[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Oh, for sure. However, my reasoning is that why add even more invasive stuff into your world? An analogy being my arm's already broken, should I say 'meh' and bang it around some more...or try to take steps not make it worse? Or I already have one gun pointed at me, are ppl saying since that they don't mind more being pointed as well? I don't get that kinda logic. Anyway, too bad I'm so inept at IT, if I was a superhacker or something I'd make sure to debug all my electronic stuff.

Re GPS, do ppl really think they gave you that freebie outta the goodness of their hearts? LOL. They had this way before Google Maps, Waze, etc became popular. Also, the touchscreens requiring heat because supposedly they are more accurate by the cynic in me thinks it's just another tracking tool.

I think it's a poor analogy, but I get your point.

I also think this provision will end up getting shut down. There are tons of bills and things added in bills all the time that never come to fruition.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

I think it's a poor analogy, but I get your point.

I also think this provision will end up getting shut down. There are tons of bills and things added in bills all the time that never come to fruition.

How's it poor? You got my pt and I think the majority of ppl think it's bad to have privacy invasion...sure we don't all have these but it's also bad to have a broken arm or guns pointed at you. Can't be bother to think of a more accurate analogy...maybe going crazy bingeing on junk food since food in general has unhealthy elements?

[///d]

You can be for or against it all you want. But in the end it's just another electronic thing to go wrong at the most inopportune time and disable a vehicle. Emergency situations, sensor faults, etc.

I hope to god there is something prohibiting the ability to take over vehicle controls while in motion. One sensor goes bad or reads something incorrectly and it mistakenly disables the ignition or applies emergency brake while refusing to release while doing 60mph could end very badly.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by ///d

You can be for or against it all you want. But in the end it's just another electronic thing to go wrong at the most inopportune time and disable a vehicle. Emergency situations, sensor faults, etc.

I hope to god there is something prohibiting the ability to take over vehicle controls while in motion. One sensor goes bad or reads something incorrectly and it mistakenly disables the ignition or applies emergency brake while refusing to release while doing 60mph could end very badly.

https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-...ar-kill-switch

[///d]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-...ar-kill-switch

ahhh yup, thats the article this post is referring to...?

[overcoil]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-...ar-kill-switch

traction control, rev limiters, ABS, supplemental restraint systems, catalytic converters - all sound so nefarious.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by ///d

ahhh yup, thats the article this post is referring to...?

Originally Posted by Caravaggio

traction control, rev limiters, ABS, supplemental restraint systems, catalytic converters - all sound so nefarious.

Let us spell it out for you: by 2026, vehicles sold in the US will be required to automatically and silently record various metrics of driver performance, and then make a decision, absent any human oversight, whether the owner will be allowed to use their own vehicle. Even worse, the measure goes on to require that the system be "open" to remote access by "authorized" third parties at any time.

The passage in the bill was unearthed by former Georgia Representative Bob Barr, writing over at the Daily Caller. Barr notes correctly that this is a privacy disaster in the making. Not only does it make every vehicle a potential tattletale (possibly reporting minor traffic infractions, like slight speeding or forgetting your seat-belt, to authorities or insurance companies), but tracking that data also makes it possible for bad actors to retrieve it.

^

[freakystyly]

Your car already has been sending this info to the manufacturer if you have always on internet (95% of cars post 2020). Or stored locally in cars since like 1994.

Do you remember OnStar? Yeah that's not new.

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by ///d

You can be for or against it all you want. But in the end it's just another electronic thing to go wrong at the most inopportune time and disable a vehicle. Emergency situations, sensor faults, etc.

I hope to god there is something prohibiting the ability to take over vehicle controls while in motion. One sensor goes bad or reads something incorrectly and it mistakenly disables the ignition or applies emergency brake while refusing to release while doing 60mph could end very badly.

I've already had a Toyota Yaris with the collision avoidance braking grind itself to a dead stop in the middle of an intersection. No other cars in the vicinity, but the car decided it needed to stop RIGHT NOW, and did. I'm only glad that there was no one following close behind at the moment.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Murf993

Except there are ignition interlocks now to stop impaired drivers. In Ontario if you get convicted of impaired driving you must install one of these on your car at your expense, it requires that you provide it a breath sample before you can drive the car.

Emphasis mine. But you obviously have enough background to know this. I, for one, have not been convicted of any crime.

Now that the wife is on board with boring the 77 vDub out to 1776, redoing the door panels, and fixing the windings in the sun roof, so we can pass it along to grandkids at some point, I see myself fulfilling "to far outside the wire, where my white-haired uncle waits."

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by dmatre

I've already had a Toyota Yaris with the collision avoidance braking grind itself to a dead stop in the middle of an intersection. No other cars in the vicinity, but the car decided it needed to stop RIGHT NOW, and did. I'm only glad that there was no one following close behind at the moment.

My E46 did similar. ABS problem....

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by dmatre

I've already had a Toyota Yaris with the collision avoidance braking grind itself to a dead stop in the middle of an intersection. No other cars in the vicinity, but the car decided it needed to stop RIGHT NOW, and did. I'm only glad that there was no one following close behind at the moment.

That is scary stuff. I'm all for good safety innovations like blind spot assist if they at most let out visual or audio warnings, but if they wanna yank the wheel to supposedly avoid something, that is just INSANITY. No way in hell I wanna give up control to some potentially glitchy computer.

[NEfan508]

My son is driving now, I love the teck, back up cameras, lane assistant and emergency breaking under 25 mph for him but it's not for me

Can we just have an option to keep it off?!?

Most love all the features but not all

I just do not like tracking, my skin crawls thinking about it


I've had cruise control available to me my whole life, almost standard when I started driving in the 90's

I activated it once, felt strange having the car accelerate with out my input, never did it again

I still need to turn back as I backup, cameras no matter it's a habit

[///d]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

^

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Try using your words.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ///d

You can be for or against it all you want. But in the end it's just another electronic thing to go wrong at the most inopportune time and disable a vehicle. Emergency situations, sensor faults, etc.

I hope to god there is something prohibiting the ability to take over vehicle controls while in motion. One sensor goes bad or reads something incorrectly and it mistakenly disables the ignition or applies emergency brake while refusing to release while doing 60mph could end very badly.

But hey, let's go all EV and Level 5 autonomy by 2030!!!

Lol.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Let's not be dismissive and make this political. The point is they have and will mandate monitoring for new cars under the guise of "drunk driving"
I don't really drink, so I'm not worried about that.

This isn't a "conservative" issue - it's appearing in all the news, including Motortrend.

We already had a half dozen "1984 politicians after muh freedumz" posts, its political in nature.

If the OP didn't want it that way probably should have not gone with a post that doesn't actually cite the source which does a much better job of describing what is in the bill (which as posted will likely come right back out, or just end up being one of those appendix things that nobody knows what to do with it since its functionally non-binding).

There is no "back door," that is a lie. Its basically just asking everyone to put in an impairment system like what is in the mercs and have it be more than a light. Its a bad idea but I see what they are thinking, they want to stop the car from starting for people who are drunk (of which there are a lot more than those with DUIs). Its the result of a misunderstanding of the capabilities of a system and no carmaker is going to want to deal with the eventual warranty claim when your car wont start because it thinks you're high/drunk but you aren't. This is a result of ignorance, not malice.

Of course the response is always "slippery slope," they will do a backdoor next. Which is, and always will be facile argument. Everything can be a slippery slope, eat too much beef and youll end up turning tricks for heroine.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by bayarea328xit

Why don't they provide a citation for the section of the law that describes this particular item?

Someone took the time to read the relevant portion and provide a summary. So, why not provide a citation?

Here is a link to the text of the law: link.

Section 24209 seems to cover driver distraction but not the items described in the OP.

The Motor Trend article is speaking to H.R 3684: Division B, Title 4, Subtitle B, Section 24220 - Advanced Impaired Driving Technology. Posted below are parts of the language in the Bill:

SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

(5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor
vehicles.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology'' means a system that--
(A) can--
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a
motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver
may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an
impairment is detected;
(B) can--
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood
alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is
equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration
described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States
Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a
blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is
detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).

"Prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" pretty much is a "back door" to taking over control of one's vehicle. Motor Trend states:

"General Motors, BMW, and Nissan have already started installing infrared cameras that monitor driver behavior. These cameras track driver attentiveness and use semi-automated driver-assist systems. Making sure drivers keep their eyes on the road, they look for indications of impairment, drowsiness, or loss of consciousness. If any of these behaviors are detected, a warning alerts the driver and only escalates if said behaviors continue. Hazard lights come on, speed decreases, and the vehicle either comes to a halt or pulls over to the side of the road."

So it seems the technology is pretty much already devised and in use. The Bill H.R. 3684 just makes the technology mandatory according to Section 24220 (a)(5). The problem is, is it Constitutional now that the technology is mandated by US Federal law. Now that the Government has mandated it, as the Bill describes, the Government needs to set the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the technology against existing drunk driving statutes. Determination of blood alcohol level of a driver is a LEGAL matter defined by law and must be determined by an Authority of a legal jurisdiction within the USA (e.g. the Police can pull you over, use technology or techniques to determine if you are over the legal limit for BAC and prevent you from driving further - arrst you for committing a crime). So essentially H.R. 3684 allows a non-jurisdictional entity (i.e. an automotive manufacturer) to determine a person's legal state to operate his privately-owned motor vehicle and accuse him of committing a crime. So once the Impaired Driver Tech makes the car pull over, to keep it Constitutional, the vehicle will have to call the "Authorities", to enact an arrest of the driver. That's the "slippery slope".

If one owns one of the vehicles cited by Motor Trend as already having the technology, then that person is voluntarily letting the vehicle determine he is committing a crime. It's an entirely different subject when the vehicle pulls itself over because it is mandated by Federal Law.

What is concerning is this was written (buried) into an infrastructure funding Bill. These Amendments kind of matter.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The Motor Trend article is speaking to H.R 3684: Division B, Title 4, Subtitle B, Section 24220 - Advanced Impaired Driving Technology. Posted below are parts of the language in the Bill:

SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

(5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor
vehicles.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology'' means a system that--
(A) can--
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a
motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver
may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an
impairment is detected;
(B) can--
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood
alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is
equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration
described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States
Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a
blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is
detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).

"Prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" pretty much is a "back door" to taking over control of one's vehicle. Motor Trend states:

"General Motors, BMW, and Nissan have already started installing infrared cameras that monitor driver behavior. These cameras track driver attentiveness and use semi-automated driver-assist systems. Making sure drivers keep their eyes on the road, they look for indications of impairment, drowsiness, or loss of consciousness. If any of these behaviors are detected, a warning alerts the driver and only escalates if said behaviors continue. Hazard lights come on, speed decreases, and the vehicle either comes to a halt or pulls over to the side of the road."

So it seems the technology is pretty much already devised and in use. The Bill H.R. 3684 just makes the technology mandatory according to Section 24220 (a)(5). The problem is, is it Constitutional now that the technology is mandated by US Federal law. Now that the Government has mandated it, as the Bill describes, the Government needs to set the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the technology against existing drunk driving statutes. Determination of blood alcohol levels of a driver are a LEGAL matter defined by law and must be determined by an Authority of a legal jurisdiction within the USA (e.g. the Police can pull you over, use technology or techniques to determine if you are over the legal limit for BAC and prevent you from driving further - arrst you for committing a crime). So essentially H.R. 3684 allows a non-jurisdictional entity (i.e. an automotive manufacturer) to determine a person's legal state to operate his privately-owned motor vehicle and accuse him of committing a crime. So once the Impaired Driver Tech makes the car pull over, to keep it Constitutional, the vehicle will have to call the "Authorities", to enact an arrest of the driver. That's the "slippery slope".

If one owns one of the vehicles cited by Motor Trend as already having the technology, then that person is voluntarily letting the vehicle determine he is committing a crime. It's an entirely different subject when the vehicle pulls itself over because it is mandated by Federal Law.

