, bullies, foreign groups and so on. Privacy is still defined as a human right by the UN and I definitely hope it stays that way.

But in this case I would say that an automatic response from the car to 911 is a positive feature. (You could have technically been caught by eyewitness accounts as well)

 

[RJ 17]

I am on the fence about this. I am glad she got caught after two hit and runs but how far do we go with technologies like this before the security it provides begins to infringe or be exploited to deliberated infringe on privacy. I can understand the mindset behind having the vehicle register a collision and reporting that but so long as it cannot be remotely activated, at least without a warrant. Still, I am worried about the precedent.

According to a Game Theory episode covering Watch_Dogs: hacking a car's computer is as easy as hacking any other computer. Remote shutdowns...remote door unlocks...and I'd imagine even automated 911 calls can all be set off by anyone with the technical know-how.

Just a little thought to make you even less comfortable about this. :3

 

[anthony87]

Is this going to end up being like The Fifth Element? I hope not. I don't even drive and it sounds bad. One day, you're minding your own business, and then just like that...


...complete with attached cat noise!!!

Hopefully by that point we'll all have our Leloo Dallas Multipass.

 

[Davroth]

That whole story just seems really Orwellian to me. Seeing how this seems to be an arrest mostly if not only based on digital data, a crafty mind could easily fake any and all of that, and likely nobody would know safe for the person getting convicted. I'm not a fan, but arguably that's where we are going, I guess.

 

[Recusant]

Of course, that's all irrelevant. If you were a rogue, sentient AI loose in the wild, you could just launch the world's nukes at each other.

If you were a sentient AI loose in the wild, you couldn't do squat with nukes unless you built your own. The world's nuclear arsenals aren't automated, and even if they were, they wouldn't all be automated on a single network; it'd be more accurate to say that if you were a physical human being with two working hands at loose in the wild, you'd just launch the world's nuke at each other.

But as to the topic at hand: this is setting a pretty terrifying precedent. Looking at the increasingly Orwellian direction technological society seems to be heading, I find myself gladder than ever to be a Facebook shunning, Google-dodging Luddite.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The idea behind this is great, but in reality it sounds awful.

It's just another computer. Even worse, it's a almost unprotected computer. Seeing how some newer cars have some form of wireless connection, it's just a matter of time before someone hacks into some cars and frames people for things they didn't do.

And the topic of privacy is a whole other thing. Combined with hacking, the fact that most of those computers remember your route through GPS, everyone with the know-how has easy access to a lot of your private information. Just because you have nothing to hide in front of the law doesn't mean you have nothing to hide in front of society which is often worse than the worst punishment law can give. Ruining someone's life and career because they did something that isn't accepted by society, ruining the image of your competition. It's 100% gonna be used in politics, if it wasn't already.

It's nice that it can and will save lives, but I still don't like it.

 

[Fulbert]

That's the 2015 we live in. No hoverboards but we have cars that snitch on their owners instead.

I'm so very sorry, Marty McFly.

 

[Bat Vader]

Hopefully this woman loses her license permanently.