30 ms·

Buried in Infrastructure Bill Is a Mandatory Backdoor Kill Switch for Your Car

352 points by danboarder 5y ago

literallyaduck 5y ago
The mandatory interlock for alcohol could be used for the same purpose. Sure don't want citizens moving around the country without their permission, they might get ideas of freedom and liberty and forget about the benefits of having a big brother to check up on you.
danboarder 5y ago
A couple quotes from the article that stood out to me: "More pressing than the privacy concerns, though, are the safety issues. Including an automatic kill switch of this sort in a machine with internet access presents the obvious scenario that a malicious agent could disable your vehicle remotely with no warning." and also: "...by 2026, vehicles sold in the US will be required to automatically and silently record various metrics of driver performance, and then make a decision, absent any human oversight, whether the owner will be allowed to use their own vehicle. Even worse, the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time." What could go wrong...
- ehnto 5y ago
  Wow. What does that do to the existing used car stock? Good luck getting usable metrics out of my '96 Nissan. Also, Florida, where you can drive the inside of a car without the outside of the car and that's totally fine. How could a monster truck high lifted F150 be considered safe, or a 1500hp rollcage on wheels be considered safe, in the same breath as this legislature.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    There will be exceptions for those things, just as there are for current auto regulations.
    - ehnto 5y ago
      I think it's become confusing to discuss because some feel this is just another safety device, like a seatbelt. But this limits a persons ability to operate their vehicle at all based on some metrics of their behavior, which I feel is a pretty big grey area and worth thinking hard about. It's mostly worrying for me because I doubt very highly that they could do it safely, both from cyber security standpoint and just a technologically robust standpoint. There would be so many edge cases, and if they use ML, it's going to be pretty hard to be transparent about how it works.
  - landemva 5y ago
    States will increase the yearly license plate tag costs for older vehicles until the cost of keeping the vehicle as a daily driver will not be economical. It takes a couple decades and then one day your children are adults and believe it normal for TSA to remote monitor driving and look under everyone's clothing at airports.
- mrjin 5y ago
  Trust me, anything can go wrong will go wrong, just a matter of time.
- akomtu 5y ago
  Pfft.. just cut the antenna.
ashton314 5y ago
We’re going to need OpenWrt but for cars. Ugh that sounds like a headache.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Automotive EE here. There is a big shit show with vehicle security right now. There basically wasn’t any. Which guess what? WORKED GREAT! Until… some moron decided cars needed WiFi hot spots (3G), then OTA flashes, and etc. Wasnt hackable until you hooked it to the internet. So of course they spend as little as possible, with the cheapest network providers. And there is a big public hack by two clowns that were fed info by a letter agency. A Wired article, bla. Fast forward… most mfgs use approx the same firewall now. It blocks data access to between the radio/telematics and rest of car. That was their solution, not to harden the car, not to get rid of the fucking Internet, just put radio and garbage on its own network. Best part? The firewall isn’t a required part of the car. You can just unplug it and tie the bus wires together. Next gen vehicles are using more busses, automotive ethernet, and a much more complex firewall, but still the same idea. Not sure if the new vehicles have checks to make sure the firewall is there. At least with automotive ethernet you’ll need a switch and can’t just jump wires together. So… you aren’t far off with needing an OpenWRT. The issue is the custom hardware. IIRC, the next gen firewalls use a specific 90-pin connector (yazaki?) that only Bosch can buy, that’s the absolute minimum step / issue. Best part though!? The immobilizer won’t be the firewall most likely, it’ll be it’s own module and by 2026 I really expect crypto secure MAC’d messages. So… yea, good luck homie.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Any chance to ensure a car which "implemented the option" cannot ever be connected? Or will we be stuck with buying old cars? (Of course the idea of an internet connected car is part of the absolute dystopia.)
    - speeder 5y ago
      In EU that seemly is the case, they have a law there where all cars must have a cellphone that automatically calls emergency services when the cars crash. https://www.motor1.com/news/238058/cars-emergency-services-mandatory-europe/ https://www.motor1.com/news/238058/cars-emergency-services-m...
throwaway_1237 5y ago
Is there any way to find out the motivation behind this? And who is responsible for this part of the legislation?
- kelnos 5y ago
  The latter bit was my question as well; I expected the article to share that, but no dice. Motivation... I expect it's just another bullshit "law and order" law-enforcement power grab, thinly disguised as a "safety requirement".
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  General Motors, maybe? If it is mandated that all cars should have this killswitch, then a lot of old-but-serviceable cars have to be taken off the road - and replaced with new ones.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    Of course the mandate won't apply to existing vehicles, just like every other new safety requirement didn't take all the old vehicles off the road.
erulabs 5y ago
Maybe next time some people oppose an enormous omnibus they won't be called anti-progress. Maybe.
SiriusLi 5y ago
Sounds like a reason to buy your car in another country and import it.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  Easily made illegal. Government will just seize your stuff, stick it in a warehouse, and bill you for it.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    If the car doesn't meet USA emission and safety standards, it's already so hard that it may as well be illegal. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car
    - R0b0t1 5y ago
      Right, and this would make it not meet safety standards. It's complete trash. Importing a car doesn't mean you intend to drive it, it may merely be an engineering sample. But the process for any exemption is far beyond the means of a normal person. Everyone knows your local cops are probably worthy of contempt, but for those following along at home, please consider offing as many CBP officials as possible.
- linguae 5y ago
  Easier said than done. About a week ago I was researching what it would take to import a Mexican or Brazilian Volkswagen Type-2 (Bus/Transporter) to California. Americans are generally restricted from importing cars that are younger than 25 years old, and in California imported cars must receive expensive emissions testing and certification that are much more involved than the normal smog check process (with some exceptions for classic cars). Importing cars is not a viable option for most Americans.
he0001 5y ago
So who added it? This bill was debated and fought over for months. Where did this come from?
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The Used Car Dealer Association, would be my guess. Because the value of their older inventory is going to go to the moon.
- thematt 5y ago
  Lobbied for by MADD. The push was led in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI). Original co-sponsors were David McKinley (R-WV) and Kathleen Rice (D-NY). The senate version of the bill was led by senators Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and Rick Scott (R-FL) with co-sponsorship from Gary Peters (D-MI) and Shelley Moore (R-WV). https://www.madd.org/press-release/madd-hails-monumental-drunk-driving-prevention-provision-in-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-u-s-house-of-representatives https://www.madd.org/press-release/madd-hails-monumental-dru...
