Slashdot Mirror
Remote Breathalyzer
Foredecker writes: "I couldn't believe my eyes when I read an EE
Times article about
about remote breathalyzer technology
developed by TCU. This device is apparently intended for installation in new cars. In essence, it is a sensor in your car which would signal any nearby police if you had been drinking."
More like it signals police if ANYONE in your car has been drinking.
What a really good idea.
Gee, it seems very easy to defeat... let alone what if you have 3 very drunk friends in a closed window car?
As for those who would claim invasion or violation of Constitutional rights, uh, driving is a privledge, not a right. They can set arbitrary requirements up until the public throws them out.
Now, forcing this on people with at least one dui conviction would not be out of the question would it? Still the ease in fooling it kind of defeats the purpose.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The issue isn't whether driving is a privelege, rather whether the proactive search is legal. The 4th Amendment states "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."
This ain't "probable cause," it's an invasion of one's person, and precisely the sort of thing the 4th Amendment is supposed to prohibit.
See me weaving, driving too slowly, chugging a beer behind the wheel, mowing over little old ladies with walkers, or rolling down the window so the drunk sixteen-year-old girl in the passenger seat can toss her cookies: That's probable cause. Driving through town with invisible vapors in my car is not.
Wouldn't it make just a little more *sense* for the sensor to disable the ignition or something?
Not really. I don't particular like this either, but disabling the ignition would make such things as designated drivers impossible as it would disable the ignition if SOMEONE ELSE in the car had been drinking as well.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
Seems like no better a time to repeat:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
- Ben Franklin
How is getting pulled over for something that's not your fault "not so bad"? I personally like to avoid the police as much as I can. Not because I've done anything wrong, but because there are some nasty cops out there who jump to conclusions way too quickly. All it takes is one power hungry-ego tripping cop to make for an extremely unpleasant experience. I understand that most police officers are there to help and are willing to give full assesment to a situation before proceeding, but I've been harassed for things that seemed illegal, but were perfectly legal. For instance- my sister was walking home from school one day and saw some traffic signals and street signs laying in a pile at a construction site. She asked the construction workers what they were going to do with the materials, and they said they were going to throw them away. She grabbed something and brought it back with her, but saw something else that was too big for her to carry at the time. Later, I took her by the site to get the sign, someone called the police on me, and next thing I know I have an officer at my door harassing me. Everything was legal, we got the sign in the middle of the day, etc. But this cop that showed up on my door didn't even ask for an explination. The first words out of his mouth were "Do you want to give those signs back?" I explained the situation very calmly several times to him, each time being accused of being a liar and a theif. Eventually he said "I'll investigate this" and I never heard from him again. The last thing I want is to be accused of drinking because I did a favor to a friend (and the rest of society) by driving someone who's drunk home.
I would like a sensor at the local police station in my neighborhood that alerts citizens when the cops are anally raping black men with a toilet plunger. Then, maybe, I would be interested in installing this sensor in my car.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The real problem is more fundamental. People are slowly being desensitized to loosing their privacy. First we get sensors in our cars to detect if we've been drinking. Then they add sensors to alert cops if we're speeding. Next, cops will get alerted if we don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. No problem right? I mean, these aren't too serious. No one should speed, and we should always come to complete stops because otherwise these could jeopardize lives on the road. Next they'll put cameras in our cars so we have a photo identity of the person responsible for breaking the above laws. Well that's certainly bothersome, but don't worry about it, the government will tell us, we already know when you're drinking, speeding, and rolling stops. Then the government sets up devices to monitor our phone and email conversations. (Well, we already know they're monitoring email at least.) No problem, you don't have anything to worry about unless you're breaking the law. They're also going to put cameras on the streets pointing at every house. This is for your own protection so that they can catch burglars better. Why stop there? Let's put cameras inside the home too.
Yes, this is an unrealistic slippery slope. It's extreme, but you see my point. At what point do we draw the line? Putting cameras in our house is obviously invading our privacy. Putting alcohol sensors in our cars isn't? Who decides what violates privacy and what doesn't? I say stop them before they start.
Jason.
You're right, to a certain extent. But you're completely bypassing the outcome of each scenario.
