Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Transportation

Infrastructure Bill's Drunk Driving Tech Mandate Leaves Some Privacy Advocates Nervous (gizmodo.com) 138

Posted by BeauHD from the pros-and-cons dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The recently passed $1 trillion infrastructure package is jam-packed with initiatives but sprinkled in there alongside $17 billion in funding for road safety programs is a mandate requiring carmakers to implement monitoring systems to identify and stop drunk drivers. The mandate, first noted by the Associated Press could apply to new vehicles sold as early as 2026. Courts have ordered some drunk drivers to use breathalyzers attached to ignition interlocks to start their vehicles for years, but the technology noted in this bill would take that concept much further and would need to be capable of "passively monitor[ing] the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired."

Though the Department of Transportation has yet to put its foot down on the exact type of technology it will use for this program, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and 17 automakers have been working on something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) since 2008. DADSS is exploring both a breath and touch-based system to detect whether or not a driver has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08%. The breath-based system aims to measure alcohol readings based on a driver's breath with the goal of distinguishing between the driver and passengers. The touch-based system meanwhile would shine an infrared light through a driver's fingertip to measure blood alcohol levels under the skin's surface. [...]

The new mandate struck a positive note with some car safety groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving which has advocated for more detection tech in the past. "It's monumental," Alex Otte, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving told the AP. Otte went on to describe the package as the "single most important legislation" in the group's history. At the same time though, the mandate has drawn concerns from safety experts and digital rights groups that warn driver monitoring technology could have knock-on privacy implications. In a letter sent last year by the American Highway Users Alliance, the organization urged support of the NHTSA's DADSS Research Program but expressed concerns that the technology could potentially infringe on driver's civil liberties. "The group also expressed concerns over how the collection and storage of driver data would work and who would have the rights to that data," adds Gizmodo. Others have also expressed concerns over the accuracy of driving monitoring technology and potential risks of bias.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Infrastructure Bill's Drunk Driving Tech Mandate Leaves Some Privacy Advocates Nervous More

Infrastructure Bill's Drunk Driving Tech Mandate Leaves Some Privacy Advocates Nervous

Comments Filter:

  • Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Too bad nobody brings this shit up before it passes. This is why people hate democrats. Who can blame them?

    • Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:4, Informative)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @04:58PM (#61976491) Homepage Journal

      Too bad nobody brings this shit up before it passes. This is why people hate democrats. Who can blame them?

      Both sides do this crap constantly. IMO, short of a constitutional amendment that outlaws amendments that are unrelated to the primary subject of the bill, things will never improve. As long as special interests are allowed to tack their unpopular ideas onto popular laws, they will do so at every possible opportunity.

      • Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @05:11PM (#61976527)

        ... a constitutional amendment that outlaws amendments that are unrelated to the primary subject of the bill, ...

        I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically. This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few -- depending on how obstructionist the sides are being. I mean, *perhaps* it could work, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

        • Thatâ(TM)s a good thing, you donâ(TM)t want the government to pass bills.

        • While that does kinda suck, that might help there be more analysis on what's actually in a bill.

        • This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few

          Okay, I'll bite. How exactly would this be a bad thing?

        • Imagine a congress that could pass a few bills a day instead of arguing the intricacies of all the different layers of pork.

          • You have a good imagination ... :-)

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by omnichad ( 1198475 )

              In my imagination, ranked choice voting weeds out the most useless incumbents.

              • In my imagination, ranked choice voting weeds out the most useless incumbents.

                Agreed. I was just thinking about that when I voted (early) in the VA election -- although VA governors are term limited to one at a time.

        • You are probably the only country - and definitely the only one I'm aware off - where such a bullshit voting system is active.

          • You are probably the only country - and definitely the only one I'm aware off - where such a bullshit voting system is active.

            Ya, but Mitch McConnell really, really likes it. :-)

        • All you really need to fix most of it is a line item veto amendment. Allow a 50%+1 vote to override the line item veto to prevent the president from getting too much power.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jezral ( 449476 )

          ... a constitutional amendment that outlaws amendments that are unrelated to the primary subject of the bill, ...

          I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically.

          That's how it works in the rest of the world [wikipedia.org], and it works quite well. It's also how it works in 41 US states [wikipedia.org], so the idea is not that alien to Americans.

          • That's how it works in the rest of the world [wikipedia.org], and it works quite well. It's also how it works in 41 US states [wikipedia.org], so the idea is not that alien to Americans.

            Two words: Mitch McConnell :-)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              That's how it works in the rest of the world [wikipedia.org], and it works quite well. It's also how it works in 41 US states [wikipedia.org], so the idea is not that alien to Americans.

              Two words: Mitch McConnell :-)

              You're saying Mitch McConnell is an alien? That explains a lot. :-D

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The real fix here is to do away with the system that creates extremely bipartisan politics and replace it with one that creates a representative democracy. Then you don't have two big parties dominating everything, and most bills are passed by consensus and tend to be moderate, and crucially without endless unrelated amendments.

        • I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically. This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few.

          The reason both parties have a hard time passing larger bills is because they are sprinkled with contentious, no-go items. These are everything-and-the-kitchen sink bills (aka "omnibus bills").

          Politics are always local (and far too often, based on identity.) So if you are a congressperson facing a large omnibus bill that you mostly agree, but that has a clause or item that is political suicide for you or that fundamentally runs counter to your base or party platform, then you are obligated to vote against

          • This was exemplified by McDonnell when he said his objective was to make the 44th a one-term president (via obstructionism.)

            Good example, Mitch McConnell is actually more interested in the Democrats losing than in America benefiting from anything they may be offering, so the Republicans can win and be in control -- most often to the benefit of rich, old, white men (said as an old(er), fairly well-off white guy, who votes Democrat) and large corporations. I know, sounds partisan, but with Mitch it's true -- and some others, on both sides, but I think more in the R camp.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shess ( 31691 )

          ... a constitutional amendment that outlaws amendments that are unrelated to the primary subject of the bill, ...

          I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically. This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few -- depending on how obstructionist the sides are being. I mean, *perhaps* it could work, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

          Imagine if your family argued for 9 months and then on some random day in December agreed on a single framework which would control ALL of you purchases and travel and schedule for the next year. I think that would be a LOT better than this crap like asking "What do you want for supper tonight?" or "Do you want to go for a bike ride tomorrow?"

          • Imagine if your family argued for 9 months and then on some random day in December agreed on a single framework which would control ALL of you purchases and travel and schedule for the next year. I think that would be a LOT better than this crap like asking "What do you want for supper tonight?" or "Do you want to go for a bike ride tomorrow?"

            No... I get how it would work for us regular folk, just not how it could work with Congress. I mean, Mitch would get exhausted obstructing 100 bills rather than 5. :-)

      • Couldn't agree more, I imagine our democracy looks and operates A LOT like that cancelled house of cards series. Politicians are "scratching each others backs" and quid pro quo is running wild in exchange for supporting each others personal agenda's. I've thought about this several times in the shower, the pros and cons of the rider bills and how a new system could reduce the number of bullshit mandates that are not a part of the original bill and haven't come up with a good way yet besides something forcin

      • Both sides pass invasive legislation. I hate 90% of politicians and cops. It's honestly a shame that more politicians haven't caught COVID and ended up like Luke Letlow.
      • Part of it also is that it has become essentially impossible to pass anything that isn't an omnibus reconciliation bill, so everything goes in.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Few really can understand risk, which is why these lame laws get passed. MADD is a classic example. These mothers buy th kid a new car so they can brag to their friends, and then blame a drunk driver when the inexperienced kid does not drive defensively and offs themselves. Most accidents can be avoided with a competent driver. The stats support this. Traffic fatalities are divided into almost equal parts. About a third are drivers in their first 10 years. About a third are drivers in the next 30 or 40 yea

      • Some kid is going to have some vodka. The car will not start. The kid will get raped or murdered.
        If that happens regularly your problems are not drunk driving ...

        I mean if only 1% of the horror stories you hear about the US are true: how can you live there?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fermion ( 181285 )
          That is the point about risk. In the US there is 1 death per 100 million miles driven. There are a pit 10 deaths per hundred thousand people. These are very small risks. You are twice as likely to be murdered than die in an auto accident, but 4 times as likely to be raped.
      • MADD = brood cows against anything fun. Those are the same cows responsible for the heinous "age 21 to drink" law in the US, when most civilized countries have the age at anywhere from 16 to 19.

    • Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @08:24PM (#61977015)

      This is why people hate

      Because of news stories that are false, and are nominally reporting about a "passive" monitoring requirement but then switch in midstream and talk about various types of active monitoring technology that is being researched, in order to confuse and anger you?

      Gee. You hate because you're stupid. Why am I not surprised?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      Democrats (lawful good) push "this is a good idea for everyone" stuff, and get shot down by people who think only of themselves (lawful evil.) Why do people think infringement of their right to be an awful person means that they will suddenly be thrown into the soylent green mill?

      If vehicles were required to detect NO Alcohol in the car before starting it, that would remove the most common reason why people die in car accidents. If your designated driver wants to drive you home, they get in the car first an

      • I'm more like (chaotic good) and I disapprove of this legislation.

        Also, how will this work with hand sanitizer, which has been normalized since COVID? If it's an attention monitoring system, will it work with neurodivergent people?

    • This is why people hate democrats.

      The only people who hate democrats because of this are partisan shills stupidly oblivious to the fact that this practice is a normal part of USA politics engaged in by both sides in practically equal measure.

      But you knew this, if you actually believed your bullshit you'd not be posting AC.

  • As someone who doesn’t drink (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @05:01PM (#61976503) Homepage

    I don’t want this horse shit in my vehicle. It’s just another failure point to cause grief when it inevitably starts malfunctioning, and this fascist nanny state stuff really rubs me the wrong way. Furthermore, they won’t be content with just monitoring for BAC. Mark my words, it won’t be long before some government weasels determine that having a coffee while driving is too much of a distraction, and we can’t have that either.

    It’s a good thing I’ve gotten quite accustomed to doing my own car repairs, because it looks like I’m going to be keeping my old dino juice guzzlers for a long time.

    • I don't drink either. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @05:36PM (#61976585) Homepage
      Instead of fixing the underlying problem they want to saddle all of us with some chastity belt type system AND make us pay for it.

      It looks like the EVs and hybrids between now and 2025 will become highly desirable in 2026

      • Instead of fixing the underlying problem they want to saddle all of us with some chastity belt type system AND make us pay for it.

        Maybe you'll get upset about it to not tolerate the underlying problem which led to this kind of law being adopted. The overwhelming majority of people who drive drunk do so while someone sober knows about it and didn't stop them.

      • What if the underlying problem this is meant to solve are anemic auto industry profits and some minor victories by the right to repair movement.

    • They already have that covered, "Driving without due care and attention".

      Cops can ticket you for anything that they feel is distracting you from driving.

    • I've used alcohol products in my car during covid: Hand sanitizer, which evaporates from multiple people's hands into the air in the vehicle shortly after getting in, and isopropyl spray for sanitizing my phone/purchases. Once or twice it's leaked out the bottle.

      Would I be unable to use my car, despite being completely sober, because of this?

      Sounds sketchy.

    • having a coffee while driving is too much of a distraction, and we canâ(TM)t have that either.
      It actually is. Why you think otherwise is beyond me. It is a hot drink, right? You take more care about not spilling it than about other things.

      But I find it low culture anyway if one thinks he has to have a coffee in his car, instead of sitting at a nice place and relaxing.

      • But I find it low culture anyway if one thinks he has to have a coffee in his car, instead of sitting at a nice place and relaxing.

        Have you ever had to drive 800 miles overnight to reach the bedside of a dying relative? You should try it sometime.

        • Have you ever had to drive 800 miles overnight to reach the bedside of a dying relative? You should try it sometime.
          And why would I do that?
          So that he is scared I die on the way before he is dead? Or that he hurries to die before me so one calls me and stops me?

          You do not need to drink the coffee in a car to "hurry" to a dying relative. You get an espresso and go on. Simple.

          Super tasteless example by the way.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This has been the reaction to most safety system mandates in the past. Forcing people to wear seatbelts was an affront to their freedom to die head first through their windshield, ABS was going to kill everyone because it would inevitably fail to work properly, crumple zones were just a scam to increase repair bills etc. etc.

      Soon cars will be required to have front radar for collision avoidance, and people will complain that those will fail and be expensive to repair too.

      What you really need are strong cons

      • Last time I checked, not wearing a seatbelt didn't cause your car to fail to even start based on weird detection systems that sound like they'll have plenty of false positives. If an airbag is non functional it just shows an indicator and won't pass inspection. ABS can still be turned off.

        The average age of a car on the road in the USA is 12 years old. Do you actually think that they will be required to repair this mess of weird sensors for that long? And realistically it should be even longer since that is

  • man lives in a society where citizens police each other with their mobile phones. | Utopia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • back door way to kill 3rd party service and repair.
    some car manufacturers can pull an apple and disable that system if ANY non dealer service is done (EVEN TIRES / OIL / LIGHTS)

  • force the state to pay all monitoring fees roaming as well

  • Politicians not understanding science again (Score:5, Informative)

    by heck ( 609097 ) <deadaccount@nobodyhere.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @05:15PM (#61976545)

    As a diabetic, the existing technology has a known issue where ketosis can result in a false positive on the breathalyzer (one source: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/d... [shouselaw.com]) On the flip side, the opposite state of hypoglycemia can result in behavior that appears you are intoxicated. Argument can be made that if you are in either state you might not be in a state to be able to drive...but its not that black and white.

    So we're now dealing with someone on the edge of a medical emergency who may need to just get to food (if hypoglycemic) or home to meds if not to actual medical care (and is actually safe to drive) potentially being locked out of driving. Hopefully by then we have self driving cars?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Actually the proposed technology isn't a breathalyzer, because we already have that and that's reserved for those who are guilty of DUI.

      The system instead will use existing driver monitoring cameras (yes, most new cars have a camera watching you drive) and detect if you show the signs of being under the influence

      That's why there's a privacy thing going on - because we don't know if the car is storing those photos it takes of you or anything else. A breathalyzer is far more discreet in that you can always cl

      • Did you not even read the summary? The top two contenders to satisfy this are both detecting the chemical, not behavior. One somehow claims to distinguish between driver and passenger breath without anyone blowing into something, the other detects it by light on contact (god only knows how prone to false positives that will be).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          There have been instances of pilots failing a breath test due to medication they were on that was safe to fly with.

          The breath testing equipment that cops use isn't even very accurate. In the UK if the machine says you are over the limit they will ask to take a blood sample for lab testing (refusing is itself a criminal offense, hope you don't have a needle phobia).

    • It sounds like the summary succeeded at confusing you by placing their discussion of available active monitoring next to news about a requirement for passive monitoring of driving behavior.

      If your reaction time drops to similar to that of a drunk, you're probably having a medical emergency and should call 911.

    • [example of diabetic being locked out of driving to get to needed food]

      There are plenty of other medical scenarios where such systems could end up killing by denial of service. Many other medical conditions requiring immediate treatment may result in erratic driving. Someone hurrying to get a passenger with injuries or a medial emergency to a hospital, through traffic, may also be driving "erratically". How about someone in a remote region, out of cell coverage and water and getting dehydrated? (I could

  • This is not to prevent drunk driving, it is for tracking and insurance purposes. The only solution is self driving cars. Or active accident avoidance where the car stops drivers from running red lights, haphazard lane changes, or hitting pedestrians

  • medical privacy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by colonslash ( 544210 )
    Where were these privacy advocates when it came to the covid shots?

  • Gotta love politicians passing laws that mandate technology that doesn't even exist yet.

  • DADSS? (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    I'll have to see what position DAMM takes on this (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).

  • A friend of mine got convicted of drunk driving and wound up with one of those devices installed in her car for a year. They don't work. False positives are frequent. Pepperoni, mouthwash and lots of other things will trigger one. Also, at random times it would demand an immediate sample while the driver was actually operating the vehicle (having just passed the initial sample). If a sample isn't provided in what the device deems to be a timely manner, it will simply turn off the car. This happened to

  • Look up what the most fatalities are centered around: distracted driving. Well, we can't go after that . . . right?

    Politicians like someone to blame that everyone can get on board with. They like easy to say fixes. This is why we seem to botch everything up.

    Think about it: drowsy driving is as impairing as drunk driving. If you were to address both problems, we may end up with less of a Rube Goldberg contraption and something that would make sense.

    But . . . getting people to change their already-m

    • Alcohol fatalities are more common than drowsy driving fatalities by an order of magnitude.

      • Alcohol fatalities are more common than drowsy driving fatalities by an order of magnitude.

        Again, neither are close to distracted driving fatalities, but thanks for clarifying . . .

  • Interesting that a country can not get drunk driving under control.

    Some countries in Europe have a zero alcohol policy, e.g. France.

    In Germany the limit is something like 0.05% - you are automatically partially guilty if you are involved in an accident and have more than 0.03% alcohol level.

    While accidents with alcohol involved still happen, they are basically not a thing here. Punishment if you get caught drunk driving is draconic.

    • It's a complex problem here.

      In some rural areas, its downplayed because of geography. If you run off the road in a good chunk of North Dakota, you just get stuck in some farm field or the ditch because its so flat an open. This is a garbage excuse, but I've heard lots of people say it up there and it has the veneer of believability to it.

      There's probably more drunk driving going on because of where people live relative to where they drink and the need to drive to get there. Public transit is marginal at

  • You'd been drinking and were trying to get away from someone who became violent and the car wouldn't start?

    • > You'd been drinking and were trying to get away from someone who became violent and the car wouldn't start?

      Run Forrest, run!

  • I always told William to go easy on the booze.

  • I wonder how these detection systems will react to hand sanitize?

  • Also, this will increase the cost and therefore price of every car by hundreds of dollars. Way to go, Joe.

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close