  - sieabahlpark 5y ago
    They're all morons.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    MADD is an awful organization these days. In the early days they knew how to stay inside the lines, now they are power hungry fascistic organization. They would be happy if you weren't able to leave your home unless you got permission from a MADD member.
- messo 5y ago
  Special interest groups (like MADD) is almost extremist in their single-mindedness, pursuing utopic ideas without any regard for existing laws concerning privacy and personal freedoms. Here in Norway, we have had the same problem with the anti-drug lobby, where police, schools and other government agencies have gotten away with obvious injustices for decades, in the name of the utopia that is a "drug free society". Only now is people and the press waking up to the fact that so much of what has been going on in the service of "the greater good", actually has been illegal and caused a lot of harm and suffering.
Johnny555 5y ago
And to think people were worried that an EMP could immobilize all of the cars in the country, turns out it'll just take a group of Russian hackers.
- borski 5y ago
  Or American skiddies. Honestly, it isn’t going to take a nation-state to wreak havoc with this.
hlieberman 5y ago
This is a terrible description of what the law actually does. Let's shine some light on the FUD. The law, H.R. 3684 (as enrolled), defines an "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology" as a system which can do /one/ of the following: 1. "passively monitor the performance of a driver... to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired... and prevent or limit [car] operation if an impairment is detected." 2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected. 3. Both. This will apply only after the DOT finalizes a rule describing what all those things actually mean in terms of manufacture. The law requires that the Secretary publish this rule within the next three years, unless they think it can't be done, in which case they can push it out another three years. That rule must give car manufactures at least another two years to implement the requirement. It also gives the DOT an out to say that it can't be done, in which case in 2031, they need to write a report to Congress to say why it can't be done. In software terms, this is a user story that was just submitted for development. It's Congress asking the executive branch to do some work, but not actually forcing them to do so.
- webinvest 5y ago
  Incase anyone wants to read the fulltext of H.R. 3684: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684...
- davidvondev 5y ago
  It violates the entire premise that laws are legitimate if they represent the consent of the governed. People don't even know this exists, but we're already being told the administrative state in the form of the DOT will hash out the details. I can't be the only one to see a problem with this.
- sieabahlpark 5y ago
  None of that disproves the literal title? I don't want that in my car. I don't even drive drunk and I don't want my car thinking because it can't see the fucking lines on the road that I'm drunk. How would this work for being a designated driver? The drunkards in your car would setoff whatever sensors "monitoring" for alcohol. This is a stupid law that has no right to be included.
onion2k 5y ago
I find the way American law-making is done to be fascinating. As far as I can tell the US is the only country on Earth where politicians are able to "bundle" completely unrelated things into a single piece of legislation. It definitely doesn't happen here in the UK in any substantial way (laws get amendments added on but they're always at least somewhat related to the main part), and I've never heard of it anywhere else in the world. It's a truly interesting thing to read about from a negotiation perspective, but it must make the process of actually getting things done in politics really hard.
- TeaDude 5y ago
  I don't think I've seen any omnibus bills in the UK but there's still a lot of nasty euphemisms. Not sure if there's a legal system that DOESN'T use nasty euphemisms though...
- davidvondev 5y ago
  It's one of the things that's going to change. The current lack of transparency is extremely damaging to faith in government. Each part of a the law should require an actual author(s) the same way a patent requires an actual inventor, irrespective of who it was ultimately assigned to. Also, aggregate omnibus laws like this one have to be expressly forbidden, for just the reasons you cited. That's the absolute minimum level of reform necessary.
- joconde 5y ago
  I think it happens in France sometimes, and it’s one of the roles of the Constitutional Council to strike unrelated measures from laws.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    Same in Italy, though here it's a parliamentary democracy so it's the president of the republic that does this kind of oversight.
  - bambax 5y ago
    Yes, it's called "cavalier législatif" ("law rider"?) and it's kind of forbidden by the 45th article of the current constitution, which states that an amendment is examined if it has a "link, even indirectly, with the piece of legislation being voted". That doesn't prevent it from happening all the time, of course. The Conseil Constitutionnel sometimes strikes the "riders" if the law being voted is referred to the Council -- but referral isn't mandatory. https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/publications/titre-vii/le-controle-des-cavaliers-legislatifs-entre-continuite-et-innovations https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/publications/titre-vi... [in French]
shermablanca 5y ago
Looking forward to the iFixIt tutorial for disabling this.
- mrjin 5y ago
  This sh*t will almost for sure be in the firmware, just like the Intel ME. Technically you can disable it yourself, practically you simply cannot.
helge9210 5y ago
Owning a car is a right, but driving it is a privilege. This initiative is no worse than mandatory seatbelts.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Mandatory seatbelts are a simple mechanical device which can hardly compromise the functionality of the car. Integrated electronic systems of the type in context are not.
  - helge9210 5y ago
    > Mandatory seatbelts are a simple mechanical device Welcome, traveler from the distant past. It's 2021 now and you won't believe who were last two POTUS. Seatbelts are not simple mechanical devices for quite some time. They are part of integrated safety systems including pre-tensioner, air bags and "pink noise" sound emitters etc.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > Welcome, traveler from the distant past :) I salute you, dweller! Interesting the idea of the pink noise ( https://bgr.com/tech/mercedes-pre-safe-sound-pink-noise/ https://bgr.com/tech/mercedes-pre-safe-sound-pink-noise/ ). Also since there are people with a strong phobia about air bags, given that they are reported to sometimes cause over 170dB of noise (already at 140dB there is very high chance of impairment). This written, while I have been reliably told of extremely severe issues (mutilation post unduly explosion of airbags) after the trivial practice of bad electric cabling, I am unaware of consequences from the seat belts. So I assume the systems were developed in the years of solid engineering (as opposed to internship based development, ship-now-fix-later models etc) - though clearly there are critical vital potential areas for compromization there. Seat belts do not constitute a kill switch feature which may trigger in a false positive of engineering related issues. > It's 2021 now and you won't believe who were last two POTUS I am really, really not sure I want to know now...
    - t-writescode 5y ago
akvadrako 5y ago
This sounds like this could be declared unconstitutional by being considered an unreasonable search. Still terrible anybody supported this bill. I don't even remember this making the news or being debated before it passed.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  The problem as usual is they bury it deep in amongst a completely unrelated bill and make you look bad to your constituents if you don't vote for it. It's a minitature form of blackmail.
