32 ms·

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

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.
- pkulak 5y ago
  I'd say the incorrect words in the title are "mandatory" and "backdoor".
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    Once legislated, and two years after published, it will be mandatory for manufacturers to comply. This functionality is not requested and is working against the user (and it is pretty unlikely for such a feature to be done completely locally on the car, and even if it was, it will almost certain have Over-The-Air updates creating what is colloqially referred to as a backdoor. Which part of this do you disagree with?
    - pkulak 5y ago
      If this is a backdoor, then any functionality that can be updated by the manufacturer is a backdoor. Fine, but it's nice when words mean something. And it's not mandatory. It may become mandatory in several-to-many years. The law is about exploring the possibility, just like OP said. This article is Facebook garbage that somehow made it's way onto HN.
      - mike741 5y ago
        automatic updates without the user's consent are the very definition of a 'backdoor.' just because a new name for it "update" has been commercially normalized doesn't mean the original name has lost its meaning.
        pkulak 5y ago
        Alright, then everything is a backdoor. Snaps are backdoors. Windows is a backdoor. MacOS is a backdoor. Watches are backdoors. Every cell phone is a backdoor. Thermostats and headphones and book readers are backdoors. Every car currently sold new is a backdoor. 90% of every device we interact with is a backdoor. So why put that in the title? It means nothing.
mdp2021 5y ago
And this* is why the principle is becoming vocal of people who shout "We do not want to ride a smartphone". (*A critical system with modules that promote unreliability, including potential security issues.)
causi 5y ago
prevent or limit car operation That is precisely what a killswitch is. The circumstances and/or requirements of the activation of the killswitch are irrelevant to whether or not it's a killswitch. Is it a good idea? Maybe. Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  While I do concour in general, further discrimination is necessary: also teetotalers can get tired. (In fact, it is not clear how such system is that different from the already existing systems evaluating driving style: occasional jerks (being tired) and consistent imprecision (intoxicated) should both have been part of it.) And about «ripping [modules] out»: are you sure that will be possible, also technically? It's not an independent bolt, but probably an integrated component.
  - causi 5y ago
    While I do concour in general, further discrimination is necessary: also teetotalers can get tired. I don't understand how this is relevant to the point of something being or not being a killswitch.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      You wrote «Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle», causi.
      - causi 5y ago
        What is it that needs further discrimination?
    - bhelkey 5y ago
      > Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes. >> also teetotalers can get tired >>> I don't understand how this is relevant to the point You mentioned that you are a teetotaler. This appears relevant to your point in that it assumes that this proposed module, acting as intended, would never prevent you from driving. mdp2021 points out that the first guideline targets impaired drivers (not drunk drivers) and would, by intention, prevent you from driving if you were tired enough to be impaired.
t0suj4 5y ago
Go and sleep it off citizen! Your emergency can wait!
- LeonM 5y ago
  I know your comment is cynical, but really, an emergency rarely justifies driving while intoxicated. If someone (or yourself) needs medical attention, call an ambulance. If somebody is in danger, call the police. If you need to go somewhere, call a taxi. If none are available you can also ask someone else to drive. I am aware that there are some situations where there is no other option than driving yourself. But trying to justify the ability to drive intoxicated, just for that once-in-a-lifetime emergency seems selfish to me.
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    Someone is chasing you in another (older) car? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the cops if you need help. The nearest one is 10 minutes away. Your wife is bleeding out and every second counts? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call an ambulance if you need help. The nearest one will take 15 minutes to arrive and another 10 to get to the hospital. Pissed off a bear? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the forestry service if you need help. The nearest ranger is an hour away. Your town is flooding and you need to get out by any means possible? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call FEMA if you need help. They'll be here in a few days. Caught in a blizzard with the wrong tires and are sliding around as you limp your car home so as not to freeze to death? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call roadside service, but don't hold your breath; there's a killer snowstorm out there! In critical danger but your phone is dead? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. You should have planned ahead and charged your phone. Etc, etc... Oh the horror flicks are gonna have a field day with this trope.
    - LeonM 5y ago
      My reaction on the OP was about drinking under the influence of alcohol. Not on how the car may detect false positives on erratic driving.
rndgermandude 5y ago
There are many many issues with this proposal. What, for example, if you're living in a rural area, then your wife goes into labor (or there is any kind of other emergency) and the car thinks your somewhat "erratic" driving style, due to the stress of the situation, warrants killing the engine? It only talks about detecting "impairment" which may mean a lot of things. Or maybe you had a beer and then the emergency happens, and the car detects "passively and accurately" your BAC. Banning drunk, drugged and impaired driving is good. But every rule has exceptions, and software is generally too rigid to account for every possible exceptional case. There won't be a "It's an emergency" button (because a lot of drunks would just press it), nor a "I am lawfully driving on my own private property" or a "I am not actually impaired, I had to drive 'erratic' a moment ago not because I am drunk or fell asleep, but because a kid ran into a street and I had to do an evasive maneuver" one. That is assuming the software is working "correctly" in the first place. Which I am very doubtful about here, because they aren't trying to model something deterministic, but model something that will use some kind of "learning" to spit out some probabilities. That aside, the privacy implications look pretty real to me. Once you have a system that monitors your driving proficiency, BAC or both, a lot of companies will get curious about that. Insurers may start to politely ask for the data if you want lower premiums, or a contract at all. No more car leases unless you can provide a "positive" driving score. Judges will sign warrants for such data. And so on.
- jpambrun 5y ago
  If you are impaired by your stress level you probably should not drive. Putting other at risk to reduce your perceived risk is not a decision for you to make.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
    See my comment upthread about my wife being attacked. I can assure you that having been choked almost to the point of unconsciousness had her stress levels through the roof. But alone at night in a dark parking lot in a rural town, your solution is that she should not have been allowed to run to her car and drive off?
  - 5y ago
yuhong 5y ago
I wonder if this would be useful for self-driving cars.
goalieca 5y ago
In certain major urban centres in canada, the freeze thaw cycle makes so many potholes. It’s the probably more likely the drunks who drive straight right over them. The rest of us zig zag around these tire eaters. Some roads get so bad during the spring that you memorize a route.
- SamuelAdams 5y ago
  Also in Michigan when there’s heavy snowfall you can’t really see the lines on highways and such. You might be starting and stopping frequently due to icy roads. That could be considered “erratic”. This is a very difficult problem to solve. A breathalyzer before engine ignition is likely what will be installed in every car starting in 2026.
itsoktocry 5y ago
>This is a terrible description of what the law actually does. You just repeated what the title says: they want to implement a mandatory kill switch in your car. The fact that you believe it will be used for good, and will be "accurate" is certainly up for debate. I don't want them to be able to lock down my car and prevent it from being used. That scenario is unimaginable to me.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  It also sounds very heavy handed. Here these kinds of devices already exist but you have to be a convicted drunk driver to get one mandated. It sounds pretty severe to have this for everyone.
andrew_ 5y ago
What I continue to find shocking is just how many people commenting on this post are lining up to accept another authoritarian measure for a very small amount of additional comfort of mind. Having just watched "No Time to Die," Rami Malek's character has a classic vilian diatribe in which he says: The thing that no one wants to admit is that most people want things to happen to them. We tell each other lies about the fight for free will and independence, but we don't really want that. We want to be told how to live and then die when we're not looking. It strikes me that perhaps storywriters keep adding lines like this to movies, books, etc because it's actually true for a significant amount of people. And that's really saddening.
- psyc 5y ago
  I'm under the impression that a lot of tech / 'rational' people are utilitarian consequentialists, and if you tell a good utilitarian story, a lot of them will sign up. Like, liberty and privacy sound nice, but how many lives do they save? I also have a theory that a lot of programmers think it's natural to fix bugs in society by writing (U.S.) code.
  - lyubalesya 5y ago
    > Like, liberty and privacy sound nice, but how many lives do they save? When considering this question, one should be careful to distinguish between how many lives are saved with "the society we are currently, but without liberty or privacy", and with "the kind of society we will become if we lose liberty or privacy". Lives "saved" are also a poor metric. How much is a life worth, spent inside a cage? Many would be willing to risk death for liberty. In fact, they have.
pwg 5y ago
The problem is the title is not what controls which situations this law will cover. The breadth with which a court of law is willing to interpret "impaired" (unless the statute itself narrowly defines "impaired" somewhere else within its words) will ultimately determine how far reaching the application of this law will be. And "impaired" is a word that is significantly more far reaching in its meaning than "legally intoxicated": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impaired https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impaired > Definition of impaired > : being in an imperfect or weakened state or condition: such as > a : diminished in function or ability : lacking full functional or structural integrity > b : unable to function normally or safely (as when operating a motor vehicle) because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs While part (b) above does note a "because of alcohol or drugs" part (a) of the definition leaves the law open to a wide range of "impairments" that are not "drunk" or "high" such as "had a long day, and am quite tired and a little sleepy". Which would result in an "impairment" of your driving as compared to "got a good nights sleep, feel refreshed just now" when getting behind the wheel.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
>2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected. How does it 'passively' monitor a user's BAC? How does it deal with false positives from things like hand sanitizer? Will I have to blow into a tube every time I start my car running errands because I'm keeping myself safe from rona or the flu? This is idiotic.
RickJWagner 5y ago
I don't mind it. So long as repair of the system is free, paid for with taxes on alcohol. Making non-drinkers pay to install a system (that can fail, and require maintenance) to prevent drunk drivers is not fair otherwise.

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.

pkulak 5y ago
I'd say the incorrect words in the title are "mandatory" and "backdoor".
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  Once legislated, and two years after published, it will be mandatory for manufacturers to comply. This functionality is not requested and is working against the user (and it is pretty unlikely for such a feature to be done completely locally on the car, and even if it was, it will almost certain have Over-The-Air updates creating what is colloqially referred to as a backdoor. Which part of this do you disagree with?
  - pkulak 5y ago
    If this is a backdoor, then any functionality that can be updated by the manufacturer is a backdoor. Fine, but it's nice when words mean something. And it's not mandatory. It may become mandatory in several-to-many years. The law is about exploring the possibility, just like OP said. This article is Facebook garbage that somehow made it's way onto HN.
    - mike741 5y ago
      automatic updates without the user's consent are the very definition of a 'backdoor.' just because a new name for it "update" has been commercially normalized doesn't mean the original name has lost its meaning.
      - pkulak 5y ago
        Alright, then everything is a backdoor. Snaps are backdoors. Windows is a backdoor. MacOS is a backdoor. Watches are backdoors. Every cell phone is a backdoor. Thermostats and headphones and book readers are backdoors. Every car currently sold new is a backdoor. 90% of every device we interact with is a backdoor. So why put that in the title? It means nothing.

mdp2021 5y ago

And this* is why the principle is becoming vocal of people who shout "We do not want to ride a smartphone". (*A critical system with modules that promote unreliability, including potential security issues.)

causi 5y ago

prevent or limit car operation That is precisely what a killswitch is. The circumstances and/or requirements of the activation of the killswitch are irrelevant to whether or not it's a killswitch. Is it a good idea? Maybe. Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes.

mdp2021 5y ago
While I do concour in general, further discrimination is necessary: also teetotalers can get tired. (In fact, it is not clear how such system is that different from the already existing systems evaluating driving style: occasional jerks (being tired) and consistent imprecision (intoxicated) should both have been part of it.) And about «ripping [modules] out»: are you sure that will be possible, also technically? It's not an independent bolt, but probably an integrated component.
- causi 5y ago
  While I do concour in general, further discrimination is necessary: also teetotalers can get tired. I don't understand how this is relevant to the point of something being or not being a killswitch.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    You wrote «Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle», causi.
    - causi 5y ago
      What is it that needs further discrimination?
  - bhelkey 5y ago
    > Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes. >> also teetotalers can get tired >>> I don't understand how this is relevant to the point You mentioned that you are a teetotaler. This appears relevant to your point in that it assumes that this proposed module, acting as intended, would never prevent you from driving. mdp2021 points out that the first guideline targets impaired drivers (not drunk drivers) and would, by intention, prevent you from driving if you were tired enough to be impaired.

t0suj4 5y ago

Go and sleep it off citizen! Your emergency can wait!

LeonM 5y ago
I know your comment is cynical, but really, an emergency rarely justifies driving while intoxicated. If someone (or yourself) needs medical attention, call an ambulance. If somebody is in danger, call the police. If you need to go somewhere, call a taxi. If none are available you can also ask someone else to drive. I am aware that there are some situations where there is no other option than driving yourself. But trying to justify the ability to drive intoxicated, just for that once-in-a-lifetime emergency seems selfish to me.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Someone is chasing you in another (older) car? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the cops if you need help. The nearest one is 10 minutes away. Your wife is bleeding out and every second counts? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call an ambulance if you need help. The nearest one will take 15 minutes to arrive and another 10 to get to the hospital. Pissed off a bear? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the forestry service if you need help. The nearest ranger is an hour away. Your town is flooding and you need to get out by any means possible? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call FEMA if you need help. They'll be here in a few days. Caught in a blizzard with the wrong tires and are sliding around as you limp your car home so as not to freeze to death? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call roadside service, but don't hold your breath; there's a killer snowstorm out there! In critical danger but your phone is dead? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. You should have planned ahead and charged your phone. Etc, etc... Oh the horror flicks are gonna have a field day with this trope.
  - LeonM 5y ago
    My reaction on the OP was about drinking under the influence of alcohol. Not on how the car may detect false positives on erratic driving.

