7 ms·

Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded in the US

181 points by speckx 8mo ago

n1tro_lab 8mo ago
[flagged]
nekusar 8mo ago
I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this. People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles. They're 100% court mandated, as a punishment for, usually, drunk driving. This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
- bombcar 8mo ago
  "Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal. So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison, you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that infringes on your third amendment rights. This can even occur in a civil case.
  - chuckadams 8mo ago
    I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers being quartered in your home.
    - bombcar 8mo ago
      It's a humorous example, but violations of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are common.
      - dghlsakjg 8mo ago
        They aren’t violations if you are being punished. People who don’t take the deal and get sent to jail or put on probation typically lose those rights as well.
    - toast0 8mo ago
      The soldiers in my home only have bill acceptors, not coin slots, so it's legal.
- Someone1234 8mo ago
  And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society. Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They have a dual morality where lawbreaking is wrong, but profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation services, and for-profit jails are fine. Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).
  - astura 8mo ago
    Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a DUI.
    - Someone1234 8mo ago
      A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice system though.
      - nekusar 8mo ago
        How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment". Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long? Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd party company-owned device? What terms? What is reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle nation, with poor to non-existent public transit. Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are? Pro-tip: it already does.
  - ghastmaster 8mo ago
    In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.
- zoklet-enjoyer 8mo ago
  I like to not share roads with drunks
  - calgoo 8mo ago
    Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.
    - doubled112 8mo ago
      Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that rule stopped them. Why would this rule? I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much. Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
    - irishcoffee 8mo ago
      So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license? Really?
      - jasonlotito 8mo ago
        Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
        irishcoffee 8mo ago
        > Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice. I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license. > You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license. I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.
- chromacity 8mo ago
  > This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.
  - benatkin 8mo ago
    The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line? If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).
    - astura 8mo ago
      Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
      - benatkin 8mo ago
        No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.
    - SauciestGNU 8mo ago
      I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.
- dylan604 8mo ago
  > People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they were going to choose the car lock.
  - applfanboysbgon 8mo ago
    If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
    - sumeno 8mo ago
      Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged. Interlock devices are not given to random people for no reason.
      - nekusar 8mo ago
        It is not so dissimilar. Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges, and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these terms". And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to ask for on sentencing. Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that those with more money can afford better lawyers. And those with less money get public defenders, who are well known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to keep from being investigated by the Bar. The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party companies predating on your socio-economic class.
- lesuorac 8mo ago
  > So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ... > Now, lets have a discussion about software liability.... You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars responsibly to use cars with provided software without a warranty.
  - jasonlotito 8mo ago
    > Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well. And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.
    - nekusar 8mo ago
      Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using public defenders. The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year of a breathalyzer in your car" The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state and 'business partners' (private companies) via more suffering. And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal of rights with tenuous due process at best. The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished most of public transit to go all in on the personal vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US domestic car production and oil/gas production.
- nemomarx 8mo ago
  I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to just taking away your license, right?
  - dghlsakjg 8mo ago
    More effective, too. An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a license pretty frequently does nothing.
    - kube-system 8mo ago
      I don't think most people realize just how few people in the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
      - cucumber3732842 8mo ago
        This but replace Germans and British with Americans above and below some fairly fuzzy income level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo
- ghastmaster 8mo ago
  I have a friend who would like to do it voluntarily, however, just having one on the vehicle increases your insurance cost.
- dmitrygr 8mo ago
  You think USA punishes criminals too much?!?! You mean like this? https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah-west-slammed-for-overturning-conviction-of-pair-involved-in-medicaid-fraud-new-york-healthcare-media https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah... Or like that?? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed-pregnant-stranger-found-not-guilty-by-reason-insanity/FYUG52UAOZCCFEZK4LGOKCA6IY/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed... Or maybe this? https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197 https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197
  - FireBeyond 8mo ago
    These are your examples? In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life. So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison? That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...
    - dmitrygr 8mo ago
      It is the "potentially" that is the problem. Remove that and i am 100% onboard
hedora 8mo ago
We need to legally mandate a single physical switch that disables all vehicles radios, and a second that factory resets everything but the odometer and vehicle fault logs / black box.
- bilekas 8mo ago
  That's an extremely attractive attack surface. How about we just have keys to turn on the engine?
  - uxp100 8mo ago
    Well, in this case because drunks keep murdering people.
    - bilekas 8mo ago
      If you're drink driving you are not mature enough to drive and therefore you should lose your license. Simple.
      - Spivak 8mo ago
        I would agree with you if the state took up the responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses around or making public transportation reliable enough for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with this as the compromise.
        bilekas 8mo ago
        I agree with public transport but that's basic. I don't see why the government should babysit you and drive you around because you drank and drove. Driving is a privilege not a right.