- landemva 5y ago
  Did you voluntarily get a driver license? You signed your name to agree to abide by their contract for the privilege and benefits of being licensed. If you want to use the superior constitutional approach, you would need to first stop voluntarily contracting with them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ThinkBeat 5y ago
Presumably, this will also allow law enforcement to flip the kill switch too. Virtually end all car chases. (Within say 15 - 20 years when a majority of cars will have this feature). Either by being virtually near the car in question to transmit the signal, or even via the internet (if supplied with a network connection) Now this can be hacked as all things can. Car jackings, robbery, prevent a victim from escaping. I would prefer a car without this feature,. Drunk driving is a major issue that is not yet dealt with in an efficient enough manner. I would prefer that the change is to build a BAC measurer into every car. This is a technology that we have today, it is being used and it is efficient enough that it continues to be used. It has some obvious weaknesses I guess someone else could blow clean for you and off you go. This new, high-tech, detect your BAC by inspecting your driving is prone to have issues as well and more of them until the technology matures.
- ovi256 5y ago
  > I would prefer a car without this feature,. So would criminals, at least those professional enough to plan ahead. So I expect pre-kill switch vehicles to be used exclusively by such criminals.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > I expect pre-kill switch vehicles to be used Expect them to be used by people who consider a kill-switch on their car unacceptable, on the basis of the valid reasons you will be able to find scattered in this page. Also: the logic! : "C prefer W, so only C will..." : what was that?!
    - ovi256 5y ago
      I never wanted to imply only criminals would use such cars. Of course there are valid reasons to prefer them. I think I'd prefer them myself. I was thinking about the increased demand on used pre-kill switch cars.
  - borski 5y ago
    If crossing the street when the walk signal isn’t showing but there are no cars for miles makes me a criminal, so be it. I expect anyone who rationally believes that this opens up a whole slew of dangers on the road, from security concerns to self-incrimination to, quite simply, bugs would be the ones to use pre-kill switch vehicles.
Someone 5y ago
For comparison, here’s what the EU requires in 2022 (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive-industry/safety-automotive-sector_en https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive-industry/safe... and, from there, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/34588 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/34588): - Drowsiness and attention detection (cars, vans, trucks, buses) - Distraction recognition / prevention (cars, vans, trucks, buses) Doesn’t seem to require remote intervention capability, but distraction prevention seems to require a kill switch. Of course, required features such as “advanced emergency braking” can be seen as kill switches, as they would prevent you from driving your own car into the wall of your own house.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  I am not sure how the "warning of driver drowsiness and distraction", which should be face monitoring based, will work in offroading. Probably it is a function of speed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
graycat 5y ago
Soooo, let's see, try to see what is going on. I want to start with two standard pieces of advice, (1) always look for the hidden agenda and (2) follow the money. Now let's see: First, as in this thread already, we know who put this "kill switch" stuff in the bill. In particular it is the MADD group maybe plus maybe some more activists. Second, now that the "kill switch" is in the bill, the MADD group is pleased. Soooo, some Members of Congress can expect some campaign contributions from MADD and their supporters. Since it will be some years before the bill works its way through the DoT, engineering, law suits, lobbying by car manufacturers, screaming from drivers who don't want the complexity, etc., the campaign contributions may continue for several years. Uh, each new feature on a car raises the purchase price and the cost of maintenance. Some of the features added to cars can break, fail, whatever and be left broken, but not this "kill switch"!!! If that darned thing gets sick, the car may become a 4500 pound boat anchor until the owner coughs up, maybe, $2500 for repairs!!! Car owners won't like that. Third, there can be a lot of pitfalls for that provision to pass before ALL new cars have that "kill switch". E.g., the provision was put into the bill quietly. Some years from now a provision to repeal or delay for 10 more years can be put into some bill just as quietly. If the kill switch starts to become real and angers a lot of voters and companies, then Congress can receive a lot of pressure, more than MADD can manage, to repeal the provision. Fourth, even if all new cars have the switch, some car manufacturer can, quietly, hint, hint, let out how to disconnect the switch and all its sensors. And there is a really big, responsive industry of small companies ready to help car owners who would want to disconnect the switch. Fifth, what the insurance companies care about is not what some sensor or computer in a car says but what insurance claims the driver has. E.g., the car insurance industry knows well that I've been driving for a log time and have never had an insurance claim of any kind. Sixth, if a car insurance company wants data from some log file accumulated by some computers in a car, then send them a log file -- "Get your clean log file right here, cheap, guaranteed, clean log files!!!" Net, it could be 10+ years before anyone who hates the idea of having the kill switch actually has to put up with the darned thing. Then 10+ years from now, MADD will have to dry their tears, have a group hug, and console themselves with the fact that they tried. Meanwhile, some Members of Congress will have gotten some campaign contributions, 10+ years worth! All this is a special case of what I've detected is a pattern in how Congress works: In one word, there's a lot of showmanship going on. There's a lot less real than meets the eye.
PontifexMinimus 5y ago
> the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time. What could possibly go wrong? The USA had better hope that this system doesn't get hacked by any of its adversaries.
everdrive 5y ago
I’ve got an old, low tech car. I guess I’ll just try to keep it running forever.
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Same. And when that fails old tractors and side-by-sides will do. I would not be the first person driving a tractor or side-by-side into town. After that, horses will have to do. No idea what to do for the people in big cities. E-Bikes / E-scooters?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
msandford 5y ago
I have a legal/human rights theory that I've been trying to promote, albeit with basically zero zeal. Crime is something that happens on the fringe of society and as such should be a relatively small problem. If it happens enough even if it's technically illegal it ceases to be a real crime because so many people think it's OK. As such if something is to rise to the level of a crime we as a society ought to be willing to spend the resources to have a real human being make the accusation of crime. If you can't afford to put a human in the loop, it can't -- simply by definition -- be considered a crime. I'm sure there's a hole in my logic somewhere. There are likely big loopholes you could drive a bus through. But I can't help but feel that there's a nugget of truth in there somewhere. I don't think anyone should be able to be accused of something by a mere algorithm.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  There are many people who consciously or implicitly think vehicular homicide isn’t a crime. Motorists frequently avoid consequences for ending the lives of bikers and pedestrians, even when they were impaired or intentionally driving recklessly Many laws are passed not because people think it is morally wrong to do something, but rather because they feel society would be better if no one (or at least fewer people) did it
