I can tell from all the comments that no one has actually gone through half of the video where he concludes there is no remote kill switch in the legislation.
Yes. To be 100% clear, I am AGAINST this policy. Not just for the slippery slope argument, but because I do not trust this technology. However, it is important to me to be clear about what the policy is, before I explain why I am against it. Lane assist technology in several of the vehicles I have driven prefer that I nearly smash into a truck that is going over the double yellow line on a 2 way highway than mildly and occasionally ride the lane marker on the right side of the road when there is nobody on the shoulder. I am confident it would not like when I steer around potholes even when there's nobody behind or on the side of me. o And above all, I am not okay with the premise that what I own gets to tell me whether or not I can use it. I would be okay with that if it belong to my friend or if it was free, but not after I pay for it. The principle there is something that I fear spreading and getting worse
If you think cars of the future won't have a kill switch regardless of this video you are a fool, cars are moving towards the "car as a service" model so if you don't pay the subscription they will disable the car
I was almost guilty but saved my comment til the end of the video. All I have to say now is, I enjoy my early 2000's vehicles and maintaining them :) But also, I saw this coming when insurance companies started pushing the OBD2 plug ins to get a discount on your policy for how "good you drive".
in my town, the roads are TERRIBLE... according to the newspaper, there's over 16,000 potholes in my small town... the saying here is "if you're sober, you're all over the road. if you're drunk, you drive straight".... so just imagine if this 'system' was implemented in my car? it would constantly think that i'm drunk, but actually i'm just dodging potholes all over the place.
I was complaining about the road around Vienna.. My motorcycle got into a resonance on the concrete slabs the road is comprised of. So it was basically trying to throw me off all the time... There's this old dude sitting behind me at the bar.. He turns to me and says:"Geht schon, muss d' nur mehr Schnaps trinken" (It's ok, you just have to drink more spirits)
Think about the absurdity of the changes here. If you arbitrarily move the wheel left and right, in an empty parking lot, that idea has the same result as it does dodging pot holes. Government regulations and laws almost never work. Consumers fix shit far, far faster.
Or going through a neighborhood going around parked cars… unless every new car has 360 cameras this isn’t going to work. And we wonder why even cheap cars cost 30k easily these days
The kill switch thing is under "immobilization grant program" if anyone is wondering. It has broader terms than the drunk driving section Louis ended up reading. (Also kind of why it's B.S. when proposed bills cover way too much shit, people will miss reading over things that are potentially problematic.)
Can you link me to the text of that section since I don’t have the will to look through the main 2k+ page bill. The few summaries I found of it talked about impounding certain vehicles that fail inspection, nothing about a kill switch type device.
Looking at that specific section (23004) i didnt see it clearly saying anything about adding or not adding a kill switch. It seems to reference other things and one of those might say something about remote access though
@Matt OMFG WTF is wrong with you? Are you a troll? Putting God back in leads to an even more tyrannical government. And your last part is plain sexist.
Maybe we should have a sober discussion about what "freedom" actually means. Driving is a regulated activity, it's not a base freedom to begin with. Movement is free, you're free to move from place A to place B. But the means by which you move are not. It's a result of US Car manufacturers and their great sales pitches that Americans equate Car = Freedom, when in reality it's just another shape of tyranny. If Car = Freedom, then noCar = noFreedom. Which means that Freedom is conditional on Car ownership. And isn't that by itself anti-Freedom? Freedom should not be contingent on owning anything. If going by the Declaration of Independence, certain rights are inalienable, certain freedoms intrinsic to being a human. Then freedoms should never be tied to things such as: Owning a car, registering for voting, etc.
The whole internet connected thing with newer cars is the reason I currently own a 2000 and 2005. Sounds like I won't ever be buying a new vehicle ever in my life, thank you!
@@workingshlub8861 That's honestly most of the reason I stick with older American made models. Easier to work on and parts are generally cheaper. All these super fancy electronics are just more points of failure in my opinion. Just bought a 2000 GMC Safari last year as my family van. So many people questioned me as to why, my answer was that they are reliable, easy to work on, and replacement parts are pretty much dirt cheap.
I'm in the market for a 92 Toyota Celica, I like the pop up headlights and it's a car that does just what I need it to do, electronics just remove your flexibility from fixing stuff that might not even need to be there in the first place when it inevitably breaks.
The X-Files did a show where the restaurant was run by robots who sucked, the extorted a tip by harassing them with other automated / robotic systems, kind of like the federal government.
I am very concerned that a whole lot of technology-minded people, are being forced to waste their skills, ever having to fight the culture war against a tyrannical rampant corrupt government.
While I agree with this sentiment, this isn't treating everyone like a criminal, it's about adding a way to detect if people are breaking the law, so that they can 1. prevent people from dying from crashes involving impaired drivers, and 2. ensure that people CAN be punished for driving drunk, even if they're driving down a road that has no cops on it. Louis of course brings up a good point that the technology probably wouldn't be able to properly detect whether you're driving impaired or if they're just reacting to someone else's bad driving, or a wide load, or something like that. This isn't, at least theoretically, about trying to prevent a crime before it happens, it's meant to detect if you are already impaired while driving, not whether you will try to drive impaired. Like Louis though, I don't trust the technology, and would not support this. Amtru 13 brought up that there are devices that can require people to take a breathalyzer before they can use their car. I think that this is a good idea for everybody to be honest, having ridden in cars driven by people who were drinking when I was a kid, when you are drunk, you can't tell if you are able to drive properly, and there's no way that most drunk people are going to listen when someone tells them not to drive because they're drunk, in my experience they'll just say that they're fine and that they know themselves better than anyone else, even though they really don't when they're drunk. But all the technology should be able to do is detect your BAC, and prevent you from starting the car when it is over a certain amount, maybe also logging when you start the car and when you take the test, so that if needed police can check whether you found a way to skip the step, but nothing that can shut the car down while it is running, and nothing that can be remotely controlled or even remotely accessed, even the police should need physical access to the car to be able to access the data, and they should need a warrant for that.
The technology currently exist to have kill switches in vehicles. All the government needs is an excuse to do it. I'm not talking about the actual reasons they may want them, I'm talking about the excuse they give the public for "needing" them in all vehicles. Think of the children!
@@MyAramil That is literally the first time in over a month I have heard anyone mention that BLMer's rampage in over a month. Anywhere. But I doubt that anyone authorized to trigger that switch could have responded in the seconds available to do so. To me, the question is; with all the added expenses, taxes, regulations, seizures and the constant drive to price poor folks out of the car market..... why is the Govt so desperate to remove our freedom to travel, and do it so quickly? What are they afraid of?
@@MyAramil It would likely take a decent amount of time to determine which vehicle to kill, radio the request to dispatch and have dispatch send the request which likely is sent to the private sector to actually send the signal. It would likely take minutes to do this at best. The primary issue to me is increased tracking and loss or privacy for the individual.
It does not explicitly say that new cars will require a kill switch. It is however, not a stretch to imagine that the definition of impaired would expand infinitely over time to encompass anything they want. Combine that with tech like onstar that's been around for 20 years, and you can see where this is headed. Anytime the government says its to save lives, stop terrorism, or protect kids, you can expect a power grab behind it.
Tech can be repurposed on the fly, in some cases. Remember in the 90's when we got radios that would display the radio station's call sign as well as, the song and artist currently be played? Great idea, I loved it! After a few years, many stations stopped displaying song info and instead used the tech to display commercials over your radio display.
Huh, that's interresting. I've never seen an Ad on the Display of a Radio. I don't know if it's some Form of Law over here (Germany) or if Radio Stations for whatever Reason didn't bother, but here are none. On the other Hand, I'll only see that if I'm the Passenger. I'd rather rip my ears out then to suffer trough Radio Stations. If there is no other way to listen to some actual Music, I switch to the News Channel, that is 100% free of Commercials, but also 100% free of Artists Informations.
When a cop needs a field test, breathalyzer, and even a blood test to convict at times I question the ability of a car's computer to do this accurately. One thing if they slip up and let someone impared drive, but will it malfunction and lock down the car of someone just in a rush to work? Will a manufacturer go overboard if this becomes a liability for them if someone drunk drives and the system fails to catch it?
@@MyAramil This is very unrealistic. Unless you literally mouthwashed ran to your car and got pulled over the second you left your driveway. Even then its pretty unlikely that you would be over the legal limit and even if you are you just have to be reasonable and ask them to do it again after a few minutes. 5 minutes is about all it takes for you to drop below the legal limit. Their is only like 1-2 minutes that it would even give a number that makes sense (everything less would be way to high or below the limit).
@@MyAramil that is a stupid remedy that would probably not work. Okay Boomer. If a sensor is designed in matter to be sensitive to particular gaseous molecules, no amount of mouth wash will fundamentally change that sensitivity, or the functionality of that sensitive sensor. You have to think things through and see the larger implications in your statement. I understand that you did not mean to part useless information, but because you did not think through the subject matter in a thoughtful matter you did. But you can always learn for next time, that you can contemplate thoughtfully before commenting.
@@barrydaemi6287 This is false. When I was just joining the military, I was stationed in a hotel which offered complementary mouthwash. When I was given a breathalyzer test, it came back positive and even over the limit. The reality of the situation is that you are wrong. You're just going to have to find someway to cope with that.
The Canadian government just admitted they were tracking like 30+ million devices... it's safer to assume the US government is already illegally tracking every single cell phone in the country... which has some interesting implications... for people who think they've gotten of scott-free by bleaching and smashing their blackberries 😉😉😉
@@rickpickle Look up 5 eyes intelligence and just laugh. As long as the spying is by “allies” and not the govt. it can be sent to our govt. to spy on everyone.
All I can say is next time I buy a car first thing I am doing it staking it to a tuning shop to have them physically disconnect any cellular communication modules. I never use infotainment systems anyway my navigation is done on my phone so whatever
And use the data collected to find more ways to save us from ourselves. It doesn't matter what they think today, even if they are telling the truth, which they're not, there will always be more not less. The bill of rights was specific that it is to limit government and that they are not given power over something just because it wasn't listed. Citizens assumed computer and phones should obviously be considered as private papers needing a search warrant, and the supreme court agreed, but they managed to carve out exceptions anyway. And so it goes.
I went to school for auto mechanics in 2002, and even back then we had talked about the ability of the automobile to 'tell' many things. From speeding on the highway, to voiding the manufacturer warranty due to some any form of racing. Sadly companies are continuing these steps. The technology has been there for many years, it's just becoming more accepted now.
Toyota already does it with their safety connect service. I'm willing to bet so do other auto manufacturers. It collects data about your driving habits and reports it to your insurance. I was going to renew it until I saw that clause.
The automakers who almost universally just roll over for the govt on matters like this do not deserve to sell anything. Let these losers go out of business, nothing of value will be lost.
As far as a general remote killswitch goes, GM vehicles equipped with OnStar going back to the mid 2000s can be remotely shut off by the police contacting OnStar as seen in some stolen vehicle car chases
In general, people are (and should be) more comfortable with a private company acting as the intermediary for a system like that. A private company can be compelled to surrender control to the state, but wouldn't do so with impunity unless it wants to lose its customer base. Ideally it strikes a middle ground where police can either leverage the system with owner consent or subpoena the system through traditional means, but aren't given authoritative capability to control the vehicle. That is very unlike the government passing a law that all cars must have an onstar type system and that that system must be open for police use.
@@NooneStaar if the vehicle is equipped with onstar and even if you don't subscribe to the service the system can still be used by onstar if law enforcement asks
@@skynat247 If I've learned anything over the last 5 years, it's to never rely on consumer protest in regards to anticonsumer and rights violations issues. Windows 10/11, the entirety of EA, Bethesda, ActiBliz, and Ubisoft's releases in the last 5 years, Apple's constantly faulty products, and more I'm probably forgetting.
@@jonsaircond8520 i always do a hefty down payment lol, 300/month is what im willing to do for bills, i pay down the rest. i have the bill for the sake of credit
Just as there is a lot of value in pre smog era vehicles, there is likely to be value in pre always connected cars(pre 2010 for the most part). Buying a 20 year old car is easy to consider too as just about every 'feature' is standard for the smartphone in everyone's pocket. Add a rear view camera kit to a car and the appeal of brand new vehicles is even less(a good kit is only a couple hundred dollars).
There really is no added demand in my area for pre smog vehicles. We also don't smog check cars in Michigan, so the government intervention may have created that in your area. Modern day ICE engines actually perform very well and are reliable as designed with the smog equipment. Diesel engines with smog are the complete opposite. Unreliable turds, burning way more fuel. I am hypothesizing this has been the case since diesel emissions equipment has only been used for the past 20 years. As opposed to ICE engines 50+ years of technology.
@@spencerhansen2927 They are nice to have for when reversing, so you can make sure nothing or no one has managed to walk behind your car as you were checking the oppesite mirror, mostly thinking about small kids and animals. I do have one in my car, but i still mainly use my mirrors.
If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized... If all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance --you can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest.” - Ian Watson
You don't need a kill switch, "cars of the future" have little cyber security. I think a security research was able to get control of a car a while back and take control of the accelerator. Scary stuff.
Yeah, Verizon completely shut down TCP 6667 on their back-end cell network to eliminate that "feature". Why the auto manufacturers decided to use the same port as IRC to handle updates and such is beyond me. I don't see how it could be coincidence, but it's kind of funny.
@@tolpacourt -- Congratulations! You have just been promoted from being a simple Grammar Nazi to the status of Grammar Fuhrer. I'm sure your mother and your sixth grade English teacher will be SO proud of you. The rest of your English teachers would tell you to use punctuation correctly, yourself, but that correcting others' grammar in comment threads is just being a dick. While comma splices are not technically grammatically correct without the use of a conjunction, they are commonly enough used that they might as well be. Unless you're grading a term paper, who really cares other than the most autistic of arse holes? th-cam.com/video/N4vf8N6GpdM/w-d-xo.html
What it boils down to is they want to forcibly put a breathalyzer in your car, treating you as if you are a criminal guilty of DUI, regardless of any evidence whatsoever. Why is it that law abiding people are being treated as criminals without due process and proof?
in my opinion, it's because soon, in terms of looking at time broadly, america is going to suck and politicians want as many safeties in place for them so when the people come for them they can have a chance at living
no breathalizer needed. it will be done with the sensors already in your vehicle. Lane deviation, speed deviation, rpm deviation, etc. a certain combination of metrics will be cause for shutdown. a software update is all it will take
@@hungryjack8032 Although I get your reasoning and see it being used in law, it is flawed. I know some drunk drivers who drive better than most sober drivers, and some sober drivers who shouldn't have a license. Theres ultimately no reliable way to differentiate a drunk driver from a regular driver theough anything but a breathalyzer. Of course, the law isn't even mainly about drunk dirving anyways
There was an article a few years ago where a couple of guys hacked into a Jeep Cherokee driving down the freeway and were able to take over the vehicle and remotely shut it down. It was done under supervision obviously and not just at random but it shows that all these esoteric electronics can be manipulated if you really wanted to. Reminds me of what Ted Kaczynski said in his manifesto after he was arrested
This is why all the automotive companies are implementing a fire wall to avoid hackers taking control via the mobile connected to the car ( that was the vulnerability). This was already put in automotive standards.