        Spivak 8mo ago
        I consider it to be the same as the state having to provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability to provide those things for yourself and so now it's their job to do it. In cities with shit public transportation that isn't going to be invested in any time soon the state took away your ability to provide for your own transportation and I think it's on them to shoulder the cost. Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock are ways to punish that still let people provide for themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments that turn adults into babies.
syntheticnature 8mo ago
I once helped someone get their car home after one of these was installed. Their license would not be returned until it was installed, but they weren't allowed to leave it on the lot. Someone else drove it there, and then I got to experience the breathalyzer to drive it home. The interesting part is how bad the interlock was. First off, it can apparently randomly not work, so you get three tries. Worse yet, per the official documentation, apparently they can misdetect an ignition while driving at speed, and when that happens you have to pull over and blow within thirty seconds. Now, this is not something you can do while driving, as you have to look at the camera while you do it, on top of needing to have a deep breath. There's no motivation to improve this, because the customer is the legal system, not the person who has to have it installed
- SilverElfin 8mo ago
  Isn’t there a proposed law to install these into every single new car?
  - bri3d 8mo ago
    Not really the same. There are proposals to require OEMs to install driver monitoring, but it’s usually IR camera based rather than blow in a tube fuel cell based. These systems are probably going to be a mess but the technology isn’t really comparable to DUI interlock devices and the unreliability of those systems is orthogonal.
  - astura 8mo ago
    No, the 2021 infrastructure bill required automakers to install passive technology (passive meaning not requiring any specific actions from the driver) to prevent drunk driving by some future date. However, such technology doesn't really exist yet.
    - Auracle 8mo ago
      Eh, with lane keeping features I don’t think it’d be hard to at least detect someone swerving a lot. Granted, I don’t think that would detect people that aren’t super drunk, but it’s something. I might be wrong on that assumption - I don’t drink, myself.
ashwinnair99 8mo ago
The fragility of putting ignition control behind a third party cloud service was always going to end like this. Someone had to find out the hard way.
bri3d 8mo ago
The issue here is not an OTA thing, for what it’s worth. That is to say, it’s not that these devices phoned home directly and a cloud server is down; rather, these devices require periodic “calibration” (due to a combination of regulation, legitimate technical need, and grift) at a service center and the service centers are out of commission, presumably due to ransomware.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
jeffbee 8mo ago
The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and broken that they will do some Rube Goldberg stunt before they even consider taking cars away from alcoholics.
- c22 8mo ago
  Wouldn't it be better to take the alcohol away?
  - nathanaldensr 8mo ago
    LOL, exactly! The underlying problem is people's addiction to drugs, not all the symptoms that come from those addictions.
  - volkl48 8mo ago
    We tried that once. It caused a lot of other problems.
    - rootusrootus 8mo ago
      Nobody suggested banning alcohol altogether.
  - ativzzz 8mo ago
    The US tried this in 1920 and rolled it back a decade later - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...
    - rootusrootus 8mo ago
      Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.
0xbadcafebee 8mo ago
We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be stopped. We don't allow this kind of behavior with the electrical or building code. Hell, we don't even allow mattresses to be sold without adding fire resistance. The software that is critical to people's lives needs mandatory minimum specifications, failure resistance, testing, and approval. It is unacceptable to strand 150,000 people for weeks because a software company was lazy (just like it was unacceptable to strand millions when CrowdStrike shit the bed). In addition to approvals, there should be fines to ensure there are consequences to not complying.
- nathanaldensr 8mo ago
  I have no idea why you'd been downvoted. Everything you said is common sense. I guess this is a case of "it's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it."
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - coryrc 8mo ago
    Or maybe it's "the NFPA doesn't need to prevent against your wires suddenly becoming aluminum because somebody discovered new math" like "DSA encryption has been broken" affects software.
  - pas 8mo ago
    EU has the NIS2 directive, the CRA (cybersecurity resiliency act), and a few sector specific ones (DORA for financial, MDR/IVDR for medical/diagnostical, and there's probably a bunch more) these are slowly but surely pushing manufacturers/sellers/distributors to try to do the right things it requires transparency about support period commitment, a bug tracker program, issuing updates (I guess in case there's a CVE), doing risk assessment during development, etc., and requirements kick in based on turnover (or headcount). and it seems like the correct approach, these are already things good products come with
mrlonglong 8mo ago
Why do people drink drive?
- bitwank 8mo ago
  There are no beds in most bars and nightclubs.
  - b33j0r 8mo ago
    That’s why I have been proposing Nappy McBeers’s Middle-Aged Tap & Blanket Room for over 20 unsuccessful years. “Have a pint, stay a spell. It’ll be our cozy little secret, mate.”
- MSFT_Edging 8mo ago
  Addiction, mental illness, a defacto requirement to drive to get around low-density towns where walking is often extremely dangerous due to lack of sidewalks and fast roads. Alcohol abuse has been around about as long as we've been human. We've just constructed a society where Alcohol abuse is far more likely to pick up collateral damage.
  - vkou 8mo ago
    We've also become a lot better at distilling high-proof alcohol, and at making it cheap enough that most people have the budget to get absolutely wasted on the regular. Most people don't do that, but the option is there for anyone looking to make their life and the lives of people around them significantly worse.
    - AngryData 8mo ago
      Alcohol has never been expensive enough or hard enough to produce to prevent alcoholism. 3000 years ago average people were drinking alcohol daily.
      - MSFT_Edging 8mo ago
Yizahi 8mo ago
Good old "let's fire QA guys and give testing to the everyone else". It never fails to entertain. "The happy path checks all green, lets deploy!" :) .
anonymousiam 8mo ago
Imagine if an attack like this could disable ALL vehicles, and not just the ones fit with the breathalyzer socket. It could happen soon: https://carcoachreports.substack.com/p/government-kill-switch-in-your-next https://carcoachreports.substack.com/p/government-kill-switc...
chasil 8mo ago
Is there any indication that the source of the attack was Iran?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
mvdtnz 8mo ago
If you search for Intoxalock on r/DUI you'll see this company has been notorious for a long time. They are regarded as the worst interlock provider by a very wide margin for various issues around reliability and service quality.
ghastmaster 8mo ago
I am an Intoxalock user right now. My device was due for calibration three days after the onset of this breach. I called the mechanic that does the calibration and they said they could not access the Intoxalock system. My device said I was overdue. I still drove it for 2 days. Intoxalock did a partial fix and the service center was able to extend the period for my calibration for another 10 days, but still couldn't calibrate it. I need to schedule that calibration now. It was a minor inconvenience for me.
Arubis 8mo ago
Now let's add an externally-controlled backdoor to everything else, too, and that'll work out great.
stevemadere 8mo ago
Given Pete Hegseth’s history, this could be a huge national security issue.
ChipnAwyOurFrdm 8mo ago
[dead]

