3 ms·

> assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? The law appears to be worded with no such stipulation. Which means it's up to the manufacturer how and w

> assuming the data is analysed inside the car itself? The law appears to be worded with no such stipulation. Which means it's up to the manufacturer how and where they process the data. The odds of the data being processed locally to the car are long. Which does give rise to some questions: if the car can't get a data connection, and therefore can't get the data analysed, will it assume the driver is incapacitated and refuse to start? If not, circumvention is simple. If the manufacturer's servers have an issue, will the car refuse to start? Will the data be the property of the driver, not the manufacturer? (hahaha, I'm kidding, of course the data will belong to the manufacturer, ready to be sold to anyone who wants it) edit: clarified first question

Obscurity4340 3y ago
But do all cars need and have to process any fucking data locally. I don't want that shit. I wanna drive a car not a computer Having said that, there are arguments to be made for a standard that uses heuristics to detect impaired driving for sure. Its harder to make the case if theres like a homomorphic data situation going on where your car can 1) use data and processi locally to detect potential impaired driving, 2) it stipulates loss of function in terms of abillity to further drive (pulls you over) in exchange for eliminating the potentialitt for crime, damage, and criminal chsrging process. Its a goddamn loss of time, energy, and life to still have this problem. A car should not need to necessarily measure your BAC as evinced by breath to detect you're driving like a maniac and maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). The criminal aspect is bullshit because yes its a fucked up thing but people who are impaired are not thinking clearly or able to consent to committing a criminal act in th same way they can't consent to something as simple and hands-off (no pun intended) as being sexually fucked and still be considered to have had the agency to have been lawfully able to consent to that in the first place. It really makes zero sense: 1) simple thing: receiving sexual intercourse 2) complex thing: driving car You can do both these things drunk but your only assumed to have lacked agency in #1. Makes no sense to me, you're almost guranteed to fuck (up) your car [car non-consensually] if not yourself as the end result lol EDIT: i'd appreciate if any lawyer or legal person or someone you know could critique this rationale and discuss how/why it is or isnt cogent and elaborate on the extent to which it could even be theoretically implemented, even [GASP?!] if it costs us all a lil bit of money/taxes/legislation to get us to that point in legal dtae of affairs
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  Love the analogy ;) But yes, if your condom could detect if your partner had an elevated blood/alcohol level and requested them to confirm that they consented to the sexual act, would it be the same? And would it be useful, or would it just elevate the stats of condom-less rape? In the same vein; if you could rip out the processor of your car because it refused to drive because it thought you were drunk, would it increase safety or reduce it?
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    But to me, thats the real criminal offense. Who would do that drunk if it was basically impossible in the sense it is part ofthe car in a non-central way where there's like bot one discrete part you can remove to dismantle it? If you were sober and took the time to criminally alter your car in the same way (but criminal) you cant have totalky tinted windowsand must have catalytic converter, i think basically everyone can agree you're prolly a piece of shit who needs judicial intervention
    - marcus_holmes 3y ago
      I can pretty easily imagine a scenario where this (ripping the processor out of the car) would be the right thing to do... let's say me and a bunch of friend get drunk in the middle of nowhere, one of us is injured and is going to bleed out, so the choice is to drive drunk to the hospital or let my friend bleed out. I'm going to drive drunk, and if that involves ripping out the processor that won't let me start the car because I'm drunk, I'm doing that. I get where you're coming from, but I think the blanket application of fixed rules with no consideration of context is pretty much always wrong.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Rapextfully thats a ridiculous contrived example that internally doesnt even make sense. Alm that time spent on reverse engineering while you're drunk can be spent accepting your current reality and calling an expensed taxi ride home. Society will gladly pick up the tab now for a $20 ride to save itself $20,000 in legal costs just on its own side not to mention if you appeal and all the other stuff

Obscurity4340 3y ago

But do all cars need and have to process any fucking data locally. I don't want that shit. I wanna drive a car not a computer Having said that, there are arguments to be made for a standard that uses heuristics to detect impaired driving for sure. Its harder to make the case if theres like a homomorphic data situation going on where your car can 1) use data and processi locally to detect potential impaired driving, 2) it stipulates loss of function in terms of abillity to further drive (pulls you over) in exchange for eliminating the potentialitt for crime, damage, and criminal chsrging process. Its a goddamn loss of time, energy, and life to still have this problem. A car should not need to necessarily measure your BAC as evinced by breath to detect you're driving like a maniac and maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). The criminal aspect is bullshit because yes its a fucked up thing but people who are impaired are not thinking clearly or able to consent to committing a criminal act in th same way they can't consent to something as simple and hands-off (no pun intended) as being sexually fucked and still be considered to have had the agency to have been lawfully able to consent to that in the first place. It really makes zero sense: 1) simple thing: receiving sexual intercourse 2) complex thing: driving car You can do both these things drunk but your only assumed to have lacked agency in #1. Makes no sense to me, you're almost guranteed to fuck (up) your car [car non-consensually] if not yourself as the end result lol EDIT: i'd appreciate if any lawyer or legal person or someone you know could critique this rationale and discuss how/why it is or isnt cogent and elaborate on the extent to which it could even be theoretically implemented, even [GASP?!] if it costs us all a lil bit of money/taxes/legislation to get us to that point in legal dtae of affairs

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
marcus_holmes 3y ago
Love the analogy ;) But yes, if your condom could detect if your partner had an elevated blood/alcohol level and requested them to confirm that they consented to the sexual act, would it be the same? And would it be useful, or would it just elevate the stats of condom-less rape? In the same vein; if you could rip out the processor of your car because it refused to drive because it thought you were drunk, would it increase safety or reduce it?
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  But to me, thats the real criminal offense. Who would do that drunk if it was basically impossible in the sense it is part ofthe car in a non-central way where there's like bot one discrete part you can remove to dismantle it? If you were sober and took the time to criminally alter your car in the same way (but criminal) you cant have totalky tinted windowsand must have catalytic converter, i think basically everyone can agree you're prolly a piece of shit who needs judicial intervention
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    I can pretty easily imagine a scenario where this (ripping the processor out of the car) would be the right thing to do... let's say me and a bunch of friend get drunk in the middle of nowhere, one of us is injured and is going to bleed out, so the choice is to drive drunk to the hospital or let my friend bleed out. I'm going to drive drunk, and if that involves ripping out the processor that won't let me start the car because I'm drunk, I'm doing that. I get where you're coming from, but I think the blanket application of fixed rules with no consideration of context is pretty much always wrong.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Rapextfully thats a ridiculous contrived example that internally doesnt even make sense. Alm that time spent on reverse engineering while you're drunk can be spent accepting your current reality and calling an expensed taxi ride home. Society will gladly pick up the tab now for a $20 ride to save itself $20,000 in legal costs just on its own side not to mention if you appeal and all the other stuff