Outcome 1... you go out drinking, decide for yourself that you're ok to drive, and you end up killing a family in the process. Then, if you lived through the wreck, you're in prison for manslaughter.
Ya, responsible adult. Responsible enough to kill someone. Nice.
Outcome 2... you go out drinking, decide for yourself that you're ok to drive, and you get pulled over because of the gadget in your car. Well, guess what? You were doing something illegal anyway, you deserve the consequences.
Outcome 3... you go out with friends, but you're the designated driver. Their breath causes you to get pulled over. "Ok sir, that's a fine thing you're doing. Get you friends home, and have a safe night." Not too bad, if you ask me.
You can whine about your freedoms all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this thing could save lives. It doesn't mean that people can read your mind, it doesn't mean that we'll have cameras watching our every move, it's simply a protection.
I'm stunned. Not that the device existed, but by what they want to do with it. I assumed that the posts here would be the usual ignorant overreaction to taking a line out of context, but it's not.
This is the most serious threat to American liberty since the proposed flag burning amendment [I support burning flag burners, but an amendment to ban that hateful activity will do more damage to the flag than all the cretins that ever burned it. That flag represents the very liberty that allows them to burn it, and burning it acknowleges that . . . but I digress.]
I loathe drunk drivers. After a first offense, when the license is eventually restored, the drunk should be required to have a reflective Scarlet D on all sides of the vehicle and a distinctive tint to his headlights to warn us he's coming. On a second conviction, license revocation should be permanent with no future license for anything heavier than a moped. [I *grudgingly* acknowledge that a first offense might conceivably happen to someone from not understanding the levels involved. Grudgingly. Once a person has been through that, though . .
Is it clear enough yet that I want everly last drunk caught and executed?
That said, this devise is an intrusion at the level that should have common citizens ready to take up arms against the government. This *is* an intrusive search. This is *more* than a little step down the slippery slope to the surveillance of 1984.
There is a clear role for such technology. When I first started practicing in '89, one of the lawyers from my suite came back confused as to what the judge hade ordered on a drunk. He had gone in expecting a prison term, but the judge ordered "interlock," which he'd never heard before. It was a breathalyzer attached to the ignition system, a damned good idea (add it to my D above
Something sampling the air neer the steering wheel would be harder to defeat (though how many people will breath in the tube for their driver???). As a consequence of conviction, such a device is reasonable. But this device is fundamentally flawed in concept.
Send a little signal to the police? How about *calling* them??? For that matter, the car shouldn't even *start*, or should shut off (after a warning period to pull over). This device is *insane*.
hawk, esq.
Probably the same way they always do things: automakers would be "encouraged" to include them in all new cars. Inclusion would not be mandatory, but probably in the same way that compliance with the mafia is not mandatory. The government could simply say "we think this is a good idea," and mutter things under their breath to the effect of "...and you'll get a looser tax audit if you comply." Same way they got the "black box" into airbags (you do know that if your airbag goes off, a vehicle data recorder notes your speed, whether or not your seatbelt was on, magnitude of acceleration (g-forces), etc.). Once the manufacturers include the devices, including the radio transmitters, the police wouldn't need a warrant--they would need only to listen to off-the-air broadcasts, which is perfectly legal.
Getting these things into cars and into use wouldn't really be that difficult, and the people could probably be convinced to accept them: "The Chevy Boozer: the first car that will warn you if the kid driving next to you is drunk." Include an interlock device, you get "The Ford Fuzzy Navel: parents, don't you want to keep your kids from driving drunk?" With the proper marketing, the American sheeple will assent to anything. You'd be a "bad parent" if you didn't use the technology.
The big problem is that sooner, rather than later, somebody (somebody like me, for instance) will find a way to toy with the unit...take a paper towel soaked in pure ethanol and wrap it around the sensor to indicate a 50% blood alcohol level, particularly to somebody else's car (great practical joke!), or route a tube to the outside of the vehicle so that it only receives outside air, thus never registering alcohol. Oh, sure, this will be made illegal, just like smoking in the lavatory on an airliner and rolling back an odometer. Works pretty well, too.
In short, yes, this can happen. Be afraid, be very afraid.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca