UK ministers warn that cars from China may carry out massive surveillance for China.

That is a real danger, but the same danger applies no matter where the cars come from. Their failure to consider this for Tesla cars, which are known to surveil their users with extreme thoroughness, is a bizarre mental lapse.

Real respect for your privacy means not collecting personal data about you.

Some surveillance systems are imposed by legal requirements; others to serve attempts at driving without a human driver, which means those cars are not "autonomous".

Why is it impossible to find what surveillance is done, or get rid of it when found? Because the car software is nonfree! A nonfree program, one that you can't study or change, never deserves your trust.

Since you can fix the car's brakes yourself (though it will have to pass inspection), there is no reason the car's software should be treated likewise.

What about car hardware that can do surveillance? Laws should require that any cameras that can see outside the car, or passengers, be designed to blur out their faces, bodies and clothing, sufficiently that the car's computers learn only that _there is something there_ and its rough dimensions (accurate no more than to the nearest foot).

Cameras that look at the camera should also blur enough that they cannot identify the driver.

Laws should also require that the user can easily deactivate and reactivate each or all kinds of radio transmission and internet connectivity, except for radio-based anti-theft systems such as Lowjack. provided they are installed or activated only at the user's initiative and never by default.

Likewise the user should be able to the user can easily deactivate and reactivate each or all kinds of GPS receivers from keeping a log of locations and reporting them later. A GPL navigating device should be forbidden to make the location records over any interface that can be accessed by other systems in the car, or by maintenance diagnostic systems.

The UK should also cease tracking the movements of all cars via license plate cameras on the roads.

When uniformed thugs are tried for crimes, they ask to be tried by a judge with no jury, because they know judges are likely to find them not guilty.

People who work in the criminal justice system often need the cooperation of thugs. For this reason, some prosecutors go to extreme lengths to protect uniformed thugs from prosecution. Nowadays some prosecutors do prosecute thugs, but I expect that many of them still try to protect thugs.

I expect that judges also want the cooperation of the thug department and therefore are under pressure not to put thugs in prison, even when they deserve it.

US citizens: call on the Senate to reject Sinema's bill to cut the pay of wildland firefighters.

Many of them are prisoners, temporarily released to risk their lives fighting fires. They are easy targets for cruelty.

Women in Alabama who use marijuana (or a substance extracted from it) while pregnant are sentenced to jail.

It is important to teach that using drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) while pregnant can damage the fetus — for the sake of those babies that will be born. However, jailing a few unfortunate people is not going to deliver a message to a large fraction of the public. A less vindictive method could reach a lot more people with the same cost.

A national medical system providing universal prenatal care would cost more, but it would do a lot of good in many ways.

California has strengthened regulations to protect beavers, because beaver dams help stop wildfires.