U.S. Impaired Driver Detection Mandate Raises Privacy Questions (2021) | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Impaired Driver Detection Mandate Raises Privacy Questions (2021)

musclecarsandtrucks.com

43 pointsmaxwell24 comments

Sure does seem like that the world in which "you will own nothing, and you will be happy" is approaching rapidly. It's not sufficient that your emails are being read and your cell phone is being tracked; now your own car will spy on you to make sure you're not behaving in the wrong manner ("other purposes").

I'm not surprised that the government is voting for government to have more power, but hopefully there will be some checks and balances against this kind of thing.

Checks and balances will of course be implemented, in the same way they are to hold police officers accountable, or border patrol agents, or the TSA, and so on, with their powers. These of course all work flawlessly.

How'd you keep a straight face while typing that out?

LOL

I'll add this to my rather long list of reasons to continue to avoid buying newer cars.

At some point older cars will just be made illegal or taxed to the point they are unaffordable to the average person and most of us will be forced to buy new cars

Old cars are much less safe and energy efficient than new cars.

> ...will always be running in the background and constantly monitoring the vehicle for deviation from normal driving habits, which will also mean the vehicle will need to learn your specific idiosyncrasies behind the wheel in order to better profile your behavior...

Who will be responsible for the possible malfunction of this new software?

How will this work with student drivers, who may be just learning to stay in their lane? I wonder if cars will have a "student driver mode" that disables the whole thing.

They shouldn't be on the road either, if they can't manage to stay in their lane.

Driving while talking on the phone, even hands free, is a huge problem too. IMO they should tackle that first since it seems like it would be easier to solve.

https://www.businessinsider.com/talking-on-a-hands-free-cell...

While we're at it, driving while putting on makeup. And driving while eating. And driving while listening to music somewhat loudly. And..

That's another form of impaired driving, so it would presumably be in-scope.

This article says it's only alcohol impairment:

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20220920.as...

This is one of these "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" type bills.

People won't understand how important it is to fight these things until it's too late.

Separation of mechanism and policy is an important concept relevant to that. Proponents will think that is just execution of the policy of preventing drunk driving, which is relatively accepted. But it's a mandate for a mechanism to enforce such a policy. At some point, someone will likely push for that mechanism to be used to enforce other policies, citing the mechanism's existence as an argument that it's not really changing anything.

I'd rather this be handled at the insurance level. Insurers already have a pretty good model of risk if you've been driving for a while. This type of monitoring might be good for inexperienced drivers for whom the insurance company doesn't understand the risk at a fine grained level yet. If you don't want to use the device to reduce that risk, your premiums are based on what they already know about you. If you're a long time driver, it doesn't make much of a difference but for those without much of a driving history, it could save them on premiums because of the lowered risk. Making this a government mandate for everyone when they get a new car reeks of power hunger authoritarians seeing yet another way to insert themselves into everyone's daily lives.

But couldn't an insurance company mechanism be used for a law enforcement policy? Or would the ubiquity of an insurance company mechanism keep law enforcement from getting their hands on it? Instead of the potential for conviction, people would just pay increased premiums?

Kinda like the idea that you need to spend your money in your local economy so people are incentivized to participate in it rather than mug you?

It's still beyond me why we don't just make the penalty for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol 5yrs in prison?

Of course, shitty cops will occasionally coerce someone into a questionable blood test or breathalizer test - they too should be prosecuted and face jailtime. Heck, police officers who "accidentally mute" bodycam audio should go to jail.

That said, this is a lazy approach to an easy problem to solve. It's beyond me why idiots still drink and drive even with the advent of uber etc.

People who are driving drunk are doing so at a time when their judgment is impaired. Driving drunk can get the driver killed, so if that's not enough of a deterrent it seems like the chance of getting caught and sent to prison isn't going to work either.

You might be in favor of this and thus, are not being contradictory, but I do just want to point out that this kind of extremely punitive behavior for poor judgement implies a massive expansion of the carceral state if it were to be carried out consistently. If drunk driving gives 5 years, what should armed robbery or unarmed assault, etc, carry?

If this harsh treatment were consistent, it would probably lead to much higher rates of incarceration than we had under the now derided tough-on-crime policies that were in vogue in the latter part of the 21st century.

I'm fully of the opinion that murder should merit a life sentence and that any form of aggravated assault committed with a deadly weapon (firearm or otherwise) should carry at least a 10yr sentence. When the punishment is sufficiently great, idiots think twice about making "bad judgement".

> It's still beyond me why we don't just make the penalty for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol 5yrs in prison?

Because your idea has a shaky premise: it relies on an abstract thoughts ("I could get caught, and I could go to jail") deterring people who in many cases lack the judgement (at the time, at least) to be deterred.

After that, all that's left is the idea these people are too dangerous to be free; but that fails on reasonableness (we have a way higher bar for that) and cost grounds.

Look at drunk driving rates in Phoenix AZ - a zero tolerance city.

It's substantially lower than many other metros. Again, cops who coerce people to admit to being drunk are a separate issue and should be dealt with.

As an adult drinking is a choice. Driving is a choice. If you make the wrong choices you face consequences...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com