all 88 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 139 points 7 months ago (8 children)

And here I was thinking these blow-and-go contraptions were self contained. I should have known better.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 95 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    They want to be able to remotely disable vehicles, but in the process have made us vulnerable to all sophisticated actors to do so. Our leaders have their priorities all screwed up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago

    Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering.

    It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea.

    Deoending on the way it's implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y'know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    But. That's the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    Hegseth is gonna be even more angry than born normal when he can't drive from point a to point b because of this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 7 months ago

    This is a great story to illuminate the large number of problems that could be addressed by decent public transit, better options for walking and biking, etc.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    How are these people planning to drive? The cost of fuel is excruciating! If it wasn’t because of Operation Epstein Fury, driving may have been an option.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Internet connected breathalyzer... May I ask why? If they need periodic recalibrations all of them don't need it right now no?

    Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    I had one disable my car in rush hour traffic in another city on a roadtrip, they had no way to do anything to get me back up and running. I assume this is for those kinds of cases. I was taking up a lane on the interstate with a cop staring at me, trying to hum the little fucker back to life while a tow truck came.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 7 months ago (54 children)

    Boo for the cyber attack but fuck people who drive drunk repeatedly to the point of needing an interlock device. Maybe don't drink and drive you fucking sack of shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    Fuck the lock, ban them from driving. Inexcusable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Driving under the influence is a ban able offence (reckless endangerment) in most countries.

    So is a proper driver's ed before giving even a learner's permit. US loves giving a multi ton killing machine to untrained people with impulse control. And teenagers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I agree with you, but the difference is that, in the US, people NEED to be able to drive to function in society. That's why the bar has to be so low to get a license.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Perfect solution. Really needs public transit or walkable cities to work so win-win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Of course better transit is a better solution, but at least while America is waiting for that, ride-hailing services can help fill a gap. Expensive? I have little sympathy for people who drove drunk on that count.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Comments sections. Where nuance goes to die. All context is flattened and your views must be expressed as black or white lest you get branded as having the wrong opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    I don't think alcoholics should be allowed to drive, is that too much to ask?

    Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the roads are already dangerous enough as they are.

    I understand the dynamics in the US are what they are regarding cars and the lack of public transportation or bicycle infrastructure, but I don't believe the avoidable deaths are a worthy trade off. Change needs to start somewhere, and excusing the deaths for some artificially created issue is not acceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    So... Just tell them that it's illegal for them to drive? Kind of like how we tell them that it's illegal to drink and drive but they did that anyway? The point of the lock is that it's for people who are going to ignore the law anyway. Not having a license does not stop somebody from operating a motor vehicle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    You make a good point. I still don't have an ounce of patience for alcoholics who drive, but I do agree that it creates a mental trap of "you have a perfectly good car right here if you just stop drinking for 24 hours"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Never knew anyone who had one, but a friend of mine dated a guy who did. He would beg her to breathe into it for him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    That's insane but as an alcoholic I can absolutely see someone doing it.

    Some are social butterflies who have to be out and about but talk about not learning lessons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    “Not learning lessons” is a pretty mild way to put it.

    The only way it isn’t pure evil is if we allow that the alcoholic is not in control of their actions. And if we allow that, they cannot be trusted to drive, or really to even have their freedom. They are 5150, plain and simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    you only need to get caught once for the lock

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    It's a shame that it's only when they get caught. There's no excuse for driving drunk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I can think of plenty, just oh shit we have to get to the hospital please take us to the hospital with a legitimate oh shit we have to get to the hospital tends to override most traffic bullshits. Making the judgment of whether something is a legitimate oh shit we need to get to the hospital is why we have EMTs but like, if the Friday night shift knows you have emergencies when you eat buttered popcorn and there's a new bee movie out they might just expect you to drive yourself (or rather, have a trusted friend and swearing team buddy) because you're half expecting a damn emergency at the bee movie and you've had twelve too many, they know which roads to keep clear of toddlers and the elderly. Damn bees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    i'm shopping the script to paramount. she loses her bee husband in a drunk driving accident and doesn't know how to handle the steady swarm of bee courting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    If it's Paramount, you'll need a MAGA angle, like the drunk driver was a Trans school shooter running from the scene after murdering a class of special needs kids.

    For starters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -13 points 7 months ago (27 children)

    I know someone that did it once and having to have one of these as a result. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Nope, shouldn't of done it once. Pretty easy to not drink and drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    I too have never had a time sensitive emergency

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    What kind of emergency is more important than the lives of people that might be killed by a drunk driver's mistake? And how is it impossible to find an alternative solution?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    What emergency is so time sensitive it's worth killing yourself and a random family for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    The fact that you can't actually think of an emergency is telling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Still didn't name an emergency worth killing yourself and a random family over

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

    honestly, any emergency that involves hitting you and yours. that's because i don't feel like remembering them. i've been the car that the police pulls over because it's driving erratically and then takes over driving. it's an abstract concept to you. not to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    Were you drunk or just driving erratically because you were in an emergency?

    Also, still didn't name an emergency worth killing yourself and a random family over

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Also, still didn’t name an emergency worth killing yourself and a random family over

    because i don't have to tell you about the worst times in my life for your entertainment. read the room you creep

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not asking for you to talk about your life, I'm asking you to come up with literally any imaginary event that supports your argument that it's okay to drunk drive under the right circimstamces

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    wait really you harass someone with ptsd until they blow up, then complain to the mods over it and delete your comment starting the argument? you are quite possibly the biggest pussy on the internet.

    let me be EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR. you treat me like my life is worthless, why should i take any action to preserve yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago*

    lmao wtf are you on about? What mods? I deleted a comment immediately after posting, it got zero votes and you never even had a chance to reply to it. I don't even remember what it said.

    I said people don't have a right to endanger others, the fact you took that as treating you like your life is worthless says a lot

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    “I know someone who only did a murder once and they locked them right up. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.”

    Replace murder with any crime.

    If you don’t want to face the consequences, don’t do the action that begets the consequences.

    TLDR: don’t fuck around if you don’t wanna find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Nice straw man. Murder != drunk driving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Interlock devices are the bare minimum if you insist on allowing people who have proven they will drive drunk to continue to drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I was arguing with the point of "repeatedly" being a determining factor for having to have this device. It's not reality, once is enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Having a breathalyzer is letting them off easy, they deserve to lose their license

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    A "cyberattack"? Or vibe coded AI slop running as intended?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    The first time I ever heard of/saw one of these things was in the show Pluribus, how common are they??

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Hot take but if you need a breathalyzer to drive you don’t deserve to drive anymore.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I think it as undone, but there was a very serious plan to put breathalyzers in all cars. This cyberattack should give people some pause. https://www.jalopnik.com/the-in-car-breathalyzer-is-only-a-few-years-away-1850268311/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Yessss, we need more tracking in your day to day because drunks, yesssss, or the children, yessss, or uh, err, uhhh, teenagers, yessssss!

    Please give us all your data! For safety reasons, yesssssa

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Only those cars that needed a breathalyzer for reasons.

    Not much of a loss, I'd say.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Per bidens Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that's going to be every new car starting this year

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not sure how I didn't hear of this already. Apparently it's not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.

    I don't drunk drive and barely even drink, but that's horrifying. I can't believe this went under the radar for me.

    More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That's a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I'm hearing of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle?

    There are already cameras inside most new cars, but the purpose is to see if you're nodding off when driving and such. It's a good thing to keep unsafe drivers off the road. The bad thing is the lack of privacy regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Passive systems, not a breathalyzer. Still fucking stupid but one can disable the cameras or stop the vehicle from phoning home. They won't be able to disable your vehicle remotely and it appears to be more a while driving thing rather than a before driving thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago

    drinking is some baby idiot garbage

  • source
  • 9 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    Screw this company. I helped a cousin who had to install this company's device in her car. Such garbage. 80s technology that barely functions, has a rigid maddening procedure and demands retesting while driving. I used it when I borrowed her truck and you learn to hate it in seconds. Auto shops charge hundreds to install this thing and hundreds more to remove it later. All along you pay the company approximately $100/month to use it. There are heavy fines for any mistakes and high charges for "calibration". I hope this somehow impacts intoxalock negatively.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    If I understand correctly, the only people who are stranded are people who got caught drinking and driving.

    For some reason these people were then allowed to drive again, but only if they were sober.

    That's stupid. By that logic EVERY car should have a breathalizer, since EVERY driver should be sober.

    If anything, the ones who get pulled over and are proven to drink and drive, so they shouldn't even have a liscense!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Unfortunately, due to the infrastructure (or lack thereof) in the US, you'd essentially be condemning them to death by doing so. They wouldn't be able to get to their jobs or a grocery store, because everything is too far away to walk in a reasonable time, and most of them don't have bikes and can't afford one on a short notice. So they'd end up homeless, and once you're homeless in the US, you've already got one foot in the grave. It'd be more merciful to imprison them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    I'm 42, and live in the USA. I've never owned a vehicle. My bike got stolen a year ago. I still do just fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not sure why the downvotes here, maybe not everyone can accept a counter position.

    I hope you get a new bike, keep smiling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments