5 ms·

Also interesting to watch: "Why the US mandating all new cars having a remote ‘kill switch’ by 2026 is problematic" https://youtu.be/a50GHA_uchU https://youtu.

by jcynix 3y ago

Also interesting to watch: "Why the US mandating all new cars having a remote ‘kill switch’ by 2026 is problematic" https://youtu.be/a50GHA_uchU https://youtu.be/a50GHA_uchU

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
It is a nice idea on paper, but the moment when it will be abused by criminals to kidnap children of somebody important it will be swiftly cancelled.
- jcynix 3y ago
  I would not call it "a nice idea on paper" but a wet dream of some control freaks who neither understand tech nor people outside their bubble. And yes, it's prone to all kinds of abuse by all kinds of "interest groups" …
- jojobas 3y ago
  I bet $5 it will stall a car on a rail crossing even before that.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Doesn't even have to be on a rail crossing. Stopping a car in the middle of an 80mph freeway (whether it's the legal or practical speed limit) would suffice.
- pierat 3y ago
  I'd think it would be hilarious if a 10 minute hack was done to politicians on the subcommittee that endorsed and/or legalized this, as a demonstration why this tech is horrific. Bonus points if every politician who voted for this had it happen for 10m. Obviously I want nobody hurt. But the boomer and silent generation house and senate have, lets just say, tech comprehension problems. I think a 10 minute demonstration to this issue is enough to get them to reconsider that their ideas are utter shit. Especially so if something inconveniences or otherwise annoys them :)
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Also knowing my fair share of about automotive development, the kill switch would be likely present in all ECU software, including police and other security cars, only not coded (enabled) in the software. So this kill switch is supposed to prevent chases, but it could also enable them by kill switching the police. Irony.
- tempodox 3y ago
  No, there will be exceptions for the rich and powerful. The rest of us will still be screwed.
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Essentially making a backdoor to a backdoor
- kube-system 3y ago
  These systems are on millions of cars today. Has this actually happened?
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  Not "when", "if". Maybe I'm not fit to be in the HN crowd, having lived too many decades on this earth, but I still remember each and every time the government has stepped up spying efforts, and someone says it'll be recalled as soon as it affects a politician. And it never really does.
graypegg 3y ago
Honest question: how is it possible for the American public to just accept that? This feels like a politician’s ideal wedge topic. “They want to control YOUR car. Take away your freedom.” And it’s not even hyperbole! For a nation that obsesses over the minutiae of gun legislation for its effects to personal freedom, it’s a bit out of character to let the government build in a remote “accidental” crash button.
- tristor 3y ago
  Something interesting about this comparison is that in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right, owning and operating a vehicle is not. In fact, it's exclusively considered a revocable privilege. This likely affects significantly the conversation around both.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right Maybe. This is far from clear. It certainly wasn't considered as such by anybody until the 20th century.
    - tristor 3y ago
      This isn't the proper subthread to have the grand gun debate and that isn't the point of my comment. But since I was replying to someone who is likely non-American, in the name of accuracy I need to point out what you are saying is directly false. Historically, this right has always been enumerated as individual firearms ownership, and is contextualized as such in the The Federalist Papers by the founding fathers who wrote the text of the Constitution, so there's really no argument to be had here. You can think it's a dumb idea, that it should be restricted or appealed, or any other such things, but to state that the Constitution does not enumerate an individual right of ownership is just patently legally and historically false. There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that also make this abundantly clear.
      - graypegg 3y ago
aceazzameen 3y ago
This is fear-mongering/rage-bait. Lawmakers have by 2026 to make up rules for car manufacturers to follow for new technology regarding drunk drivers. Maybe it's a kill switch, maybe it's not. Either way, new cars will factually not have kill switches by 2026 because nothing will be defined until then. How long after is an unknown. Edit: I made an error with my dates. Lawmakers have until Dec 2024 to make the rules. The earliest a manufacturer can enact the rule is after Dec 2026. But lawmakers can also extend the dates and also have until Dec 2031 to submit barriers and reasons why the system may not work. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.