@@elenabob4953 There are two things that “firewall” could refer to with a network-connected internal combustion engine vehicle: 1) The flame-proof barrier between the cabin and the engine bay 2) A network gateway that does not respond to unsolicited TCP/IP requests from unknown addresses on the public side Well, I have news for you: The Jeep already had both and it still got hacked. There is a third definition of “firewall” that seems to be the one you subscribe to: The Hollywood/fictional fantasy that a “firewall” is just a magical thing that blocks whatever it is you don’t want. Yeah, I guess they just forgot to add that and left the doors wide open for hackers to remote control it. No need to be concerned about network-connected systems being able to control that car. We’ve got firewalls now! /S
@@elenabob4953 This is a bad band-aid. A good system would be isolated, so that hacking wouldn't work in the first place. A firewall is used on computers, because you don't know what the user is going to do. But the critical parts of a car are well known and don't need a firewall, they need isolation and immutability.
A pure electric car is supposed to be simpler than a gas car. However, Teslas are anything but simple, especially with software locks and killswitches.
My car has no power steering and a manual transmission, and I love it for that. There is absolutely nothing for anyone to "take over". If you want to turn it off, you need to have your hand on the key or be under the hood.
The problem with letting the government install a kill switch on your car isn't the fact that you don't have the freedom to drive when you want, it's the fact that it is definitely going to be abused. Either by hackers or the government.
Operating a motor vehicle isn't a freedom, though. You have the right and freedom to travel, but that's it. There is no inherent right for any US citizen to own or operate a motor vehicle. Driving is a regulated activity.
@@KuyAurelian never said that it was. But as long as you're a tax paying citizen you should absolutely have the right to drive on public roads as long as the vehicle is "safe". Basically not a rust bucket, tank or a vehicle armed with weapons. The government's money is the people's money. The government wouldn't exist without its people. There cannot be a king without servants. And why shouldn't there be an inherent right as long as you're fit to drive a motor vehicle on public roads? I.e. owns a driver's license (and isn't a terrible driver) and doesn't have major debilitating ailments that would endanger other drivers. In fact, NOTHING is a right. Because literally nothing is free except air and water in nature. If you have the right to purchase and own a car and are fit to drive it, why shouldn't you be able to drive it? What if you're on a private road that you built? You're on your own property and you can do almost anything with it, especially in a sparsely populated area. If you build your own vehicle, what then? What if it isn't driven by a motor? What if it's some kind of compressed air driven vehicle? Where do you draw the line?
@@KuyAurelian you need a car to do anything in this country dipshit, you literally can't live without one unless you live in a select few cities. So it should be a right to own a car, don't defend our government being stupid or politicians being stupid trying to push these laws
I'm a commercial truck driver and my boss has installed dash cameras that not only record the road ahead but also the driver. If I were to pick up my phone and glance at it, it knows and will sound a warning and flag the video for a monitor to review the video. I will also do the same thing if I hit the brakes because someone cuts me off by pulling in front of me to closely.
Most onsite installers / repair workers are being told to install a tracking app on their phone or 'no work for you.' I don't work for them. If it's a company phone, it's already installed. I've been the best in the business for 25+ years but now the need to know if I arrived on time and where I am for no good reason. Thus my handle 'NO' I won't do it. I'll being doing something else.
I'm all for freedom! I don't think we should all have to have an interlock system just because a handful of people drink and drive. Making rules for the exception is a slippery slope.
tbf the vast vast majority of safety laws would probably be related to the "exceptional circumstance". I am kinda with Louis on this that I would probably be ok with it if the accuracy was really really good, but given I am not even sure how they would do this it seems really really dumb to make a law for it. Like this law I guess could literally be that your car stops only after you crash into another car, which would probably be fine I guess, which would probably be fine I guess, but thats probably not what its gonna be.
It's not a handful of people who drink and drive, it's a handful of beveraged drivers who crash. Most of those crashes involve people who have driven wet >100 times without incident, and the majority of thirstquenched drivers will never have an incident involving another car or a hard surface. Please use less bigoted language in the future, associating "drinking and driving" with "crashing" makes all of us less safe.
Here's an interpretation of the future. "Your" car will be a fleet car that is part of a subscription service. It will include many "amenities", including what's being described in this video. It is unlikely you'll use the same car on consecutive days, and even less likely you'll be driving it.
Seems like the proposed changes include incorporating a breathalyzer into the car ventilation system as well as an AI to analyze driving performance. So if your are sober and driving drunk people around, a false positive could potentially occur and your car would disable itself, potentially in a place that is unsafe. A false positive could occur if you are driving in hazardous winter conditions at -40, and disable you car and cause you to freeze to death. This is a terrible idea. This system would thousands of dollars to the purchase price of a new car.
Well, a breathalyzer is usually a oral device only usable by one person so I'm not sure how multiple people in the car affects that. When it comes to an AI system, I do understand your concern as missclassification error is definitely a real thing so I think preventing driving using the breathalyzer is going to play a more significant role. I'd imagine the system wouldn't completely shut off the car so individuals can stay warm and sober up if they don't want to or can't afford to call a cab or use ride share. Finally, I'd probably completely turn off the AI system in winter. If someone thinks it's a good idea to drive drunk 40 below in a blizzard, I question if natural selection shouldn't take it's place at some point.
@@DeMike156 I think they are assuming that the cars ventilation system would be constantly "smelling" the air for alcohol content as you are driving, which is a possibility, but I don't find it highly likely since you could probably get around that just by opening windows. But you also run into questions like are they going to install a camera and if the AI system doesnt like what it sees, shut your car down? Would you be able to legally disable the AI system? If you can legally disable the AI, couldn't you just bypass the Breathalyzer system as well since the AI and breathalyzer are supposed to work in tandem? If you disable the AI, would you even be able to start your car since it senses its been modified? There are so many problems with this whole system that I would say tinkering with one thing would probably disable the car, and thats before even considering that it could easily be hacked, or there could be a glitch that when it shuts down your car it also shuts down all accessories as well. And if we're talking internal combustion engines, if it just shuts down your engine, you run into the problem of not having any heat or any way to charge your battery to keep any of the accessories functional. If I'm working on my own car in my own driveway and drinking a few beers, am I even going to be able to start my car afterwards to confirm that the issue is resolved? There are people that enjoy working on their own cars in their free time and drink a few beers while theyre at it. This kind of legislation, while phrased in a way that makes it sound like it means well, seems like it could be very easy to write off as "OK," but in reality really locks things down further and could, in the future, lead to things that prevent people from enjoying modifying their cars or even repairing their own cars.
@@DeMike156 It specifies 'passively' so that means you're not having to blow into a breathalyzer, it would sense it in the air or something like that. Maybe there would be a sensor on the steering wheel or above the driver.
Lmao, you guys really are convinced that a fucking car company is going to install built in breathalyzers, AI driving analyzers, and automatic kill switch's... This is an EXTREME that no auto maker would ever want to touch, it would be bad business. Even then, let's say IF that was ever to be a thing, realistically, no breathalyzer can detect your alcohol content accurately from several feet away. I found the conspiracy theorist going too far, again. It is literally already a thing to have breathalyzers in vehicles now, it's called an ignition interlock system. It's nothing new, and it's for repeat DUI offenders.... Deal with reality mates and use some bloody common sense/basic problem solving, this is the reason why the world is going to shit. Quote me: This bill will not go as far as everyone here is fearing. It's downloading unrealistic to truly believe any car manufacturers or government agencies can or will design anything to the level of technology specified above to be installed on consumer vehicles in mass, and as standard, within the next two decades.
No I am not convinced that automakers will implement this PROPOSED system into cars voluntarily because automakers never add any safety features voluntarily, they will only do it if forced by law and and even then they will fight it tooth and nail every inch of the way. The lobbyists Will kill this bill long before it becomes law. I think many people were merely discussing the massive technological hurdles that would need to be overcome, which is interesting in its own right.
I totally agree with you. In the beginning it can start as a meaningful, lifesaving device or procedure but in the future it could lend itself for inappropriate use or be used for ulterior motives.
As a result of this law, they will have reason to continue to make more laws that restrict your ability to modify or repair your vehicle. Like any attempt to remove even a single bolt by anyone that is not authorized by the dealership, it will cause the vehicle to send a signal to call the police to respond to this "illegal activity".
Zero chance that a "smart-breathalyzer" would not end up connected to the vehicle's computer/telematics. And with that there is zero chance that you could keep people out of the system.
@@tavirosu25 i don't see anything wrong with that. If you have a history of drunk driving, you should not be driving anymore. -Sincerely, the insurance companies and anti-DD Puritans
They can pretend like they're only interested in cutting down on drunk driving accidents, but there's no way they have any intention of stopping there once this passes. The automobile is one of the purest expressions of freedom, and they'll keep finding more and more excuses to limit how and when we use them.
@@toptiertech7291 More than I'd like to admit. And they have friends that they know like this, and theyre friends have friends... Trust me, a lot more drivers than you think are intoxicated, even if just a bit. Im not justifying it either, just letting you know how it really is. I doubt any technology could properly assess the difference between a drunk and sober driver and be accurate enough to sign into law
I can imagine this not stopping drunk driving accidents and instead just screwing up emergency situations instead. Stabbed? Diabetic? Trying to rush to the hospital? Nah, wait for the ambulance and hope it makes it there in time, and if it does enjoy footing the bill. :p
If you have a medical emergency, you're not capable of driving and need someone else to drive you to hospital anyway. If you need an ambulance, you shouldn't have to pay for it and potentially be ruined by it. But generalized health care would be communism, right? I can imagine it stopping ill people from driving to the doctor though. Sure, you _shouldn't_ drive a car when you're ill, but sometimes that's the only way to get to a doctor, especially when you live in an area with very spotty medical coverage and/or aren't allowed to use public transportation with a positive test because of a certain global event...
Yh when u guys think a generalized health care is communism then its ur own fault if an ambulance ride costs that much. Also if u need an ambulance ride then ur not fit to drive anyway, and if ur just ill, u can still breath, so breath on the analyzer and drive. What is so hard about that?
Just remember everyone, it's not _Big Tech_ or an _over-authoritarian Government_ that is a danger to your safety and security. It people who want to repair the things they buy where/when they want. Unfortunately, I'm going to need a new vehicle in the next 6 months or so. Wish me luck.
The reason of these laws is to make modern cars more and more complex, so that the computer systems in them have more hackable attack surface for the glowies.
The biggest problem I see is that the bill doesn't specify at all HOW it should be implemented. It just directs the transportation secretary to implement a rule. That gives an enormous amount of leeway that the bill hides because of the way it is written. But then, that's how most bills are these days.
@@startedtech There have been some technologies I've seen bits on that detect general impairment. Two examples: Camera systems that monitor blink rate on the assumption that impaired people blink slower and/or more often IIRC. Camera systems or head-mounted sensors that monitor head tilt to detect when a driver is falling asleep. - But I saw those features being explored over a decade ago, and they have not shown up in cars, so they may have been dead-end development.
@@startedtech My 2020 Toyota Corolla has that tech that that Louis described in this video. That is, the car alerting you if you cross the center line, then attempting you nudge you back if the car's computer feels you've gone too far. I can't comment on how well it works, because when I bought the car, I had the salesman go into the menu turn off this feature for me. But I imagine maybe a passive drunk driver monitoring system can take advantage of this already existing technology. Like, if you cross the yellow lines X number of times within X number of minutes, more likely than not, you're impaired.
Every state is way too lenient on drunk drivers with multiple DUIs. Actually having real repercussions for DUIs and drunk driving manslaughter would help more than this breathalyzer nanny crap Drunks already do and will only buy older cars to avoid this anyway
@@JumaiPL i know a few people in my home town with more than 5 dui’s on their record, and they still drunk drive without their license… maybe a couple states take it seriously, but most states do not.
incredibly dangerous to have any kind of kill switch in a vehicle. You can literally hack anyone's car, instantaneously going down the highway. In fact you can do it to a bunch of cars at once. Imagine the highway all of a sudden come to a halt when 10 cars in every lane come to a stop. Very very dangerous. The benefits do not even begin to outweigh the drawbacks.
@@90gdv If the car has a system that can take control from the driver it has a "remote kill switch", even if its advertised as not a "directly" accessible method its still a remote kill switch that can be used either through the manufacturer or via remote access. It wouldn't at all be a surprise if on the news you heard about a high speed chase being ended by the use of the passive intoxication system being utilized to kill the car mid chase.
Which is why the idiot that dreamt up the term "kill switch" is an idiot! The reality would be: 1. That the car would not start. 2. Take control of the car and drive you to a "safe" place: Jail, rehab etc... No sane person would suggest just switching the car off without regard to where it is and what it is doing!
@@ahaveland It's a passive detector, which likely means it's going to monitor your steering and if you're weaving somehow stop you from driving. I can't imagine how it's going to monitor your driving before you start the car, nor how it's going to stop you from driving without turning off the car. If it can drive you to jail without you steering, it can just drive you to where you want to go.
Ford's kill switch can be annoying. Had it kill the fuel pump in the middle of a busy intersection. Had to get several stuck drivers to push me through. I suspect it was caused by slamming the passenger side door.
The issue with this law is that it requires that cars have some function in them capable of shutting the car down; which will be tied to an electronic system that monitors drunk driving. This means, if someone is able to get control over the system, that they will be able to trigger the 'kill switch' of sorts.
How would this tech work in different kinds of traffic situations (snow storm, icy roads, high winds, other traffic, wild animal encounters, etc.) without an Internet connection? The car would have to have incredible computing power to take into account all variables to be even half confident that the driver is impaired. And having an Internet connection to make "manual review" possible would open up a whole other can of worms. This tech gets a big nope from me.
Not really. This kind of thing already exists in the form of a 'tired driver' detection. It looks at sudden changes in steering, varying speed, stuff like that. If it thinks you're acting like a tired driver, a message pops up saying " do you need to take a break? " It's been in cars about 10 years now.
I'm not seeing this law leading to actual implementation, no. The law may pass and its only result will be that the Secretary will have to make annual excuses as to why there is no tech available that can achieve the required level of accuracy needed to make a meaningful positive difference without undue danger due to false positives.
Not only are we getting close to a cyberpunk dystopia with each passing day, but our vehicles will be as well. Expect to see models from this age, but with addons from the modern age. Like USB and Aux only stereo systems where there used to be a cassette player or just straight up slapping a mount on your car's dashboard to have your mobile device act as a GPS. Just to name a few.
yep. all the more reason I tell people to buy a used car they like, do everything possible to remove and stop rust. and when the engine/transmission die, pay for them to be remanufacturered.
It's not strictly feudal, but a cyberpunk world is also often used as an analogue of feudalism. You have high nobility (C-suite) commanding feudal lords (corporate officers and management), who have the loyalty and services of their peasants (the corporate employees on the bottom of the chain). Officially society is a capitalist meritocracy. In many sensess though, there's an ironclad caste system between plutocratic "nobility" who own all assets and wage-slave "serfs" who spend their entire salaries upon rent and subscription services to access said assets. This also removes the rights of the serfs in that the nobility or more plausibly, their hired or just cut someone off from the service with a switch at any point to make sure whatever codes they demand are followed and gives them a perfect opportunity to memory hole all signs that a better world ever existed when they can curate what the critical mass of eyes are seeing on the internet.
As much as i like the idea that a drunk individual wont be able to operate a vehicle anymore, i dont like the idea of general suspicion of everyone with a drivers license to be impaired by alcohol. on a certain point we might get kicked in the nuts by transfering our responsibility to a machine
Not driving while drunk isn't just a matter of your own responsibility. You are endangering other drivers. You already accept and wear your seatbelt as a safety measure, which only endangers you if you choose not to use it. If this technology is not invasive to people who aren't attempting to drive under the influence it won't be any different or worse than seatbelts.
