• teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device

            Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.

            • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI, by your logic ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.

              Don’t break the law If you don’t want to be monitored by the state.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI

                Yes I am actually aware, thanks.

                ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.

                Ankle monitors monitor location. Interlock devices monitor intoxication levels, and locally send a signal to the vehicle about whether it’s ok to drive. The difference should be obvious.

          • Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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?

            • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 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.

              • KotFlinte@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah I don’t know, that’s a whole bunch of unnecessary surveillance.

                Make the device work locally, make it in any way tamper resistant and mandate a yearly check up at a certified autoshop.

                The solution to problems does not have to be “control every possible thing at all times”.

                People deserve not to be monitored around the clock.

    • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Someone knowledgeable enough could tamper with the local equipment to get it to give false negatives, or always pass regardless of blood alcohol content. If it doesn’t phone home, the company (or the court) doesn’t know it’s been tampered with.

          This is all theoretical, I know nothing about this tech.

          • teft@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I agree with you in principle but you could just have the person show up once a week for tamper checking. Those interlock devices are punishment for DUI/DWI so making the user show up once a week wouldn’t be too harsh, imo.

  • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

      • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        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

        • Joelk111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m sure the lives lost were worth it so that alcoholics and irresponsible people can keep functioning in society. /s

      • iSeth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

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

        • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 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.