181 points by speckx 8mo ago

[flagged]

I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this. People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles. They're 100% court mandated, as a punishment for, usually, drunk driving. This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....

bombcar 8mo ago
"Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal. So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison, you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that infringes on your third amendment rights. This can even occur in a civil case.
- chuckadams 8mo ago
  I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers being quartered in your home.
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    It's a humorous example, but violations of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are common.
    - dghlsakjg 8mo ago
      They aren’t violations if you are being punished. People who don’t take the deal and get sent to jail or put on probation typically lose those rights as well.
  - toast0 8mo ago
    The soldiers in my home only have bill acceptors, not coin slots, so it's legal.
Someone1234 8mo ago
And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society. Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They have a dual morality where lawbreaking is wrong, but profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation services, and for-profit jails are fine. Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).
- astura 8mo ago
  Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a DUI.
  - Someone1234 8mo ago
    A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice system though.
    - nekusar 8mo ago
      How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment". Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long? Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd party company-owned device? What terms? What is reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle nation, with poor to non-existent public transit. Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are? Pro-tip: it already does.
- ghastmaster 8mo ago
  In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.
zoklet-enjoyer 8mo ago
I like to not share roads with drunks
- calgoo 8mo ago
  Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.
  - doubled112 8mo ago
    Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that rule stopped them. Why would this rule? I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much. Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - irishcoffee 8mo ago
    So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license? Really?
    - jasonlotito 8mo ago
      Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
      - irishcoffee 8mo ago
        > Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice. I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license. > You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license. I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.
chromacity 8mo ago
> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.
- benatkin 8mo ago
  The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line? If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).
  - astura 8mo ago
    Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
    - benatkin 8mo ago
      No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.
  - SauciestGNU 8mo ago
    I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.
dylan604 8mo ago
> People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they were going to choose the car lock.
- applfanboysbgon 8mo ago
  If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
  - sumeno 8mo ago
    Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged. Interlock devices are not given to random people for no reason.
    - nekusar 8mo ago
      It is not so dissimilar. Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges, and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these terms". And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to ask for on sentencing. Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that those with more money can afford better lawyers. And those with less money get public defenders, who are well known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to keep from being investigated by the Bar. The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party companies predating on your socio-economic class.
lesuorac 8mo ago
> So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ... > Now, lets have a discussion about software liability.... You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars responsibly to use cars with provided software without a warranty.
- jasonlotito 8mo ago
  > Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well. And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.
  - nekusar 8mo ago
    Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using public defenders. The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year of a breathalyzer in your car" The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state and 'business partners' (private companies) via more suffering. And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal of rights with tenuous due process at best. The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished most of public transit to go all in on the personal vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US domestic car production and oil/gas production.
nemomarx 8mo ago
I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to just taking away your license, right?
- dghlsakjg 8mo ago
  More effective, too. An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a license pretty frequently does nothing.
  - kube-system 8mo ago
    I don't think most people realize just how few people in the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
    - cucumber3732842 8mo ago
      This but replace Germans and British with Americans above and below some fairly fuzzy income level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo
ghastmaster 8mo ago
I have a friend who would like to do it voluntarily, however, just having one on the vehicle increases your insurance cost.
dmitrygr 8mo ago
You think USA punishes criminals too much?!?! You mean like this? https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah-west-slammed-for-overturning-conviction-of-pair-involved-in-medicaid-fraud-new-york-healthcare-media https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah... Or like that?? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed-pregnant-stranger-found-not-guilty-by-reason-insanity/FYUG52UAOZCCFEZK4LGOKCA6IY/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed... Or maybe this? https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197 https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197
- FireBeyond 8mo ago
  These are your examples? In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life. So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison? That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...
  - dmitrygr 8mo ago
    It is the "potentially" that is the problem. Remove that and i am 100% onboard