rndgermandude 5y ago

There are many many issues with this proposal. What, for example, if you're living in a rural area, then your wife goes into labor (or there is any kind of other emergency) and the car thinks your somewhat "erratic" driving style, due to the stress of the situation, warrants killing the engine? It only talks about detecting "impairment" which may mean a lot of things. Or maybe you had a beer and then the emergency happens, and the car detects "passively and accurately" your BAC. Banning drunk, drugged and impaired driving is good. But every rule has exceptions, and software is generally too rigid to account for every possible exceptional case. There won't be a "It's an emergency" button (because a lot of drunks would just press it), nor a "I am lawfully driving on my own private property" or a "I am not actually impaired, I had to drive 'erratic' a moment ago not because I am drunk or fell asleep, but because a kid ran into a street and I had to do an evasive maneuver" one. That is assuming the software is working "correctly" in the first place. Which I am very doubtful about here, because they aren't trying to model something deterministic, but model something that will use some kind of "learning" to spit out some probabilities. That aside, the privacy implications look pretty real to me. Once you have a system that monitors your driving proficiency, BAC or both, a lot of companies will get curious about that. Insurers may start to politely ask for the data if you want lower premiums, or a contract at all. No more car leases unless you can provide a "positive" driving score. Judges will sign warrants for such data. And so on.

jpambrun 5y ago
If you are impaired by your stress level you probably should not drive. Putting other at risk to reduce your perceived risk is not a decision for you to make.
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
  See my comment upthread about my wife being attacked. I can assure you that having been choked almost to the point of unconsciousness had her stress levels through the roof. But alone at night in a dark parking lot in a rural town, your solution is that she should not have been allowed to run to her car and drive off?
- 5y ago

yuhong 5y ago

I wonder if this would be useful for self-driving cars.

goalieca 5y ago

In certain major urban centres in canada, the freeze thaw cycle makes so many potholes. It’s the probably more likely the drunks who drive straight right over them. The rest of us zig zag around these tire eaters. Some roads get so bad during the spring that you memorize a route.

SamuelAdams 5y ago
Also in Michigan when there’s heavy snowfall you can’t really see the lines on highways and such. You might be starting and stopping frequently due to icy roads. That could be considered “erratic”. This is a very difficult problem to solve. A breathalyzer before engine ignition is likely what will be installed in every car starting in 2026.

itsoktocry 5y ago

>This is a terrible description of what the law actually does. You just repeated what the title says: they want to implement a mandatory kill switch in your car. The fact that you believe it will be used for good, and will be "accurate" is certainly up for debate. I don't want them to be able to lock down my car and prevent it from being used. That scenario is unimaginable to me.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
It also sounds very heavy handed. Here these kinds of devices already exist but you have to be a convicted drunk driver to get one mandated. It sounds pretty severe to have this for everyone.

andrew_ 5y ago

What I continue to find shocking is just how many people commenting on this post are lining up to accept another authoritarian measure for a very small amount of additional comfort of mind. Having just watched "No Time to Die," Rami Malek's character has a classic vilian diatribe in which he says: The thing that no one wants to admit is that most people want things to happen to them. We tell each other lies about the fight for free will and independence, but we don't really want that. We want to be told how to live and then die when we're not looking. It strikes me that perhaps storywriters keep adding lines like this to movies, books, etc because it's actually true for a significant amount of people. And that's really saddening.

psyc 5y ago
I'm under the impression that a lot of tech / 'rational' people are utilitarian consequentialists, and if you tell a good utilitarian story, a lot of them will sign up. Like, liberty and privacy sound nice, but how many lives do they save? I also have a theory that a lot of programmers think it's natural to fix bugs in society by writing (U.S.) code.
- lyubalesya 5y ago
  > Like, liberty and privacy sound nice, but how many lives do they save? When considering this question, one should be careful to distinguish between how many lives are saved with "the society we are currently, but without liberty or privacy", and with "the kind of society we will become if we lose liberty or privacy". Lives "saved" are also a poor metric. How much is a life worth, spent inside a cage? Many would be willing to risk death for liberty. In fact, they have.

pwg 5y ago

The problem is the title is not what controls which situations this law will cover. The breadth with which a court of law is willing to interpret "impaired" (unless the statute itself narrowly defines "impaired" somewhere else within its words) will ultimately determine how far reaching the application of this law will be. And "impaired" is a word that is significantly more far reaching in its meaning than "legally intoxicated": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impaired https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impaired > Definition of impaired > : being in an imperfect or weakened state or condition: such as > a : diminished in function or ability : lacking full functional or structural integrity > b : unable to function normally or safely (as when operating a motor vehicle) because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs While part (b) above does note a "because of alcohol or drugs" part (a) of the definition leaves the law open to a wide range of "impairments" that are not "drunk" or "high" such as "had a long day, and am quite tired and a little sleepy". Which would result in an "impairment" of your driving as compared to "got a good nights sleep, feel refreshed just now" when getting behind the wheel.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

>2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected. How does it 'passively' monitor a user's BAC? How does it deal with false positives from things like hand sanitizer? Will I have to blow into a tube every time I start my car running errands because I'm keeping myself safe from rona or the flu? This is idiotic.

RickJWagner 5y ago

I don't mind it. So long as repair of the system is free, paid for with taxes on alcohol. Making non-drinkers pay to install a system (that can fail, and require maintenance) to prevent drunk drivers is not fair otherwise.