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."
Wouldn't it make just a little more *sense* for the sensor to disable the ignition or something?
Or do we just want our prisons to be that much overpopulated?
science is a religion
More like it signals police if ANYONE in your car has been drinking.
What a really good idea.
... the web page that says "cut the red chord and the sensor is out of bussiness"
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Could they put a detector in the car that tells the cops to bring a change of underwear for little kids on those too-long trips where they just can't hold it anymore?
nWo 4 Life
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 article fails to mention that how can the sensor tell how many people are in the car, and how many of them are actually drunk? Because if the breathalyzer just measures the level of ethanol fumes inside the vehicle, you are bound to be stopped by a police when you are for example driving home from a party with your friends, who have been drinking.
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
So every time you hit the switch for the windshield washer and spray what, in many cases, is a fairly strong solution of ethanol onto your windshield - right by the ventilation system intakes in most cars by the way - this thingy signals to all police in range that you're having a 4-alarm kegger in your backseat?
That's not the only "innocent" source of ethanol vapours, either - there are plenty of things used in a car that could create them, and not to mention the fact that this better be one hell of a specific fuel cell to only detect ETHANOL vapours. From my chemistry days I seem to remember that fuel cells are quite versatile in their ability to catalyze not just the target reaction, but other similar reactions. Such as perhaps butyl alcohol or methyl alcohol, neither of which will get you drunk, but both of which are present in a lot of cleaning products...
Just what we need, really! Another "excuse" for cops (cough, cough, particularly southern cops) to pull us over because they don't like the little darwin-fishy on our car's backside...
... not in here, pal, this is a mercedes...
So the police pull you over because your friend is pumping out enough ethanol vapors to send the sensor into the stratosphere. Thats great. Is the plan just to never transport anyone who has been drinking?
I am however relieved I'll be able to drive around hyped up on crack in the future without having my car narc on me.
science is a religion
Just sell friggin breathalyzers to the general public so they can see for themselves if they're over the legal limit. Why do we need all the Big BrotherTM crap? How the hell is that supposed to help anything?
If you let people take responsibility for themselves you'd be surprised what you find. Most people I know who have ever been cited for DUI didn't realize they were over the legal limit.
Is there some type of breathalyzer available to the general public?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I would think it would make more sense to use the senor technology to allow/deny use of the vehicle entirely. The current solution requires police to be present and detect the signal sent out by the "breathalyzer" and this has obvious shortcomings. I would think that it would be better to have the driver's blood/alcohol content grant or deny operation of the vehicle by connecting some simple device to the ignition. (On a side note, I would love to "test" out these devices) Just my $0.02
How about this is installed on a voluntary basis? Tell your insurance about it and get a lower premium. Sounds like a much better idea than forcing it on people.
I'm willing to bet that given the location of the sensor, and some duct tape it is quite easy to defeat as well.
What if your significant other (who had a bit too much to drink) is sleeping it off on your shoulder? You telling me the sensor can tell the difference? If so I am very impressed. Combine this with some local PD that goes in a little too heavy handed when they get that sensor notification and I see some people winning the litigation lottery.
As always, vote with your wallet, if you don't like the idea of this, don't buy a car that has it.
What's to stop them from transmitting your speed and license plate number as well? Automated speeding ticket robots anyone?
Keep saying to yourself, "There is no such thing as Big Brother."
science is a religion
Following this logic, cameras should be placed in every apartment.Every citizen should be under surveillance because the statistics show that all crime is due the people who are alive and not dead.
Fuck this! If this becomes a standard feature in all cars, I'll either disable it (criminal or not) or won't buy new cars anymore.
Again the majority must give up all the privacy because of a small minority who find it too hard not to drink while driving.
only criminals will drive drunk.
Wait.
Never mind. I thought I had something insightful.
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Talk about invasion of privacy! The real problem with this remote breathalizer is that if you go to the bar and have a drink or two you might pop up as drunk, but your blood level would be well below the limit. Then the cops get to pull you over and have fun hassling you just because you had a drink after work... I don't like it.
~ now you know
Something tells me TCU is not going to make the "Top Ten Party Schools" list anytime soon.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
science is a religion
I'm really of two minds on this subject. Personally, I think that drunk driving costs way too many lives and is penalized too lightly. Just imagine if car crimes were treated like gun crimes. We really shouldn't treat car abuse so differently, given the vast amount of death and harm that results from drunk driving.
That said, I doubt if the suggested change will make people more safe, and it certainly isn't lawful to report to the police if a passenger chose to drink alcohol.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
With an operating range of 18 inches, this technology might not trigger false positives from drunk passengers in taxicabs, but I don't know if I'd want to be the designated driver for my rowdy friends who say "Hey watch this!" and lean over to breathe on my car's sensors, bringing the wrath of the state police.
MAD and similar groups would be well advised to consider this chilling effect before advocating the use of such devices.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
What if you spill some wine on your seat? Are you going to be officially drunk when driving for the next 2 weeks?
How on earth would this work? This would be hooked to a transmitter inside the car. Wouldn't this be the very first modification a person would make to their car would be to rip this friggin' thing out?
What if someone else in the car is drinking? The pigs pull you, and you have to "audition for your freedom"?
What's the range on the transmitters? Rather than getting the pigs all over you, why not just make other cars able to receive it so people could stay the hell away from you?
Why does it NOT suprise me that this is coming out of Texas Christian University and not, say, MIT?
Public safety threat or no, is it a good precedent to make it OK for the pigs to know about the state of your body at all times?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
...for this to be compulsory in the UK. It seems that the entire Western world is in the middle of some kind of social engineering experiment.
Drinking and Driving is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, but relying on a system like this which is prone to error is almost as bad. You only look as far as the new UK Police obsession with speed cameras to see what will happen - I believe they tried to book a tractor the other week for doing 85mph on a motorway. They only dropped the fine and penalty points for the poor farmer in question when a tabloid newspaper intervened. What is the world coming to?!
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.
You can't take away someones right to drive without some sort of legal proceeding. At the very least, you need a cop to have 'justifiable cause', or something like that. After all, there may be a perfectly legitimate reason why the car reaks of booze, like you're rushing your overly drunk friend to the hospital to get his stomach pumped. You need a human in the equation somewhere to make the actual judgment call about whether the driver should actually be driving.
Can I get a little thing that, when attached to my head, will alert nearby police if I even think of committing a crime? Can I, please?
this calls for the Drinking Millenium Copyright Act. Getting drunk takes a lot of energy and should therefore be copyrighted and not for the police to use as information to take whenever they want.
If the governemnt required installing these, would there be a sudden run on foreign cars?
;-)
The tone of the article is that this is some fantastic development. They don't even CONSIDER the privacy issues.
