3 ms·

New Law Will Install Kill Switches in All New Cars

43 points by quakeguy 5y ago

supperburg 5y ago
This is fucking unreal
oliveshell 5y ago
Previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068
michelb 5y ago
*in the USA.
zeruch 5y ago
...creating an entire new market in kit cars and older vehicles.
nescioquid 5y ago
The article is light on details and has its mind made up as to what we should think of the provision, but it made me recall a remark I once encountered to the effect that "a police state is mainly concerned with making the job of the police easier". As life in the United States becomes increasingly bleak and anti-democratic (via regulatory capture and other political corruptions), it will become increasingly important for the state to exercise constant control over the populace. I'm a pessimist, but happy to be wrong.
captainredbeard 5y ago
...and they had the gall to call it infrastructure. Infrastructure for funneling cash to Congress cronies, perhaps.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
Should probably add wireless licence plates while they at it. All of this tech is useful and reasonable so long they can protect it - cryptographically secure of course, maybe isolate what car manufacturer vs police can do. If big tech can track everything you do I don't see why government shouldn't have more power than the pieces of shit working in fucking Google selling you out.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Alternatively, Google shouldn’t have that power either.
secabeen 5y ago
The top comment from the previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068 --- 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.

43 points by quakeguy 5y ago

supperburg 5y ago

This is fucking unreal

oliveshell 5y ago

Previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068

michelb 5y ago

*in the USA.

zeruch 5y ago

...creating an entire new market in kit cars and older vehicles.

nescioquid 5y ago

The article is light on details and has its mind made up as to what we should think of the provision, but it made me recall a remark I once encountered to the effect that "a police state is mainly concerned with making the job of the police easier". As life in the United States becomes increasingly bleak and anti-democratic (via regulatory capture and other political corruptions), it will become increasingly important for the state to exercise constant control over the populace. I'm a pessimist, but happy to be wrong.

captainredbeard 5y ago

...and they had the gall to call it infrastructure. Infrastructure for funneling cash to Congress cronies, perhaps.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

Should probably add wireless licence plates while they at it. All of this tech is useful and reasonable so long they can protect it - cryptographically secure of course, maybe isolate what car manufacturer vs police can do. If big tech can track everything you do I don't see why government shouldn't have more power than the pieces of shit working in fucking Google selling you out.

tinus_hn 5y ago
Alternatively, Google shouldn’t have that power either.

secabeen 5y ago

The top comment from the previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29427068 --- 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.