@@goeiecool9999 except seatbelts are invasive because you get a ticket for bothering them. It's ludicrous to mandate this when such a small percentage of drivers are driving impared and causing accidents.
@@barneystinson2781 Yes seatbelts are invasive, yet most people accept them and understand why they are there. If this technology is developed in such a way that it is not annoying to people who are not under the influence then it'll be just as reasonable as mandatory seatbelts. It hinges entirely on the implementation which the bill does not define. Also, you must not have ever had a loved one pass away in a car crash to say that it's insignificant. If it's totally transparent to people who are not drunk then it would be better than seatbelts! Even a minor inconvenience to the driver is worth a couple of human lives if you ask me.
Its not just that, its the fact that law enforcement are not even there yet, treating people like they can or as if they're above the law NOT because they should or have a reason to, if they want to control the car so bad, fine...they should then own the car itself and offer it to the citizen for free then.
@@goeiecool9999 This system is not comparable to seatbelts. After all, seatbelts cannot prevent usage of a car. Neither when you dont want to/cannot use them, nor when they malfunction or break. The worst a seatbelt can possibly do to "restrict" your access to your own car is annoy you with a pinging noise. These systems have the ability to stop a car from working by design. All it takes is a single technical malfunction, wrong reading or other random problem and ? Poof. You cannot start your car. Is it -10c and you will freeze to death ? Tough luck. Do you need to quickly drive somewhere for any urgent reason ? Try calling an Uber and hope there is one available near you. So thats overall a rather lackluster comparison. That being said, something else was worse about your comment. Trying to emotionally manipulate the reader. You must never had someone tell you that loosing a person you love does NOT in any way allow or qualify you to decide over the behavior of others. You are not entitled to becoming the arbiter of personal transport safety rules just because a drunk driver did this to you. You are not entitled to demand changes be made to the property of others so that it may fit your (and dont get me wrong here, this is not meant as an insult) warped perception of how dangerous drunk driving is in reality. It is technically insignificant. Not by your personal moral or emotional standards maybe, but by any reasonable and neutral look at the statistic probability of a drunk driving accident happening to the average person. It in no way is a problem that warrants such a deep intrusion into the personal property rights (and ability to drive and everything related to it) of millions of innocent and responsible people. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin.
@@marcogenovesi8570 you're shortsighted. Slowly but surely all tech will have this feature. You don't own the device despite you buying it with money that you worked for. You cannot repair the device despite you buying it with money you worked for. I bet nearly all companies will slowly remove the concept of ownership and it'll just be called leasing/renting. We are already seeing it with the housing market.
@@eatright909 I've seen this happen so many times over already that I have 0 faith anybody can stop this. Best you can do is not use the product so you are not affected. I have already cut bs like smartphones from my life and if I have to do the same for cars I'll do it. I already work mostly remote anyway. As for the housing market, I'm just not leaving my parent's home, there is 0 chance I'm taking a 40-year loan or rent to go live like a fking poor in a tiny apartment for the rest of my life.
@@marcogenovesi8570 Okay, you can definitely rant about how this tech is inescapable but to insult the poor like that is rather telling. It show how little empathy you have. It can very well have to you in this lifetime and blindsight you. There is already a homelessness crisis happening and it's only going to get worse from here on out, and I suspect that it will get close to OR hit 1 Million homeless people throughout the country. You can definitely be one of them, just saying.
I’m all for having killswitches in your vehicle, just not the kind the gov’t wants installed. I install a kill switch (or switches) in all my vehicles. My favorite failsafe to keep my vehicle left alone, minus it being towed
The likely solution to "Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology" will be remote AI inference. Pretty much every new car has a 4G or 5G modem as part of its electronics suite, and already has remote kill switch functionality. OnStar was capable of this 10 years ago.
This is completely unnecessary. If someone repeatedly gets DUIs, confiscate their car. Make them register in a database of people who are banned from buying alcohol.
Repeat DUIs borrow cars, steal cars, buy cars, so this would close some of that possibility, once most/all cars had this kind of system in it. (For the alcohol registration angle, see borrow/steal/buy, plus it's a simple enough substance that it can be made at home, in prison, wherever). Not that I'm saying this is a good approach (like Louis, trying to be clear), but repeat DUI offenses in confiscation and personal interlock states (which do exist) still happen, because the point of mechanical control/prevention is not only "their car", it's also "any vehicle that they can get access to".
I wonder how much all these standards will drive up prices on new vehicles, repairs and the kinds of errors that could occur. I also wonder if they will eventually make it illegal to drive a vehicle without these standards to force people to convert.
Will Rush's 'Red Barchetta' become reality? Could this be the start of yet another slippery slope? I wonder if we'll ever have a car that you need to "log into" with a digital driver's license. Would it have face recognition in the rearview mirror, or maybe a fingerprint scanner on the steering wheel or the push-start?
Why not just give people mandatory 5 years in prison if you have any blood alcohol levels. Basically make the punishment something to worry about not the slap on the hand we give them now. This would be better than AI deciding for me.
@@mattmuch7536 So you're getting at you are to weak to just wait it out to be safe even if you are not drunk. Also I live in the woods and so did my friend who thought he was ok to drive after only 2 drinks and died im just glad he didn't take anyone out with him.
@@mattmuch7536 I agree with you. My point is more for the ones who consistently are driving with a high level of alcohol in their blood and don't give a damn about others safety other than their own need for alcohol. Those people i want them off the road asap.
BTW, corporations (specially getting the Equity Social Governance investments) are increasing becoming more socialist than the traditional laize-faire capitalism.
Calling it a "remote kill switch" is likely hyperbole that does ultimately harm the message of being against it, but it does draw light to the idea of new cars being required to host systems that have the express purpose of taking control of the vehicle away from the driver and either shutting down or granting control to a 3rd party. Something like this could be used as a "remote kill switch" via a number of methods, the most common method i could see would be some kind of injection attack where maybe the kill switch isn't jacked into the main electronic system but the sensors are and are flooded with false intoxicated signals tripping the system and killing the vehicle.
And considering the amount of zero day exploits in proprietary software, I'd suspect that after a few hacking incidents, the law would get pulled anyways
Not hyperbole AT ALL. they cancel bank accounts of conservatives routinely. When you give them the same power to monitor and track and shut off your car, why wouldn't they use it? They hate you and know better than you.
I just last month had a problem with a rental car which out of the blue stalled the engine because of a software bug in the rental company software (and kept stalling few seconds after each starting attempt). If it had a false alarm of drunk driving, rather than false alarm of the hijacking, I'd be accused of drunk driving. Also I had zero (0) (nil) (none) speeding tickets in my life, but due to bugs in smart rental cars I got messages like "We can't tolerate your aggressive driving ignoring speed limits!" accompanied by "Understandable, I'll reflect on my behaviour" button to proceed. (I'm Russian) PS. I mean, when it's a private company, it's annoying. When it's a legislation, it's a catastrophe
We gave up our rights for personal safety during covid and now the floodgates are open. I enjoy driving my vehicle recreationally and would definitely find me impaired 9/10. (Offroading, camping, hunting)
I know a few people who would gladly give their freedumb to drive impaired so long as they don't pass a cop if it meant their parents were still alive instead of getting hit by drunk drivers.
I remember when they were talking about remote viewing on the OBD. Where the car can tell a local officer if the driver has a belt on and even tell them if your check engine light is on. It was for them to be able to ticket you even if your check engine light was on... Officer: Can't afford to fix your car rn? Here is a ticket for that. 👍 Cool. Paying insurance for car, medical insurance, rent, light bill, gas, food, clothing, taxes on literally everything you buy (that includes everything I just listed), and much much more... you must have a great paying job or your going to have to have two jobs just to be able to live... Doesn't sound like much of a life to me to be working just for the government to make money to do nothing. However they can complain on how the working class is the problem and give away free stuff to people who don't want to contribute to society. Yay
@@svenjorgensenn8418 I might be a talking trash can but i am in no shape or form a midget and to suggest that only little people pay taxes and fees is absurd. Good day sir!
Louis' centrism continuous to amaze me. "It doesn't look they can't turn off your car remotely in this bill." The whole point is that anyone with a brain can foresee the actual requirements of such an overt kill switch, which is in line with all the reasoning given in the bill. For instance for police services where they can remotely stop your car for the officer's safety. But also the fact that any car locking mechanic can easily be hacked, either by black-hat hackers who want to mess with people or the CIA as they've already done before.
It is the potential for a North Korean Hacker to stop all cars that is dystopian. It would end American in one go. At least 250 million would be dead in a couple of months. The only way to be sure that it won't happen is not allow the potential hack in the first place. There is no way software can be absolutely guaranteed to not allow it.
@@Android-ng1wn That comment of yours just gave me an image of the standard psychiatrist cartoon: Guy laying on a couch talking to the psychiatrist sitting in an armchair and writing in a notebook, but instead of reading glasses and a tan or blue suit, he's wearing dark glasses and a black suit. Thank you for that - I am happy now..
as a technician in a field, i know when control boards go bad, odd things can happen. i’m assuming electric cars are all control boards. It’s a dangerous game imo
Every car, even a pretty old one has ECU. That is, your gas pedal isn't directly physically attached to an air/fuel valves but rather interpreted by an MCU.
@@АбракадабраКобра259 idk about your car but mine is a direct wire throttle through a pulley system. you can accelerate the car if you were sitting in the engine bay.
As I explained elsewhere in the thread, each door, the steering wheel, etc., have microcomputers to talk to the body and engine modules for EVERY function. The throttle, brakes and steering wheel, regardless of the mechanics, have have position sensors. Read an automotive investigators 'crash report' detailing everything you did in the 5 to 30 seconds prior to the crash. Did you turn the wheel, how hard did you apply the brakes, open a window, turn signals, basically EVERYTHING! Don't forget the basics like compass, GPS, all engine data like RPMs, transmission gear selected and gear it's in, and of course road speed. Though it depending on the make, model and year, the amount and time of data grows constantly.
@@NoOne-xp1pe idk about cars nowadays but my cars steering wheel has no wires. and my steering rack doesn’t use electricity nore sensors. could be just my car tho.
Always amazes me how when I tell people over a decade ago that "this is where we're headed" and they laugh. Then when "this" happens they think it's normal or good or they play mental gymnastics. This stuff is not hard to predict. It's very easy actually.
There was a guy with some 14 DUIs. Naturally they would impound his car and hold him for the night. He bought his cars from the scrap yard for $50. People with ignition interlocks would get a friend to blow for them, or get someone desperate for $5 to do it, and not turn it off. Is that why Biden want's $10 gas ;-)
Giving computers and software control over humans is a recipe for trouble. And it is a very real slippery slope that will lead to more and worse similar laws.
I wonder how many car manufacturers, *if any,* will implement a system that's so offline, so non-cloud-based, so tyrant-proof, that it doesn't have a privacy policy. I would be pleasantly surprised.
Its probably would be satellite based, or only controllable by a specific long range frequency in which you can't access without a code and en encryption key.
@@toptiertech7291 Just live in a different country please. Not all of us love simultaneously licking boot and bubble wrapping the world as much as you all do.
12:27 re: toeing the lane marker to get further from a truck while passing, be happy the car is just beeping at you. I recently got a Mazda 3 and it has the nasty habit of trying to turn your wheel back into the lane if it detects that you're over the line. Not very reassuring when you're right next to an 18-wheeler at highway speeds
In our city we can't drive with the lane sense technology on. They repair the road cracks from frost heave with black tar of some sort, and the system detects every one of the repairs as a lane marker and pushes and pulls the car side to side. In the winter, the snow on the road detects the responses the same way. I have a few different cars I drive, and they all do it. One of them even has a left turn protection mode that hits the brakes in a left turn if thinks it will collide with oncoming traffic, it's so sensitive that in about 10% of left turns it hits the brakes with no one around.
So long lengthy police chases. Aside from that. This is concerning because this can be expanded later on. This could be applied to drivers that have multiple unpaid parking tickets. However, if one has a medical emergency or urgent matter and the vehicle is kill switched.. ooof.
worse, you made jokes about certain "marginal people" or opposed to vaccine mandate, BOOM you got no car, no transit and cant buy food from online. Neoliberalism have the worse of communism and capitalism combined.
@@diegosilang4823 yeah, people are already getting their bank accounts shut down for political views (which we thought would be unfathomable 5 years ago). How long till cars start getting shut down...
Is it a remote kill switch demand? No. Is it a self regulated kill switch on some condition (if impaired?) Yes. Can it turn into remote kill switch? Yes. (being impaired is defined elsewhere, and can easily made something like voted for trump is an obvious mental impairment, so if you ever voted for trump, you are permanently impaired.) Also, once the car has a system that can shut it down for any reason, it is way easier to implement it with different conditions, than if it is not there. it is the classic start, checking your mail to prevent child molesters and criminals is perfectly fine, if you are not a criminal you should have no reason to be against it. Stopping the car working if you are impaired is an obvious good reason in general. As long as we assume the detection will be accurate, we accept that impaired person should have no reason to drive, ever, not even to prevent a nuke going off in the city center and that it will never be used for other, less acceptable limitations.
many cars already have a remote kill switch for theft recovery. A police report and a phone call will prevent that car from starting. It will stop driving as soon as it's not in motion and will lock into park. I want to offer than discussing the law before we address the ethics is (maybe) not correct. Ethics should be solid before we apply technology to control the laws.
@@drone_video9849 yes, there are this kind of theft prevention systems, but, they are controlled mostly (or at least partially) by the owner (if nothing else, it is installed by the owners request.) Also this is never caused problem as far as I know, so whatever security is implemented, it is good enough. Now the stuff that put into every car will probably much less secure, if for nothing else, since that system will be much more useful to brake, as it is in every car, instead of a small number. And change in the laws that would allow any form of governmental control through this would meet with massive resistance (hopefully), changing the already in place impairment laws to extend the definition of impairment may not even be realized by the population, if done slowly enough (or with good enough reason, like preventing the evil unvaccinated to move, or something similar in a future event.)
Hypotheticly: I'm in a remote area, camping with my wife, no phone reception, we enjoy a few drinks with dinner. She gets mauled by a bear, and now the car decides i cant take her to seek medical help.
Scary tales which arose in the 1970s are still being told of how seatbelts kill: someone crashes into a river and only gets out because they weren’t wearing a seat belt. Your wife’s encounter with a bear sounds like something you’ve thought about too often.
You are spot on with the conclusion that this is all about paving a road to us submitting to the technology (and through that - to the will of those creating the rules for it). Cars are just an easy entry point, there are futurists (and politicians talking about the idea that even our Gvt should submit to technology in defining the goals and policy... Source of the "disabling switch" story is likely a proposal related to it that I saw on local NJ news and that likely aired similarly across the country about a year ago. Proposal was to add required functionality to these (maybe soon mandatory) DUI detecting car systems so that a police car armed with corresponding technology, within a short range of the car could activate engine disabling. Not internet but most likely something like a WiFi or mobile networking signal, story was not precise. They showed prototype in action, which is police car at short distance disabling particular near-by car and they added "oh, the further possibilities" (implying use not just for DUI but other crimes).
I personally like the swiss version of how to keep people from repeatedly getting caught doing stupid shit in a vehicle: limit the times you can apply for a learners permit, thus you get a baseball bet to the wrist the first time you lose your license and revoked driving privileges after the second time, though that necessitates an available alternative to driving to work…
@@heroslippy6666 Then more reasons for a wannabe drunk driver to give it a thought before driving the car. I know drunk people to not think right. But before drinking they can.
there was a scheme in the UK where conviced DUI were required to have an alco-blow test linked to their car ignition once they were allowed to drive again. Fully support that idea as it has already gone through a court and is public safety. The thought of a car deciding "he's drunk" and shutting down while calling the police is well over the line of acceptability. Unfortunately, people are sheep and won't protest.
it feels like if its even a possibility for a vehicle to be shut down by the computer then thats whats giving people anxiety about the government using that
The best way to combat drunk driving is to give impaired folks an alternative to driving. We wouldn’t need stuff like this if we had good public transport. Drunk people (or anyone for that matter) should not be forced to drive to get anywhere.
In the Netherlands we can go by public transport and ofcourse bicycle. I haven't checked the amount of drunk car accidents, but that should be a lot lower here then
In Denmark?? They have a great drunk driving law. Anyone in a vehicle with a drunk driver also loses their license. That has cut drunk driving quite a bit.
11:10 The law doesn't require remote kill switches, but it "allows" them. The word "system" implies a collection of disparate components working together, but not all components of the system need to be physically present inside your car. The prime example of this is GPS, which is installed in some cars but also involves satellites in Earth's orbit. A system can include sensors, wireless communication devices, stationary infrastructure, and even human resources. What the law allows, car manufacturers will certainly abuse, especially now that the chip shortage means installing AI processors in each car is expensive or outright impossible. Telemetry data will be sent to server farms that analyze how you drive while sober, and from there it's all too easy for a person to get involved in deciding whether your car is allowed to continue running.
the worst part about this is a lot of this already exists. for people convicted of too many DUIs. and they have to pay for the hardware to be installed too. to have this on cars already would be like the feds owning the locks to your house and 'allowing' you to have the keys.
@Ganz Bestimmt how is it allowed? its a choice, that, or jail. people pretty much always pick that. and its functionally the same as if a parole officer was checking up on you.
The problem is society did not figure out what to do with persistent and repeat offenders. This looks like one case of making the punishment fit the crime. In Europe the basic hardware will soon be compulsory in new cars, so we all pay for it. But theoretically we all benefit.
The wife and I recently rented a car and were unaware of this lane holding feature, the wife was freaking out wondering what was going on, the car seeming to fight her control. We didn't like that feature at all!
Had a rental that when in cruise control would lower the speed if you were too close to another car in front. The tolerance was low and did not account for people pulling in front of you. Ended up turning it off and driving well over the speed limit because of it lol.
This has become law in the EU on January 1st. Basically how it works is this: all new vehicles sold need to be equipped with a port that can be used to fit a breathalyzer to the car. You need to use the breathalyzer and if that detects you being drunk the car will refuse to start. Mind you the cars don't come with the breathalyzer. That gets fitted by the government if you get multiple DUIs or are caught driving extremely drunk. The breathalyzer being fitted is not new. That has been a thing for a couple of years here if your car supports it it was an alternative for drivers instead of having their license revoked permanently. The new law just requires manufacturers to make all new cars compatible. From what you read this sounds pretty much exactly like what the EU already passed.
they do realize that most people don't drive new vehicles. so it would take quite a while for this is change anything and also the people that actively drive drunk would just keep an older car that doesn't have this in it as standard.
There is already similar legislation to this effect in some states. Look up "breathalyzer interlock." The main difference between this and the new law is that it is: A. A federal requirement. B. Installed on all cars regardless of whether you have had a drunk driving offense. All current laws only require it after a minimum of one offense. (Innocent until proven guilty) C. Require the development and universal adaptation of a completely new and unproven technology in a few years. This sounds like a poison pill more than anything else. These are the kinds of things that took this bill so long to get through congress. My guess is that this one got missed. Any luck this gets thrown out at some point.
Or the tech will remain out of reach forever. Just because a law says to develop a technology, doesn't mean it will be. If it were so easy, Congress could just enact a bill saying: "US Companies will solve global warming by 2025" and that would fix all our problems. :P
@@KuyAurelian The earth went through 5, YES 5, ice ages, that is covered in ice more than 2 miles thick almost everywhere, melting to mostly water, and back again, before humans even came into existence. The earth collects millions of tons of space dust, and 2 or 3 continuously erupting volcanoes spewing millions more dust and toxic gasses, and the ring of fire heating the ocean, and China producing more air pollution that at least 1/2 the planet combined (but they signed the green deal so it's OK), obviously global warming is caused by America and England and should spend 100s of billions to improve our systems another .01%. Of course the solution is easy, nuke China.
This isn't an issue for most people. If you're not a criminal or on our CIA's hit list, you should not be afraid of the kill switch as it's for the safety for everyone. Sincerely, the government (and their enablers)
A big issue in today's time remove the right to become an adult. People are treated like children and they adopt and behave like children. Imagine s time where your computer nanny 24/7 checks on you, cares for your food, your safety prevent you from doing stupid things. Your whole long and boring life. You never grow up.
@@90gdv kill switch or not the entire law is wrong. it punishes innocent people, it's mandatory data-tracking within your property, and it sets up the precedent of allowing laws to be passed for "what-if" scenarios.
This is incredibly wrong and a symptom of over policing to prevent every "what-if" scenario. Drunk driving is terrible but as evident of the past few years the slippery slope fallacy is becoming less of a fallacy and more of a reality IMO (I wrote this before you started talking about it, watched the whole video before submitting the comment). Picking away at rights to try to ensure maximum safety is a fruitless endeavor that will result in no personal freedoms and a worker slave state. Because if you can only do what the government considers "safe" what will you be allowed to do? You will get to go to work and do nothing else. Everything is inherently dangerous and this constant push for more safety has been aggravating to see.
You mentioned the car beeping at you. I think that would be a good implementation of something like this. Step 1) get some people drunk, put them in a VR driving simulator and record all of their inputs and movements. A drunk person doesn't dodge potholes like a normal person. A drunk or tired person veers to the side, realizes they're too far over and then snaps back. A sober person veers around potholes and drives straight. Step 2) put out a bounty to develop an open source program that accurately takes that data and data previously collected on drunk and tired driving and makes a warning system that recognizes when someone is driving like they are drunk or tired and warns them that they are driving erratically and recommends that they pull off the road in a safe location and manner until they can be a safe driver. Step 3) each car manufacturer must implement this code that takes pedal and steering wheel inputs (which ECMs already do) and checks for this specific set of criteria and warns the driver to pull over. It may not save every life and some people will still drive drunk. But if it reduces drunk or tired driving by 10% by yelling at the driver, telling them they're acting like a bad driver, I think it's worth it. This system also would not require any outside connectivity so there is no concern from this being a hackable killswitch. This also is just a warning system. Much like your car trying to tell a driver that something is wrong with it, the car could warn the driver that it thinks they are not driving safely. Then it leaves it up to the driver. This way no poor government-car manufacturer implementation issues can rear their head as the car tries to wrestle with the driver over where it thinks it should be. If a car crashes because they're a bad driver, that's on them. If the car crashes because it was trying to keep them in the lane because it thought they were driving erratically when they were really just trying to avoid drunk Jim driving head on in their lane, that's a big issue. (Edited with last paragraph immediately)
Yeah but what about the people that don’t live in cities? I’m all for better public transit, but the vast majority of the US relies on driving a car to get around. This is just another overstep from the government.
This kill switch already existed as a special security system commented to a satellite to detect all the time where the car is and stop the engine if the car got stolen. Today almost all cars are connected to your mobile so to implement a kill switch is extremely simple. Also in Europe and Russia you have a special button that initiate a call to 112 (911) so if you have a major accident or if you are knock out due to that accident, the car will initiate the car and automatically send your position.
If I take a look the volumes sold by Lada seems to be significative. This réglementation was introduced in Russia 2-3 years ago and it is mandatory in Europe starting with 2022.
Slippery slope has always been valid when you understand that power seeks nothing but to grow. Thank you for going over the legislation to clarify the legality and then discussing the potential implications in reality.
I just think we need to halt government overreach period. If this is a feature that people might want some car makers can try it... then let people vote with their money... This is not something for the government to screw with..
On top of kill switch but think down the road where combined with GPS they fine you for speeding or even parking fines. A feature of the vehicle you get like it or not.
Getting a new car in this day and age seems like madness. 1000 different computers and systems that are way too complicated for the average person to fix, and also require specialized tools that only dedicated shops can afford. I´ll stick to my bike.
Absolutely nothing would surprise me after discovering the rabbit hole of Intel's Management Engine and Apple Secure Enclave. If the gov wants to reach somewhere they can.
The car companies will make the system break down often and charge a huge amount to get it fixed. If the politicians pass a law like this they should make the car companies warrant the system for the life of the car.
@@jackd.ripper9216 My TPMS light just came on a couple of weeks ago. It's a minor annoyance knowing that I'll have to actually look at my tires before I drive now lol.
@@GeneralChangFromDanang you should do that anyways. Putting your life in the grasp of technology when a simple glance will do has potential to end poorly
The US government has wanted remote kill switches for decades. It's easy to believe that they'd try to force them to exist. The problem is that imagine what happens if some enterprising hacker figures out how to break into these non-updated embedded systems and flip those switches en masse. To quote South Park: "you're gonna have a bad time." That's why it won't happen.
In France, you can be made to have a breathalyzer killswitch installed in your car as to automaticaly enforce sober driving, but only if you got caught drunk driving a few times. If regular offenders are easily known, I don't see the point of having them as a standard in every car. These kits are usualy not that hard to mod in if required.
I can tell from all the comments that no one has actually gone through half of the video where he concludes there is no remote kill switch in the legislation.
Yes.
To be 100% clear, I am AGAINST this policy. Not just for the slippery slope argument, but because I do not trust this technology. However, it is important to me to be clear about what the policy is, before I explain why I am against it.
Lane assist technology in several of the vehicles I have driven prefer that I nearly smash into a truck that is going over the double yellow line on a 2 way highway than mildly and occasionally ride the lane marker on the right side of the road when there is nobody on the shoulder. I am confident it would not like when I steer around potholes even when there's nobody behind or on the side of me. o
And above all, I am not okay with the premise that what I own gets to tell me whether or not I can use it. I would be okay with that if it belong to my friend or if it was free, but not after I pay for it. The principle there is something that I fear spreading and getting worse
People just read the video title and start saying stuff
I know. It’s sad considering how thorough he’s trying to be.
If you think cars of the future won't have a kill switch regardless of this video you are a fool, cars are moving towards the "car as a service" model so if you don't pay the subscription they will disable the car
I was almost guilty but saved my comment til the end of the video.
All I have to say now is, I enjoy my early 2000's vehicles and maintaining them :)
But also, I saw this coming when insurance companies started pushing the OBD2 plug ins to get a discount on your policy for how "good you drive".
in my town, the roads are TERRIBLE... according to the newspaper, there's over 16,000 potholes in my small town... the saying here is "if you're sober, you're all over the road. if you're drunk, you drive straight".... so just imagine if this 'system' was implemented in my car? it would constantly think that i'm drunk, but actually i'm just dodging potholes all over the place.
I was complaining about the road around Vienna.. My motorcycle got into a resonance on the concrete slabs the road is comprised of. So it was basically trying to throw me off all the time... There's this old dude sitting behind me at the bar.. He turns to me and says:"Geht schon, muss d' nur mehr Schnaps trinken" (It's ok, you just have to drink more spirits)
Think about the absurdity of the changes here. If you arbitrarily move the wheel left and right, in an empty parking lot, that idea has the same result as it does dodging pot holes.
Government regulations and laws almost never work. Consumers fix shit far, far faster.
Or going through a neighborhood going around parked cars… unless every new car has 360 cameras this isn’t going to work. And we wonder why even cheap cars cost 30k easily these days
Just gonna point out people working on insurance probably don’t mind
I'm sure your taxes are super low for such poor roads.
The kill switch thing is under "immobilization grant program" if anyone is wondering. It has broader terms than the drunk driving section Louis ended up reading. (Also kind of why it's B.S. when proposed bills cover way too much shit, people will miss reading over things that are potentially problematic.)
It is much more broad, I'll give you that.
Almost like done intentionally in hopes it goes unnoticed...🙄
Govt already has kill switches just ask Michael Hastings th-cam.com/video/HpjVDVG_hCU/w-d-xo.html
Can you link me to the text of that section since I don’t have the will to look through the main 2k+ page bill. The few summaries I found of it talked about impounding certain vehicles that fail inspection, nothing about a kill switch type device.
Looking at that specific section (23004) i didnt see it clearly saying anything about adding or not adding a kill switch. It seems to reference other things and one of those might say something about remote access though
It always starts as a "matter of health and safety"
And ends in loss of freedoms
BEWARE those who claim to have your best interests at heart, will be the biggest tyrants in your life. See communists.
The Police institution actually started as a health-related civil organization...
@Matt OMFG WTF is wrong with you? Are you a troll? Putting God back in leads to an even more tyrannical government. And your last part is plain sexist.
@@Journey_to_who_knows There are no communists here and you have no idea wtf communism is. This has absolutely nothing to do with communism.
Maybe we should have a sober discussion about what "freedom" actually means.
Driving is a regulated activity, it's not a base freedom to begin with.
Movement is free, you're free to move from place A to place B. But the means by which you move are not.
It's a result of US Car manufacturers and their great sales pitches that Americans equate Car = Freedom, when in reality it's just another shape of tyranny.
If Car = Freedom, then noCar = noFreedom. Which means that Freedom is conditional on Car ownership. And isn't that by itself anti-Freedom? Freedom should not be contingent on owning anything. If going by the Declaration of Independence, certain rights are inalienable, certain freedoms intrinsic to being a human. Then freedoms should never be tied to things such as: Owning a car, registering for voting, etc.
The whole internet connected thing with newer cars is the reason I currently own a 2000 and 2005. Sounds like I won't ever be buying a new vehicle ever in my life, thank you!
I'm with you there bud!
i will stick with 90s and early 2000s cars....i fix myself.
I drive a manual! 2017 fit!
@@workingshlub8861 That's honestly most of the reason I stick with older American made models. Easier to work on and parts are generally cheaper. All these super fancy electronics are just more points of failure in my opinion. Just bought a 2000 GMC Safari last year as my family van. So many people questioned me as to why, my answer was that they are reliable, easy to work on, and replacement parts are pretty much dirt cheap.
I'm in the market for a 92 Toyota Celica, I like the pop up headlights and it's a car that does just what I need it to do, electronics just remove your flexibility from fixing stuff that might not even need to be there in the first place when it inevitably breaks.
I worry that vehicles will eventually be designed so that if you are suspected of committing a crime your car will drive you to the police station.
No need to worry. It's easier to have the vehicle report your location than it is to design something more advanced than a L2 Self Driving system.
It’ll be worse than that….your car will be shut down if you post something they don’t like
The X-Files did a show where the restaurant was run by robots who sucked, the extorted a tip by harassing them with other automated / robotic systems, kind of like the federal government.
Like that hit and run episode of The Twilight Zone.
😂🤣😭
You know things have gotten bad when the MacBook repair guy is reading a bill word to word on TH-cam.
The guy that clears solidified jizz from MacBooks.
No he is reading it word for word so morons (like you) won't misunderstand what/why his is making his descision on this topic.
Things have gotten bad because no one bothered to read the bills word to word before now.
@@dylives7667 Aka. Liquid banana juice.
I am very concerned that a whole lot of technology-minded people, are being forced to waste their skills, ever having to fight the culture war against a tyrannical rampant corrupt government.
Punish the people for the crimes they commit. Stop treating everyone like they're criminals awaiting punishment.
You might think differently if a drunk driver killed your sister.
