Should Police Have The Right To Take Control Of Self-Driving Cars?

from the kill-switch dept

As Google, Tesla, Volvo, and other companies make great strides with their self-driving car technology, we've started moving past questions about whether the technology will work, and started digging into the ethics of how it should work. For example, we recently discussed whether or not cars should be programmed to sacrifice their own driver if it means saving the lives of countless others (like a number of children on a school bus). Programmers are also battling with how to program vehicles to obey all rules -- yet still account for highway safety's biggest threat: shitty human drivers.

But another key question recently raised its head in discussing what this brave new self-driving world will look like. Just how much power should law enforcement have over your self-driving vehicle? Should law enforcement be able to stop a self-driving vehicle if you refuse to? That was a question buried recently in this otherwise routine RAND report (pdf) which posits a number of theoretical situations in which law enforcement might find the need for some kind of automobile kill switch:

"The police officer directing traffic in the intersection could see the car barreling toward him and the occupant looking down at his smartphone. Officer Rodriguez gestured for the car to stop, and the self-driving vehicle rolled to a halt behind the crosswalk.

Commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, the RAND report is filled with benign theoreticals like this, and while it briefly discusses some of the obvious problems created by giving law enforcement (and by proxy intelligence agencies) this type of power over vehicle systems and data, it doesn't offer many solutions. As parts of the report make clear, having immediate access to driver and vehicle history and data is an incredibly sexy concept for law enforcement:

"Imagine a law enforcement officer interacting with a vehicle that has sensors connected to the Internet. With the appropriate judicial clearances, an officer could ask the vehicle to identify its occupants and location histories. … Or, if the vehicle is unmanned but capable of autonomous movement and in an undesirable location (for example, parked illegally or in the immediate vicinity of an emergency), an officer could direct the vehicle to move to a new location (with the vehicle’s intelligent agents recognizing “officer” and “directions to move”) and automatically notify its owner and occupants."

Yes, because if the history of intelligence and law enforcement is any indication, the "appropriate judicial clearances" are of the utmost importance. Thanks to what will inevitably be a push for backdoors to this data, we'll obviously be creating entirely new delicious targets for hackers -- who've already been poking holes in the paper mache grade security currently "protecting" current vehicle electronics. The report does briefly acknowledge this "risk to the public’s civil rights, privacy rights, and security," but as we've seen time and time again, these concerns are a footnote in the expansion of surveillance authority.

We already live in an age where the consumer doesn't have the ability to control or modify their own vehicle's electronics courtesy of DRM and copyright, and self-driving cars are already going to be a tough sell for many people from a liberty and personal freedom perspective. Adding the ability for law enforcement to not only snoop on vehicle data but take direct control of your vehicle -- is a conversation we should start having sooner rather than later.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, lawa enforcement, police, remote control, self-driving cars, surveillance

Obviously, No One Ever Would Have Thought Of Remote Controlled Sex Toys Without This Patent

from the how-stimulating dept

Alright, people, strap in and keep the laughter to a minimum because we're going to talk dildos here. Specifically, remotely operated dildos, and other sex apparatuses, including those operated by Bluetooth connections or over the internet. It seems that in 1998, a Texan by the name of Warren Sandvick applied for a patent that casts an awfully wide net over remotely controlled sexual stimulation, specifically any of the sort that involves a user interface in a location different from the person being stimulated. You can find the patent at the link, but here's the abstract:

An interactive virtual sexual stimulation system has one or more user interfaces. Each user interface generally comprises a computer having an input device, video camera, and transmitter. The transmitter is used to interface the computer with one or more sexual stimulation devices, which are also located at the user interface. In accordance with the preferred embodiment, a person at a first user interface controls the stimulation device(s) located at a second user interface. The first and second user interfaces may be connected, for instance, through a web site on the Internet. In another embodiment, a person at a user interface may interact with a prerecorded video feed. The invention is implemented by software that is stored at the computer of the user interface, or at a web site accessed through the Internet.

Great, except that nothing in the above is an actual invention; it's essentially an acknowledgement that a dildo could be controlled remotely and an attempt to lay claim to that function exclusively. The description of the art outlaid in the patent rests solely on the claim that sexual stimulation devices have always been either self-stimulation devices or that any remotely operated stimulation devices still required close proximity. But it all rests on what you consider a stimulation device. Take this language from the patent, for instance.

These stimulation aids, however, require that the operator directly engage the stimulation aid. Only several stimulation aids are known that allow the stimulation aid to be operated by a remote controller-type device, such as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,834,115 to Stewart entitled “Penile Constrictor Ring,” U.S. Pat. No. 4,412,535 to Teren entitled “Remotely Controlled Massaging Apparatus,” U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,978,851 and 3,874,373, each to Sobel and entitled “Massaging Apparatus,” and U.S. Pat. No. 5,454,840 to Krakovsky et al. entitled “Potency Package.” Nonetheless, these prior art devices all have the disadvantage that the operator must be in close proximity to the recipient.

Great, except the smart phone, and even cell phones prior, could be considered prior art to this patent as well. After all, a person might suggest to another person that they put their phone on vibrate and shove it down their shorts while at work while the first person text-messages them all day, setting the phone off and creating stimulation. It's the same thing. The fact that a phone's primary function isn't sexual arousal doesn't really matter. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

seriously, how is this claim for a sex toy (priority 1998) not just claiming a telephone being used "creatively"? pic.twitter.com/RwLC8pPpSr

— Vera Ranieri (@vranieri) July 23, 2015

And yet, in 2002 the USPTO granted the patent to Sandvick, who in turn sold it to a company called TZU, who is now filing lawsuits against six companies that have or will soon be offering remotely-operated sexual stimulation products. Those companies have such varied products as bluetooth controlled vibrators, programmable and remotely controlled dildos, and even, from one company, software apparently for remote hand-holding (complaints included in the link above). All this over a delightfully broad patent granted to someone for his non-invention and now employed by a third party simply to extract money out of businesses actually making products. And not just any businesses, either. The types of businesses seem to suggest that TZU knows exactly what kind of shaky ground it's on.

More than anything, the TZU phenomenon seems to be one more data point suggesting that as it becomes harder to win high-stakes patent suits, the best business model for trolls may be to seek small payouts from companies that are ill-equipped to afford a legal defense. Basic Google-level research suggests that five of these six defendants can't possibly have significant sales at this point.

Anyone actually want to argue that the founding fathers' intention in patent law would be to make sure that companies couldn't create devices for your significant other to buzz your naughty bits?

Filed Under: obviousness, patents, remote control, sex toy, warren sandvick

Comcast's New Voice-Controlled Remote Starts Marketing Movies To Your Kids

from the speaking-in-minion dept

For years, broadcasters and cable operators have tried to push the boundaries of good taste and advertising revenue generation. Whether that's trying to prevent consumers from skipping ads to patenting technology that will use cameras embedded in set tops to watch you watching TV, there's a relentless thirst for new realms of ad revenue. As a sense of futility extends into the quest for more meaningful privacy protections in the new age of smart hardware and deep packet inspection, cable operators continue to nudge the boundaries of revenue collection ever further.

Comcast's latest foray into this arena is its new voice-controlled remote, which lets users give some basic keywords to control the company's set top box. Like similar services, it's a relatively useful concept, though if it works as well as most such efforts, most people will stick with old-fashioned buttons. Meanwhile, Comcast has apparently started using the technology to strike deals that market certain films to kids:

"Just say the word ‘banana’ into the remote and you’ll get a list of food programs as the minions talk back. Saying ‘kudos’ will take you to the Despicable Me 2 movie, and the minions will say ‘kudos!’ right back. Test out other words in Minionese to see what comes up, and keep checking the Xfinity and Minions social channels for new commands as they’re added. And if you want to get ready for the movie that comes out on July 10, just say ‘Minions’ to see the trailer."

To be clear, I don't think this is all that big of a deal, even though I understand the concerns of those who aren't thrilled about direct marketing to (and data collection of) children (as we recently saw with the new Wi-Fi-connected Barbie). After all, Minions ads are everywhere. Amazon's featuring the yellow pill-shaped little rabblerousers on their boxes during a limited cross-promotion. This is just kind of cute, right?

The problem is one of slowly-established precedent (think about the boiling frog anecdote) and the fact that privacy and security have historically been afterthoughts when it comes to these kinds of services. You'll recall of course that Samsung just got run through the wringer when it was discovered that its smart TVs were collecting, storing, and processing in-room voice conversations (transmitted unencrypted, no less). It was curious to watch Samsung get absolutely hammered for disclosing this in its privacy policy, when storing, analyzing and selling voice data is something many, many companies are engaged in without much transparency and little more than a glance toward meaningful security.

Comcast's privacy policy doesn't reference the company's voice-remote service specifically at all, but does generally suggest it can do pretty much whatever it likes with data collected from your usage of its technology. The company's FAQ for the service only has this to say about what happens to your kids' commands once they hit the internet:

"After you speak into the remote, the voice commands are sent to Comcast and its contracted service provider for processing. Comcast and its provider use these voice commands to provide the voice control service (including for quality assurance, troubleshooting, and customer support), improve Comcast’s products and services and improve their voice recognition algorithms."

Another issue is that as cable operators face increasing competition from internet video, their response so far has been two-fold: to raise rates like it's going out of style, and to try to cram more and more ads into every minute of television (sometimes by cutting programs shorter). So paying customers are already being bombarded with ads, and now their remotes are pitching product. As cable operators begin losing internet voice and traditional TV customers to over-the-top services, the lust for new revenue streams is only going to accelerate this dissolution of product value further.

Again, I don't think your cable remote "speaking Minion gibberish" to your tot is that big of a deal in and of itself, but we need to be wary of the temperature of the water we're collectively sitting in. As noted previously, there's going to be a pretty fine line between useful and invasive, or cute and terrifying, and contrary to what many think it's not going to be entirely clear when we've crossed the Rubicon.

Filed Under: comcast, kids, marketing, remote control, voice control
Companies: comcast

DailyDirt: Kinda Crazy Options For Personal Transportation

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The future once promised us flying cars and space hotels, but those ultra-modern conveniences haven't quite panned out (yet). Still, engineers are working on some pretty wacky transportation concepts, and personal flying devices aren't quite so impractical anymore. There are a lot of bugs to work out (and maybe some FAA regulations to comply with), but flying without a plane could be a novelty that almost anyone could try someday soon. Here are just a few examples of personal transportation that might be an exciting experience.

• Personal jetpacks have been around for a while -- remember the James Bond movie Thunderball from 1965? An improved vest jetpack project has started building a prototype that can fly for about 4 minutes (8 times longer than the Thunderball jetpack, untethered) with cheaper and safer fuel. Unfortunately, it didn't meet its Kickstarter goal. [url]
• A 530-lb Exosuit is a personal submarine that lets you dive to depths of about 1,000 feet for 50 hours. Exactly one suit exists right now, and it cost around $600,000 to make. [url]
• How would you like to dangle from a couple of remote-controlled (toy?) helicopters in order to fly from point A to point B? The flight can only last about 30 seconds or so, and if you weigh more than a hundred pounds or so, you might want to try adding another helicopter (or combine a handful of quadcopters).... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: exosuit, flight, helicopter, james bond, jetpack, quadcopter, remote control, submarine, thunderball, transportation
Companies: kickstarter