I hope that the Texas Christians get busted for driving after communion
If you find the air inputs and cover them with duct tape, you'll never be drunk again.
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
read the story here
they had about 5 police cruisers carrying these camera/radar guns, and one stationary one at a street corner.
just like red light cameras that have been in use for a couple years or so.
London is already blanketted with security cameras. Most are linked to private firms, hired by local buusiness or civic organizations. If they notice a problem they call the cops and supply the tapes as evidence.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
Why not just install these on cars of known offenders? Make them breathe into a device that doesn't let the car start if they don't pass. I know these exist, but they're not used very much. I'd say one offence would be enough and the offender should pay the cost of the installation. There's absolutley no reason for car makers to install them on every car made. I personally wouldn't want to pay the extra $ for something that doesn't apply to me (as I don't drink). It's true that a system like that would be defeatable but that would take 2 stupid people (one being sober and stupid, which is a more rare condition than being drunk and stupid).
I personally think that the government shouldn't do a whole lot to prevent people from doing stupid things that harm themselves, but when their actions affect those around them it becomes a different story.
This idea in and of itself is not bad, so long as its optional. I suppose there are a few people out there who don't trust themselves and would rather have a police officer catch them then be responsible for a death. Once this becomes mandated by government, that would be bad.
I, for one, would prefer that the police actually do their job. Increasingly, the police are using automated devices to do their policing. It started with radar/vascar/lasers and now we have red light/speed cameras. They don't even have to be present for you to get slapped with a traffic tax. Shouldn't the issue be more about whether you are operating the vehicle safely as opposed to how much of a chemical you've ingested? MD's legal limit just dropped to .08. How can we be sure that no one can safely operate a vehicle at that level? One of the cornerstones of law enforcement is the discretionary power of an officer. Taking that away will go a long way towards creating a Big Brother society
Stop the use of force!
The link to this story appears to be broken. Does anyone have it archived?
Thanks!
TCU is already working on a new device which can detect blowjobs in the car. If the owner of the car is a politician, the warning signal automatically gets redirected to Washington Post and Time Warner.
Right now, they can stop you if they suspect you for drunk driving, with no real evidence at all.
If this system became common, they would need to stop less innocent people in order to catch the same number of drunk drivers.
Actually there are some that would say the ability to travel is a right using the common vechicle of the day.
At the very least, in the US you are pretty much screwed without a car unless you live right in a city. Anywhere else, and you're basically required to have a car.
It's cliche but it's true:
Remote DUI sensor: $100.
DUI accusation: thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines.
Gob of caulk in the intake hose: priceless.
Yes, there ought to be breathalyzers built into cars, at least if we're going to prosecute drunk drivers based on BAC - there's something fundamentally wrong when you can't know whether or not you're violating the law without taking extraordinary steps. But no way in hell should it be transmitting readings.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It seems rediculous, but it would prevent the very-highly intoxicated guy that is not able to stand on his feet to start the car. You on the other hand, only sligtly in the wind, will push in the code, help your buddy...and if the cops find you it's a good thing because they are likely to be able to help your wounded buddy.
OT: I did my share of drunk-driving, and payed hard enough for it, a device like this would have caused me a lot less sorrow.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
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.
Sorry, the college student in me read this and thought "Damn traitors..."
It's a good idea, but WAY too easy to defeat and WAY to easy to trigger incorrectly. Opening the windows would dilute the air/alcohol content, drunk people in the car would set it off, and what about products that have alcohol in them? I don't know what the concentration of alcohol is in household products like window cleaner or nail polish, but I'm sure there are some out there that still have alcohol in them...are they going to pull me over for having used Windex recently?
--trb
I'd rather sniff the models, as long as I get to choose the catalog.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Granted, DUI is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with. But I honestly don't want to have to deal with the fuzz every time I go to the watering hole for a cold one. If this isn't one step closer to Big Brother in your car (already one of the few places you can still smoke a ciggy without getting bitched and whined at), then I don't know what is...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Better warn your teenage daughter not to use those Clearasil pads in the car.
Yay! Another excuse for police to harass anyone they choose for no reason at all.
...And just think about how many Tipper Gore types would gladly lobby for a device like this to be mandatory on all motor vehicles.
I have a better idea. Why don't we just start putting newborn babies straight into prison. We'll leave them there until they can prove that they're not criminals, not smarter than anyone else, not capable of individual thought, and incapable of breaking any law or implied morality-flavor-of-the-week. We'll just forget about that "innocent until proven guilty" crap - it's practically gone anyway.
What the hell is with this enormous new trend of obliterating personal freedom?? I'm not saying it's okay for some dumbass to drive drunk - that's a given. Why is it becoming necessary for the "athorities" to monitor a citizen's every breath (now, literally), under the assumption that we're not capable of making personal decisions without parent-like intervention?
I can understand a legitimate use as a punishment/monitor for repeat DUI offenders, but nothing else.
Just not in my car. Can you imagine getting ripped at a party, and then blowing into the thing, and waiting around for the cops to show up... :-)
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
I work (possible flame bait) at Circuit City in the car audio department (I'm an installer). I know first hand they already have devices you "blow into" to see if you are drunk or not. If you are fine, it let's you drive. If it senses you are drunk, the car won't start. (Pretty much it's just a Starter Kill which is nothing more than a relay tagged into your car's starter line). The only way to get these devices is if the court orders someone to have it installed in their vehical because of an alcohol related incident. Obviously someone who hasn't been drinking can just blow into the device incase someone does cut their foot with an axe (as suggested above).. or if you just want to cheat the system, and the car would start. This new device mentions about detecting air in the vehical, not just what's comming out of the driver. I live in a college town (Home campus of Penn State), and I know alot of people around here who designate drivers. This new device means more people getting pulled over for no reason, just because someone in the vehical was drinking. For some reason this just doesn't go over for me. But no problem.. how long do you think it would take someone to come out with a signal jammer if they did put this device into vehicals (or to put tape over the sensor)
My favorite line...
"This would eliminate the need for law enforcement to do random stops as a means of catching drunk drivers."
This implies that if these devices are mandated, we can trade the tiny bit of privacy we have left for an end to intrusive, unconstitutional roadblocks...
...But there's no way in hell they'll ever stop the roadblocks without a Supreme Court rulinng. My neighbor is a cop and she said a good percentage of arrests at roadblocks (sometimes more than half) are for crimes besides DUI, usually because there's a warrant out for the person and they drive through the roadblock. They also target the vehicles of people they know of to be "Druggies" for dog-sniffs while they're at the roadblock.
The Police want their job to be "easier" at the expense of my individual liberties.
Whoever posted that Ben Franklin comment should get 1million karma points...
Who did what now?
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.
Does the constitution give you the right to put people in danger by driving while intoxicated?
The thing is, this is a good idea. People go nuts when something happens that will let the authorities know when they're doing something against the law! I personally think this is something that could save some lives. And if it causes you to be pulled over when you are innocent, (liquor spilled on your clothing, friends who are drunk) then you have nothing to worry about, right?
Honestly, I don't get why some people insist on certain "freedoms" when by bending those rules you could save many, many lives.
But then, some people don't care about other's lives. Very sad...
How long until people drive around wearing stuff like this so they can breathe through their windows/sunroof in those times when they really need to use their car.
So, it is both a bit depressing and rather amusing at the same time.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Gee, that's great. While you're at it, how about transmitting the driver's criminal history so that the police officer can "keep a closer eye" on formerly convicted criminals! Also show a list of the 5 most recent destinations of the car so they can check if you've been anywhere you shouldn't be. Or better yet, give the car a program that DECIDES if you're a potential risk for criminal activity and radios the police for help!
"This here slope sure is slippery!"
What about a device which tells YOU if there
is any police around when you driving home drunken
Man, I love those new LBS (location based services)
I have one of those and it works pretty well. I don't usually carry it around, but if there's a holiday or something where they get really crazy with roadblocks and all it's pretty cheap insurance. There's not much difference between 0.06 and 0.08 in how you feel, but one is OK and the other gets you a DWI. So if you come out of a bar and you blow 0.08 you can kill some time by going into a nearby convenience store and when you get back in the car you're legal. Then if they pull you over as soon as you leave the parking lot (quite common around here) you're in the clear. That's worth every bit of $110.
It's also useful if you have guests and they don't want to admit how whacked they are before driving home. There's a decent chance they'll believe the little breathalyzer and crash for the night instead of hitting the road and getting in an accident, which you the homeowner then gets sued for. Those commercials all say to have your drunk friend give up his keys but that can be pretty hard to do in practice unless you're gonna physically restrain them.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
"But occifer, I was just trying to dry my hair..."
In a perfect world that's how it would work. In reality, a cop on an ego-trip doesn't need to give you a breathalyzer before he knows you're drunk because his machine told him so. Police harassment and invasion of privacy are big deals to me.
Another case- I was on my way home from a club downtown with a friend of mine where we saw a show. Neither of us drank or did anything illegal, but a cop pulled us over and spent a good 10-15 minutes determining that no one in the car had been drinking, and gave my friend a ticket because he had a broken tail-light cover. It was a total case of profiling and harassment. A device like this would only worsen matters.
It is not so bad because it is not too much of a price to pay to have this service provided to society. I want to see drunk drivers taken off the roads! If that means that if I am transporting passengers that are drunk and I get pulled over occasionally, then that is fine by me. They can test me if they want and once they see that I haven't been drinking they'll commend me for taking the responsibility of being a designated driver.
I want to see terrorists taken out of commission. If that means my house gets occasionally searched to ensure I'm not building any bombs or planning any terrorist activities, then that is fine with me. They can look around if they want and once they see that I haven't been working with any terrorists, they'll commend me for being an upstanding citizen...
Except for those overdue library books they found.
And those MP3s I kept on my computer without owning the original CDs.
And that fertilizer I got for my lawn ten years ago. I swear, I wasn't building a bomb!
okay, I'm a brit so I don't have any constitutional rights at all however I'd say that this seems like another "but what about the children" flag waving attempt to lock people down.
we're all responsible adults. this is supposed to be a world of "innocent until proven guilty" (although in the UK that is increasingly becoming false) and this is essentially a search of your person with no warrant or probably cause. hell, it's not even by the police, it's by a car company.
the "first world" governments seem to be increasingly sliding towards an environment where their citizens are not allowed to do anything in case it hurts someone. how long will it be before we're all forced to wear think cotton wool coats in case we walk into someone? and have mind reading hats on in case we think about a crime (after all, if we're innocent, what have we got to hide?).
ffs, can we not take responsibility for ourselves. if we commit a crime then certainly, we ought to repay our debt to society, but as long as we are innocent we should all have the right not to be harrassed by the nanny-state.
*sigh* revlution brothers...
dave
However, it should also be mandatory that the officer doing the pulling over of suspected drunk drivers observe actual swerving, excessive speed, etc. to actually pull you over, because like everyone has said - designated driver. 3 Highly intoxicated friends could still probably trip this thing off, even with today's sophisticated 'localized climate control' systems.
This is not a privacy thing. If you're driving drunk you're not 'robbing' a company of excess profits, you're not pissing someone off because you stole their images online; you're increasing your inability to avoid killing people. While I'm sure the police will occassionally abuse it, and piss people off, if it saves thousands of lives each year, I think it's justified. Just make sure to put enough restrictions in place on those 'controlling' the device so that those in power will be much less likely to try and abuse it.
I know it'd be a hassle to get pulled over but if enough people rode around with a rag/sponge soaked in Jack Daniels in their car, I'd think the police would begin ignoring these little sensors tout de suite. Noble intent, dumb implementation.
Cynics repsonse: The research was probably funded, in part, by automobile manufacturers at the behest of their legal counsel.
will it detect that too?
You're using her as bait, Master!
You can legally travel by motor vehicle drunk or sober, you just can't legally be the operator of said vehicle if you're drunk or aren't licensed as a motor vehicle operator. In that case you can hire a driver or take a cab. Can't afford it? Well, you've got a right of free speech and to publish, but you don't get a government grant for a printing press, and your right to bear arms doesn't include a federal shotgun buying subsidy.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
The statement that you have nothing to worry about if you're innocent is invalid in the United States, where you are innocent until proven guilty and obligated to defend yourself, unlike most other countries.
There are many freedoms we could give up that would save a few lives, but would life still be worth living?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Yeah, but where do the exeptions stop? Who defines when it's OK to "bend" the rules? I think drunk driving is wrong, but this does kinda skip a few steps in due process. And I really don't think this is true probable cause for a stop.
This is just a test. Sorry
I wish I had mod points for you, friend ...
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
At least here in the US, the 5th Amendment to our constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination. IANAL, but having one's car tattle on you almost certainly crosses that line.
Life is but a mist upon the horizon.
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 recent Engineering grad from Texas A&M University and I saw some TCU students (I believe the ones mentioned in the article) give a presentation for this at a conference I went to last Spring. I'll come right out and say I didn't like the concept of my car reporting to Big Brother. So if you see any bias in this comment now you know why. Full disclosure I suppose.
:)
Anyway, If you read the article closely you will see that each of the cars has a radio link that reports to everyone around you the sobriety of the driver. The Linx radio unit is actually a very cheap way to do low bandwidth wireless communications. So slashdot hardware hackers take note
As you can imagine the alcohol monitoring concept did not go over well amoung my classmates. Personally, I think they might as well put a blinking alcohol barometer on your car. Of course, we were college students and our demographics do not lend well to this experiment.