@@ahaveland I would not. I would just want then punishment to be even more severe. Something like the death penalty may dissuade more drunk drivers.
we can't have that. How else is the political elite supposed to control your life?
While I agree with this sentiment, this isn't treating everyone like a criminal, it's about adding a way to detect if people are breaking the law, so that they can 1. prevent people from dying from crashes involving impaired drivers, and 2. ensure that people CAN be punished for driving drunk, even if they're driving down a road that has no cops on it. Louis of course brings up a good point that the technology probably wouldn't be able to properly detect whether you're driving impaired or if they're just reacting to someone else's bad driving, or a wide load, or something like that. This isn't, at least theoretically, about trying to prevent a crime before it happens, it's meant to detect if you are already impaired while driving, not whether you will try to drive impaired. Like Louis though, I don't trust the technology, and would not support this. Amtru 13 brought up that there are devices that can require people to take a breathalyzer before they can use their car. I think that this is a good idea for everybody to be honest, having ridden in cars driven by people who were drinking when I was a kid, when you are drunk, you can't tell if you are able to drive properly, and there's no way that most drunk people are going to listen when someone tells them not to drive because they're drunk, in my experience they'll just say that they're fine and that they know themselves better than anyone else, even though they really don't when they're drunk. But all the technology should be able to do is detect your BAC, and prevent you from starting the car when it is over a certain amount, maybe also logging when you start the car and when you take the test, so that if needed police can check whether you found a way to skip the step, but nothing that can shut the car down while it is running, and nothing that can be remotely controlled or even remotely accessed, even the police should need physical access to the car to be able to access the data, and they should need a warrant for that.
@@castorfolium8058 sir this is a wendys
The technology currently exist to have kill switches in vehicles. All the government needs is an excuse to do it. I'm not talking about the actual reasons they may want them, I'm talking about the excuse they give the public for "needing" them in all vehicles. Think of the children!
Such as when the SUV ran over those people in the christmas parade late last year
@@MyAramil That is literally the first time in over a month I have heard anyone mention that BLMer's rampage in over a month. Anywhere. But I doubt that anyone authorized to trigger that switch could have responded in the seconds available to do so.
To me, the question is; with all the added expenses, taxes, regulations, seizures and the constant drive to price poor folks out of the car market..... why is the Govt so desperate to remove our freedom to travel, and do it so quickly? What are they afraid of?
@@MyAramil It would likely take a decent amount of time to determine which vehicle to kill, radio the request to dispatch and have dispatch send the request which likely is sent to the private sector to actually send the signal. It would likely take minutes to do this at best. The primary issue to me is increased tracking and loss or privacy for the individual.
"If it saves even one life!"
Buy a car from JD Byrider and miss a payment, and watch your car not start
It does not explicitly say that new cars will require a kill switch. It is however, not a stretch to imagine that the definition of impaired would expand infinitely over time to encompass anything they want. Combine that with tech like onstar that's been around for 20 years, and you can see where this is headed. Anytime the government says its to save lives, stop terrorism, or protect kids, you can expect a power grab behind it.
Yeah, they went hard trying to sell it in that section he read. You don't need to go full used car salesman unless the intent is trickery
Like getting on the sex offender registry for peeing in the woods with nobody around you.
Lol thats rich, our government has been killing innocent kids by the boatload for decades now.
What does immobilization mean to you?
Tech can be repurposed on the fly, in some cases. Remember in the 90's when we got radios that would display the radio station's call sign as well as, the song and artist currently be played? Great idea, I loved it! After a few years, many stations stopped displaying song info and instead used the tech to display commercials over your radio display.
Thankfully our radio stations show the song info, but during ads, it may show the advertising company. :)
Huh, that's interresting. I've never seen an Ad on the Display of a Radio. I don't know if it's some Form of Law over here (Germany) or if Radio Stations for whatever Reason didn't bother, but here are none.
On the other Hand, I'll only see that if I'm the Passenger. I'd rather rip my ears out then to suffer trough Radio Stations. If there is no other way to listen to some actual Music, I switch to the News Channel, that is 100% free of Commercials, but also 100% free of Artists Informations.
When a cop needs a field test, breathalyzer, and even a blood test to convict at times I question the ability of a car's computer to do this accurately. One thing if they slip up and let someone impared drive, but will it malfunction and lock down the car of someone just in a rush to work? Will a manufacturer go overboard if this becomes a liability for them if someone drunk drives and the system fails to catch it?
Or if I just used some mouthwash because I just brushed my teeth like 3 minutes before rushing to work.
@@MyAramil This is very unrealistic. Unless you literally mouthwashed ran to your car and got pulled over the second you left your driveway. Even then its pretty unlikely that you would be over the legal limit and even if you are you just have to be reasonable and ask them to do it again after a few minutes. 5 minutes is about all it takes for you to drop below the legal limit. Their is only like 1-2 minutes that it would even give a number that makes sense (everything less would be way to high or below the limit).
@@MyAramil that is a stupid remedy that would probably not work. Okay Boomer. If a sensor is designed in matter to be sensitive to particular gaseous molecules, no amount of mouth wash will fundamentally change that sensitivity, or the functionality of that sensitive sensor. You have to think things through and see the larger implications in your statement. I understand that you did not mean to part useless information, but because you did not think through the subject matter in a thoughtful matter you did. But you can always learn for next time, that you can contemplate thoughtfully before commenting.
@@ntb3884 If the car is the one forcing the check, no police involvement would be required.
@@barrydaemi6287 This is false. When I was just joining the military, I was stationed in a hotel which offered complementary mouthwash. When I was given a breathalyzer test, it came back positive and even over the limit. The reality of the situation is that you are wrong. You're just going to have to find someway to cope with that.
Lawmakers always use small steps to lead to the slippery slope. Really think they're not going to illegally monitor this stuff once it's in our cars?
The Canadian government just admitted they were tracking like 30+ million devices... it's safer to assume the US government is already illegally tracking every single cell phone in the country... which has some interesting implications... for people who think they've gotten of scott-free by bleaching and smashing their blackberries 😉😉😉
And what about the manufacturers.
@@rickpickle Look up 5 eyes intelligence and just laugh. As long as the spying is by “allies” and not the govt. it can be sent to our govt. to spy on everyone.
All I can say is next time I buy a car first thing I am doing it staking it to a tuning shop to have them physically disconnect any cellular communication modules. I never use infotainment systems anyway my navigation is done on my phone so whatever
And use the data collected to find more ways to save us from ourselves. It doesn't matter what they think today, even if they are telling the truth, which they're not, there will always be more not less. The bill of rights was specific that it is to limit government and that they are not given power over something just because it wasn't listed. Citizens assumed computer and phones should obviously be considered as private papers needing a search warrant, and the supreme court agreed, but they managed to carve out exceptions anyway. And so it goes.
I went to school for auto mechanics in 2002, and even back then we had talked about the ability of the automobile to 'tell' many things. From speeding on the highway, to voiding the manufacturer warranty due to some any form of racing. Sadly companies are continuing these steps. The technology has been there for many years, it's just becoming more accepted now.
Why shouldn't a manufacture be able to tell if you are doing something to damage their product before they give you warranty work?
This has been a rumor for OBD III for some time. We'll see.
@@turkeyssr obd 3 has to be coming soon.....
Toyota already does it with their safety connect service. I'm willing to bet so do other auto manufacturers. It collects data about your driving habits and reports it to your insurance. I was going to renew it until I saw that clause.
@@BungieStudios How does it do the reporting? Is it through your cell phone?
The automakers who almost universally just roll over for the govt on matters like this do not deserve to sell anything. Let these losers go out of business, nothing of value will be lost.
That would be nice. We'd finally get decent public transport. :)
@@KuyAurelian why would that happen as a result of this? Also, public transport is inherently a terrible idea for any free society.
I would imagine its the auto makers pushing for it.
I'd like us to have done the same to cellphone makers who build phones with nonremovable batteries, but we didn't. We just took it.
100% agreed.
As far as a general remote killswitch goes, GM vehicles equipped with OnStar going back to the mid 2000s can be remotely shut off by the police contacting OnStar as seen in some stolen vehicle car chases
And IDK anyone who uses onstar lol
@@NooneStaar It comes free for a while so I'm sure it gets used on new vehicles sometimes.
In general, people are (and should be) more comfortable with a private company acting as the intermediary for a system like that. A private company can be compelled to surrender control to the state, but wouldn't do so with impunity unless it wants to lose its customer base. Ideally it strikes a middle ground where police can either leverage the system with owner consent or subpoena the system through traditional means, but aren't given authoritative capability to control the vehicle.
That is very unlike the government passing a law that all cars must have an onstar type system and that that system must be open for police use.
@@NooneStaar if the vehicle is equipped with onstar and even if you don't subscribe to the service the system can still be used by onstar if law enforcement asks
@@skynat247 If I've learned anything over the last 5 years, it's to never rely on consumer protest in regards to anticonsumer and rights violations issues. Windows 10/11, the entirety of EA, Bethesda, ActiBliz, and Ubisoft's releases in the last 5 years, Apple's constantly faulty products, and more I'm probably forgetting.
ive decided 1000/year in car parts is cheaper than 300/month for a new car that seems to be having more and more problems.
Your being very generous as $300 a month for a new car is almost impossible nowadays without a hefty down payment
LOL, you can't even buy a new car for $300/month!
@@jonsaircond8520 i always do a hefty down payment lol, 300/month is what im willing to do for bills, i pay down the rest. i have the bill for the sake of credit
@@SirReptitious you can buy one for 0/month, plenty of people buy things outright
As a locksmith, your older car is a LOT cheaper to make a key for. A 2021 key is usually around $500-$800
Just as there is a lot of value in pre smog era vehicles, there is likely to be value in pre always connected cars(pre 2010 for the most part). Buying a 20 year old car is easy to consider too as just about every 'feature' is standard for the smartphone in everyone's pocket. Add a rear view camera kit to a car and the appeal of brand new vehicles is even less(a good kit is only a couple hundred dollars).
Right behind me in the garage is my pretty 50 year old Mustang Mach One.
She's comfy, reliable and no B.S.
Why do you even need a backup camera? Still seems kinda pointless
There really is no added demand in my area for pre smog vehicles. We also don't smog check cars in Michigan, so the government intervention may have created that in your area. Modern day ICE engines actually perform very well and are reliable as designed with the smog equipment.
Diesel engines with smog are the complete opposite. Unreliable turds, burning way more fuel. I am hypothesizing this has been the case since diesel emissions equipment has only been used for the past 20 years. As opposed to ICE engines 50+ years of technology.
@@spencerhansen2927
Mainly for urban use, where parallel parking is the norm
@@spencerhansen2927 They are nice to have for when reversing, so you can make sure nothing or no one has managed to walk behind your car as you were checking the oppesite mirror, mostly thinking about small kids and animals.
I do have one in my car, but i still mainly use my mirrors.
If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized... If all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance --you can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your
best interest.” - Ian Watson
The fucking truth up there ⬆️
You don't need a kill switch, "cars of the future" have little cyber security. I think a security research was able to get control of a car a while back and take control of the accelerator. Scary stuff.
Yeah, Verizon completely shut down TCP 6667 on their back-end cell network to eliminate that "feature". Why the auto manufacturers decided to use the same port as IRC to handle updates and such is beyond me. I don't see how it could be coincidence, but it's kind of funny.
Yeah, the CIA assassinated somebody by doing exactly that.
Commas are not the same as periods. You don't need a kill switch. "Cars of the future" [will] have little cyber security.
@@tolpacourt -- Congratulations! You have just been promoted from being a simple Grammar Nazi to the status of Grammar Fuhrer. I'm sure your mother and your sixth grade English teacher will be SO proud of you. The rest of your English teachers would tell you to use punctuation correctly, yourself, but that correcting others' grammar in comment threads is just being a dick.
While comma splices are not technically grammatically correct without the use of a conjunction, they are commonly enough used that they might as well be. Unless you're grading a term paper, who really cares other than the most autistic of arse holes?
th-cam.com/video/N4vf8N6GpdM/w-d-xo.html
That's no surprise there....
Probably had the technology since the 60s.
What it boils down to is they want to forcibly put a breathalyzer in your car, treating you as if you are a criminal guilty of DUI, regardless of any evidence whatsoever. Why is it that law abiding people are being treated as criminals without due process and proof?
Thats what people who support the 2a and support law abiding firearm keep asking.
in my opinion, it's because soon, in terms of looking at time broadly, america is going to suck and politicians want as many safeties in place for them so when the people come for them they can have a chance at living
The criminals go free, the law-abiding people get screwed.
no breathalizer needed. it will be done with the sensors already in your vehicle. Lane deviation, speed deviation, rpm deviation, etc. a certain combination of metrics will be cause for shutdown. a software update is all it will take
@@hungryjack8032 Although I get your reasoning and see it being used in law, it is flawed. I know some drunk drivers who drive better than most sober drivers, and some sober drivers who shouldn't have a license. Theres ultimately no reliable way to differentiate a drunk driver from a regular driver theough anything but a breathalyzer. Of course, the law isn't even mainly about drunk dirving anyways
There was an article a few years ago where a couple of guys hacked into a Jeep Cherokee driving down the freeway and were able to take over the vehicle and remotely shut it down. It was done under supervision obviously and not just at random but it shows that all these esoteric electronics can be manipulated if you really wanted to. Reminds me of what Ted Kaczynski said in his manifesto after he was arrested
This is why all the automotive companies are implementing a fire wall to avoid hackers taking control via the mobile connected to the car ( that was the vulnerability). This was already put in automotive standards.
@@elenabob4953 Nothing is foolproof - if, with enough effort, people can make something, with enough effort, people can break something.
I hacked this one car and put the accelerator to the floor till they hit an intersection and died. That'll teach them to buy new shit.
@@elenabob4953 There are two things that “firewall” could refer to with a network-connected internal combustion engine vehicle:
1) The flame-proof barrier between the cabin and the engine bay
2) A network gateway that does not respond to unsolicited TCP/IP requests from unknown addresses on the public side
Well, I have news for you:
The Jeep already had both and it still got hacked.
There is a third definition of “firewall” that seems to be the one you subscribe to:
The Hollywood/fictional fantasy that a “firewall” is just a magical thing that blocks whatever it is you don’t want.
Yeah, I guess they just forgot to add that and left the doors wide open for hackers to remote control it. No need to be concerned about network-connected systems being able to control that car. We’ve got firewalls now! /S
@@elenabob4953 This is a bad band-aid. A good system would be isolated, so that hacking wouldn't work in the first place. A firewall is used on computers, because you don't know what the user is going to do. But the critical parts of a car are well known and don't need a firewall, they need isolation and immutability.
Before I was excited of the idea of someday owning a Tesla, but now that I value my privacy, my car is going to have minimal electronics.
A pure electric car is supposed to be simpler than a gas car. However, Teslas are anything but simple, especially with software locks and killswitches.
Same 4 me
Most simple electric car would be to take older vehicle and take out the existing drive train and put in a electric.
Good luck with that, all cars made after 2000 are mostly electronics
My car has no power steering and a manual transmission, and I love it for that. There is absolutely nothing for anyone to "take over". If you want to turn it off, you need to have your hand on the key or be under the hood.
The problem with letting the government install a kill switch on your car isn't the fact that you don't have the freedom to drive when you want, it's the fact that it is definitely going to be abused. Either by hackers or the government.
Operating a motor vehicle isn't a freedom, though.
You have the right and freedom to travel, but that's it. There is no inherent right for any US citizen to own or operate a motor vehicle. Driving is a regulated activity.
@@KuyAurelian never said that it was. But as long as you're a tax paying citizen you should absolutely have the right to drive on public roads as long as the vehicle is "safe". Basically not a rust bucket, tank or a vehicle armed with weapons. The government's money is the people's money. The government wouldn't exist without its people.
There cannot be a king without servants.
And why shouldn't there be an inherent right as long as you're fit to drive a motor vehicle on public roads? I.e. owns a driver's license (and isn't a terrible driver) and doesn't have major debilitating ailments that would endanger other drivers.
In fact, NOTHING is a right. Because literally nothing is free except air and water in nature. If you have the right to purchase and own a car and are fit to drive it, why shouldn't you be able to drive it? What if you're on a private road that you built? You're on your own property and you can do almost anything with it, especially in a sparsely populated area. If you build your own vehicle, what then? What if it isn't driven by a motor? What if it's some kind of compressed air driven vehicle? Where do you draw the line?
@@KuyAurelian You kinda missed the point. "...it's the fact that it is definitely going to be abused. Either by hackers or the government."
@@KuyAurelian you need a car to do anything in this country dipshit, you literally can't live without one unless you live in a select few cities. So it should be a right to own a car, don't defend our government being stupid or politicians being stupid trying to push these laws
I'm a commercial truck driver and my boss has installed dash cameras that not only record the road ahead but also the driver. If I were to pick up my phone and glance at it, it knows and will sound a warning and flag the video for a monitor to review the video. I will also do the same thing if I hit the brakes because someone cuts me off by pulling in front of me to closely.
Most onsite installers / repair workers are being told to install a tracking app on their phone or 'no work for you.' I don't work for them. If it's a company phone, it's already installed. I've been the best in the business for 25+ years but now the need to know if I arrived on time and where I am for no good reason. Thus my handle 'NO' I won't do it. I'll being doing something else.
I'm all for freedom! I don't think we should all have to have an interlock system just because a handful of people drink and drive. Making rules for the exception is a slippery slope.
Its not for DUI, its for shutting down protests and harassing oposition.
@@eliphas_catdaddy7982 protestors and opposition drunk?
tbf the vast vast majority of safety laws would probably be related to the "exceptional circumstance". I am kinda with Louis on this that I would probably be ok with it if the accuracy was really really good, but given I am not even sure how they would do this it seems really really dumb to make a law for it. Like this law I guess could literally be that your car stops only after you crash into another car, which would probably be fine I guess, which would probably be fine I guess, but thats probably not what its gonna be.
@@ntb3884 I doubt that this program will be limited to disabling a vehicle after a vehicular collision.
It's not a handful of people who drink and drive, it's a handful of beveraged drivers who crash. Most of those crashes involve people who have driven wet >100 times without incident, and the majority of thirstquenched drivers will never have an incident involving another car or a hard surface. Please use less bigoted language in the future, associating "drinking and driving" with "crashing" makes all of us less safe.
Here's an interpretation of the future. "Your" car will be a fleet car that is part of a subscription service. It will include many "amenities", including what's being described in this video. It is unlikely you'll use the same car on consecutive days, and even less likely you'll be driving it.
Look up "you will own nothing, and you will be happy"
Also, on top, once your social credit score is too low, you cannot get any access to any motor-vehicle.
I've been saying this for over 15 years. It's not about the safety of the citizens, it's all about total control
And you'll be charged a subscription fee, and the car will arrive dirty and full of junk. The future is going to suck!
I've heard of a service like that. I'm not sure it went beyond Australia though. Basically, a company owns a fleet and you can rent one of their cars.
Seems like the proposed changes include incorporating a breathalyzer into the car ventilation system as well as an AI to analyze driving performance. So if your are sober and driving drunk people around, a false positive could potentially occur and your car would disable itself, potentially in a place that is unsafe. A false positive could occur if you are driving in hazardous winter conditions at -40, and disable you car and cause you to freeze to death. This is a terrible idea. This system would thousands of dollars to the purchase price of a new car.
Well, a breathalyzer is usually a oral device only usable by one person so I'm not sure how multiple people in the car affects that.
When it comes to an AI system, I do understand your concern as missclassification error is definitely a real thing so I think preventing driving using the breathalyzer is going to play a more significant role.
I'd imagine the system wouldn't completely shut off the car so individuals can stay warm and sober up if they don't want to or can't afford to call a cab or use ride share.
Finally, I'd probably completely turn off the AI system in winter. If someone thinks it's a good idea to drive drunk 40 below in a blizzard, I question if natural selection shouldn't take it's place at some point.
@@DeMike156 I think they are assuming that the cars ventilation system would be constantly "smelling" the air for alcohol content as you are driving, which is a possibility, but I don't find it highly likely since you could probably get around that just by opening windows. But you also run into questions like are they going to install a camera and if the AI system doesnt like what it sees, shut your car down? Would you be able to legally disable the AI system? If you can legally disable the AI, couldn't you just bypass the Breathalyzer system as well since the AI and breathalyzer are supposed to work in tandem? If you disable the AI, would you even be able to start your car since it senses its been modified?
There are so many problems with this whole system that I would say tinkering with one thing would probably disable the car, and thats before even considering that it could easily be hacked, or there could be a glitch that when it shuts down your car it also shuts down all accessories as well. And if we're talking internal combustion engines, if it just shuts down your engine, you run into the problem of not having any heat or any way to charge your battery to keep any of the accessories functional. If I'm working on my own car in my own driveway and drinking a few beers, am I even going to be able to start my car afterwards to confirm that the issue is resolved?
There are people that enjoy working on their own cars in their free time and drink a few beers while theyre at it. This kind of legislation, while phrased in a way that makes it sound like it means well, seems like it could be very easy to write off as "OK," but in reality really locks things down further and could, in the future, lead to things that prevent people from enjoying modifying their cars or even repairing their own cars.
@@DeMike156 It specifies 'passively' so that means you're not having to blow into a breathalyzer, it would sense it in the air or something like that. Maybe there would be a sensor on the steering wheel or above the driver.
Lmao, you guys really are convinced that a fucking car company is going to install built in breathalyzers, AI driving analyzers, and automatic kill switch's... This is an EXTREME that no auto maker would ever want to touch, it would be bad business. Even then, let's say IF that was ever to be a thing, realistically, no breathalyzer can detect your alcohol content accurately from several feet away.
I found the conspiracy theorist going too far, again.
It is literally already a thing to have breathalyzers in vehicles now, it's called an ignition interlock system. It's nothing new, and it's for repeat DUI offenders.... Deal with reality mates and use some bloody common sense/basic problem solving, this is the reason why the world is going to shit.
Quote me: This bill will not go as far as everyone here is fearing. It's downloading unrealistic to truly believe any car manufacturers or government agencies can or will design anything to the level of technology specified above to be installed on consumer vehicles in mass, and as standard, within the next two decades.
No I am not convinced that automakers will implement this PROPOSED system into cars voluntarily because automakers never add any safety features voluntarily, they will only do it if forced by law and and even then they will fight it tooth and nail every inch of the way. The lobbyists Will kill this bill long before it becomes law. I think many people were merely discussing the massive technological hurdles that would need to be overcome, which is interesting in its own right.
I totally agree with you. In the beginning it can start as a meaningful, lifesaving device or procedure but in the future it could lend itself for inappropriate use or be used for ulterior motives.
The fun begins if hackers figure out how to address the network and system through which it's implemented and DDOS a city via it's roadways.
As a result of this law, they will have reason to continue to make more laws that restrict your ability to modify or repair your vehicle.
Like any attempt to remove even a single bolt by anyone that is not authorized by the dealership, it will cause the vehicle to send a signal to call the police to respond to this "illegal activity".
Zero chance that a "smart-breathalyzer" would not end up connected to the vehicle's computer/telematics. And with that there is zero chance that you could keep people out of the system.
I can't wait for when all that data will be shared with the insurance companies and they will use it jack up your insurance!
@@tavirosu25 Also this.
Maybe this is a business opportunity; to build a board that disables government hacking software
@@tavirosu25 i don't see anything wrong with that. If you have a history of drunk driving, you should not be driving anymore.
-Sincerely, the insurance companies and anti-DD Puritans
@@tavirosu25 I mean that is basically the point of this legislation. Insurance companies don't want to pay out money for drunk driving.
They can pretend like they're only interested in cutting down on drunk driving accidents, but there's no way they have any intention of stopping there once this passes. The automobile is one of the purest expressions of freedom, and they'll keep finding more and more excuses to limit how and when we use them.
Exactly
It's funny that it expresses freedom but isn't truly for you
@@toptiertech7291 still can get a ticket
@@toptiertech7291 I know a lot of people that drive without a license, insurance or registration. with a car you can travel hundreds of miles a day
@@toptiertech7291 More than I'd like to admit. And they have friends that they know like this, and theyre friends have friends... Trust me, a lot more drivers than you think are intoxicated, even if just a bit. Im not justifying it either, just letting you know how it really is. I doubt any technology could properly assess the difference between a drunk and sober driver and be accurate enough to sign into law
I can imagine this not stopping drunk driving accidents and instead just screwing up emergency situations instead. Stabbed? Diabetic? Trying to rush to the hospital? Nah, wait for the ambulance and hope it makes it there in time, and if it does enjoy footing the bill. :p
If you have a medical emergency, you're not capable of driving and need someone else to drive you to hospital anyway.
If you need an ambulance, you shouldn't have to pay for it and potentially be ruined by it. But generalized health care would be communism, right?
I can imagine it stopping ill people from driving to the doctor though. Sure, you _shouldn't_ drive a car when you're ill, but sometimes that's the only way to get to a doctor, especially when you live in an area with very spotty medical coverage and/or aren't allowed to use public transportation with a positive test because of a certain global event...
Yh when u guys think a generalized health care is communism then its ur own fault if an ambulance ride costs that much.
Also if u need an ambulance ride then ur not fit to drive anyway, and if ur just ill, u can still breath, so breath on the analyzer and drive. What is so hard about that?
@@mr.darknight416Just leave this flawed system out of cars. What's so hard about that?
Just remember everyone, it's not _Big Tech_ or an _over-authoritarian Government_ that is a danger to your safety and security.
It people who want to repair the things they buy where/when they want.
Unfortunately, I'm going to need a new vehicle in the next 6 months or so. Wish me luck.
The reason of these laws is to make modern cars more and more complex, so that the computer systems in them have more hackable attack surface for the glowies.
The biggest problem I see is that the bill doesn't specify at all HOW it should be implemented. It just directs the transportation secretary to implement a rule. That gives an enormous amount of leeway that the bill hides because of the way it is written. But then, that's how most bills are these days.
Agreed. I'm not seeing even a statement that HINTS that there exists such a technology as is requested in this proposal.
I don't see how it would be remotely possible for something to passively detect if a driver is under the influence.
@@startedtech There have been some technologies I've seen bits on that detect general impairment.
Two examples:
Camera systems that monitor blink rate on the assumption that impaired people blink slower and/or more often IIRC.
Camera systems or head-mounted sensors that monitor head tilt to detect when a driver is falling asleep.
-
But I saw those features being explored over a decade ago, and they have not shown up in cars, so they may have been dead-end development.
@@startedtech My 2020 Toyota Corolla has that tech that that Louis described in this video. That is, the car alerting you if you cross the center line, then attempting you nudge you back if the car's computer feels you've gone too far. I can't comment on how well it works, because when I bought the car, I had the salesman go into the menu turn off this feature for me. But I imagine maybe a passive drunk driver monitoring system can take advantage of this already existing technology. Like, if you cross the yellow lines X number of times within X number of minutes, more likely than not, you're impaired.
It's commiting to put a serious effort into solving a problem and I don't see what's wrong with that style of bill.
Every state is way too lenient on drunk drivers with multiple DUIs. Actually having real repercussions for DUIs and drunk driving manslaughter would help more than this breathalyzer nanny crap
Drunks already do and will only buy older cars to avoid this anyway
Lol, in most states DUI is life ruining. Literally thousands in fines and burdensome conditions.
@@JumaiPL which leads to them drinking more, perfect solution
@@JumaiPL i know a few people in my home town with more than 5 dui’s on their record, and they still drunk drive without their license… maybe a couple states take it seriously, but most states do not.
@@marcogenovesi8570 If they die from alcohol poisening, problem solved.
@@obsprisma just shoot them on sight, it's more humane
incredibly dangerous to have any kind of kill switch in a vehicle. You can literally hack anyone's car, instantaneously going down the highway. In fact you can do it to a bunch of cars at once. Imagine the highway all of a sudden come to a halt when 10 cars in every lane come to a stop. Very very dangerous. The benefits do not even begin to outweigh the drawbacks.
Kinda like... In fast and furious? ;)
@@90gdv If the car has a system that can take control from the driver it has a "remote kill switch", even if its advertised as not a "directly" accessible method its still a remote kill switch that can be used either through the manufacturer or via remote access. It wouldn't at all be a surprise if on the news you heard about a high speed chase being ended by the use of the passive intoxication system being utilized to kill the car mid chase.
Which is why the idiot that dreamt up the term "kill switch" is an idiot! The reality would be:
1. That the car would not start.
2. Take control of the car and drive you to a "safe" place: Jail, rehab etc...
No sane person would suggest just switching the car off without regard to where it is and what it is doing!
@@ahaveland It's a passive detector, which likely means it's going to monitor your steering and if you're weaving somehow stop you from driving. I can't imagine how it's going to monitor your driving before you start the car, nor how it's going to stop you from driving without turning off the car. If it can drive you to jail without you steering, it can just drive you to where you want to go.
Ford's kill switch can be annoying. Had it kill the fuel pump in the middle of a busy intersection. Had to get several stuck drivers to push me through. I suspect it was caused by slamming the passenger side door.
The issue with this law is that it requires that cars have some function in them capable of shutting the car down; which will be tied to an electronic system that monitors drunk driving. This means, if someone is able to get control over the system, that they will be able to trigger the 'kill switch' of sorts.
How would this tech work in different kinds of traffic situations (snow storm, icy roads, high winds, other traffic, wild animal encounters, etc.) without an Internet connection? The car would have to have incredible computing power to take into account all variables to be even half confident that the driver is impaired. And having an Internet connection to make "manual review" possible would open up a whole other can of worms. This tech gets a big nope from me.
Not really. This kind of thing already exists in the form of a 'tired driver' detection. It looks at sudden changes in steering, varying speed, stuff like that. If it thinks you're acting like a tired driver, a message pops up saying " do you need to take a break? " It's been in cars about 10 years now.
I'm not seeing this law leading to actual implementation, no.
The law may pass and its only result will be that the Secretary will have to make annual excuses as to why there is no tech available that can achieve the required level of accuracy needed to make a meaningful positive difference without undue danger due to false positives.
Not only are we getting close to a cyberpunk dystopia with each passing day, but our vehicles will be as well.
Expect to see models from this age, but with addons from the modern age.
Like USB and Aux only stereo systems where there used to be a cassette player or just straight up slapping a mount on your car's dashboard to have your mobile device act as a GPS.
Just to name a few.
It will also have a horrible launch for their updates
I drive a 50 year old Mustang Mach One.
She's comfy and simple as a lawn mower.
This will drive used car prices even higher as people try to escape this dystopia.
yep. all the more reason I tell people to buy a used car they like, do everything possible to remove and stop rust. and when the engine/transmission die, pay for them to be remanufacturered.
It's not strictly feudal, but a cyberpunk world is also often used as an analogue of feudalism. You have high nobility (C-suite) commanding feudal lords (corporate officers and management), who have the loyalty and services of their peasants (the corporate employees on the bottom of the chain).