hedora 8mo ago

We need to legally mandate a single physical switch that disables all vehicles radios, and a second that factory resets everything but the odometer and vehicle fault logs / black box.

bilekas 8mo ago
That's an extremely attractive attack surface. How about we just have keys to turn on the engine?
- uxp100 8mo ago
  Well, in this case because drunks keep murdering people.
  - bilekas 8mo ago
    If you're drink driving you are not mature enough to drive and therefore you should lose your license. Simple.
    - Spivak 8mo ago
      I would agree with you if the state took up the responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses around or making public transportation reliable enough for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with this as the compromise.
      - bilekas 8mo ago
        I agree with public transport but that's basic. I don't see why the government should babysit you and drive you around because you drank and drove. Driving is a privilege not a right.
        Spivak 8mo ago
        I consider it to be the same as the state having to provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability to provide those things for yourself and so now it's their job to do it. In cities with shit public transportation that isn't going to be invested in any time soon the state took away your ability to provide for your own transportation and I think it's on them to shoulder the cost. Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock are ways to punish that still let people provide for themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments that turn adults into babies.

syntheticnature 8mo ago

I once helped someone get their car home after one of these was installed. Their license would not be returned until it was installed, but they weren't allowed to leave it on the lot. Someone else drove it there, and then I got to experience the breathalyzer to drive it home. The interesting part is how bad the interlock was. First off, it can apparently randomly not work, so you get three tries. Worse yet, per the official documentation, apparently they can misdetect an ignition while driving at speed, and when that happens you have to pull over and blow within thirty seconds. Now, this is not something you can do while driving, as you have to look at the camera while you do it, on top of needing to have a deep breath. There's no motivation to improve this, because the customer is the legal system, not the person who has to have it installed

SilverElfin 8mo ago
Isn’t there a proposed law to install these into every single new car?
- bri3d 8mo ago
  Not really the same. There are proposals to require OEMs to install driver monitoring, but it’s usually IR camera based rather than blow in a tube fuel cell based. These systems are probably going to be a mess but the technology isn’t really comparable to DUI interlock devices and the unreliability of those systems is orthogonal.
- astura 8mo ago
  No, the 2021 infrastructure bill required automakers to install passive technology (passive meaning not requiring any specific actions from the driver) to prevent drunk driving by some future date. However, such technology doesn't really exist yet.
  - Auracle 8mo ago
    Eh, with lane keeping features I don’t think it’d be hard to at least detect someone swerving a lot. Granted, I don’t think that would detect people that aren’t super drunk, but it’s something. I might be wrong on that assumption - I don’t drink, myself.

ashwinnair99 8mo ago

The fragility of putting ignition control behind a third party cloud service was always going to end like this. Someone had to find out the hard way.

bri3d 8mo ago

The issue here is not an OTA thing, for what it’s worth. That is to say, it’s not that these devices phoned home directly and a cloud server is down; rather, these devices require periodic “calibration” (due to a combination of regulation, legitimate technical need, and grift) at a service center and the service centers are out of commission, presumably due to ransomware.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

jeffbee 8mo ago

The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and broken that they will do some Rube Goldberg stunt before they even consider taking cars away from alcoholics.

