Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

48% Positive

Analyzed from 2533 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#waymo#guns#cops#car#police#gun#real#call#human#more

Discussion (77 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

kelnosabout 2 hours ago
I'm really torn on this.

This particular situation, at face value at least, sounds like a good outcome. Kids had a gun, someone noticed, called police, situation handled without escalation or violence or something tragic happening.

But this doesn't generalize. Another incident described in the article was when some kids were drinking in the car and shooting toy guns. What if they hadn't been drinking? What if they were just holding toy guns, innocently going from one kid's house to another? What if Waymo thought the guns were real, called the cops, and the cops screwed up and shot one of the kids? These sorts of escalations aren't imaginary; they happen, and they end in tragedy.

The article is also a little cagey on how this "detection" happened. Was it a human spot checking cameras in vehicles? I doubt it. Most likely it was some sort of computer vision algorithm that flagged something. Perhaps a human was in the loop to verify and be the one to call the cops, but humans seem to be increasingly shutting off their brains and trusting the machine. (I recall a recent incident where someone was wrongfully arrested because one of the companies that run the license-plate reader machines flagged their car as stolen. The machine screwed up the image recognition, but the cops blindly trusted it and arrested the guy.)

What happens when cops are allowed real-time access to Waymo's in-car video footage? Maybe they even have it already. This is just more pervasive, always-on surveillance, and this will only get worse as autonomous vehicles become more popular in the taxi scene.

anon84873628about 2 hours ago
Would you do any of those things in a regular taxi or subway car?

Imagine the alternative headline saying the murderers used Waymo for their drive-by assassination. There is only one option for Waymo here, and the idiocy of the US police is not within their power to solve.

dylan604about 1 hour ago
That could be a funny-or-die kind of script. They find a Waymo car that is feeling outcast and looking for friendship so it joins a gang. The Waymo car is constantly looking out for rival gang members while on the job, then swings by to pick up its fellow gang members for the hit, but then must obey all of the traffic laws during the get away.
graemepabout 2 hours ago
A human driver would be more able to tell a toy gun from a real one.
mlyleabout 1 hour ago
It's not like you can allow kids to shoot pellet guns out of a car indefinitely in a metro without substantial risk of something going wrong.

We need to (be able to) trust the police to not escalate irresponsibly and to deal with situations with nuance. Declining to escalate to authorities because we're scared of what they may do is not great.

smt88about 1 hour ago
Absolutely not. A human driver has to watch the road and can’t scrutinize a gun.

And it’s also not easy to tell toys from real guns. Many cities illegalized toy guns on public transit because people were putting orange tips on real guns to make them look like toys. 3D-printed guns rarely look like they can actually fire, even though they can.

jfaatabout 1 hour ago
Probably
anon84873628about 1 hour ago
So? In the real scenario, the underage passengers were drinking alcohol. Also, the 14-17 teen accounts are supposed to be monitored by parents, otherwise all riders need to be adults or their guests. That means they need to exercise judgment not brandishing what might look like weapons. The same way you need to exercise that judgment in a public park.

And I'm not even convinced that human drivers would be more discerning or rational about it. They could easily overstate the issue to police and create a more biased situation.

kstrauserabout 1 hour ago
Yes. Well, not exactly wave guns around, but say and do stupid stuff? Not in a taxi around a human driver, no. And not in a subway car with people other than me and my friends, no. But your question had an “or” in it. If we had nerf guns and no one else was there to witness? It’s not unimaginable that someone might get a nerf dart to the ear when they didn’t expect it.

My wife and I like watching real-life police detective shows. Sometimes we discuss mistakes the killer made, and how we’d avoid them. “I wouldn’t kill anyone, but if I did, I wouldn’t cheap out and keep the clothes I wore to do it instead of tossing them into a river.” Of course we’re not going to do that, but it’s a puzzle to solve, so we try to solve it. We would not have those conversations around a taxi driver or a crowded subway, lest someone overhear and get the wrong idea. On an empty subway or Waymo? Yeah, sure. And if BART or my cab reported us for planning a murder, I’d be livid enough to plan how to murder the computer that made the decision to rat me out.

anon84873628about 1 hour ago
Good thing Waymo yells you you're being monitored then.
analog31about 1 hour ago
>>> What if Waymo thought the guns were real, called the cops, and the cops screwed up and shot one of the kids? These sorts of escalations aren't imaginary; they happen, and they end in tragedy.

I take this seriously, but I think this a problem with the cops. Even regular people hesitate to report problems if they think the police might overreact.

leopoldjabout 1 hour ago
Please do not encourage your children to carry and brandish replica guns. This is never a good idea. Unfortunately I see this more frequently than I like. Kids don't just carry, they aim and pretend to shoot. Even in an open carry state like Florida brandishing a gun is illegal.
analog31about 1 hour ago
I know, it's a different world. I'm 62. As a kid, my friends and I chased one another around the neighborhood with toy guns for hours, raising a racket. My kids are 24 and 26 now, but it would have been unthinkable to let them have toy guns.
ryandrakeabout 1 hour ago
> What happens when cops are allowed real-time access to Waymo's in-car video footage? Maybe they even have it already. This is just more pervasive, always-on surveillance, and this will only get worse as autonomous vehicles become more popular in the taxi scene.

Yea, what's disturbing about this article isn't what happened in the article--it's what will happen in the future.

Today, a corporation transmits to the police "user in possession of what appears to be a gun." Tomorrow, what will that message contain?

CSMastermindabout 1 hour ago
During Covid they would have used it to deny movement to anyone not complying with mask mandates.
krisboltonabout 1 hour ago
It would be good to know more about the detection mechanism, if it wasn't computer vision it may well have been audio monitoring - a kid is perhaps more likely to brag / talk about what they're doing, which gets flagged to a live monitor who can intervene in real time.
jareklupinski30 minutes ago
> thought the guns were real, called the cops, and the cops screwed up and shot one of the kids?

you dont need a Waymo for that :(

sajithdilshanabout 1 hour ago
That would taught those kids a lesson. There is a certain way to behave in a car regardless if it belongs to them or not. Getting drunk and trashing the inside of the car is not acceptable just because someone is a minor
stackghostabout 1 hour ago
> What happens when cops are allowed real-time access to Waymo's in-car video footage?

Same thing that happens whenever cops get new surveillance powers. They’ll use it to stalk and harass women.

casey2about 1 hour ago
Cops are allowed to shoot kids in the US, that's just how society works. No point rat-holing into every possible hypothetical about it.
phoronixrlyabout 2 hours ago
I was going to say that this is the only surveillance that I would be OK with, considering the users are not on public property. However, I hadn't considered that calling the police on anyone in the US (especially for carrying a firearm) does not carry the same consequences as elsewhere...
MostlyStableabout 2 hours ago
As far as I can tell here the ghost portion is basically a non-sequiter. The waymo vehicle called the cops because it detected e passengers had a gun. The vehicle did not know or care about its status as a ghost gun or not. I'm sure that the Waymo terms of service prohibit carrying weapons into the vehicle. I'm pretty sure that if you were brandishing a realistic looking enough gun, an Uber driver would kick you out and call the cops as well.
kelnosabout 2 hours ago
There's a big difference between a human present who can make a decision based on a situation literally in front of their eyes, and a computer flagging a video feed for someone in what amounts to a call center to look at and decide on.

Not to mention the mass surveillance this sort of stuff continues to help enable.

bot403about 2 hours ago
I'm not a fan of expanding surveillance but the alternative of unmonitored transit seems worse.

Going to shoot up a place? Take your guns on a waymo. It won't complain. Guy wants to take an obviously distressed and co-erced girl to an abandoned lot? No complaints. Person with obvious head injury and slurring speech wants to go home instead of the hospital? Sure. Person has heart attack and passes out in back? We'll just drive your limp body 45 minutes in traffic to your destination.

These are just a few situations any human driver would obviously react to. And a modicum of detection and human review could solve in an autonomous vehicle.

threecheeseabout 2 hours ago
This is a problem that autonomous vehicles created. Why should we not complain that its solution is worse than non-autonomous travel, given it carries risk that doesn't exist today? Does Waymo benefit society enough to carry the tradeoffs?

And what surveillance or other risks does this introduce outside of the cabin, and why should society allow that? What is the definition of modicum of detection, and who is drawing that line?

handwarmersabout 2 hours ago
Maybe we shouldn't put the whole burden of world justice on Waymo, this allowing it a complete invasion of the privacy of both the people who use it and those who don't? Guy takes a drugged up girl on the train, should we hold the train responsible for the outcome also?
kstrauserabout 1 hour ago
Those are bad examples of things where a computer should make a judgement call.

> Going to shoot up a place? Take your guns on a waymo. It won't complain.

I take my kid to go skeet shooting. You’d call the police on us for having legal guns? What about my pocket knife?

> Guy wants to take an obviously distressed and co-erced girl to an abandoned lot? No complaints.

My wife is scared by someone on the sidewalk. We’re riding to where we parked our car for the evening. There’s a scared woman with me as we commute to our vehicle. BART wouldn’t call the cops on me.

> Person with obvious head injury and slurring speech wants to go home instead of the hospital? Sure.

What’s “obvious” here? I have drinks with friends and bump my head on a cabinet, and now I’m bleeding like a stuck pig. I’m not remotely about to die. Dammit, Waymo, I just want to go home and shower and let me wife laugh at me while she tapes me up.

> Person has heart attack and passes out in back? We'll just drive your limp body 45 minutes in traffic to your destination.

Person’s exhausted after work and wants to nap on the way home. They look identical to the dead guy. BART lets you nap.

If we had ubiquitous taxi and subway police, maybe they’d spent 5 seconds assessing each situation and move on. In no other real-life situation do we expect empty subways or taxi drivers to call the cops and investigate every possible bad scenario, nor should we.

the8472about 2 hours ago
But it's a reduction of privacy compared to private vehicles. If the goal is to convert all transportation infrastructure into surveilled transportation then that is a loss in privacy for the general public.
_vertigoabout 2 hours ago
That's a good yardstick. Would a reasonable human driver call (or want to call) the cops? If yes, it's reasonable for Waymo to do the same
MostlyStableabout 2 hours ago
I'm pretty wary of mass public surveillance. I'm much less concerned about companies monitoring the inside of their private property
PunchTornadoabout 1 hour ago
A lot of taxis have models detecting weapons and aggressive behaviours. I work on some models like this. I think they are necessary. For driver's safety.
anon84873628about 1 hour ago
The number of people expecting drivers to calmly & accurately distinguish between real threats and not is wild.
lemmetellyaabout 2 hours ago
Wait, can I not carry in a Waymo?

Found their rules page: "Do not carry weapons of any kind in the car"

That seems... naive? Plenty of people carry pepper spray or a knife with them. Not even ever intending to use them as a weapon.

When I go to the range, I travel with a locked case that contains my pistol, which inside has a cable lock. I couldn't take that through a waymo?

What about some kid buying a goofy mall katana they are going to put on their wall?

Like, obviously brandishing a weapon should be disallowed, but merely having anything that's a weapon? Seems fraught.

hosel43 minutes ago
Don’t brandish your weapon and no one will know you have it. Obviously the case here.
anon84873628about 1 hour ago
I understand Waymo having this position for now. I also think it is reasonable to push them to refine the rules for the situations you mention.
Gimpeiabout 2 hours ago
I dunno. This doesn’t bother me in the same way that flock cameras do. A Waymo car is a private space that you don’t have to use if you don’t want to. Seems pretty reasonable to me that Waymo doesn’t want their cars used for drive by shootings. If a drive by were to happen in a Waymo, this would be compelled by law anyway.
singleshot_about 1 hour ago
Sure, but the Waymo is taking intrusive video of much more than the inside of the car. And unlike a mast-mounted camera, it can be sent almost anywhere at almost any time.
adrianNabout 1 hour ago
It starts to become a problem once you’ve replaced public infrastructure to a sufficient degree by private infrastructure like waymos that avoiding to use them starts to seriously inconvenience people.
lotsofpulpabout 1 hour ago
What public infrastructure is replaced by Waymo? All the roads, traffic lights, signs, etc are all still there. Seems equivalent to any other vehicle that is not replacing public infrastructure.
epsteingptabout 2 hours ago
Shocking this isn't bigger news. It will be strange what they get you for. Maybe car ownership isn't doomed after all.

At least a human usually has some judgment and discretion situationally.

I guess the alternative "Juvenile Driveby Shooting takes place from Waymo" isn't a better headline though.

seanmcdirmidabout 1 hour ago
Google would probably be held 100% liable if it happened from their car. . What I don’t get is why Waymo allows unaccompanied juvenile riders at all? That seems like a huge risk for them.
anon84873628about 1 hour ago
Teen accounts are supposed to be governed by the parent account.