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
swiley 5y ago
This is why I bought a sailboat. All you can do is put computers on her; There's a real limit to how much you can make her function dependent on other people's code.
masswerk 5y ago
To say the least, yet another attempt to solve a non-technical problem by technology. — Now you have to come up with a perfect and accurate definition of the non-technical problem (including all the edge cases) and hope the best that someone will be able to operationalise these definitions and come up with the perfect technical solution, while also addressing any possible scenarios of misuse. Also, you hope for a perfect deployment of this perfect solution. What could go wrong?
heisenbit 5y ago
The article is based on "reporting" in the "Daily Caller" which imho. makes all of it highly suspect.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  Fortunately, laws in America are publicly accessible. The text of this law, for instance, can be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684.... Search in the page for "SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY." That way you don't need to depend on Daily Caller or any other intermediary else to know the truth.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  The article is correct actually. I know the daily caller is awful but if you go to any news search engine you will find several stories.
h2odragon 5y ago
This story has been floating since the bill passed with various, less clickbait titles. There's real reason to hope nothing will ever come of this provision but some MADD fundraiser literature. The notion of cars having "drunk check" systems, bugs me, for at least two reasons. Not only is it a step beyond "presumption of guilt," it is also an erosion of private property rights. I might be rolling my car around my own "dirt track" i've cut into my valley. The gubmint aint got no right to ask me for a driver's license in that case. They've no concern for the road worthiness of the car. They'd also have no say in what "mandated" systems it still has in that case; I'd say. Of course these points always get raised, "It's not right to mandate insurance because some are proscribed from gambling" and so on, and at least in my lifetime the usual course of public debate seems to conclude that "principles are nice and all but we have to protect us from ourselves!"
stjohnswarts 5y ago
This is one reason I hope it doesn't pass. This kind of big government overreach has me against it. I'm all for the stuff in there for environmental concerns. The bill probably needs to be broken up into 4 or 5 bills so these gotchas in there get more scrutiny. It also sets up more government monitoring. Why shouldn't there be a camera and biomonitors streaming data back to Big Brother and Tesla (heartate, breathing rate, how dry your mouth is, rectal tightness) as well?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I believe this bill has already passed and been signed into law.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Actually it has. I guess I need to buy a car before 2026 :) . Hopefully someone will take it to court so that they have to have an opt-out. This is a bad move in the wrong direction. We need less government surveillance and not more.
greggeter 5y ago
Which is why I own two old trucks and am building an electric car from junkyard parts.
stevespang 5y ago
There will be underworld "modders" who will rip that chip out for a fee . . . I am seeking an older '65 mustang with a stick now since it has zero chips in it it will be one of the few cars that will be driveable after the US get's hit with an EMP bomb.
lstroud 5y ago
Can they at least add a liability provision allowing disaffected drivers to sue for malfunction? Maybe that would balance the scales.
snowwrestler 5y ago
I have to comment on the incredible discrepancy between HN threads about self-driving cars and threads about driver-safety technologies (like this one). Threads on self-driving are often enthusiastically supportive, with many comments about how computer control will ultimately be safer because computers don’t get tired, distracted, drunk, etc. and people do. But then threads like this one are usually highly skeptical about how well the safety technologies will work, and over losing control over one’s machine. Maybe these are just totally different sets of people commenting; I recognize that HN has a big and diverse audience. But even if that is so, it seems interesting to think about who chooses to comment on which topics. Because ultimately these sort of “smart” safety technologies, and self-driving technologies, are qualitatively the same: you’re ceding manual control to a computerized system. It’s just how much: does the ML system have to reliably interpret “impaired” driving, or does it have to interpret everything about driving? It seems like there is some sort of uncanny valley where ML-powered technologies are perceived as bad when implemented partially, but good when fully placed in control. That doesn’t make logical sense to me but I’d be interested to hear different views.
- rpaddock 5y ago
  I attended a Presidential Commission on Robotics meeting at Carnegie Mellon University during the Obama administration. UBER, Google, and a whole lot of government acronyms such as IARPA were present. What they spent most of the day obsessing about was: “We know, statistically, our technology WILL kill a child. How do we handle the public and political fall out of that?” In my view they were more concerned about that than looking for technical solutions. I brought up a personal experience: I once almost had a accident on Interstate 80, in a construction zone. Somehow a car that was over packed pulled from between some construction equipment, in front of me. This driver could not see out any window but right in front of him, and he was pulling *across* the interstate traffic, not going with the flow. He could not see out the passenger window, that was facing me, it had a sleeping bag in it. He shot out from between the construction equipment about twenty feet in front of me, while I was doing 45 MPH, remember it was a construction zone. The correct solutions to the problem was to floor the gas, so that I could get in front of him while there was still space, and get off on the right hand berm of the road. Any solution the applied the brakes would have caused a collision. The experts in the room replied that Aircraft Autopilot software may have been able to avoid a collision in this example. No one was sure and few seemed to care.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
I don't mind this. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing I do, and reducing drunk driving and/or high-speed chases with a remote kill-switch is more likely to impact me than any of the possible downsides (I've had my car stolen and also have been hit by drunk drivers in the past). Could this be used against me? sure. Would it be worse than a tire blow-out? probably not. People worry about government overreach, but in a scenario where the government would use this against me I'd already be screwed beyond recourse.
s09dfhks 5y ago
Curious how this would impact motorsports. My friends and I like to take our "daily drivers" to track days. The advantage being we can drive home with the AC and music playing. Sure there are some people who buy cars and rip out the interiors for the full on "Race car" experience, but I feel like this bill would kill us casuals
giardini 5y ago
So used car prices rise once again.
mleonhard 5y ago
Why do they call it Biden's bill when it was written and passed by Congress?
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  The president signed it and pushed for it's passage. This is typically wording in the US.

