In a separate development on Monday, the White House said it wanted all cars and light trucks to be equipped with technology that could prevent collisions.
And finally law enforcements wet dream of being able to remotely disable your car becomes a reality. If you think this is anything but that, you're very naive.
I think this is anything but that, and I think spouting conspiracy theories doesn't really help anyone understand the pros/cons of such a statement.
I'm not naive. I'm also not delusional or paranoid. "Technology that could prevent collisions" doesn't in any way imply remote access or coordination. Today's examples include ABS brakes, collision radar, backup cameras, and yes, side view mirrors. All of those are collision-avoidance technologies. None of those can be easily used to subvert operation of the vehicle.
Yes, of course it's possible that, say, a system to allow a central "Traffic Control" authority to externally intervene to prevent collisions is someday built. And yes, presumably law enforcement could use that system to remotely disable a car. But that's a stretch. Especially when you already have remote-disable solutions built into all kinds of modern cars. Not for traffic safety - but for convenience and theft deterrence. Millions of cars have this built in today, and although I'm not familiar with the laws or case history, I don't see any reason why law enforcement with a warrant or probable cause couldn't use what's there today in Teslas, any car with OnStar, etc etc... and as usual, those capabilities were introduced for convenience (either owner or insurer :)).
All technologies can be misused and abused. Don't see a need to conflate that reality with an effort for additional vehicle safety.