Egypt isn't the US, but we do provide them with a lot of weapons and financial support while we hold adversaries like Iran, North Korea, Syria or even competitors like China to a different and higher standard of human rights and justify our antagonism towards those countries partly or largely based on their human rights records.
I don't expect the US to impose freedom and democracy around the world wherever we find tyranny, but neither do I want my tax dollars to be used to fund and arm tyrannical regimes like Egypt. Trade with them, okay sure. Arm them, no.
Yes, if these are people who's job it is to drive people around in order to make money then that is a limousine or taxi service and it should be regulated the same way.... but $270,000 license fees sound more like glorified bribes to prevent competition than something close to a legitimate license fee.
If the taxi drivers were protesting the absurd license fees, then I would be more sympathetic.
On the other hand if part of the uber service is simply a better way of matching people for sharing the costs of carpooling and ride sharing, then that is a service that is sorely needed and really isn't a taxi or limousine service.
Shuffling around the agencies is no solution either. What we need is legal clarification from Congress and the courts that the 4th amendment really does apply within the borders of the United States of American.
Then if someone gets caught violating the constitution again they can't go and claim what they are doing is legally valid like they are doing now. The rule of law doesn't mean no one will ever break the law or violate the constitution, it means that when you get caught like the NSA got caught violating the constitution in such a blatant and massive way then there have to be some consequences and at least some shame... you can't just have everyone circling the wagons and saying the NSA or the president can do whatever they feel they need to unbounded by the law or the constitution. The law and the constitution are supposed to be a restraint on government power not a blank check to be cashed by whomever happens to pass a security background check and knows someone who knows someone in Washington.
Sarcasm aside I think you make an important point... Between the “state secrets” privilege and the apparent willingness of the NSA to engage in a wholesale violation of the US Constitution and lie to congress and the courts I seriously doubt it would be remotely possible for a court to narrowly "rule on the facts" of the particular case. Rather courts are going to have to rule on the law and the probability that the NSA is violating individual liberties and then issue injunctions which give the government and the NSA and US government future instructions that the 4th amendment applies to their surveillance activities in the US despite whatever the Patriot Act might be interpreted to mean... meaning the courts will have to issue rulings based on what is permissible rather than issuing narrow injunctions against particular acts.
So for instance the court should simply rule that for the NSA to force companies to hand over business records including communications logs and the like that they need a warrant that complies with the 4th amendment and is issued: "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Out of one side they will argue that they can't possibly store all this massive data they are collecting. And then they will turn around and blame the courts for needing more storage to store all this data they are collecting. See we can't stop spying on the American people... the courts are making us.
Sorry. I was hijacking your statement to make another. Of course you are correct that for encryption to be effective it has to be the default for everyone rather than some special thing only criminals, national security types and paranoid people use. Basically using encryption now is like raising a big red flag saying 'look at me look at me I am using encryption!!'
But my point is that even with encryption it does not thwart 95% of the threat from unconstitutional government surveillance or criminal hackers. Sure if Google can make encryption more standard then that would be a great accomplishment, but it is just one small slice of the privacy pie.
Encryption misses the point. Encryption isn't privacy. The major threat to privacy from the US government is not from the content of your communications being read without a warrant it is that your communications are going to be monitored without a warrant so they will be able to monitor all your associations, purchases, communications and movement and locations. Basically it is like having a tail on 24x7 with someone looking over your shoulder... they don't need to know what you are saying until they want to and if they want to then you are past the point where encryption will mean much since they can put a keylogger on your system or maybe even break your 256 bit encryption.
The only protection from the surveillance state is either to eliminate communications technology altogether or to return to the rule of law.
I have a great deal of respect for you and your accomplishments/contributions to the world at large, so I'm going to attempt to be civil instead of quite so frothy at the mouth.
I too have a great deal of respect for your work, Mr. Anonymous Coward. With your fervent idealism combined with nonsensical and sometimes hilarious non-sequiturs and even the occasionally great "First Post!" you have molded, reshaped and reshaped again the core of our Slashdot civilization for eons or even hours to come. Here's to you Mr. Anonymous Coward!
It should be the case that the driver is only responsible for the operation of the vehicle when they are actually driving or if they did something to modify the car to make it unsafe. If it is driving around autonomously then it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer for any defective decision making by the car that leads to a collision and damage. Having a car with no manual override clarifies that.
That to me is the point of this car. Besides being an interesting option, this is basically purpose built to demonstrate to state legislators that there should be room under state law to allow fully autonomous cars on the road without requiring a licensed driver always at the ready to take over and avoid collisions.
Something you could have demonstrated in the previous cars by having someone sitting in the passenger seats, but now there is no difference in which seat you sit in. Having autonomous cars with manual overrides left the driver responsible for the operation of the vehicle and liable for accidents... unrealistically so. A driver couldn't reasonably be expected to decide whether the car would avoid a collision or not. That kind of law turns an autonomous navigation system into a dangerous delay in human decision making rather than a life saving safety device. This hybrid approach to liability which retained driver liability was unrealistic and undermined safety. If the driver is driving they should be licensed and liable for mistakes, if the computer is driving then the car and the manufacturer should be licensed and liable.
Honestly, in my view, removing the steering wheel is a safety feature.
This car could provide a very important option in the marketplace for those with no ability or desire to drive a car but still need a car for transportation. And by removing manual control completely it clarifies many of the legal issues that our citizen legislator's in most states are grappling with for allowing autonomous cars on the roads. Brilliant move by Google.
And an interesting way to settle the issue of legal liability. If a car without driver controls crashes it is either the fault of the other driver or the manufacturer, unless the owner or driver of the car modifies the vehicle in a way that contributed to the crash. Licensing shouldn't be an issue either since you press a button and tell it where to go. And drunk driving wouldn't be applicable since everyone in the vehicle is a passenger.
The role of fully autonomous cars in preventing drunk driving alone has the potential to save over 10,000 lives per year in the US.
Seems like there is already a middle ground with things like anti-lock brakes, or automatic collision avoidance systems that will break a car before a collision based on proximity sensors, or cars that will park themselves but otherwise won't drive around town. Basically many cars with some limited sensing capabilities are slowly becoming more autonomous at least for specific functions.
But I agree with your point about the benefit of a fully autonomous car being primarily if you can be a passenger and the car drives and not having to sit at the steering wheel ready to take control away from the computer and thus being legally responsible. A driver being at the wheel and responsible for the driving undermines the main purpose of a truly autonomous car.
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce