• teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

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

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

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

          • Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

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

            • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

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

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

              • KotFlinte@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 days ago

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

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

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

                People deserve not to be monitored around the clock.

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

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

      • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

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

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

        • Joelk111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

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

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

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