• HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    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.

  • WesternInfidels@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device

            Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.

    • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If you want to circumvent it, it’s as simple as disconnecting it. Source: I’ve done it (professionally)

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          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.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…

          • XLE@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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?

            • Archr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              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.

          • teft@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 hours ago

            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.

            • QuadratureSurfer@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              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.

              • teft@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                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.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Hegseth is gonna be even more angry than born normal when he can’t drive from point a to point b because of this.

  • Greyghoster@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

  • arcine@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    That’s why you use the ones with the weird salt inside. No computer, no problem !

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Only those cars that needed a breathalyzer for reasons.

    Not much of a loss, I’d say.

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Per bidens Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that’s going to be every new car starting this year

      • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        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.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.