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.

>>> 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.

> 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?

> 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 think there's a middle ground between those that's possible that you might not be considering.

A while back I was in a Waymo and someone I was with dropped one of their Airpods and it went under the seat. They took off their seatbelt to dig under the seat and the car started beeping since we were driving. After about a minute of that someone came over the speaker and asked what was going on and told him he needed to get up and put the seatbelt back on or Waymo would end the ride right there.

I'm sure these cars are full of other sensor based triggers like seat belts being taken off, doors being opened, people messing with the steering wheel, etc that alert a human to come take a look. I know that the cars have cameras and microphones and it wouldn't surprise me if they are or are planning to use that for monitoring the cars, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the people in the car just triggered some other unrelated sensor and then the human stepped in to review and noticed the gun.

The article says they violated the TOS relating to the firearm, but that doesn't mean that Waymo initially started looking at the car because of that. It's possible that they were looking at the vehicle for something much more inane initially, discovered the firearm by chance, and are now using that to ban them since it's the most obvious TOS violation.

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

> 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 :(

> 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?

I'm always confused by how lines are drawn in scenarios like this. if calling cops makes waymo culpable, why not also blame parents buying kids guns? Toy stores selling the guns? Where does the chain of events start?

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.

> What if Waymo thought the guns were real, called the cops, and the cops screwed up and shot one of the kids?

Waymo is not the one to solve your policing problem. The root issue is that your police shoot to kill first, and investigate or make stuff up to get themselves off later.

the police's job is to analyze reports and actually figure out if theyre correct or not. If theyre failing at that, the rest really doesnt matter. Theyre gonna take some other stranger's report or false report and go shoot those kids for the love of the game anyways, regardless of if waymo is involved

> Most likely it was some sort of computer vision algorithm that flagged something.

Possible, but probably more likely they weren't wearing their seatbelts and then a Waymo remote support person saw the gun and immediately called police.

If we are going to privilege privately operated transportation providers like Waymo with special access to streets relative to individually operated vehicles, we need to rethink whether a private company's terms of service should govern the rights and privileges of users of such services or if users should have more substantial protections.

Waymo has chosen to monitor travelers in a way that drivers of their own cars would not be monitored, while the government has chosen to ban privately owned vehicles from some spaces (like Market Street in San Francisco). This coerces individuals into sacrificing privacy and other rights.

Imagine if your phone company listened to all your calls and reported you to the police if it didn't like something you say.

And what happens when a private company like Waymo partners with a municipality to integrate into its transportation network? Is that now privately operated vehicle or part of a public space system like a sidewalk or the road itself?

Waymo is not like mass transit or even a taxi: only one group of passengers are in the vehicle at a time. Subway and bus rules don't cleanly apply. It's closer to a rental car that drives itself.

We as a society are turning to rely on or even require private companies for much of our essential infrastructure and interpersonal fabric: communications, payments (decline of cash) transportation, surveillance (Flock), places of congregation (virtual town squares), etc. Meanwhile because they are private they are not bound to privacy and other protections like the state itself.

We should rethink this direction.

> 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.

The remote driver/observer has full access to the cabin footage no?

> What if Waymo thought the guns were real, called the cops, and the cops screwed up and shot one of the kids?

See this is only an issue because that is a plausible situation. The actual problem is on the police/cultural side, not the waymo side. No one should even have to think about this when calling the cops. And I can't think of 1 other western society where they do

These types of stories will be used to justify the blanket surveillance of citizens. It’s worked quite well.

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.

I mean if you're using toy guns you're in for trouble. Do you take toy guns on a flight?

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...

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.

> The waymo vehicle called the cops

Waymo called the cops. It’s not clear if it was the vehicle, or a human in the company. I suspect the latter.

An 80% lower exists purely to comply with US gun laws. That's exactly why they're legal.

Unless it was edited after your comment, it's mentioned in the first paragraph:

> Two young people riding in an autonomous vehicle were arrested in San Francisco after authorities allegedly found them in possession of an illegal “ghost gun.”

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.

Yeah I don’t get it. You’re getting into a privately owned vehicle. You agree to the terms of service when you sign up and ask for a ride. You should assume you have zero privacy in those cars.

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.

In California, it's surprisingly hard to be a legal, responsible gun owner if you don't own your own car. Rideshare bans weapons via TOS, public transit (even unloaded in a locked container) is illegal.

Don’t brandish your weapon and no one will know you have it. Obviously the case here.

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.

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

Corporate speak for "concealed means concealed"

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

Or a kitty keychain...

Even if their rules say that I don't get why they are allowed to call the police. In this case it might have been an unregistered gun but if someone was carrying legally they can refuse service but they shouldn't be calling the police.

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.

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.

Because you sign up for the service, agree to the terms, and voluntarily get into the car.

I have an option not to use Waymo. I don't have an option not to get screwed by Flock.

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.

>Maybe car ownership isn't doomed after all

I think if anything waymo, robot taxi is doomed. Self driving ever matures to private car ownership will to car share to subsidize costs will with 1-10% utilization will basically generate more demand than non car owners will ever need - there simply isn't business model for share only fleet outside of specific low vehicle density zones. And even for private car owners, the only ones who will generate some revenue are those that work offpeak hours, i.e. they can rent their cars during surge, which will make congestion worse for all existing drivers by increasing traffic (kek). Proliferation of self driving = eventually millions of beater supply cars doing rotations for basically marginal costs killing fleet economics.

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.

“Maybe car ownership isn't doomed after all.”

You think “owning” the vehicle will matter in the near future? That’s cute

If i were a driver i would call the cops too. What do you mean? A ghost gun in a taxi is ok?

Do you know what a ghost gun is? Where is the misdetection?

Delivering sounds an awful lot like kidnapping..

>Guns are generally legal, even in California. This is America, not the EU.

Guns are generally legal in the EU, too.

"Maybe we need very clear, standardized signals for entering a surveillance zone." [proceeds to give a libertarian pro-2A perspective and then the "what would a cab driver do perspective]

I have a suggestion. Perhaps if you enter an autonomous vehicle, it has a display with your name and will not drive until you buckle your seatbelt and click the button acknowledging?

In general I'd rather interact with a machine than with the kind of person who can get hired as a cashier where I live - likely someone cognitively disadvantaged or who is an immigrant from a poor part of the world with limited English skills.

Precisely because our society is rich, and reasonably meritocratic (and has a lot of immigrants from poor, non-English-speaking parts of the world), people who are reasonably smart and conscientious don't last long in low-pay, low-status jobs like cashiering - they get promoted or quit to do something more lucrative. This is Patrick McKenzie's concept of The Sort (https://x.com/patio11/status/1818781344702644311). And it means that my experience of interacting with a cashier is likely to involve interacting with a menial laborer who is difficult to communicate with; meaning I'd rather avoid that interaction altogether and just press buttons on a machine.

have you talked to cashiers? many prefer the new ones. who are you protecting?

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

Yeah, I'm appalled how poor as a society we've become, now that we can't afford door men (outside of luxury condos in Manhattan), elevator operators, and bank tellers.