c22 8mo ago
Wouldn't it be better to take the alcohol away?
- nathanaldensr 8mo ago
  LOL, exactly! The underlying problem is people's addiction to drugs, not all the symptoms that come from those addictions.
- volkl48 8mo ago
  We tried that once. It caused a lot of other problems.
  - rootusrootus 8mo ago
    Nobody suggested banning alcohol altogether.
- ativzzz 8mo ago
  The US tried this in 1920 and rolled it back a decade later - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...
  - rootusrootus 8mo ago
    Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.

0xbadcafebee 8mo ago

We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be stopped. We don't allow this kind of behavior with the electrical or building code. Hell, we don't even allow mattresses to be sold without adding fire resistance. The software that is critical to people's lives needs mandatory minimum specifications, failure resistance, testing, and approval. It is unacceptable to strand 150,000 people for weeks because a software company was lazy (just like it was unacceptable to strand millions when CrowdStrike shit the bed). In addition to approvals, there should be fines to ensure there are consequences to not complying.

nathanaldensr 8mo ago
I have no idea why you'd been downvoted. Everything you said is common sense. I guess this is a case of "it's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it."
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- coryrc 8mo ago
  Or maybe it's "the NFPA doesn't need to prevent against your wires suddenly becoming aluminum because somebody discovered new math" like "DSA encryption has been broken" affects software.
- pas 8mo ago
  EU has the NIS2 directive, the CRA (cybersecurity resiliency act), and a few sector specific ones (DORA for financial, MDR/IVDR for medical/diagnostical, and there's probably a bunch more) these are slowly but surely pushing manufacturers/sellers/distributors to try to do the right things it requires transparency about support period commitment, a bug tracker program, issuing updates (I guess in case there's a CVE), doing risk assessment during development, etc., and requirements kick in based on turnover (or headcount). and it seems like the correct approach, these are already things good products come with

mrlonglong 8mo ago

Why do people drink drive?

bitwank 8mo ago
There are no beds in most bars and nightclubs.
- b33j0r 8mo ago
  That’s why I have been proposing Nappy McBeers’s Middle-Aged Tap & Blanket Room for over 20 unsuccessful years. “Have a pint, stay a spell. It’ll be our cozy little secret, mate.”
MSFT_Edging 8mo ago
Addiction, mental illness, a defacto requirement to drive to get around low-density towns where walking is often extremely dangerous due to lack of sidewalks and fast roads. Alcohol abuse has been around about as long as we've been human. We've just constructed a society where Alcohol abuse is far more likely to pick up collateral damage.
- vkou 8mo ago
  We've also become a lot better at distilling high-proof alcohol, and at making it cheap enough that most people have the budget to get absolutely wasted on the regular. Most people don't do that, but the option is there for anyone looking to make their life and the lives of people around them significantly worse.
  - AngryData 8mo ago
    Alcohol has never been expensive enough or hard enough to produce to prevent alcoholism. 3000 years ago average people were drinking alcohol daily.
    - MSFT_Edging 8mo ago

Yizahi 8mo ago

Good old "let's fire QA guys and give testing to the everyone else". It never fails to entertain. "The happy path checks all green, lets deploy!" :) .

anonymousiam 8mo ago

Imagine if an attack like this could disable ALL vehicles, and not just the ones fit with the breathalyzer socket. It could happen soon: https://carcoachreports.substack.com/p/government-kill-switch-in-your-next https://carcoachreports.substack.com/p/government-kill-switc...

chasil 8mo ago

Is there any indication that the source of the attack was Iran?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

mvdtnz 8mo ago

If you search for Intoxalock on r/DUI you'll see this company has been notorious for a long time. They are regarded as the worst interlock provider by a very wide margin for various issues around reliability and service quality.

ghastmaster 8mo ago

I am an Intoxalock user right now. My device was due for calibration three days after the onset of this breach. I called the mechanic that does the calibration and they said they could not access the Intoxalock system. My device said I was overdue. I still drove it for 2 days. Intoxalock did a partial fix and the service center was able to extend the period for my calibration for another 10 days, but still couldn't calibrate it. I need to schedule that calibration now. It was a minor inconvenience for me.

Arubis 8mo ago

Now let's add an externally-controlled backdoor to everything else, too, and that'll work out great.

stevemadere 8mo ago

Given Pete Hegseth’s history, this could be a huge national security issue.

ChipnAwyOurFrdm 8mo ago

[dead]