To be clear, I'm talking about the "transition period" when both bot and human drivers coexist. I expect this period to be a long one, since we're going to be buying classic cars for at least a decade more, and then the fleet takes a decade or more to age off the road. Even culture is able to change as fast as the car fleet. (Think about how popular Hummers were in 2000.)
Long-term, once the transition is made and infrastructure is redesigned for Type 4 autonomous cars, it will be dangerous for humans to drive.
Autonomous driving is an extremely ripe field for naysayers. It just seems so far-fetched.
But the arc of technology is easily tracked. The medium-term capabilities of autonomous vehicles are easily predictable. Complex ADAS systems are here already. Ray Kurzweil warns us that technology is exponential -- you can't predict the next 10 years by looking at the rate of change in the past 10 years without making vast underestimates.
I know many will disagree with us few, and it in 10 years, you will forget how wrong your forecasts were. But the naysaying is on par with IBM's chief predicting a market for 7 computers in the world. If you just look at your feet, and individual waves, you're never see the tide flow in.
"It will soon become prohibitively expensive to insure the human-driven cars and drivers."
There will be little change in the risk factors, the risk premium, and the risk coverage for human operated vehicles. If anything, it might drop a bit because the robots can practice defensive driving around the humans.
DC officials are so immersed in their NewSpeak language courses from Orwell U, class of '84, that they can no longer understand English.
Patriot Act? A-OK. Free Trade? A-OK. USA Freedom Act? A-OK. "Representatives" in the house? Sure. Money is speech? Of course it is! Corporations are people? Natch! "Hands Off the Internet" means "Hands On the Internet"? Duh!
Stop Hillary? Nope, that may be confused with being pro-Hillary.
"Most Americans at this point are at least marginally aware of the propaganda used to sell recent wars conducted by the United States."
If the FCC or AT&T often disappoint you, you still aren't adequately prepared for the disappointment you will feel when you see results of polling the US populace to measure their knowledge.
On average, we know NOTHING. Did you see that John Oliver bit where he talks to Snowden, and Snowden (fucking hero, BTW) says "I trust that the American people will use the knowledge...yada yada..." Then, Oliver shows him interview footage of American people's familiarity with the name "Edward Snowden". They either don't have a clue who he is, or the best informed think he is tied to Wikileaks, and revealed US secrets.
I felt sooo bad for Snowden at that point. All his sacrifice, and these stupid sheep couldn't even recognize the name, let alone the political significance of what he revealed.
Then there's Congress, who repeatedly called him Eric Snowden.
No. It may not be polite or patriotic to say so (I think it is), but the US populace is clueless, ignorant, and prime examples of the lower quartile of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Effectiveness Or Lack Thereof Is Not The Main Thrust
The effectiveness or lack thereof should not be our main argument against our egregious government surveillance of citizens. The arguments should begin with:
1. It is ethically wrong. 2. It goes against the Bill of Rights 3. It is illegal 4. It may not work well.
The main reason bullet 4 is a weak one is because I can make a very strong counter-argument to the article above:
OK, so the data is just bigger haystacks today. But we don't want to be like the IBM CEO who estimated a market for maybe 6 computers in the world. The reality is that Moore's, Kryder's, and Nielsen's laws are all in effect, and it's only a matter of time before Big Data analytics tools actually manage to make sense of this massive haystack.
While we maybe can't make sense of the haystack today, having data that goes back many years will prove "useful" in the future when we have greater analytical compute capacity. With years of data, not only is their more information to mine, but trend or panel data can be derived, as opposed to just "snapshot in time" data.
So, I'm not convinced the NSA is stupid to want all that data. I just think they are forward-looking. Unflappably insidious, for sure, but not stupid.