Another problem I had was with the obvious false positives from an alcohol sensing fuel cell. Perhaps they did find a way to distinguish from ethyl alcohol from bars and rubbing alcohol in perfumes. I know the article says they had, but I have serious reservations about the statement. But since I can't prove either way I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. As many have pointed out here what if you are the designated driver? What if you just went to a bar and someone spilled even a little beer on you? This has happened many times to me. The sensors will have to be ultra sensitive to pick up airborne molecules of alcohol.
Although the motives of the students are well meant because we all don't want drunk drivers hurting our loved ones the cost to civil liberties are immense. A 24/7 "air tap" for alcohol would be an extreme invasion of privacy. There is no way you could get a wire tap without a court order and I don't know how these guys think they can get car manufacturers and the American pubic to agree to volunatary constant surveillance via an "air tap".
In any case, to be fair these are Engineering students and their job isn't to decide the politics of the unit. Thats for Political Science types. I agree that their intentions are good, but the implementation is certainly not. I should also mention that the students and faculty I met from TCU were all nice and personable individuals and this comment was not meant to be a personal attack on them in any way. I simply do not agree with their topic of research.
I am at work right now. But I will try to find some of the notes and info I took from the conference when I get home tonight. I should at least have a copy of their presentation on the conference CD-ROM. So stay tuned.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
of a thought I'd had a while back to remove ignition keys entirely and have a breath analyser installed. When you bought the car it'd be keyed to your breath pattern at the dealership and you could make provisions to add friends/family at your leisure, you'd just have to back to an autorized dealership. Of course, BAC test would/could be co-implemented. It even seems to be a somewhat reasonable proposal other than the fact that it's a bit creepy.....
-shpoffo
To quote you...
this is an unrealistic slippery slope.
The inexpensive tests of alcohol can't tell the difference between the various types of alcohol's.
You could differentiate between them, if you had a gas chromatography analyzer, but they are very expensive and somewhat fragile.
Each driver could stock one's car with a little bottle of isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol. Use a little to clean the rear view mirror, and spill a little on the carpet before setting out on that evening's journey. The police would wind up chasing million's automobiles per day, with no convictions to show for it, damned inconvenient. Needless to say, that program would end in heartbeat!
Note: Their are lots of other sources of alcohol vapors, fermenting fruit, etc..
I think the manufacturer itself recognizes this because the article states it is designed to give police "probable cause" to make a stop. HEL-LO! We're putting a device in your car that essentially searches the content of your body and then notifies a police cruiser in the area electronically so he can have "probable cause"???!!!
I AM a lawyer, but DON'T do criminal law. However, I believe the proper order is:
- Get probable cause; THEN
- Stop and search.
This places the search first and the establishment of probable cause second. The fact that a private party and not the Gov't is respoonsible for conducting the search is essentially a sham in my humble legal opinion.There may be circumstances where this is warranted -- as a condition for continued driving privileges after a drunk driving conviction (not using the device to obtain the conviction in the first place, of course) being one of those circumstances. However, there I analogize the device as simply an improvement on the devices already available that lock the ignition until the driver blows into a breathalyzer and proves to be below the legal limit. Again, I am only aware of these ignition lock devices being used after a properly obtained conviction .
If you go down this road, you will have to make it illegal to remove the device and/or tamper with it. I predict an increased demand for used cars.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Okay, so if I'm the designated driver, and taking some drunk friends home, this device gives the police the PROBABLE CAUSE to search me and my vehicle? If driving a drunk home is probably cause, why don't the police just set up check points in the parking lot of bars? I would imagine everyone leaving a bar on a friday night is either drunk, or has one in the car.
And we get to pay for this "feature"? God, this is evil. What next, manditory speed limiters on cars?
--T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
Apparently they really do let just any old crack head moderate, and a lot sooner than before as well.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Ill call my new device BuzzBuster(tm)...
Ok, not that funny. But if someones gonna say it its gonna have to be me.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I haven't seen one mention of this technique to
:)
fool the sensor.
It is a basic concept of chemistry (osmosis) that
the concentration of ethanol vapor would be MUCH
lower with the window open at 0 mph, not to
mention if
the car is moving at any respectable speed.
If you wanna get cartoon-ish, imagine breathing
through a huge straw out a cracked window
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Mind you, I don't want to promote drinking and driving, I know that it kills people, and that it puts not only you at risk, but everyone else on the highway.
But this is too error prone
It seems that it could pick up someone elses breath accidently. Meaning that if you hadn't been drinking, that your sensor STILL would go off signaling you had been drinking. Sure, a nearby cop could pull you over and verify that you hadn't, but should you be subjected to that? Also, bar tenders, or anyone who might have had some alcohol spilled on them would be subjected to the same type of treatment someone who had been drinking had.
Even though it's an idea where the intentions are in the right places, it doesn't mean that it's a GOOD idea....
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
If we really really need sensors in vehicles to call emergency services to help public safety, why don't we have sensors installed that detect vehicle damage at a certain point, and then notify the police and possibly medical services that I have had an accident and need assistance sent? Set up the sensors so that it doesn't happen if someone backs into me in a parking lot, but if I run off the road and completely crumple the front of my car, then my car notifies the police that I need help!
These are not all that new. They have installed in some chronic drunks a breathalyzer in the car and the car would not start if the driver was drunk. Granted, a drunk could find a sober person to breath in it, but if his buddies were all alcholoics they might have trouble! :) I think they need to do something to this effect and or start making the bars more responsible (although not entirely....). Once a person gets visibly drunk, he should not be served anymore. Period. That's only a life saving method.
Here in Columbus, OH you may have heard of the riots on OSU campus last year and the not so great mayor came up with an idea that with in the city limits (actually this might possibly be a state law too) people were only allowed to buy 4 kegs before they had to sing an affidavit basically telling the cops you were having a party and when and where it was. The smart OSU students got around this though (politicians are SO dumb...duh!). They just divvied up the money and say you get 4 you get 4 and you get 4 and now they have 12 kegs! That's a small OSU party. At one raid (where all residents were underage I might add) they confiscated over 50 kegs of beer from ONE house! There's something wrong with that! The students that the law was supposedly designed to protect or defeat got around the law and the guy who's having a huge retirement party can't go buy 8 kegs with out giving out all of the info!
Gorkman
The Supremes have said so
I didn't say pictures of the models.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Excuse me, but when was "liberal" redefined? You're not the only the only one who's baffled me with this, but you're the latest, so I'm picking on you today.
I've always thought of myself as very liberal. I've taken a couple of those online tests that are supposed to show your political leaning and what party matches your beliefs the closest -- all have told me I'm liberal. But the idea that I want to be "big brother" and that I don't think people can take care of themselves is utter bullshit.
Big Brother is the last thing I want to be or to see, sadly it seems we're getting closer every day. And furthermore, I'm a great believer in personal responsibility. I can't believe some of the lawsuits I'm seeing these days, where someone screws up and blames everyone else.
So what am I now? The opposite of liberal would be conservative, right? And I'm sure as hell not conservative. So what's "liberal" mean now, and what's my new label?
I'm starting to think this redefining of "liberal" is some far-right strategy to make people think, "Well if that's what the liberals think, I'm gonna start voting for the conservatives!"
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
There was a very cheap commercial solution available in the UK called Blown & Know. You got three use-once-only miniature tubes to blow in (the packet was a about the same size as a condom packet and IIRC, about the same cost).
:).
The retarted police in the UK refused to back the solution because they said it would just encorage people to drink up to the limit. As the limit is only ~1.5 decent pints of larger that's very obviously FUD.
Their web site (www.blow-n-know.com) is down, so think they have gone bust.
(#include I did the web site
Certainly the ability to travel freely is a right. However, the various methods one might use to do this are not rights; all are privileges. Including driving. This is why we require licenses for drivers.
That said, I still think this is a Really Bad Idea, because it amounts to a search without a warrant. Furthermore, it has no way to tell if the driver has actually been drinking; it just tests for the presence of alcohol, so you don't even have probable cause; that makes it an unreasonable search as well.
Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and more "drinking community" friendly to just disable the ignition system when alcohol is detected? Granted there are plenty of other issues surrounding this that make it scary use of technology, but why not use it proactively rather than punatively. Seems to me that this is very telling of the inventors mindset.
From my own perspective, I would rather my car give me the hint, "Hey don't drive. Take a cab or wait to sober up" then having a cop do it.
---------- Hot Rats!
How would this *smart* device know if the driver is the one with the bad breath or the passengers? I mean, what if the driver is the DD and the rest are trashed? I see a big problem with this device.
-- Powered By Linux
How do they know if the driver is the one drinking?
-- Powered By Linux
Would the sensor go off it you had just used a strong mouthwash, like Listerine?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
This device is a gigantic invasion of privacy! "Simply a protection". Sheesh. Let's tap the phones -- you're not doing anything illegal, so you don't care, right? Let's put cameras everywhere -- your home, your office, the streets. If you're not doing anything illegal, then you won't care, right? I mean, it's for your protection!
Can't you understand that your freedoms are contingent upon you protecting those freedoms, and that the minute you decide to allow one of those freedoms to be taken from you, you create a path for others to be taken? It's already begun. If people won't fight for their freedoms, if they won't fight for the rights and freedoms of others, then we've lost.
Sean.
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.
My step-father has an ionizer device it the power-recepticle in his truck. He can be smoking a cig with the windows up (or only down a tiny bit) and I can barely smell them in the passengers seat. Would a device like this render this system in operable? Would our police become lazy & dependent on this device when useing their judgement on puling people over?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Thought I was innocent until proven guilty and judged so by a panel of my peers? Oh enter this electronic device to judge me guilty and alert the authorities? I swear to all that is holy that I will be driving a beat up old Plymouth Fury or something, because this is bullshit.
I don't even drink, I smoke pot on a daily basis, but you'll never see me driving. I disagree with this because it is a lame invasion of privacy, in most states a car is an extension of your home. What next... have to breathe into the remote control to turn on the TV? "Sir please exhale slowly into your mouse unti it emits a beep, once you are verified to be within safe limits of (insert whatever moron politicians wants controlled here) tolerance you will be connected to the internet.
F*uck that.
Damn, well, I did just wake up...
in operable = inoperable
useing = using
puling = pulling
judgement = judgement | judgment
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
If people don't want it, they'll be able to disable it. Breaking something in a car is simple as cutting a wire.
In both cases, I might smell horrible, this detector might call some cops, waiting nearby.
If I have some kilometers to drive and as many cops as I saw last summer in San Francisco (maybe 1 car every 200 meters), then does this mean I'll get arrested every time I'll see one or will th efirst one be able to de-activate my sensor to avoid me these annoyances ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Hmmm...you must always have looked acceptable to the cops. You've never worn any unusual clothing or hairstyle. You've never driven an old car through through certain neighborhoods. You've never been guilty of DWB (Driveing While Black.)
Yes, sometimes it'll be "OK sir, that's a fine thing you're doing..." but a fair amount of the time it'll be "You're all drunk until you can prove otherwise. You're probably doing drugs too. Do you mind if I search your car while we're here?"
End result is that you'll probably be allowed to go on driving until the next cop stops you. But not until you've spent 1/2 hour or more going through a field sobriety test, breathalizer, submitting to the search, and answering questions. Assuming that you are properly respectful and none of the drunken passengers causes any trouble.
I can just imagine what that would be like in areas such as Dallas or Chicago or any other metropolitan area where a 15 mile drive passes through 4 or 5 suburbs, each with their own police department. It could take the car with a designated driver an extra hour or two to get back from the bar.
And all of this is not because of any criminal behaviour. The outcome that I've described is what a law abiding citizen, doing a good thing (being a designated driver), can expect to deal with.
Yes, we need to deal with drunk drivers. And we don't do a good job of that now. I don't have any answers (other than actually punishing drunk drivers with more than a slap on the wrist), but I don't think this is the solution to the problem.
To email, do the obvious.
There is no `right to a certain extent' about it. Either you do have a right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Constitution, or you don't. Your arguments apply only if there is no such right. If there is such a right, then that right reduces your arguments to vaporous nothings.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Not that I am, or ever will be a proponent of drinking and driving, but there are several concerns about this new device. Mainly the DUI laws are based upon a certain BAC limit. The ammount of alchohol as a percent of your blood level. How much does it take to set the sensor off? A very large person having a glass of wine right before driving, say from a restaurant, will have a very small ammount of alchohol content, but could be still detected on your breath. Likewise, a very small person could possibly be over the limit, and the small ammount on their breath would not set it off. It all depends on the person, and being generalized on a detector built to be a feature of a car at low price probubly could not be made well enough to adjust. Also, the people who do drink and drive will catch wind of this and not buy any car with it installed. It's like the drug assemblys in schools, their optional. The people who they need to be lecturing to opt-out.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
So if they hook this device up to your car and you pass, then you can drive, irregardless of your actual level of intoxication!?
"Yeth occifer I had a cuple of Thrinks, but I pazzed okay".
I remember a similar argument a few years ago about putting release handles in trunks of cars after several children were trapped. (why were they there in the first place) If a device is installed, then drinking and driving at some level is okay. This is ridiculous.
And I won't even get into the problem of detection limits of finding ethanol of source unknown (I am a chemist). Either the device will be set very low (with lots of false positives and civil liberty problems) or too high (and only catch the extremely high levels which normally are stopped anyway)
I think I'll talk about this one with my brother the cop
What I'm really opposed to is the device contacting the police. Not allowing the car to start is a much better solution. That provides as much protection and doesn't violate privacy.
Sean.
hmmmmm...$15 snorkel hooked up to a window clip. Yeah...they'd pull you over regardless (just for being weird).
However, I'd make a real interesting mobile beer bong!!!
As for circumventing the device by getting a sober friend to give the sample: the sober friend might as well drive, if he/she is there to give a sample.
I for one like the idea of reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein
433 MHz is right in the middle of the US amateur radio band. As an FCC authorized user of that band, this device and it's kin had best not interfere with me, or I will get them shut down. They are part 15, I am part 97, I win!
www.eFax.com are spammers
if you spilled wine on your seat, all the alcohol would likely evaporate within the hour.
and why would you have an open bottle of wine in the driver's seat anyway?
I am sure there will be a plethora of websites with step-by-step instructions on how to disable the offensive sensor for every model of car that installs them.
The only thing I want my car emitting is exhaust fumes and heat.
you will seriously doubt your opinion if you go
look at the percentage of ethanol in Listerine.
the best breathalyzer in the world cannot distinguish
between Listerine and Jack Daniels (in the same
proportion)
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
I once read about devices that courts in some state(s?) could order people convicted of DUI to have installed in their cars. It's basically a breathalyzer connected to the ignition system. Before the car will start, one must use the breathalyzer and be under a set limit for breath alcohol content. This is obviously easy to defeat as well, but if you aided a drunk in this manner and someone got injured or killed, you'd be criminally liable for what happened and would be charged along with the driver. Anyway, this sort of system seems much more American to me; only people with previous convictions must prove innocence down the road.
Since it's obvious that this device can trigger false alarms, why not regulate it's use in some way? Instead of having this in every vehicle, why not use it as a penalty for individuals caught driving drunk? I realize this is still flawed (they could just roll down their windows), but it's an idea.
I forgot to mention that I have never seen a
cologne or perfumed product with ethanol in it...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
They're going the wrong way, we're not looking for
a technology to arrest people, but a technology to
prevent them from drinking and driving. Meaning,
if you're drunk the car doesn't start period.
If this technology can be converted for this
purpose, then I'm for it a 100%.
Chaos: A broken pattern.
So, why have it signal to near by police?
Wouldnt it make more sense to do something like, oh i dont know, light an idiot-light on the dash and not start the car or something?
Im all for not having privacy invaded in such a non-proven method as this, but assuming the tech worked exactly as desired (no false alarms, no passengers setting it off, etc) wouldnt the extent of a safety device simply not allow the engine to turn over or something?
-- Jon
Hmmm,
Lets just say that I am refinishing some furnature and was using large amounts of denatured alcohol to clean off the stripper. (varnish remover not a person) Anyway, I spill some on my clothes during the process. So I get pulled over when I drive to the hardware (nails not computer) store to buy a paint brush? Sounds like a potential law suit to me.
Flounder
I don't like
First of all, it's quite humorous to see that nowhere in the article does it mention implications caused by rolling your windows down. And what kind of havoc would a convertible wreak on a sensor that's calculating miniscule amounts of ethanol? Hmm..
But as for the part about being a designated driver, I can't stand the contradictions they send out. In my town, we always got the lectures in high school that went "If you drink, have someone else drive you home." However, The Pig always neglected to mention the second part of that statement.. Have someone else drive you home so we can bust your ass for public intoxication. I've seen friends riding around in the back seat with a perfectly sober driver hauled into the drunk tank. I'm not sure I see the crime in riding around drunk in the back of someone's car.. sure, it's not the best way to live out your life but you aren't gonna kill anybody. So thanks to our friends at TCU, we have drunks riding around with their windows down and people with designated drivers getting thrown in the clink. God bless America.
"Software is like sex. It's better when it's free." -Linus Torvalds
So instead of being "liable" for selling a car to someone who might drink and drive, they'll instead opt to settle out-of-court thousands of times when designated drivers keep getting harrassed by police for being DUI. Wonderful! Now I get to sue THREE corporations; the auto manufacturer, the police, and the manufacturer of the equipment the police are using!
Rest assured, I will NOT buy any car with any sh*t like this in it. I'd rather restore something interesting and keep Big Brother out.
Mr. Ska
What a load of horse dung. Simply because you are driving a car does not mean you have given up your Constitutional rights. Sorry, that's not how the Constitution works. It is in effect at all times always. It is the highest law of the land (higher than the Supreme Court).
It is a little known fact that the Bill of Rights do not protect you from state laws. For instance the supreme court has ruled that states have every right to restrict your use of weapons, despite your constiutional right to bear arms. The first ammendment starts "Congress shall make no law". The 14th ammendment says that states may not "enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," but the supreme court has ruled that the Bill of Rights is not a privilege or immunity of U.S. citizens.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
In the UK, a keg of beer usually holds 80 - 200 pints of beer. Nitrokegs hold 80 - 200 pints of fizzy beer, btw - buy cask ale instead.
50 kegs of beer would indicate an illegal brewery! No wonder it was confiscated!
Let's see they could implant a small transponder/gps unit, with the alcohol/illegal drug sensor and a small electrical shocking device so if we drink/eat/take anything deemed "illegal" we can be shocked immediately and immobilized for gestapo pickup and disposal. Numerical tattoos are so cliche anyway.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
This idea in and of itself is not bad, so long as its optional.
If it were optional, you know there'd be hefty insurance discounts for using it. If or one would love to sign up. I never drive drunk, and I never would let anyone use my car while driving drunk. This was even true when I was 16-24, when insurance companies raise your rates in large part because of the increase in drunk driving among that age group. It would be nice if I didn't have to pay with my money for those drunk drivers, even if I still have to pay with the risk on my life.
la ya blah da money happiness trying to get past the compression thingy I don't know why it didn't in the first place this is really stupid. Oh... it's the subject? FUCK YOU SLASHDOT.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
That is what the suspension of rights is all about. The U.S. has the right idea: This is the essence of the libertarian view of government. People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm others. They should not be attacked by privacy-intruding devices all of their life that verify they do not harm people.
They should be knocked if they step out of line. NOT for merely existing.
Rock
Although I'm not certain its necessary, it depends on if it can be used as evidence. If all it can do is signal a cop that there's a POSSIBILITY of a problem, they can watch the car. If the driver then starts swerving or showing other indications of intoxication, they can then be pulled over and inspected more closely.
:)
And hey... if a cop wants to tail a car for 30 minutes because there MIGHT be someone intoxicated behind the wheel, at least that's 30 minutes they're not bothering anyone else.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Of course, in your own car you'd just disable the sensors or transmitter (with a discrete toggle to put it back on for vehicle inspection). For rentals, get an acquarium air pump, the air hose that goes with it, some temporary putty adhesive, and a map of where the sensors are for popular models (from the best selling Alcohol Sensor Maintenance Guide). And, while it's still legal, drive with the windows down.
For extra credit, splice a black box into the transmitter line to send out the license plate code of that car that's tailgating you. Or, if the device uses vehicle registration numbers, start a Website to mine the public vehicle records for acceptible codes, then we'll set our cars to flip broadcast identities like Bond's car flips license plates.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
only Reasonable Suspicion, a MUCH EASIER to achieve state. If your actions as a driver would have a 'NORMAL' person suspecting of alcohol influence then be prepared to get stopped. That said, it is REALLY, REALLY easy to say," I saw the car swerve your Honor, and suspected that the driver was impaired." It then becomes your word against a 'trained, and experienced' police officer and YOU lose unless you have 2 'unrelated' witnesses. Note my experience is limited to California
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Your analogy is likewise faulty. A car is always a potential killing machine, regardless of whether alcohol is involved.
Regarding bomb detection, my non-lawyer understanding of the matter is that cops may investigate your house without a warrant or cause provided that they stay on public property and only use commonly available technology. This means that they could walk by and see you toking or pointing a gun at someone, but camping across the street with a thermal imager requires a warrant.
Reboot macht Frei.
I take it you didn't learn to drive in California, then. They take every opportunity to insist that "Driving is a privilege, not a right."
yeah, so they can know were to find the booze for the next shift.
Let me see if i understand this.
I buy a car that can summon a paid professional 'adam henry' whos only job talent is the confrentation of human preditors and other 'adam henrys' who would ambush other humans.
I already have enough people in my life. =|
That they expect you to pay to have the device installed in your car. Next they'll expect me to pony up for smoke detectors that detect pot smoke and radio the police.
Have we forgotten the very important "He who would trade liberty for safety deserves neither"?? As I recall, Oral sex is still illegal as a form of sodomy. When will the government require that you "Blow for sperm"??
Time to look in to Canadian Immigration....
~Hammy
And wouldn't it be ever so slightly ironic if someone 'disabled' the actual breathalizer using the beer they were drinking? (Pour, pour...)
Do you like German cars?
... a good point. The more citizens are under scrutiny, the more law enforcement should be too. I think cameras/mikes in all police cars & stations, covering not only in front of the car (good for police officer safety) but inside as well (good for arrestee safety). Cops usually can't get away with outrageous abuses any more, but only because the "blue wall of silence" is not 100% impermeable.
Freedom: "I won't!"
- Judge takes all ability to drive away.
- Judge takes ability to drive without the intrusion (of this device) away.
- Judge does nothing, "probation", etc.
It seems like if people who previously got #3 instead of #1 (happens often- "oh, I need to drive for my job, honest, it will never happen again") sometimes get #2, that is an improvement for the overall driving public.In theory, driving is a privledge not a right. But in actuality, so many people are so dependant upon their cars that taking away the ability to drive is seen as unreasonably severe punishment, and thus not doled out as often as perhaps it should be. The number of people who drive anyway after their license has been taken away is large- if there are restricted levels of driving (only alcohol-fume-free driving allowed, daytime driving only allowed, only allowed to drive to work or taking kids to school) then with reasonable enforcement, things could improve.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
No, I have two fundamental disagreements with your argument:
1)you're saying that the end (getting the drunk bastard off the road) justifies the means (tossing out already eroding bedrock civil protections from privacy invasions and police states).
2)That things will go as you've stated in the scenarios you've listed.Outcome 1. Nah, chances are that unless I'm really smashed, I'll get home just fine. I don't know very many people who haven't driven when they shouldn't have at some time or another, but I know exceedingly few that have ever had even the slightest mishap from being a beer over the (shrinking) legal limit.
Assuming that all drivers are potential drunks and should be tested is different from the assumption that all men are potential rapists and should be castrated only in scale of consequence.Outcome 2. If the cop hadn't been in my car where he didn't belong, I probably would have made it home, paid for my crime with a mild hangover, then gone on back to work the next Monday working on that breakthrough vaccine to protect your kids from spacemumps. My life wouldn't be disrupted and I could still afford to keep my poor sainted old mother fed well enough she could stop foraging in dumpsters.Outcome 3. I'll give you this one. If you're white, clean cut, and not in a neighborhood in which you "don't belong." I don't know how it is where you drive, but I don't have to go too far down the road from where I am to find that being black is reason enough to be pulled over, and being pulled over is reason enough to be searched.When I drink, I tend to drink at home. My friends frequently crash at my place rather than driving. Drinking and driving is inarguably a wrong. But from a US Constitutional perspective, it is far, far less of a wrong than this proposed alternative. It ain't just my freedoms I'm trying to protect, buddy. It's also yours those of the other folks who can't look past the emotion of the potential consequences of the crime.The bottom line here is that drunk driving is a social problem--and one I believe is actually getting better--not a technical one to be solved by virtual jack-booted thugs in the steering wheel.
Why signal the police? Just disable the car! Don't let the starter or distributer get power!!!
Even the Politburo concurs with Process of Elimination http://process-of-elimination.net
> Because the liberals/socialists want to be the "big brother" of society...
:-)
> they don't believe in people taking responsibility for themselves.
Careful about those generalizations and stereotypes. That's what they do in Russia!
I don't think it's the Liberals who are trying to outlaw abortion, legislate what consenting adults can do in their private bedrooms, outlaw free speech (like burning a flag to protest your government), legislate their religious beliefs into public schools, another other acts of increasing the size of government interference.
Big Brother is where you look for him.
Back on topic, I'd rather see something like this installed in the cars of people who have been convicted of driving under the influence (and make it a low standard, too). I think it's more common that people who DUI, do it habitually, so it makes sense to have the technology to monitor them. But putting something like this in cars as a matter of course is unnacceptable.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
If you disable the ignition it would make it difficult to drive until you were sober. Thus avoiding the DUI and hefty fines to your local government of choice. We don't make these things to help you, but rather to help us take your money and get you off the road.
What's the point of this? To put more people in jail? To increase the coffers of local governments? It seems to me that alerting the police is unnecessary... why not just tie the receptor to the starter and prevent drunk drivers from being able to start their car? That way no one goes to jail and no one gets hurt. Geez, the job of technology like this should be to safeguard society, not lock it up.
"Hey buddie, I'm really messed up. Can you give me a ride home?"