Don't let facts get in the way of them talking down to everyone else in here.

[///d]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The Motor Trend article is speaking to H.R 3684: Division B, Title 4, Subtitle B, Section 24220 - Advanced Impaired Driving Technology. Posted below are parts of the language in the Bill:

SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

(5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving
fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor
vehicles.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology'' means a system that--
(A) can--
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a
motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver
may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an
impairment is detected;
(B) can--
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood
alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is
equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration
described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States
Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a
blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is
detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).

"Prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" pretty much is a "back door" to taking over control of one's vehicle. Motor Trend states:

"General Motors, BMW, and Nissan have already started installing infrared cameras that monitor driver behavior. These cameras track driver attentiveness and use semi-automated driver-assist systems. Making sure drivers keep their eyes on the road, they look for indications of impairment, drowsiness, or loss of consciousness. If any of these behaviors are detected, a warning alerts the driver and only escalates if said behaviors continue. Hazard lights come on, speed decreases, and the vehicle either comes to a halt or pulls over to the side of the road."

So it seems the technology is pretty much already devised and in use. The Bill H.R. 3684 just makes the technology mandatory according to Section 24220 (a)(5). The problem is, is it Constitutional now that the technology is mandated by US Federal law. Now that the Government has mandated it, as the Bill describes, the Government needs to set the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the technology against existing drunk driving statutes. Determination of blood alcohol level of a driver is a LEGAL matter defined by law and must be determined by an Authority of a legal jurisdiction within the USA (e.g. the Police can pull you over, use technology or techniques to determine if you are over the legal limit for BAC and prevent you from driving further - arrst you for committing a crime). So essentially H.R. 3684 allows a non-jurisdictional entity (i.e. an automotive manufacturer) to determine a person's legal state to operate his privately-owned motor vehicle and accuse him of committing a crime. So once the Impaired Driver Tech makes the car pull over, to keep it Constitutional, the vehicle will have to call the "Authorities", to enact an arrest of the driver. That's the "slippery slope".

If one owns one of the vehicles cited by Motor Trend as already having the technology, then that person is voluntarily letting the vehicle determine he is committing a crime. It's an entirely different subject when the vehicle pulls itself over because it is mandated by Federal Law.

What is concerning is this was written (buried) into an infrastructure funding Bill. These Amendments kind of matter.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

All good points. Between the legalities and the risk of false positives stranding someone, there needs to be more clear and detailed information on how this is going to work.

I can easily see someone driving on slippery roads or in bad storms cause a computer to think they are impaired and limit or immobilize the vehicle. Now you have someone stuck on the side of the road in sub zero temps. Is it going to allow the vehicle to stay running so they can stay warm? Will they be able to contact someone to re-enable the vehicle in the case of a false positive? How DO you get your vehicle re-enabled? Is that going to require the police? A judge order? Is it going to cost money? How many false positives are going to happen to where the police are too busy trying to respond to essentially stranded motorists?

Not to mention the monitoring of everything else that we may not know about. Insurance companies already offer similar systems to monitor safe driving and I refuse to allow one in my vehicle. Will we start seeing tickets in the mail from speeding? Will insurance use this to raise our rates because they don't like how we drive?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting impaired drivers off the road, I just really dislike this idea. I realize some vehicles already do some of this, but I don't have to buy a vehicle that does if I'm not comfortable with it.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by ///d

All good points. Between the legalities and the risk of false positives stranding someone, there needs to be more clear and detailed information on how this is going to work.

I can easily see someone driving on slippery roads or in bad storms cause a computer to think they are impaired and limit or immobilize the vehicle. Now you have someone stuck on the side of the road in sub zero temps. Is it going to allow the vehicle to stay running so they can stay warm? Will they be able to contact someone to re-enable the vehicle in the case of a false positive? How DO you get your vehicle re-enabled? Is that going to require the police? A judge order? Is it going to cost money? How many false positives are going to happen to where the police are too busy trying to respond to essentially stranded motorists?

Not to mention the monitoring of everything else that we may not know about. Insurance companies already offer similar systems to monitor safe driving and I refuse to allow one in my vehicle. Will we start seeing tickets in the mail from speeding? Will insurance use this to raise our rates because they don't like how we drive?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting impaired drivers off the road, I just really dislike this idea. I realize some vehicles already do some of this, but I don't have to buy a vehicle that does if I'm not comfortable with it.

All great questions that should never have to be asked; that's the point of my diatribe.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving was initiated in 1980. 41 years later we have legislation hidden in a multi-trillion funding Bill for infrastructure where politicians propose technology injection into our privately-owned automobiles that will allow the vehicle to slow down and stop if it believes the driver is impaired.

All of us are for reducing impaired driving. But holy shit, is that not a slippery slope?

[NorCalAthlete]

Also of concern - data leaks / hacks.

There will absolutely sooner or later be hacks of vehicles en masse.

Think of the various ways your car's data can be used against you.

- Are you a woman? Got a stalker?
- GPS locates you at the gun range + home a lot? Likely target for burglary to steal your guns.
- Unlisted address for privacy's sake? Well, not anymore...unless you park your vehicle in a separate location from your house.
- Got a work trip for a secret project you're under NDA for? GPS data cross referenced with owners' linkedin profiles could blow the lid off it (ie, why are XYZ persons from ABC company frequently traveling to this one location where DEF company is located...could they be collaborating on something?) Depending on the industry / project, now your car is also a target for being broken into for a laptop, briefcase, etc related.
- Could cross reference vehicles to discover relationships, friendships, build out your entire personal network. Hope nobody here is cheating with or on anyone else, but also can you say "even more annoying targeted ads that know way too much about who I hang out with and what I do"? Imagine hearing an ad on the radio for Safeway every time you drive past a Safeway...

Then there's "what constitutes impairment"? A lot of people are just shitty drivers, jerky on the throttle / brakes, etc. The car deciding they're impaired and stopping them in the middle of say, an offramp, is not going to help the situation - and they're likely a poor enough driver to not know what to do at that point either.

In the bay area, everyone does 75-85 mph - even when it's a construction zone with a speed limit of 55. I'd rather not have my car decide I'm driving recklessly and hit the brakes for me in front of a FedEx truck doing 80.

As for the people poo-pooing this and waving it away as an overreaction that will never make it into law - look what happened with microstamping and how that's playing out.

Zero trust isn't just for infosec...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

Also of concern - data leaks / hacks.

There will absolutely sooner or later be hacks of vehicles en masse.

Think of the various ways your car's data can be used against you.

- Are you a woman? Got a stalker?
- GPS locates you at the gun range + home a lot? Likely target for burglary to steal your guns.
- Unlisted address for privacy's sake? Well, not anymore...unless you park your vehicle in a separate location from your house.
- Got a work trip for a secret project you're under NDA for? GPS data cross referenced with owners' linkedin profiles could blow the lid off it (ie, why are XYZ persons from ABC company frequently traveling to this one location where DEF company is located...could they be collaborating on something?) Depending on the industry / project, now your car is also a target for being broken into for a laptop, briefcase, etc related.
- Could cross reference vehicles to discover relationships, friendships, build out your entire personal network. Hope nobody here is cheating with or on anyone else, but also can you say "even more annoying targeted ads that know way too much about who I hang out with and what I do"? Imagine hearing an ad on the radio for Safeway every time you drive past a Safeway...

Then there's "what constitutes impairment"? A lot of people are just shitty drivers, jerky on the throttle / brakes, etc. The car deciding they're impaired and stopping them in the middle of say, an offramp, is not going to help the situation - and they're likely a poor enough driver to not know what to do at that point either.

In the bay area, everyone does 75-85 mph - even when it's a construction zone with a speed limit of 55. I'd rather not have my car decide I'm driving recklessly and hit the brakes for me in front of a FedEx truck doing 80.

As for the people poo-pooing this and waving it away as an overreaction that will never make it into law - look what happened with microstamping and how that's playing out.

Zero trust isn't just for infosec...

Hopefully someone in the DOT understands... encryption... and lets the Secretary know about it.