Officially society is a capitalist meritocracy. In many sensess though, there's an ironclad caste system between plutocratic "nobility" who own all assets and wage-slave "serfs" who spend their entire salaries upon rent and subscription services to access said assets. This also removes the rights of the serfs in that the nobility or more plausibly, their hired or just cut someone off from the service with a switch at any point to make sure whatever codes they demand are followed and gives them a perfect opportunity to memory hole all signs that a better world ever existed when they can curate what the critical mass of eyes are seeing on the internet.
As much as i like the idea that a drunk individual wont be able to operate a vehicle anymore, i dont like the idea of general suspicion of everyone with a drivers license to be impaired by alcohol. on a certain point we might get kicked in the nuts by transfering our responsibility to a machine
Not driving while drunk isn't just a matter of your own responsibility. You are endangering other drivers. You already accept and wear your seatbelt as a safety measure, which only endangers you if you choose not to use it. If this technology is not invasive to people who aren't attempting to drive under the influence it won't be any different or worse than seatbelts.
@@goeiecool9999 except seatbelts are invasive because you get a ticket for bothering them. It's ludicrous to mandate this when such a small percentage of drivers are driving impared and causing accidents.
@@barneystinson2781 Yes seatbelts are invasive, yet most people accept them and understand why they are there. If this technology is developed in such a way that it is not annoying to people who are not under the influence then it'll be just as reasonable as mandatory seatbelts. It hinges entirely on the implementation which the bill does not define. Also, you must not have ever had a loved one pass away in a car crash to say that it's insignificant. If it's totally transparent to people who are not drunk then it would be better than seatbelts! Even a minor inconvenience to the driver is worth a couple of human lives if you ask me.
Its not just that, its the fact that law enforcement are not even there yet, treating people like they can or as if they're above the law NOT because they should or have a reason to, if they want to control the car so bad, fine...they should then own the car itself and offer it to the citizen for free then.
@@goeiecool9999
This system is not comparable to seatbelts.
After all, seatbelts cannot prevent usage of a car. Neither when you dont want to/cannot use them, nor when they malfunction or break.
The worst a seatbelt can possibly do to "restrict" your access to your own car is annoy you with a pinging noise.
These systems have the ability to stop a car from working by design. All it takes is a single technical malfunction, wrong reading or other random problem and ? Poof. You cannot start your car. Is it -10c and you will freeze to death ? Tough luck. Do you need to quickly drive somewhere for any urgent reason ? Try calling an Uber and hope there is one available near you.
So thats overall a rather lackluster comparison.
That being said, something else was worse about your comment. Trying to emotionally manipulate the reader.
You must never had someone tell you that loosing a person you love does NOT in any way allow or qualify you to decide over the behavior of others. You are not entitled to becoming the arbiter of personal transport safety rules just because a drunk driver did this to you.
You are not entitled to demand changes be made to the property of others so that it may fit your (and dont get me wrong here, this is not meant as an insult) warped perception of how dangerous drunk driving is in reality.
It is technically insignificant.
Not by your personal moral or emotional standards maybe, but by any reasonable and neutral look at the statistic probability of a drunk driving accident happening to the average person. It in no way is a problem that warrants such a deep intrusion into the personal property rights (and ability to drive and everything related to it) of millions of innocent and responsible people.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin.
Me: "I would like to be able to control how I use the product I purchased with my hard earned money".
Government and private companies: "No".
just don't buy the product
@@marcogenovesi8570 you're shortsighted. Slowly but surely all tech will have this feature. You don't own the device despite you buying it with money that you worked for. You cannot repair the device despite you buying it with money you worked for. I bet nearly all companies will slowly remove the concept of ownership and it'll just be called leasing/renting. We are already seeing it with the housing market.
@@eatright909 I've seen this happen so many times over already that I have 0 faith anybody can stop this. Best you can do is not use the product so you are not affected. I have already cut bs like smartphones from my life and if I have to do the same for cars I'll do it. I already work mostly remote anyway.
As for the housing market, I'm just not leaving my parent's home, there is 0 chance I'm taking a 40-year loan or rent to go live like a fking poor in a tiny apartment for the rest of my life.
@@eatright909 you will own nothing and be happy 😃
@@marcogenovesi8570 Okay, you can definitely rant about how this tech is inescapable but to insult the poor like that is rather telling. It show how little empathy you have. It can very well have to you in this lifetime and blindsight you. There is already a homelessness crisis happening and it's only going to get worse from here on out, and I suspect that it will get close to OR hit 1 Million homeless people throughout the country. You can definitely be one of them, just saying.
I’m all for having killswitches in your vehicle, just not the kind the gov’t wants installed. I install a kill switch (or switches) in all my vehicles. My favorite failsafe to keep my vehicle left alone, minus it being towed
The likely solution to "Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology" will be remote AI inference. Pretty much every new car has a 4G or 5G modem as part of its electronics suite, and already has remote kill switch functionality. OnStar was capable of this 10 years ago.
i will never even enter a vehicle with this shit, it creeps me out at having a vehicle with that level of creepyness.
This is completely unnecessary. If someone repeatedly gets DUIs, confiscate their car. Make them register in a database of people who are banned from buying alcohol.
Repeat DUIs borrow cars, steal cars, buy cars, so this would close some of that possibility, once most/all cars had this kind of system in it. (For the alcohol registration angle, see borrow/steal/buy, plus it's a simple enough substance that it can be made at home, in prison, wherever).
Not that I'm saying this is a good approach (like Louis, trying to be clear), but repeat DUI offenses in confiscation and personal interlock states (which do exist) still happen, because the point of mechanical control/prevention is not only "their car", it's also "any vehicle that they can get access to".
THIS IS WHY THE KID FROM STAR TREK (2009) DRIVES A '65 CORVETTE STING RAY !!!
I wonder how much all these standards will drive up prices on new vehicles, repairs and the kinds of errors that could occur. I also wonder if they will eventually make it illegal to drive a vehicle without these standards to force people to convert.
Will Rush's 'Red Barchetta' become reality?
Could this be the start of yet another slippery slope? I wonder if we'll ever have a car that you need to "log into" with a digital driver's license. Would it have face recognition in the rearview mirror, or maybe a fingerprint scanner on the steering wheel or the push-start?
Please dont rush reading aloud for us. You read aloud well and your natural pace is clear and pleasant. I think what your doing is great.
Why not just give people mandatory 5 years in prison if you have any blood alcohol levels. Basically make the punishment something to worry about not the slap on the hand we give them now. This would be better than AI deciding for me.
I am for Islamic ruling for drunk driving. After the second offence or making a deadly accident DUI cutting both hands. 😉
@@obsprisma I like that
@@mattmuch7536 So you're getting at you are to weak to just wait it out to be safe even if you are not drunk. Also I live in the woods and so did my friend who thought he was ok to drive after only 2 drinks and died im just glad he didn't take anyone out with him.
@@mattmuch7536 I agree with you. My point is more for the ones who consistently are driving with a high level of alcohol in their blood and don't give a damn about others safety other than their own need for alcohol. Those people i want them off the road asap.
People : we want to own what we buy.
US Government : That's not how capitalism work
Wrong. This has nothing to do with Capitalism! This is Democrats wanting to make USA a socialist aka communist country.
private ownership is capitalism. government/corporation interfering your property rights is socialism
It's how authoritarianism, works.
BTW, corporations (specially getting the Equity Social Governance investments) are increasing becoming more socialist than the traditional laize-faire capitalism.
Agreed.... though don't forget about Homeland security and the neocons in that list!
Calling it a "remote kill switch" is likely hyperbole that does ultimately harm the message of being against it, but it does draw light to the idea of new cars being required to host systems that have the express purpose of taking control of the vehicle away from the driver and either shutting down or granting control to a 3rd party. Something like this could be used as a "remote kill switch" via a number of methods, the most common method i could see would be some kind of injection attack where maybe the kill switch isn't jacked into the main electronic system but the sensors are and are flooded with false intoxicated signals tripping the system and killing the vehicle.
And considering the amount of zero day exploits in proprietary software, I'd suspect that after a few hacking incidents, the law would get pulled anyways
Not hyperbole AT ALL. they cancel bank accounts of conservatives routinely. When you give them the same power to monitor and track and shut off your car, why wouldn't they use it? They hate you and know better than you.
I just last month had a problem with a rental car which out of the blue stalled the engine because of a software bug in the rental company software (and kept stalling few seconds after each starting attempt). If it had a false alarm of drunk driving, rather than false alarm of the hijacking, I'd be accused of drunk driving.
Also I had zero (0) (nil) (none) speeding tickets in my life, but due to bugs in smart rental cars I got messages like "We can't tolerate your aggressive driving ignoring speed limits!" accompanied by "Understandable, I'll reflect on my behaviour" button to proceed.
(I'm Russian)
PS. I mean, when it's a private company, it's annoying. When it's a legislation, it's a catastrophe
@@bradojacko8247 who are "they" and who's specific bank accounts are you talking about
@@username-du2er there have been many over the past few years. From Alex Jones to Laura loomer to Mike Lindell yesterday.
I won’t buy a vehicle with a kill switch. I would buy the year before and keep it for 9 years .
We gave up our rights for personal safety during covid and now the floodgates are open. I enjoy driving my vehicle recreationally and would definitely find me impaired 9/10. (Offroading, camping, hunting)
WATCH THE VIDEO.....
I know a few people who would gladly give their freedumb to drive impaired so long as they don't pass a cop if it meant their parents were still alive instead of getting hit by drunk drivers.
I remember when they were talking about remote viewing on the OBD. Where the car can tell a local officer if the driver has a belt on and even tell them if your check engine light is on. It was for them to be able to ticket you even if your check engine light was on...
Officer: Can't afford to fix your car rn? Here is a ticket for that.
👍 Cool. Paying insurance for car, medical insurance, rent, light bill, gas, food, clothing, taxes on literally everything you buy (that includes everything I just listed), and much much more... you must have a great paying job or your going to have to have two jobs just to be able to live... Doesn't sound like much of a life to me to be working just for the government to make money to do nothing. However they can complain on how the working class is the problem and give away free stuff to people who don't want to contribute to society. Yay
Only little people pay taxes and fees
@@svenjorgensenn8418 I might be a talking trash can but i am in no shape or form a midget and to suggest that only little people pay taxes and fees is absurd. Good day sir!
Louis' centrism continuous to amaze me. "It doesn't look they can't turn off your car remotely in this bill." The whole point is that anyone with a brain can foresee the actual requirements of such an overt kill switch, which is in line with all the reasoning given in the bill. For instance for police services where they can remotely stop your car for the officer's safety. But also the fact that any car locking mechanic can easily be hacked, either by black-hat hackers who want to mess with people or the CIA as they've already done before.
@@Android-ng1wn For safety of course...
It is the potential for a North Korean Hacker to stop all cars that is dystopian. It would end American in one go. At least 250 million would be dead in a couple of months. The only way to be sure that it won't happen is not allow the potential hack in the first place. There is no way software can be absolutely guaranteed to not allow it.
@@toptiertech7291 If you're LUCKY, it'll just stop. If not, they might possibly hit the gas and run you into a tree or something...
You sound like mental outlaw. Lol
@@Android-ng1wn That comment of yours just gave me an image of the standard psychiatrist cartoon: Guy laying on a couch talking to the psychiatrist sitting in an armchair and writing in a notebook, but instead of reading glasses and a tan or blue suit, he's wearing dark glasses and a black suit.
Thank you for that - I am happy now..
as a technician in a field, i know when control boards go bad, odd things can happen. i’m assuming electric cars are all control boards. It’s a dangerous game imo
Every car, even a pretty old one has ECU. That is, your gas pedal isn't directly physically attached to an air/fuel valves but rather interpreted by an MCU.
@@АбракадабраКобра259 idk about your car but mine is a direct wire throttle through a pulley system. you can accelerate the car if you were sitting in the engine bay.
Cars have had ECUs since the 1970s, though...
As I explained elsewhere in the thread, each door, the steering wheel, etc., have microcomputers to talk to the body and engine modules for EVERY function. The throttle, brakes and steering wheel, regardless of the mechanics, have have position sensors. Read an automotive investigators 'crash report' detailing everything you did in the 5 to 30 seconds prior to the crash. Did you turn the wheel, how hard did you apply the brakes, open a window, turn signals, basically EVERYTHING! Don't forget the basics like compass, GPS, all engine data like RPMs, transmission gear selected and gear it's in, and of course road speed. Though it depending on the make, model and year, the amount and time of data grows constantly.
@@NoOne-xp1pe idk about cars nowadays but my cars steering wheel has no wires. and my steering rack doesn’t use electricity nore sensors. could be just my car tho.
I wish there was one of those "Said" devices being built into our politicians and judges.
You might be onto something…
Always amazes me how when I tell people over a decade ago that "this is where we're headed" and they laugh. Then when "this" happens they think it's normal or good or they play mental gymnastics. This stuff is not hard to predict. It's very easy actually.
There was a guy with some 14 DUIs. Naturally they would impound his car and hold him for the night. He bought his cars from the scrap yard for $50. People with ignition interlocks would get a friend to blow for them, or get someone desperate for $5 to do it, and not turn it off. Is that why Biden want's $10 gas ;-)
Paranoia is the only truth
Giving computers and software control over humans is a recipe for trouble. And it is a very real slippery slope that will lead to more and worse similar laws.
@@mattmuch7536 Ah yes. Rwanda genocide if they did prevent that.
I wonder how many car manufacturers, *if any,* will implement a system that's so offline, so non-cloud-based, so tyrant-proof, that it doesn't have a privacy policy. I would be pleasantly surprised.
Law will require auto makers to implement the control tech.
Its probably would be satellite based, or only controllable by a specific long range frequency in which you can't access without a code and en encryption key.
@@toptiertech7291 No. People who care about Privacy would buy it. Please go back to your agents
@@toptiertech7291
Just live in a different country please. Not all of us love simultaneously licking boot and bubble wrapping the world as much as you all do.
The Ford Model T is doing fine
12:27 re: toeing the lane marker to get further from a truck while passing, be happy the car is just beeping at you.
I recently got a Mazda 3 and it has the nasty habit of trying to turn your wheel back into the lane if it detects that you're over the line. Not very reassuring when you're right next to an 18-wheeler at highway speeds
In our city we can't drive with the lane sense technology on. They repair the road cracks from frost heave with black tar of some sort, and the system detects every one of the repairs as a lane marker and pushes and pulls the car side to side. In the winter, the snow on the road detects the responses the same way. I have a few different cars I drive, and they all do it. One of them even has a left turn protection mode that hits the brakes in a left turn if thinks it will collide with oncoming traffic, it's so sensitive that in about 10% of left turns it hits the brakes with no one around.
or u can just turn dat land keep assist OFF
@@hksp sure, but then what's the point of paying for the R&D, material, and labor costs of a feature you're never going to use?
Oh fuck that!
The number of times my phone does not recognise my fingerprint makes me suspicious of biometrics in general.
Some cars already have remote kill switches. They are set to catch fire.
So long lengthy police chases. Aside from that. This is concerning because this can be expanded later on. This could be applied to drivers that have multiple unpaid parking tickets. However, if one has a medical emergency or urgent matter and the vehicle is kill switched.. ooof.
worse, you made jokes about certain "marginal people" or opposed to vaccine mandate, BOOM you got no car, no transit and cant buy food from online. Neoliberalism have the worse of communism and capitalism combined.
just get rid of alcohol. Clearly folks can't drink responsibly or enforce harsher punishment like 1 DUI equates ban for life driving
@@diegosilang4823 yeah, people are already getting their bank accounts shut down for political views (which we thought would be unfathomable 5 years ago). How long till cars start getting shut down...
