4 ms·

And I am sure these devices will soon be connected to a network. Soon if it breaks "you tried to disable it, that's a crime." If you potentially say something

by hpoe 5y ago

And I am sure these devices will soon be connected to a network. Soon if it breaks "you tried to disable it, that's a crime." If you potentially say something someone powerful doesn't like or your social credit score drops low enough "Sorry your driving privileges have been revoked." I know it sounds good on the surface but this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned. EDIT: Better yet since it is for "saving lives" and "safety" let's just ban alcohol all together that way we completely eliminate the risk of drunk driving altogether.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
Yup, fuck this mandate 7 ways to Sunday. I'm already apprehensive about buying a new vehicle since they all practically have a nonnegotiable cellular data connection. There's 0 chance this breathalyzer data won't be sent back home as well.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  It won't be breathalyzer data. From the article: "The type of technology that would be used is far from settled, with Congress stopping short of endorsing ignition lock devices like those that are often required by the courts for drunken-driving offenders and involve a breath test."
user-the-name 5y ago
> this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned They do. That is what losing your license is. They've always had this right. It is a good thing that they do.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Government doesn't have rights. It has power that the people tolerate. They've only had that power (in the US) since the late 1940s and early 1950s when licensing became a national thing. And there's a hell of a lot of procedure and safeguards that prevent them from exercising that power arbitrarily.
- hpoe 5y ago
  No, there is a slight but subtle distinction. The government license is what allows me to use the public roads, however I can drive and use my car however I want as long as I am on private roads. In this case I am not allowed to operate my vehicle if not approved by the government.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    In this hypothetical case, which you made up, and which it makes no sense for the government to implement as they can already just take away your license.
    - curryst 5y ago
      It's not made up, that's a legitimate thing. If I own a farm and want to do donuts in the field in my car, I can do that without a license. I could do it while drunk if I wanted to, it's all perfectly legal. You only need a driver's license to drive on public roads. This system changes that dynamic, because the government can stop you from driving on private property as well.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        I am talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188769.
vorpalhex 5y ago
There's no need for it to be networked. Modern cars already are starting to gain in-vehicle gaze detection. It could be confirmed when you get your regular car inspection that the system is still working.

by hpoe 5y ago

JohnWhigham 5y ago

Yup, fuck this mandate 7 ways to Sunday. I'm already apprehensive about buying a new vehicle since they all practically have a nonnegotiable cellular data connection. There's 0 chance this breathalyzer data won't be sent back home as well.

EForEndeavour 5y ago
It won't be breathalyzer data. From the article: "The type of technology that would be used is far from settled, with Congress stopping short of endorsing ignition lock devices like those that are often required by the courts for drunken-driving offenders and involve a breath test."

user-the-name 5y ago

> this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned They do. That is what losing your license is. They've always had this right. It is a good thing that they do.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Government doesn't have rights. It has power that the people tolerate. They've only had that power (in the US) since the late 1940s and early 1950s when licensing became a national thing. And there's a hell of a lot of procedure and safeguards that prevent them from exercising that power arbitrarily.
hpoe 5y ago
No, there is a slight but subtle distinction. The government license is what allows me to use the public roads, however I can drive and use my car however I want as long as I am on private roads. In this case I am not allowed to operate my vehicle if not approved by the government.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  In this hypothetical case, which you made up, and which it makes no sense for the government to implement as they can already just take away your license.
  - curryst 5y ago
    It's not made up, that's a legitimate thing. If I own a farm and want to do donuts in the field in my car, I can do that without a license. I could do it while drunk if I wanted to, it's all perfectly legal. You only need a driver's license to drive on public roads. This system changes that dynamic, because the government can stop you from driving on private property as well.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      I am talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188769.

vorpalhex 5y ago

There's no need for it to be networked. Modern cars already are starting to gain in-vehicle gaze detection. It could be confirmed when you get your regular car inspection that the system is still working.