by jcynix 3y ago

Also interesting to watch: "Why the US mandating all new cars having a remote ‘kill switch’ by 2026 is problematic" https://youtu.be/a50GHA_uchU https://youtu.be/a50GHA_uchU

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago

It is a nice idea on paper, but the moment when it will be abused by criminals to kidnap children of somebody important it will be swiftly cancelled.

jcynix 3y ago
I would not call it "a nice idea on paper" but a wet dream of some control freaks who neither understand tech nor people outside their bubble. And yes, it's prone to all kinds of abuse by all kinds of "interest groups" …
jojobas 3y ago
I bet $5 it will stall a car on a rail crossing even before that.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Doesn't even have to be on a rail crossing. Stopping a car in the middle of an 80mph freeway (whether it's the legal or practical speed limit) would suffice.
pierat 3y ago
I'd think it would be hilarious if a 10 minute hack was done to politicians on the subcommittee that endorsed and/or legalized this, as a demonstration why this tech is horrific. Bonus points if every politician who voted for this had it happen for 10m. Obviously I want nobody hurt. But the boomer and silent generation house and senate have, lets just say, tech comprehension problems. I think a 10 minute demonstration to this issue is enough to get them to reconsider that their ideas are utter shit. Especially so if something inconveniences or otherwise annoys them :)
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  Also knowing my fair share of about automotive development, the kill switch would be likely present in all ECU software, including police and other security cars, only not coded (enabled) in the software. So this kill switch is supposed to prevent chases, but it could also enable them by kill switching the police. Irony.
tempodox 3y ago
No, there will be exceptions for the rich and powerful. The rest of us will still be screwed.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  Essentially making a backdoor to a backdoor
kube-system 3y ago
These systems are on millions of cars today. Has this actually happened?
phendrenad2 3y ago
Not "when", "if". Maybe I'm not fit to be in the HN crowd, having lived too many decades on this earth, but I still remember each and every time the government has stepped up spying efforts, and someone says it'll be recalled as soon as it affects a politician. And it never really does.

graypegg 3y ago

Honest question: how is it possible for the American public to just accept that? This feels like a politician’s ideal wedge topic. “They want to control YOUR car. Take away your freedom.” And it’s not even hyperbole! For a nation that obsesses over the minutiae of gun legislation for its effects to personal freedom, it’s a bit out of character to let the government build in a remote “accidental” crash button.

tristor 3y ago
Something interesting about this comparison is that in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right, owning and operating a vehicle is not. In fact, it's exclusively considered a revocable privilege. This likely affects significantly the conversation around both.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > in the US, firearms ownership is a Constitutional right Maybe. This is far from clear. It certainly wasn't considered as such by anybody until the 20th century.
  - tristor 3y ago
    This isn't the proper subthread to have the grand gun debate and that isn't the point of my comment. But since I was replying to someone who is likely non-American, in the name of accuracy I need to point out what you are saying is directly false. Historically, this right has always been enumerated as individual firearms ownership, and is contextualized as such in the The Federalist Papers by the founding fathers who wrote the text of the Constitution, so there's really no argument to be had here. You can think it's a dumb idea, that it should be restricted or appealed, or any other such things, but to state that the Constitution does not enumerate an individual right of ownership is just patently legally and historically false. There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that also make this abundantly clear.
    - graypegg 3y ago

aceazzameen 3y ago

This is fear-mongering/rage-bait. Lawmakers have by 2026 to make up rules for car manufacturers to follow for new technology regarding drunk drivers. Maybe it's a kill switch, maybe it's not. Either way, new cars will factually not have kill switches by 2026 because nothing will be defined until then. How long after is an unknown. Edit: I made an error with my dates. Lawmakers have until Dec 2024 to make the rules. The earliest a manufacturer can enact the rule is after Dec 2026. But lawmakers can also extend the dates and also have until Dec 2031 to submit barriers and reasons why the system may not work. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.