@@volvo09 just look at china XD
@@craigman7262 You say "just get rid of alcohol" like that's a simple process and like we havent tried and failed to do that already.
Is it a remote kill switch demand? No.
Is it a self regulated kill switch on some condition (if impaired?) Yes.
Can it turn into remote kill switch? Yes. (being impaired is defined elsewhere, and can easily made something like voted for trump is an obvious mental impairment, so if you ever voted for trump, you are permanently impaired.)
Also, once the car has a system that can shut it down for any reason, it is way easier to implement it with different conditions, than if it is not there. it is the classic start, checking your mail to prevent child molesters and criminals is perfectly fine, if you are not a criminal you should have no reason to be against it. Stopping the car working if you are impaired is an obvious good reason in general. As long as we assume the detection will be accurate, we accept that impaired person should have no reason to drive, ever, not even to prevent a nuke going off in the city center and that it will never be used for other, less acceptable limitations.
many cars already have a remote kill switch for theft recovery. A police report and a phone call will prevent that car from starting. It will stop driving as soon as it's not in motion and will lock into park. I want to offer than discussing the law before we address the ethics is (maybe) not correct. Ethics should be solid before we apply technology to control the laws.
@@drone_video9849 yes, there are this kind of theft prevention systems, but, they are controlled mostly (or at least partially) by the owner (if nothing else, it is installed by the owners request.)
Also this is never caused problem as far as I know, so whatever security is implemented, it is good enough. Now the stuff that put into every car will probably much less secure, if for nothing else, since that system will be much more useful to brake, as it is in every car, instead of a small number.
And change in the laws that would allow any form of governmental control through this would meet with massive resistance (hopefully), changing the already in place impairment laws to extend the definition of impairment may not even be realized by the population, if done slowly enough (or with good enough reason, like preventing the evil unvaccinated to move, or something similar in a future event.)
Hypotheticly: I'm in a remote area, camping with my wife, no phone reception, we enjoy a few drinks with dinner.
She gets mauled by a bear, and now the car decides i cant take her to seek medical help.
Scary tales which arose in the 1970s are still being told of how seatbelts kill: someone crashes into a river and only gets out because they weren’t wearing a seat belt. Your wife’s encounter with a bear sounds like something you’ve thought about too often.
You're stuck bartering with the bear
or a girl at a party gets something put in her drink and now she isn't going home instead shes going upstairs to the spare bedroom
Was wondering why my cars are appreciating more than my real estate. Now I know
all fun and games until hackers disable your vehicle to rob you
You are spot on with the conclusion that this is all about paving a road to us submitting to the technology (and through that - to the will of those creating the rules for it). Cars are just an easy entry point, there are futurists (and politicians talking about the idea that even our Gvt should submit to technology in defining the goals and policy... Source of the "disabling switch" story is likely a proposal related to it that I saw on local NJ news and that likely aired similarly across the country about a year ago. Proposal was to add required functionality to these (maybe soon mandatory) DUI detecting car systems so that a police car armed with corresponding technology, within a short range of the car could activate engine disabling. Not internet but most likely something like a WiFi or mobile networking signal, story was not precise. They showed prototype in action, which is police car at short distance disabling particular near-by car and they added "oh, the further possibilities" (implying use not just for DUI but other crimes).
I personally like the swiss version of how to keep people from repeatedly getting caught doing stupid shit in a vehicle: limit the times you can apply for a learners permit, thus you get a baseball bet to the wrist the first time you lose your license and revoked driving privileges after the second time, though that necessitates an available alternative to driving to work…
Imagine if you could live in America without a car.
@@heroslippy6666 one reason why I like living in Europe… whacky thing is: you could until the world wars…
@@heroslippy6666 Then more reasons for a wannabe drunk driver to give it a thought before driving the car. I know drunk people to not think right. But before drinking they can.
@@ikocheratcr I don't have that much faith in humanity.
there was a scheme in the UK where conviced DUI were required to have an alco-blow test linked to their car ignition once they were allowed to drive again. Fully support that idea as it has already gone through a court and is public safety. The thought of a car deciding "he's drunk" and shutting down while calling the police is well over the line of acceptability. Unfortunately, people are sheep and won't protest.
You can have a kid breath into the tube and start the car
those are done here in canada also
And give inventive people enough time and they can defeat that way.
Oh think of the children! I am against any law that assumes I'm breaking the law like this bill, not only that were going to pay for it.
it feels like if its even a possibility for a vehicle to be shut down by the computer then thats whats giving people anxiety about the government using that
The best way to combat drunk driving is to give impaired folks an alternative to driving. We wouldn’t need stuff like this if we had good public transport. Drunk people (or anyone for that matter) should not be forced to drive to get anywhere.
Drinking and driving takes practice kids. Get an uber.
In the Netherlands we can go by public transport and ofcourse bicycle. I haven't checked the amount of drunk car accidents, but that should be a lot lower here then
In Denmark?? They have a great drunk driving law. Anyone in a vehicle with a drunk driver also loses their license. That has cut drunk driving quite a bit.
@@sneaky_krait7271 A local TV Weatherman was nearly killed by a drunk driving bicyclist. Very serious brain injury.
@@Foolish188 Yes, but you could still argue that if he was in a car instead of a bicycle, that weatherman wouldn't have survived.
11:10 The law doesn't require remote kill switches, but it "allows" them. The word "system" implies a collection of disparate components working together, but not all components of the system need to be physically present inside your car. The prime example of this is GPS, which is installed in some cars but also involves satellites in Earth's orbit. A system can include sensors, wireless communication devices, stationary infrastructure, and even human resources.
What the law allows, car manufacturers will certainly abuse, especially now that the chip shortage means installing AI processors in each car is expensive or outright impossible. Telemetry data will be sent to server farms that analyze how you drive while sober, and from there it's all too easy for a person to get involved in deciding whether your car is allowed to continue running.
the worst part about this is a lot of this already exists. for people convicted of too many DUIs. and they have to pay for the hardware to be installed too. to have this on cars already would be like the feds owning the locks to your house and 'allowing' you to have the keys.
You mean kinda like property taxes?
Paid off your mortage? Stop paying those property taxes, and you find out who really owns your house.
but they don't need keys they can just bust in anyways and anywhere
@Ganz Bestimmt how is it allowed? its a choice, that, or jail. people pretty much always pick that. and its functionally the same as if a parole officer was checking up on you.
The problem is society did not figure out what to do with persistent and repeat offenders. This looks like one case of making the punishment fit the crime. In Europe the basic hardware will soon be compulsory in new cars, so we all pay for it. But theoretically we all benefit.
@@jamescaley9942 theoretically people who didnt do the crime have to pay the time and thats fucked up at best
The wife and I recently rented a car and were unaware of this lane holding feature, the wife was freaking out wondering what was going on, the car seeming to fight her control. We didn't like that feature at all!
Had a rental that when in cruise control would lower the speed if you were too close to another car in front. The tolerance was low and did not account for people pulling in front of you. Ended up turning it off and driving well over the speed limit because of it lol.
@@communistpootisbirb I think these features are going to make drivers less skilled, less able to deal with problems on the road.
@@stupidhat1779 "Going too." I think we've been there for at least 20 years!
This has become law in the EU on January 1st. Basically how it works is this: all new vehicles sold need to be equipped with a port that can be used to fit a breathalyzer to the car. You need to use the breathalyzer and if that detects you being drunk the car will refuse to start. Mind you the cars don't come with the breathalyzer. That gets fitted by the government if you get multiple DUIs or are caught driving extremely drunk.
The breathalyzer being fitted is not new. That has been a thing for a couple of years here if your car supports it it was an alternative for drivers instead of having their license revoked permanently. The new law just requires manufacturers to make all new cars compatible.
From what you read this sounds pretty much exactly like what the EU already passed.
they do realize that most people don't drive new vehicles. so it would take quite a while for this is change anything and also the people that actively drive drunk would just keep an older car that doesn't have this in it as standard.
It will be mandatory starting 2025
People who drive drunk aren't that smart.
There is already similar legislation to this effect in some states. Look up "breathalyzer interlock." The main difference between this and the new law is that it is:
A. A federal requirement.
B. Installed on all cars regardless of whether you have had a drunk driving offense. All current laws only require it after a minimum of one offense. (Innocent until proven guilty)
C. Require the development and universal adaptation of a completely new and unproven technology in a few years.
This sounds like a poison pill more than anything else. These are the kinds of things that took this bill so long to get through congress. My guess is that this one got missed. Any luck this gets thrown out at some point.
Or the tech will remain out of reach forever.
Just because a law says to develop a technology, doesn't mean it will be.
If it were so easy, Congress could just enact a bill saying: "US Companies will solve global warming by 2025" and that would fix all our problems. :P
@@KuyAurelian The earth went through 5, YES 5, ice ages, that is covered in ice more than 2 miles thick almost everywhere, melting to mostly water, and back again, before humans even came into existence. The earth collects millions of tons of space dust, and 2 or 3 continuously erupting volcanoes spewing millions more dust and toxic gasses, and the ring of fire heating the ocean, and China producing more air pollution that at least 1/2 the planet combined (but they signed the green deal so it's OK), obviously global warming is caused by America and England and should spend 100s of billions to improve our systems another .01%. Of course the solution is easy, nuke China.
This isn't an issue for most people. If you're not a criminal or on our CIA's hit list, you should not be afraid of the kill switch as it's for the safety for everyone.
Sincerely, the government (and their enablers)
A big issue in today's time remove the right to become an adult. People are treated like children and they adopt and behave like children. Imagine s time where your computer nanny 24/7 checks on you, cares for your food, your safety prevent you from doing stupid things. Your whole long and boring life. You never grow up.
with no script its beyond me how u can talk so freely and every sentence is a direct hit. thats a one in a million skill man !
During the next lockdown they can literally trap you at home with a flip of a switch....
@@90gdv remember just two weeks to flatten the curve? We all know where this leads .....
@@90gdv kill switch or not the entire law is wrong. it punishes innocent people, it's mandatory data-tracking within your property, and it sets up the precedent of allowing laws to be passed for "what-if" scenarios.
Props for educating everyone on how to do their due diligence on all these claims.
This is incredibly wrong and a symptom of over policing to prevent every "what-if" scenario. Drunk driving is terrible but as evident of the past few years the slippery slope fallacy is becoming less of a fallacy and more of a reality IMO (I wrote this before you started talking about it, watched the whole video before submitting the comment). Picking away at rights to try to ensure maximum safety is a fruitless endeavor that will result in no personal freedoms and a worker slave state. Because if you can only do what the government considers "safe" what will you be allowed to do? You will get to go to work and do nothing else. Everything is inherently dangerous and this constant push for more safety has been aggravating to see.
@@UnKnownv5 agreed, never have I heard anyone outside of a government-funded institution try and teach the idea of slippery-slope theory as a fallacy
@@Lysergic_ I concur 👍
You mentioned the car beeping at you. I think that would be a good implementation of something like this.
Step 1) get some people drunk, put them in a VR driving simulator and record all of their inputs and movements. A drunk person doesn't dodge potholes like a normal person. A drunk or tired person veers to the side, realizes they're too far over and then snaps back. A sober person veers around potholes and drives straight.
Step 2) put out a bounty to develop an open source program that accurately takes that data and data previously collected on drunk and tired driving and makes a warning system that recognizes when someone is driving like they are drunk or tired and warns them that they are driving erratically and recommends that they pull off the road in a safe location and manner until they can be a safe driver.
Step 3) each car manufacturer must implement this code that takes pedal and steering wheel inputs (which ECMs already do) and checks for this specific set of criteria and warns the driver to pull over.
It may not save every life and some people will still drive drunk. But if it reduces drunk or tired driving by 10% by yelling at the driver, telling them they're acting like a bad driver, I think it's worth it. This system also would not require any outside connectivity so there is no concern from this being a hackable killswitch.
This also is just a warning system. Much like your car trying to tell a driver that something is wrong with it, the car could warn the driver that it thinks they are not driving safely. Then it leaves it up to the driver. This way no poor government-car manufacturer implementation issues can rear their head as the car tries to wrestle with the driver over where it thinks it should be. If a car crashes because they're a bad driver, that's on them. If the car crashes because it was trying to keep them in the lane because it thought they were driving erratically when they were really just trying to avoid drunk Jim driving head on in their lane, that's a big issue.
(Edited with last paragraph immediately)
That's illegal. If they try to take away my RIGHT to get drunk and die in a fiery crash in a vehicle I own on my own property, I'll sue them.
Yet another reason to be an advocate for walkable cities with functional quality transit, in addition to the countless other benefits of course
Exactly!
We have freedom of movement, not freedom of driving.
Yeah but what about the people that don’t live in cities? I’m all for better public transit, but the vast majority of the US relies on driving a car to get around. This is just another overstep from the government.
This kill switch already existed as a special security system commented to a satellite to detect all the time where the car is and stop the engine if the car got stolen.
Today almost all cars are connected to your mobile so to implement a kill switch is extremely simple.
Also in Europe and Russia you have a special button that initiate a call to 112 (911) so if you have a major accident or if you are knock out due to that accident, the car will initiate the car and automatically send your position.
Even if there are such cars in Russia, it's not really common.
If I take a look the volumes sold by Lada seems to be significative. This réglementation was introduced in Russia 2-3 years ago and it is mandatory in Europe starting with 2022.
Slippery slope has always been valid when you understand that power seeks nothing but to grow. Thank you for going over the legislation to clarify the legality and then discussing the potential implications in reality.
I just think we need to halt government overreach period. If this is a feature that people might want some car makers can try it... then let people vote with their money... This is not something for the government to screw with..
On top of kill switch but think down the road where combined with GPS they fine you for speeding or even parking fines.
A feature of the vehicle you get like it or not.
Getting a new car in this day and age seems like madness. 1000 different computers and systems that are way too complicated for the average person to fix, and also require specialized tools that only dedicated shops can afford. I´ll stick to my bike.
Agreed. Also, might as well take a taxi, or use a car sharing program.
Funny how this exact same line has been repeated since at least 1990... :D
@@KuyAurelian Yep, 1990 was when computers slowly started popping up in automobiles (1980s-1990s). :)
Absolutely nothing would surprise me after discovering the rabbit hole of Intel's Management Engine and Apple Secure Enclave. If the gov wants to reach somewhere they can.
The car companies will make the system break down often and charge a huge amount to get it fixed. If the politicians pass a law like this they should make the car companies warrant the system for the life of the car.
@@jackd.ripper9216 My TPMS light just came on a couple of weeks ago. It's a minor annoyance knowing that I'll have to actually look at my tires before I drive now lol.
@@GeneralChangFromDanang you should do that anyways. Putting your life in the grasp of technology when a simple glance will do has potential to end poorly
The US government has wanted remote kill switches for decades. It's easy to believe that they'd try to force them to exist. The problem is that imagine what happens if some enterprising hacker figures out how to break into these non-updated embedded systems and flip those switches en masse. To quote South Park: "you're gonna have a bad time." That's why it won't happen.
In France, you can be made to have a breathalyzer killswitch installed in your car as to automaticaly enforce sober driving, but only if you got caught drunk driving a few times. If regular offenders are easily known, I don't see the point of having them as a standard in every car. These kits are usualy not that hard to mod in if required.
Also NJ