I understand the appeal. Parents I've spoken to feel safer putting their kid in a Waymo than and Uber. And I guess the time savings of not driving them around yourself are too compelling.

ButlerianJihadabout 1 hour ago
As of this writing, Waymo only permits unaccompanied minors in the Metro Phoenix area. The incident occurred in San Francisco, so it seems that they should not have riding without an adult.

https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/16389431?sjid=166657...

PunchTornadoabout 1 hour ago
If i were a driver i would call the cops too. What do you mean? A ghost gun in a taxi is ok?
handwarmersabout 2 hours ago
Flock is bad, but fleets of cars strapped to the teeth with cameras and sensors are suddenly ok even when they call the police on you? Why? Because of the makers of the technology that powers the cars say they are safer (via datasets that we have no way to validate)?
jplonaabout 2 hours ago
I think there's a legitimate distinction between monitoring what's inside the car vs what's outside. Outside seems bad. Inside is probably necessary.
handwarmersabout 2 hours ago
This is a good distinction. My main concern with Waymo is that we have no way of knowing if they stick/will stick to only monitoring the inside.
anon84873628about 2 hours ago
Well for one, so far they've only called the police on people who chose to use the service.

When we have evidence that Waymo is contracting its external cameras out to local governments and allowing abuse, then we can criticize them for it.

handwarmersabout 1 hour ago
What do you mean? Google is legally required to share information, and does share information, when such information is requested through a whole variety of different means available to local governments. https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests
anon84873628about 1 hour ago
That's the same as the police getting security footage from any random building.

The problem with Flock is that they let police hop on and look at whatever they want whenever they want. Completely different operating modes and intentions.

Also, Google and Waymo are different companies under the same parent. Google's policies are irrelevant.

seanmcdirmidabout 1 hour ago
Only if they retain it, and I would bet they are purging it quickly as a matter of policy to avoid these kinds of situations.
Simulacraabout 1 hour ago
Depends on how you feel about guns. I think people who are opposed to them would agree with this, people who are in favor of guns would be alarmed by this.
kobalskyabout 2 hours ago
> The company pulled the car over after detecting a “violation of our terms of service involving a firearm,"

Well now my biggest fear of riding a Waymo is not how it drives but getting my Google account banned because it misdetected something.

PunchTornadoabout 1 hour ago
Do you know what a ghost gun is? Where is the misdetection?
qwerpyabout 1 hour ago
It is incredibly weird to me that people are conflicted or even negative about this. An automated system prevented some troublemakers with a firearm from possibly causing serious injury or death, and we're throwing out things like "but what if?" "yeah but flock!". And then when there's a tragic shooting, "No Way to Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".

I think this is awesome and I want more autonomous cars on the streets, replacing bad human drivers and calling the cops on kids with guns.

iamnothereabout 1 hour ago
Why stop at autonomous cars? New cars monitor drivers for “drowsiness” and have internal/external cameras. Why not monitor for guns too? Maybe they should even refuse to drive if you’re holding a gun!

And why stop at cars? Maybe home cameras should call the cops if they see a weapon. Maybe your Apple Watch should detect if you’ve fired a gun. Brave new world!

qwerpyabout 1 hour ago
I’m a gun owner, but I’d rather start saving lives now rather than doing nothing while theorizing about all the ridiculous things that could happen.
handwarmers42 minutes ago
Agreed. We should call the cops on you because you have a gun. It's better than doing nothing and theorizing about all the ridiculous things that could happen if we started caring about pesky details.
iamnothere41 minutes ago
Why not just immediately seize all guns then? I’m sure you’ll save a lot of lives that way! Better start now, no time to hesitate or consider the consequences!
dude250711about 1 hour ago
It's an absolutely beautiful story!

The only issue is a somewhat wasteful use of police time - Waymo should have taken them straight to juvenile hall.

analog837435 minutes ago
I was at LOWES the other day with a used can of paint that I brought for color matching. obviously used. beat up and stained. at the checkout the computer halted the checkout process said "did you forget something in your cart?"

yeah fuck that. also fucks self-checkout. are we so poverty stricken as a society now that we can't afford to pay cashiers?