Boo for the cyber attack but fuck people who drive drunk repeatedly to the point of needing an interlock device. Maybe don’t drink and drive you fucking sack of shit.
Fuck the lock, ban them from driving. Inexcusable.
Driving under the influence is a ban able offence (reckless endangerment) in most countries.
So is a proper driver’s ed before giving even a learner’s permit. US loves giving a multi ton killing machine to untrained people with impulse control. And teenagers
Perfect solution. Really needs public transit or walkable cities to work so win-win.
you only need to get caught once for the lock
It’s a shame that it’s only when they get caught. There’s no excuse for driving drunk.
I can think of plenty, just oh shit we have to get to the hospital please take us to the hospital with a legitimate oh shit we have to get to the hospital tends to override most traffic bullshits. Making the judgment of whether something is a legitimate oh shit we need to get to the hospital is why we have EMTs but like, if the Friday night shift knows you have emergencies when you eat buttered popcorn and there’s a new bee movie out they might just expect you to drive yourself (or rather, have a trusted friend and swearing team buddy) because you’re half expecting a damn emergency at the bee movie and you’ve had twelve too many, they know which roads to keep clear of toddlers and the elderly. Damn bees.
There’s a new Bee movie?
I know someone that did it once and having to have one of these as a result. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.
“I know someone who only did a murder once and they locked them right up. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.”
Replace murder with any crime.
If you don’t want to face the consequences, don’t do the action that begets the consequences.
TLDR: don’t fuck around if you don’t wanna find out.
Nice straw man. Murder != drunk driving.
sure its not the same, but it gets really close, really fast
Interlock devices are the bare minimum if you insist on allowing people who have proven they will drive drunk to continue to drive.
I was arguing with the point of “repeatedly” being a determining factor for having to have this device. It’s not reality, once is enough.
When you consider that most people get away with a crime dozens of times at least before getting caught, then yes being caught once is enough.
Having a breathalyzer is letting them off easy, they deserve to lose their license
They lost their license for 2 years. The equipment was required to get it back.
Nope, shouldn’t of done it once. Pretty easy to not drink and drive.
deleted by creator
I too have never had a time sensitive emergency
What kind of emergency is more important than the lives of people that might be killed by a drunk driver’s mistake? And how is it impossible to find an alternative solution?
Where do you guys live? Is it America? Because I kinda feel like in America I’m never surprised that someone drove drunk.
(Especially before Uber.)
What emergency is so time sensitive it’s worth killing yourself and a random family for?
The fact that you can’t actually think of an emergency is telling.
Still didn’t name an emergency worth killing yourself and a random family over
honestly, any emergency that involves hitting you and yours. that’s because i don’t feel like remembering them. i’ve been the car that the police pulls over because it’s driving erratically and then takes over driving. it’s an abstract concept to you. not to me.
This is a great story to illuminate the large number of problems that could be addressed by decent public transit, better options for walking and biking, etc.
And here I was thinking these blow-and-go contraptions were self contained. I should have known better.
They want to be able to remotely disable vehicles, but in the process have made us vulnerable to all sophisticated actors to do so. Our leaders have their priorities all screwed up.
Wait, are you telling me…
…that a device meant to disable a vehicle…
…was used to disable a vehicle?
Whould’ve thought?
Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic.
Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.
Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight?
Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering.
It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local.
Yeah I don’t know, that’s a whole bunch of unnecessary surveillance.
Make the device work locally, make it in any way tamper resistant and mandate a yearly check up at a certified autoshop.
The solution to problems does not have to be “control every possible thing at all times”.
People deserve not to be monitored around the clock.
Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device
Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.
Of course I am?
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI, by your logic ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Don’t break the law If you don’t want to be monitored by the state.
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI
Yes I am actually aware, thanks.
ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Ankle monitors monitor location. Interlock devices monitor intoxication levels, and locally send a signal to the vehicle about whether it’s ok to drive. The difference should be obvious.
Spoken like someone never targeted by LE.
It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool
Please explain further because I do not believe that.
Someone knowledgeable enough could tamper with the local equipment to get it to give false negatives, or always pass regardless of blood alcohol content. If it doesn’t phone home, the company (or the court) doesn’t know it’s been tampered with.
This is all theoretical, I know nothing about this tech.
It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.
If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…
If somebody is good enough to tamper with the part that checks for BAC, why not also tamper with the part that phones home? Would they even need to?
The device doesn’t just phone home while driving. It does it constantly. It’s likely that any tampering would alert the vendor and by proxy the court.
I agree with you in principle but you could just have the person show up once a week for tamper checking. Those interlock devices are punishment for DUI/DWI so making the user show up once a week wouldn’t be too harsh, imo.
Showing up once a week isn’t a problem if it’s only a handful of people going to the same place.
However, when you have a lot of people on this device in a small area, you’ll have to ask them to go farther and farther away. Or else you’re going to outsource who is checking on the device, and that’s going to start driving up the price for this service.
According to some stats I found there were about 350k interlock devices in use in the entire US in 2016. That’s a tiny fraction of the amount of drivers we have. Unless they’re all concentrated in the same spot and have tripled or more in numbers this isn’t going to be a problem in a population of 350 million.
If you want to circumvent it, it’s as simple as disconnecting it. Source: I’ve done it (professionally)
Hegseth is gonna be even more angry than
bornnormal when he can’t drive from point a to point b because of this.That’s why he lives in the base. So he doesn’t have to admit he got his license revoked.
To be fair, I too would be angry had I been born normal.
How are these people planning to drive? The cost of fuel is excruciating! If it wasn’t because of Operation Epstein Fury, driving may have been an option.
They just breathe into the gas tank after happy hour.
drinking is some baby idiot garbage
That’s why you use the ones with the weird salt inside. No computer, no problem !
Only those cars that needed a breathalyzer for reasons.
Not much of a loss, I’d say.
2027 mandates every car have this. Its infuriating.
Per bidens Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that’s going to be every new car starting this year
Passive systems, not a breathalyzer. Still fucking stupid but one can disable the cameras or stop the vehicle from phoning home. They won’t be able to disable your vehicle remotely and it appears to be more a while driving thing rather than a before driving thing.
Not sure how I didn’t hear of this already. Apparently it’s not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.
I don’t drunk drive and barely even drink, but that’s horrifying. I can’t believe this went under the radar for me.
More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That’s a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I’m hearing of it.
Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle?
There are already cameras inside most new cars, but the purpose is to see if you’re nodding off when driving and such. It’s a good thing to keep unsafe drivers off the road. The bad thing is the lack of privacy regulation.
Yeah I’d actually prefer a breathalyzer if they feel they need to do something
