Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

BBB - Mandatory Kill Switch

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BBB - Mandatory Kill Switch

    BARR: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Contains Backdoor ‘Kill Switch’ For Cars

    Buried deep within the massive infrastructure legislation recently signed by President Joe Biden is a little-noticed “safety” measure that will take effect in five years. Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a “vehicle kill switch.”

    As has become standard for legislative mandates passed by Congress, this measure is disturbingly short on details. What we do know is that the “safety” device must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”

    Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares.

    First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time.

    This is a privacy disaster in the making, and the fact that the provision made it through the Congress reveals — yet again — how little its members care about the privacy of their constituents.

    The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues; issues that should have been obvious to Members of Congress before they voted on the measure.

    For example, what if a driver is not drunk, but sleepy, and the car forces itself to the side of the road before the driver can find a safe place to pull over and rest? Considering that there are no realistic mechanisms to immediately challenge or stop the car from being disabled, drivers will be forced into dangerous situations without their consent or control.

    The choice as to whether a vehicle can or cannot be driven — for vehicles built after 2026 — will rest in the hands of an algorithm over which the car’s owner or driver have neither knowledge nor control.

    If that is not reason enough for concern, there are serious legal issues with this mandate. Other vehicle-related enforcement methods used by the Nanny State, such as traffic cameras and license plate readers, have long presented constitutional problems; notably with the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser.

    The same constitutional issues abound with this new technology, but with the added confusion surrounding what Congress even means by “impaired driving.” Does it mean legally drunk, or perhaps under the limit but still “impaired” to a degree? Would police be summoned automatically by the system in order to make that determination? These are questions that should have been addressed openly and thoroughly during the legislative process, not left to later, back-room negotiations between interested parties other than individual car buyers – manufacturers, regulators, insurance companies and law enforcement.

    Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, there also is no detail in the legislation about who would have access to the data collected and stored by the system. Could it be used by police, and could they access this information without a warrant? What about insurance companies, eager to know with what frequency their customers drove after drinking alcohol, even if it was below the legal limit? Such a trove of data presents a lucrative prize to all manner of public and private entities (including hackers), none of which have our best interests at heart.

    Adding what amounts to a mandatory, backdoor government “kill switch” to cars is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but an affront to what is — or used to be — an essential element of our national character. Unless this regulatory mandate is not quickly removed or defanged by way of an appropriations rider preventing its implementation, the freedom of the open road that individual car ownership brought to the American Dream, will be but another vague memory of an era no longer to be enjoyed by future generations.

    https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/29/b...itch-for-cars/




  • #2
    Seeing as the sale of motor vehicles crossed state lines, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States under Article I Section 8 (an issue I had with Biden's executive order on vaccine injections). However, motor vehicle inspection falls under the individual states. If a state does not enforce inspection of these devices, feel free to have your local mechanic remove it or disconnect it.

    Another issue: Driving a vehicle on a public street or highway is NOT a constitutional right. It is a privilege granted by the individual states to those who are licensed and meet such criteria as liability insurance and sobriety.

    As far as cameras and license plate readers, I have no issue with that. As long as a camera can take a clear picture of your license plate. One day several years ago I bought a new car, removed the plates from my old car, but put the plates in the trunk of my new car, never getting around to turning them in to DOT. Both cars had EZ-Pass readers on them. Apparently somebody with a similar license plate ran through the toll booth without paying and got photographed. The summons was mailed to me. Fortunately I was able to give them (1) a photo of my old car with the old license plate clearly readable, (2) my new car with its license plate clearly readable, (3) a photograph of the old plates sitting in the trunk of my car, and (4) documentation that I also had an active EZ-Pass for both vehicles. Never heard from them again. But as long as a camera can take clear pictures, I have no problem. I do think that the police should be more active in pulling over those cars with tinted shields over their plates.

    You have no issue with the camera. Your accuser is the person looking at the photograph taken in public and in turn sending you a summons or a ticket. If it's privacy you want, then start walking.
    When I Survey....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Faber View Post
      Seeing as the sale of motor vehicles crossed state lines, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States under Article I Section 8 (an issue I had with Biden's executive order on vaccine injections). However, motor vehicle inspection falls under the individual states. If a state does not enforce inspection of these devices, feel free to have your local mechanic remove it or disconnect it.

      Another issue: Driving a vehicle on a public street or highway is NOT a constitutional right. It is a privilege granted by the individual states to those who are licensed and meet such criteria as liability insurance and sobriety.

      As far as cameras and license plate readers, I have no issue with that. As long as a camera can take a clear picture of your license plate. One day several years ago I bought a new car, removed the plates from my old car, but put the plates in the trunk of my new car, never getting around to turning them in to DOT. Both cars had EZ-Pass readers on them. Apparently somebody with a similar license plate ran through the toll booth without paying and got photographed. The summons was mailed to me. Fortunately I was able to give them (1) a photo of my old car with the old license plate clearly readable, (2) my new car with its license plate clearly readable, (3) a photograph of the old plates sitting in the trunk of my car, and (4) documentation that I also had an active EZ-Pass for both vehicles. Never heard from them again. But as long as a camera can take clear pictures, I have no problem. I do think that the police should be more active in pulling over those cars with tinted shields over their plates.

      You have no issue with the camera. Your accuser is the person looking at the photograph taken in public and in turn sending you a summons or a ticket. If it's privacy you want, then start walking.
      It won't be a discrete device. It will be built into the software of the car's computer, just like everything else is. And the car will determine if you are allowed to drive or not. Maybe by observing your driving, or sniffing alcohol on your breath, or whatever. But what happens when a hacker holds your car ransom? Or decides to turn off your car on the highway? Or heck, your car decides you aren't driving safe and turns itself off on the highway, or in a bad part of town? This is a bad idea. I am all for safe driving, but this is not that. It causes more potential problems than it solves.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post

        It won't be a discrete device. It will be built into the software of the car's computer, just like everything else is. And the car will determine if you are allowed to drive or not. Maybe by observing your driving, or sniffing alcohol on your breath, or whatever. But what happens when a hacker holds your car ransom? Or decides to turn off your car on the highway? Or heck, your car decides you aren't driving safe and turns itself off on the highway, or in a bad part of town? This is a bad idea. I am all for safe driving, but this is not that. It causes more potential problems than it solves.
        This is something that has been proposed long ago, and all kinds of good reasons keep it from being implemented. One example that I remember from Popular Mechanics was that a hacker could use it to stop the vehicle of a lone female driver in a remote area...

        I think it would be far too difficult to control WHO gets to 'stop' the vehicle, and under what circumstances. It would be GREAT in a police chase to be able to disable the vehicle before it crashes through other vehicles or kills pedestrians, etc, but, again, I just don't see how you can limit the technology to rightful uses.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #5
          So the car decides that the driver is not in proper control and stops? On top of a railway track perhaps? Or in the middle of an intersection? Doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
          1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            So the car decides that the driver is not in proper control and stops? On top of a railway track perhaps? Or in the middle of an intersection? Doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
            It's a grand case of "what could POSSIBLY go wrong".
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

              This is something that has been proposed long ago, and all kinds of good reasons keep it from being implemented. One example that I remember from Popular Mechanics was that a hacker could use it to stop the vehicle of a lone female driver in a remote area...

              I think it would be far too difficult to control WHO gets to 'stop' the vehicle, and under what circumstances. It would be GREAT in a police chase to be able to disable the vehicle before it crashes through other vehicles or kills pedestrians, etc, but, again, I just don't see how you can limit the technology to rightful uses.
              Yeah and it makes cars overly complicated. In order to remotely stop a car, that means the car has to have wifi built in and enabled. And it means that police or others would have access to that wifi device. And the car would need AI in order to determine if someone was fit to drive, etc.

              I know that cars can be fitted with a breathalyzer ignition interlock mandated by the court if they were convicted of DUI. Then they have to blow into it to enable the car. But installing something like that on every car would be overkill. Basically treating everyone as guilty before being convicted.

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:17 AM
              1 response
              30 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Mountain Man  
              Started by Bill the Cat, 01-21-2022, 02:21 PM
              5 responses
              52 views
              3 likes
              Last Post Cow Poke  
              Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 01:20 PM
              12 responses
              75 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Cow Poke  
              Started by rogue06, 01-20-2022, 09:16 AM
              34 responses
              210 views
              0 likes
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 09:15 AM
              3 responses
              39 views
              1 like
              Last Post Sparko
              by Sparko
               
              Working...
              X