352 points by danboarder 5y ago

The mandatory interlock for alcohol could be used for the same purpose. Sure don't want citizens moving around the country without their permission, they might get ideas of freedom and liberty and forget about the benefits of having a big brother to check up on you.

danboarder 5y ago

A couple quotes from the article that stood out to me: "More pressing than the privacy concerns, though, are the safety issues. Including an automatic kill switch of this sort in a machine with internet access presents the obvious scenario that a malicious agent could disable your vehicle remotely with no warning." and also: "...by 2026, vehicles sold in the US will be required to automatically and silently record various metrics of driver performance, and then make a decision, absent any human oversight, whether the owner will be allowed to use their own vehicle. Even worse, the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time." What could go wrong...

ehnto 5y ago
Wow. What does that do to the existing used car stock? Good luck getting usable metrics out of my '96 Nissan. Also, Florida, where you can drive the inside of a car without the outside of the car and that's totally fine. How could a monster truck high lifted F150 be considered safe, or a 1500hp rollcage on wheels be considered safe, in the same breath as this legislature.
- relaxing 5y ago
  There will be exceptions for those things, just as there are for current auto regulations.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    I think it's become confusing to discuss because some feel this is just another safety device, like a seatbelt. But this limits a persons ability to operate their vehicle at all based on some metrics of their behavior, which I feel is a pretty big grey area and worth thinking hard about. It's mostly worrying for me because I doubt very highly that they could do it safely, both from cyber security standpoint and just a technologically robust standpoint. There would be so many edge cases, and if they use ML, it's going to be pretty hard to be transparent about how it works.
- landemva 5y ago
  States will increase the yearly license plate tag costs for older vehicles until the cost of keeping the vehicle as a daily driver will not be economical. It takes a couple decades and then one day your children are adults and believe it normal for TSA to remote monitor driving and look under everyone's clothing at airports.
mrjin 5y ago
Trust me, anything can go wrong will go wrong, just a matter of time.
akomtu 5y ago
Pfft.. just cut the antenna.

ashton314 5y ago

We’re going to need OpenWrt but for cars. Ugh that sounds like a headache.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Automotive EE here. There is a big shit show with vehicle security right now. There basically wasn’t any. Which guess what? WORKED GREAT! Until… some moron decided cars needed WiFi hot spots (3G), then OTA flashes, and etc. Wasnt hackable until you hooked it to the internet. So of course they spend as little as possible, with the cheapest network providers. And there is a big public hack by two clowns that were fed info by a letter agency. A Wired article, bla. Fast forward… most mfgs use approx the same firewall now. It blocks data access to between the radio/telematics and rest of car. That was their solution, not to harden the car, not to get rid of the fucking Internet, just put radio and garbage on its own network. Best part? The firewall isn’t a required part of the car. You can just unplug it and tie the bus wires together. Next gen vehicles are using more busses, automotive ethernet, and a much more complex firewall, but still the same idea. Not sure if the new vehicles have checks to make sure the firewall is there. At least with automotive ethernet you’ll need a switch and can’t just jump wires together. So… you aren’t far off with needing an OpenWRT. The issue is the custom hardware. IIRC, the next gen firewalls use a specific 90-pin connector (yazaki?) that only Bosch can buy, that’s the absolute minimum step / issue. Best part though!? The immobilizer won’t be the firewall most likely, it’ll be it’s own module and by 2026 I really expect crypto secure MAC’d messages. So… yea, good luck homie.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Any chance to ensure a car which "implemented the option" cannot ever be connected? Or will we be stuck with buying old cars? (Of course the idea of an internet connected car is part of the absolute dystopia.)
  - speeder 5y ago
    In EU that seemly is the case, they have a law there where all cars must have a cellphone that automatically calls emergency services when the cars crash. https://www.motor1.com/news/238058/cars-emergency-services-mandatory-europe/ https://www.motor1.com/news/238058/cars-emergency-services-m...

throwaway_1237 5y ago

Is there any way to find out the motivation behind this? And who is responsible for this part of the legislation?

kelnos 5y ago
The latter bit was my question as well; I expected the article to share that, but no dice. Motivation... I expect it's just another bullshit "law and order" law-enforcement power grab, thinly disguised as a "safety requirement".
denton-scratch 5y ago
General Motors, maybe? If it is mandated that all cars should have this killswitch, then a lot of old-but-serviceable cars have to be taken off the road - and replaced with new ones.
- relaxing 5y ago
  Of course the mandate won't apply to existing vehicles, just like every other new safety requirement didn't take all the old vehicles off the road.

erulabs 5y ago

Maybe next time some people oppose an enormous omnibus they won't be called anti-progress. Maybe.

SiriusLi 5y ago

Sounds like a reason to buy your car in another country and import it.

R0b0t1 5y ago
Easily made illegal. Government will just seize your stuff, stick it in a warehouse, and bill you for it.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  If the car doesn't meet USA emission and safety standards, it's already so hard that it may as well be illegal. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    Right, and this would make it not meet safety standards. It's complete trash. Importing a car doesn't mean you intend to drive it, it may merely be an engineering sample. But the process for any exemption is far beyond the means of a normal person. Everyone knows your local cops are probably worthy of contempt, but for those following along at home, please consider offing as many CBP officials as possible.
linguae 5y ago
Easier said than done. About a week ago I was researching what it would take to import a Mexican or Brazilian Volkswagen Type-2 (Bus/Transporter) to California. Americans are generally restricted from importing cars that are younger than 25 years old, and in California imported cars must receive expensive emissions testing and certification that are much more involved than the normal smog check process (with some exceptions for classic cars). Importing cars is not a viable option for most Americans.

he0001 5y ago

So who added it? This bill was debated and fought over for months. Where did this come from?

CamperBob2 5y ago
The Used Car Dealer Association, would be my guess. Because the value of their older inventory is going to go to the moon.
thematt 5y ago
Lobbied for by MADD. The push was led in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI). Original co-sponsors were David McKinley (R-WV) and Kathleen Rice (D-NY). The senate version of the bill was led by senators Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and Rick Scott (R-FL) with co-sponsorship from Gary Peters (D-MI) and Shelley Moore (R-WV). https://www.madd.org/press-release/madd-hails-monumental-drunk-driving-prevention-provision-in-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-u-s-house-of-representatives https://www.madd.org/press-release/madd-hails-monumental-dru...
- sieabahlpark 5y ago
  They're all morons.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  MADD is an awful organization these days. In the early days they knew how to stay inside the lines, now they are power hungry fascistic organization. They would be happy if you weren't able to leave your home unless you got permission from a MADD member.
messo 5y ago
Special interest groups (like MADD) is almost extremist in their single-mindedness, pursuing utopic ideas without any regard for existing laws concerning privacy and personal freedoms. Here in Norway, we have had the same problem with the anti-drug lobby, where police, schools and other government agencies have gotten away with obvious injustices for decades, in the name of the utopia that is a "drug free society". Only now is people and the press waking up to the fact that so much of what has been going on in the service of "the greater good", actually has been illegal and caused a lot of harm and suffering.

Johnny555 5y ago

And to think people were worried that an EMP could immobilize all of the cars in the country, turns out it'll just take a group of Russian hackers.

borski 5y ago
Or American skiddies. Honestly, it isn’t going to take a nation-state to wreak havoc with this.

hlieberman 5y ago

This is a terrible description of what the law actually does. Let's shine some light on the FUD. The law, H.R. 3684 (as enrolled), defines an "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology" as a system which can do /one/ of the following: 1. "passively monitor the performance of a driver... to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired... and prevent or limit [car] operation if an impairment is detected." 2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected. 3. Both. This will apply only after the DOT finalizes a rule describing what all those things actually mean in terms of manufacture. The law requires that the Secretary publish this rule within the next three years, unless they think it can't be done, in which case they can push it out another three years. That rule must give car manufactures at least another two years to implement the requirement. It also gives the DOT an out to say that it can't be done, in which case in 2031, they need to write a report to Congress to say why it can't be done. In software terms, this is a user story that was just submitted for development. It's Congress asking the executive branch to do some work, but not actually forcing them to do so.

webinvest 5y ago
Incase anyone wants to read the fulltext of H.R. 3684: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684...
davidvondev 5y ago
It violates the entire premise that laws are legitimate if they represent the consent of the governed. People don't even know this exists, but we're already being told the administrative state in the form of the DOT will hash out the details. I can't be the only one to see a problem with this.
sieabahlpark 5y ago
None of that disproves the literal title? I don't want that in my car. I don't even drive drunk and I don't want my car thinking because it can't see the fucking lines on the road that I'm drunk. How would this work for being a designated driver? The drunkards in your car would setoff whatever sensors "monitoring" for alcohol. This is a stupid law that has no right to be included.

onion2k 5y ago

I find the way American law-making is done to be fascinating. As far as I can tell the US is the only country on Earth where politicians are able to "bundle" completely unrelated things into a single piece of legislation. It definitely doesn't happen here in the UK in any substantial way (laws get amendments added on but they're always at least somewhat related to the main part), and I've never heard of it anywhere else in the world. It's a truly interesting thing to read about from a negotiation perspective, but it must make the process of actually getting things done in politics really hard.

TeaDude 5y ago
I don't think I've seen any omnibus bills in the UK but there's still a lot of nasty euphemisms. Not sure if there's a legal system that DOESN'T use nasty euphemisms though...
davidvondev 5y ago
It's one of the things that's going to change. The current lack of transparency is extremely damaging to faith in government. Each part of a the law should require an actual author(s) the same way a patent requires an actual inventor, irrespective of who it was ultimately assigned to. Also, aggregate omnibus laws like this one have to be expressly forbidden, for just the reasons you cited. That's the absolute minimum level of reform necessary.
joconde 5y ago
I think it happens in France sometimes, and it’s one of the roles of the Constitutional Council to strike unrelated measures from laws.
- bonzini 5y ago
  Same in Italy, though here it's a parliamentary democracy so it's the president of the republic that does this kind of oversight.
- bambax 5y ago
  Yes, it's called "cavalier législatif" ("law rider"?) and it's kind of forbidden by the 45th article of the current constitution, which states that an amendment is examined if it has a "link, even indirectly, with the piece of legislation being voted". That doesn't prevent it from happening all the time, of course. The Conseil Constitutionnel sometimes strikes the "riders" if the law being voted is referred to the Council -- but referral isn't mandatory. https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/publications/titre-vii/le-controle-des-cavaliers-legislatifs-entre-continuite-et-innovations https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/publications/titre-vi... [in French]

shermablanca 5y ago

Looking forward to the iFixIt tutorial for disabling this.

mrjin 5y ago
This sh*t will almost for sure be in the firmware, just like the Intel ME. Technically you can disable it yourself, practically you simply cannot.

helge9210 5y ago

Owning a car is a right, but driving it is a privilege. This initiative is no worse than mandatory seatbelts.

mdp2021 5y ago
Mandatory seatbelts are a simple mechanical device which can hardly compromise the functionality of the car. Integrated electronic systems of the type in context are not.
- helge9210 5y ago
  > Mandatory seatbelts are a simple mechanical device Welcome, traveler from the distant past. It's 2021 now and you won't believe who were last two POTUS. Seatbelts are not simple mechanical devices for quite some time. They are part of integrated safety systems including pre-tensioner, air bags and "pink noise" sound emitters etc.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > Welcome, traveler from the distant past :) I salute you, dweller! Interesting the idea of the pink noise ( https://bgr.com/tech/mercedes-pre-safe-sound-pink-noise/ https://bgr.com/tech/mercedes-pre-safe-sound-pink-noise/ ). Also since there are people with a strong phobia about air bags, given that they are reported to sometimes cause over 170dB of noise (already at 140dB there is very high chance of impairment). This written, while I have been reliably told of extremely severe issues (mutilation post unduly explosion of airbags) after the trivial practice of bad electric cabling, I am unaware of consequences from the seat belts. So I assume the systems were developed in the years of solid engineering (as opposed to internship based development, ship-now-fix-later models etc) - though clearly there are critical vital potential areas for compromization there. Seat belts do not constitute a kill switch feature which may trigger in a false positive of engineering related issues. > It's 2021 now and you won't believe who were last two POTUS I am really, really not sure I want to know now...
  - t-writescode 5y ago

akvadrako 5y ago

This sounds like this could be declared unconstitutional by being considered an unreasonable search. Still terrible anybody supported this bill. I don't even remember this making the news or being debated before it passed.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
The problem as usual is they bury it deep in amongst a completely unrelated bill and make you look bad to your constituents if you don't vote for it. It's a minitature form of blackmail.
landemva 5y ago
Did you voluntarily get a driver license? You signed your name to agree to abide by their contract for the privilege and benefits of being licensed. If you want to use the superior constitutional approach, you would need to first stop voluntarily contracting with them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ThinkBeat 5y ago

Presumably, this will also allow law enforcement to flip the kill switch too. Virtually end all car chases. (Within say 15 - 20 years when a majority of cars will have this feature). Either by being virtually near the car in question to transmit the signal, or even via the internet (if supplied with a network connection) Now this can be hacked as all things can. Car jackings, robbery, prevent a victim from escaping. I would prefer a car without this feature,. Drunk driving is a major issue that is not yet dealt with in an efficient enough manner. I would prefer that the change is to build a BAC measurer into every car. This is a technology that we have today, it is being used and it is efficient enough that it continues to be used. It has some obvious weaknesses I guess someone else could blow clean for you and off you go. This new, high-tech, detect your BAC by inspecting your driving is prone to have issues as well and more of them until the technology matures.

ovi256 5y ago
> I would prefer a car without this feature,. So would criminals, at least those professional enough to plan ahead. So I expect pre-kill switch vehicles to be used exclusively by such criminals.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > I expect pre-kill switch vehicles to be used Expect them to be used by people who consider a kill-switch on their car unacceptable, on the basis of the valid reasons you will be able to find scattered in this page. Also: the logic! : "C prefer W, so only C will..." : what was that?!
  - ovi256 5y ago
    I never wanted to imply only criminals would use such cars. Of course there are valid reasons to prefer them. I think I'd prefer them myself. I was thinking about the increased demand on used pre-kill switch cars.
- borski 5y ago
  If crossing the street when the walk signal isn’t showing but there are no cars for miles makes me a criminal, so be it. I expect anyone who rationally believes that this opens up a whole slew of dangers on the road, from security concerns to self-incrimination to, quite simply, bugs would be the ones to use pre-kill switch vehicles.

Someone 5y ago

For comparison, here’s what the EU requires in 2022 (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive-industry/safety-automotive-sector_en https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive-industry/safe... and, from there, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/34588 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/34588): - Drowsiness and attention detection (cars, vans, trucks, buses) - Distraction recognition / prevention (cars, vans, trucks, buses) Doesn’t seem to require remote intervention capability, but distraction prevention seems to require a kill switch. Of course, required features such as “advanced emergency braking” can be seen as kill switches, as they would prevent you from driving your own car into the wall of your own house.

mdp2021 5y ago
I am not sure how the "warning of driver drowsiness and distraction", which should be face monitoring based, will work in offroading. Probably it is a function of speed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

graycat 5y ago

Soooo, let's see, try to see what is going on. I want to start with two standard pieces of advice, (1) always look for the hidden agenda and (2) follow the money. Now let's see: First, as in this thread already, we know who put this "kill switch" stuff in the bill. In particular it is the MADD group maybe plus maybe some more activists. Second, now that the "kill switch" is in the bill, the MADD group is pleased. Soooo, some Members of Congress can expect some campaign contributions from MADD and their supporters. Since it will be some years before the bill works its way through the DoT, engineering, law suits, lobbying by car manufacturers, screaming from drivers who don't want the complexity, etc., the campaign contributions may continue for several years. Uh, each new feature on a car raises the purchase price and the cost of maintenance. Some of the features added to cars can break, fail, whatever and be left broken, but not this "kill switch"!!! If that darned thing gets sick, the car may become a 4500 pound boat anchor until the owner coughs up, maybe, $2500 for repairs!!! Car owners won't like that. Third, there can be a lot of pitfalls for that provision to pass before ALL new cars have that "kill switch". E.g., the provision was put into the bill quietly. Some years from now a provision to repeal or delay for 10 more years can be put into some bill just as quietly. If the kill switch starts to become real and angers a lot of voters and companies, then Congress can receive a lot of pressure, more than MADD can manage, to repeal the provision. Fourth, even if all new cars have the switch, some car manufacturer can, quietly, hint, hint, let out how to disconnect the switch and all its sensors. And there is a really big, responsive industry of small companies ready to help car owners who would want to disconnect the switch. Fifth, what the insurance companies care about is not what some sensor or computer in a car says but what insurance claims the driver has. E.g., the car insurance industry knows well that I've been driving for a log time and have never had an insurance claim of any kind. Sixth, if a car insurance company wants data from some log file accumulated by some computers in a car, then send them a log file -- "Get your clean log file right here, cheap, guaranteed, clean log files!!!" Net, it could be 10+ years before anyone who hates the idea of having the kill switch actually has to put up with the darned thing. Then 10+ years from now, MADD will have to dry their tears, have a group hug, and console themselves with the fact that they tried. Meanwhile, some Members of Congress will have gotten some campaign contributions, 10+ years worth! All this is a special case of what I've detected is a pattern in how Congress works: In one word, there's a lot of showmanship going on. There's a lot less real than meets the eye.

PontifexMinimus 5y ago

> the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time. What could possibly go wrong? The USA had better hope that this system doesn't get hacked by any of its adversaries.

everdrive 5y ago

I’ve got an old, low tech car. I guess I’ll just try to keep it running forever.

LinuxBender 5y ago
Same. And when that fails old tractors and side-by-sides will do. I would not be the first person driving a tractor or side-by-side into town. After that, horses will have to do. No idea what to do for the people in big cities. E-Bikes / E-scooters?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

msandford 5y ago

I have a legal/human rights theory that I've been trying to promote, albeit with basically zero zeal. Crime is something that happens on the fringe of society and as such should be a relatively small problem. If it happens enough even if it's technically illegal it ceases to be a real crime because so many people think it's OK. As such if something is to rise to the level of a crime we as a society ought to be willing to spend the resources to have a real human being make the accusation of crime. If you can't afford to put a human in the loop, it can't -- simply by definition -- be considered a crime. I'm sure there's a hole in my logic somewhere. There are likely big loopholes you could drive a bus through. But I can't help but feel that there's a nugget of truth in there somewhere. I don't think anyone should be able to be accused of something by a mere algorithm.

seoaeu 5y ago
There are many people who consciously or implicitly think vehicular homicide isn’t a crime. Motorists frequently avoid consequences for ending the lives of bikers and pedestrians, even when they were impaired or intentionally driving recklessly Many laws are passed not because people think it is morally wrong to do something, but rather because they feel society would be better if no one (or at least fewer people) did it
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

swiley 5y ago

This is why I bought a sailboat. All you can do is put computers on her; There's a real limit to how much you can make her function dependent on other people's code.

masswerk 5y ago

To say the least, yet another attempt to solve a non-technical problem by technology. — Now you have to come up with a perfect and accurate definition of the non-technical problem (including all the edge cases) and hope the best that someone will be able to operationalise these definitions and come up with the perfect technical solution, while also addressing any possible scenarios of misuse. Also, you hope for a perfect deployment of this perfect solution. What could go wrong?

heisenbit 5y ago

The article is based on "reporting" in the "Daily Caller" which imho. makes all of it highly suspect.

baryphonic 5y ago
Fortunately, laws in America are publicly accessible. The text of this law, for instance, can be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684.... Search in the page for "SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY." That way you don't need to depend on Daily Caller or any other intermediary else to know the truth.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
The article is correct actually. I know the daily caller is awful but if you go to any news search engine you will find several stories.

h2odragon 5y ago

This story has been floating since the bill passed with various, less clickbait titles. There's real reason to hope nothing will ever come of this provision but some MADD fundraiser literature. The notion of cars having "drunk check" systems, bugs me, for at least two reasons. Not only is it a step beyond "presumption of guilt," it is also an erosion of private property rights. I might be rolling my car around my own "dirt track" i've cut into my valley. The gubmint aint got no right to ask me for a driver's license in that case. They've no concern for the road worthiness of the car. They'd also have no say in what "mandated" systems it still has in that case; I'd say. Of course these points always get raised, "It's not right to mandate insurance because some are proscribed from gambling" and so on, and at least in my lifetime the usual course of public debate seems to conclude that "principles are nice and all but we have to protect us from ourselves!"

stjohnswarts 5y ago

This is one reason I hope it doesn't pass. This kind of big government overreach has me against it. I'm all for the stuff in there for environmental concerns. The bill probably needs to be broken up into 4 or 5 bills so these gotchas in there get more scrutiny. It also sets up more government monitoring. Why shouldn't there be a camera and biomonitors streaming data back to Big Brother and Tesla (heartate, breathing rate, how dry your mouth is, rectal tightness) as well?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I believe this bill has already passed and been signed into law.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Actually it has. I guess I need to buy a car before 2026 :) . Hopefully someone will take it to court so that they have to have an opt-out. This is a bad move in the wrong direction. We need less government surveillance and not more.

greggeter 5y ago

Which is why I own two old trucks and am building an electric car from junkyard parts.

stevespang 5y ago

There will be underworld "modders" who will rip that chip out for a fee . . . I am seeking an older '65 mustang with a stick now since it has zero chips in it it will be one of the few cars that will be driveable after the US get's hit with an EMP bomb.

lstroud 5y ago

Can they at least add a liability provision allowing disaffected drivers to sue for malfunction? Maybe that would balance the scales.

snowwrestler 5y ago

I have to comment on the incredible discrepancy between HN threads about self-driving cars and threads about driver-safety technologies (like this one). Threads on self-driving are often enthusiastically supportive, with many comments about how computer control will ultimately be safer because computers don’t get tired, distracted, drunk, etc. and people do. But then threads like this one are usually highly skeptical about how well the safety technologies will work, and over losing control over one’s machine. Maybe these are just totally different sets of people commenting; I recognize that HN has a big and diverse audience. But even if that is so, it seems interesting to think about who chooses to comment on which topics. Because ultimately these sort of “smart” safety technologies, and self-driving technologies, are qualitatively the same: you’re ceding manual control to a computerized system. It’s just how much: does the ML system have to reliably interpret “impaired” driving, or does it have to interpret everything about driving? It seems like there is some sort of uncanny valley where ML-powered technologies are perceived as bad when implemented partially, but good when fully placed in control. That doesn’t make logical sense to me but I’d be interested to hear different views.

rpaddock 5y ago
I attended a Presidential Commission on Robotics meeting at Carnegie Mellon University during the Obama administration. UBER, Google, and a whole lot of government acronyms such as IARPA were present. What they spent most of the day obsessing about was: “We know, statistically, our technology WILL kill a child. How do we handle the public and political fall out of that?” In my view they were more concerned about that than looking for technical solutions. I brought up a personal experience: I once almost had a accident on Interstate 80, in a construction zone. Somehow a car that was over packed pulled from between some construction equipment, in front of me. This driver could not see out any window but right in front of him, and he was pulling *across* the interstate traffic, not going with the flow. He could not see out the passenger window, that was facing me, it had a sleeping bag in it. He shot out from between the construction equipment about twenty feet in front of me, while I was doing 45 MPH, remember it was a construction zone. The correct solutions to the problem was to floor the gas, so that I could get in front of him while there was still space, and get off on the right hand berm of the road. Any solution the applied the brakes would have caused a collision. The experts in the room replied that Aircraft Autopilot software may have been able to avoid a collision in this example. No one was sure and few seemed to care.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

I don't mind this. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing I do, and reducing drunk driving and/or high-speed chases with a remote kill-switch is more likely to impact me than any of the possible downsides (I've had my car stolen and also have been hit by drunk drivers in the past). Could this be used against me? sure. Would it be worse than a tire blow-out? probably not. People worry about government overreach, but in a scenario where the government would use this against me I'd already be screwed beyond recourse.

s09dfhks 5y ago

Curious how this would impact motorsports. My friends and I like to take our "daily drivers" to track days. The advantage being we can drive home with the AC and music playing. Sure there are some people who buy cars and rip out the interiors for the full on "Race car" experience, but I feel like this bill would kill us casuals

giardini 5y ago

So used car prices rise once again.

mleonhard 5y ago

Why do they call it Biden's bill when it was written and passed by Congress?

_-david-_ 5y ago
The president signed it and pushed for it's passage. This is typically wording in the US.