"No way dude, all that booze on your breath will set off my car breathilizer thingie and I'll be a cop magnet"
"What do you care? You're not drunk. The cop will just let you go"
"...but I'm so high"
The Internet is generally stupid
So the guys that want to drink and drive will just break the transmitter. Lazy cops will stop pulling over slightly swerving cars that aren't broadcasting "hey! my driver is drunk", and we'll still have the same number of alcohol related accidents.
Technology tends to make people lazy. Do you really want our cops getting more lazy?
I don't know much about TCU, but the name Texas "Christian" University is enough to spook my all by itself. How much you want to bet that part of the reason this was developed was because someone there would like to see the Volstead act reinstated? Lets not forget that it was "christian" busybodies that brought us prohbition in the first place along with all of its resulting problems, organized crime not least among them.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
"Would you mind if I searched your car, Citizen?"
"Do you have probable cause, sir?" "Yeah, I do. You got a problem with that?"
"Then you don't need my permission, sir. May I ask what the probable cause was?"
"Yeah, you gots invisible vapors!"
"How do you know the vapors are there, sir?"
"Look, shitforbrains, I seen! Just 'cuz they're invisible don't mean I don't know they're there. They train us for that in cop skule!"
*that's all I remember, apart from him pulling out a billy club, and then everything went black*
"Yes, Your Honor. The defendant admits he lost consciousness during the routine search. We submit this as further evidence that he was intoxicated. Besides, we found all these drugs that we planted, uh, I mean, that he had hidden in the dashboard of in his car. He denies all knowledge of those too. Claims we must have planted 'em after beating him unconscious. But all the drunks say that."
If people in this wonderful land were allowed to defend themselves, she'd put a hole in his head when he came 'round and that would be the end of the useless sack-of-shit.
But she can't. So she won't. She won't even be allowed to buy a can of pepper spray to defend herself from him, because she has to sign a legal notice at purchase time saying she will never use it on a human being.
Rock
But shouldn't you give up that privacy given that a) you're in control of a perfect mass-murder weapon and b) might just be intoxicated?
No you should not...
Those freedoms exist for a reason.
Let's take the automatic camras that take pictures of cars that cross the red light.
How could you object to that? I mean it's just a way to catch people crossing the red and thats all it dose.
Well.. no... the camras are defective.
They fire off on the yellow and green as well as the red.
There is the problem. With automation you have defects. With defects you have innocent people getting tagged. Even if there is a way to challange the machine somebody is going to trust the machine anyway.
I don't actually exist.
science is a religion
Drinking at all? Surely this thing can't tell if you're over the legal limit. I can't imagine a cop pulling you over because something said you might have had one beer and you were driving perfectly, breathalyzing you and releasing you. Sooner or later someone will file police harassment if that's the case. Why not just put a warning light on the dash!
Hell, what if a TCU student takes communion and starts driving!
How about a card reader where you have to swipe your license to notify police if you are wanted
or have traffic tickets, next you could add a
video camera so your image and that of occupants
could be matched to database of those with warrants. Hell why not go the whole way and
require us to all wear a device broadcasting a
unique id with gps so anyone's whereabouts could
be determined in real time....GIVE ME A BREAK
It should be mandatory that all cars have these devices once they've been tested to be highly reliable, and not sending out 'false positives' on aftershave, etc.
::rolleyes::
Great idea. While we're at it, why don't we put recording devices in your vehicle as well? That way if you say specific words ("bomb", "drugs") the police are notified. Or how about other sensors to make sure you don't violate any traffic laws? Exceed the speed limit, pull too many G's in a corner, accelerate too quickly, don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or violate any number of other laws and you get a ticket in the mail. We could even put sensors in your toilet, so if you take a piss after smoking a joint or eating a poppyseed muffin, the police can come confiscate your contraband and throw you in jail - we all know that drug users are violent, dangerous felons. Hey, if it saves thousands of lives each year...
Look, I dislike drunk drivers as much as the next guy, but I also dislike this big brother mentality. I don't even drink, but I still don't want the government watching what I do. It's none of their damn business. Quite frankly if I purchased a car with this bullshit installed, I'd yank it right out. Anyone with even basic automotive skills can bypass something like this.
Finally, you're forgetting that we live in the USA, supposedly the land of the free. If you want to live in a safe society controlled by the government, move to China. I'm sure they'd love to have you. But don't fsck this country up; I for one enjoy my freedom.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Why don't we just execute everyone with a DUI so we don't have to deal with them again?
I can see it now. They post these receivers around the city. You drive by and they record your vitals like drivers license number and breath alcohol. Two remote cameras grab a picture of both the driver and the cars license plate. You open the mail a day later and there's a summons to appear in court on drunk driving charges. If you don't show up then the cops are called out. Tell me if you don't think that the Madd crowd aren't meeting with their legislators about laws to put this is action. Smart money will soon be shorting the stocks of the alcohol vendors. Man Holmes
Oh wait... if we do that then we should make all drugs illegal, because not everyone uses them irresponsibly, right? See, there's gotta be a medium that we all agree on, or else things dive into mass anarchy, where no one is in charge and everyone does whatever the hell they want to, or the flip side: totalitarian big-brother dictatorship. Don't fly off the handle so fast, dude. I was just argueing FOR implementing a safety device for once. I don't like big brother either, but you can't seriously believe that police and those in authority are ALWAYS out to get you can you?
But remember, the easier it is to defeat something, generally the bigger the penalty if you're caught!
As for those who would claim invasion or violation of Constitutional rights, uh, driving is a privledge, not a right.
So? We have rights that transcend the whims of the DMV, decisions of state government, and federal government. Actively installing these things and making them mandatory, e.g. illegal to bypass, presumes the person is guilty which can easily be argued is unconstitutional when people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
We dont limit cars to 65mph at the factory for that same reason, even though there's a lot more speeders than drunk drivers. We also don't install remote shutdown devices so police can pull us over against our wills.
About the conviced DUI driver, a judge can pretty much sentance whatever she likes in a lot of cases. I could really see this as being installed into the offender's car, though I'm pretty sure devices like this already exist.
Tape a cotton swab soaked in ethanol up to the sensor (cleaning/or religious purposes).. Sit back and wait for police harassment (who's harassing whom?).
Drive around a busy city around 2:00 AM. Repeat every night.
I'm pretty sure if a bunch of people were practicing this, the device would be deemed unreliable.
Note: You shouldn't drink while performing this task.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
hmm... i can't imagine that. isn't freedom of movement a guaranteed right? if freedom of movement of persons (me) and property (car) is a basic right, then driving is a basic right also. one could argue. IANAL.
The system doesn't automatically convict you, it just possibly alerts nearby police, in which case you would almost certainly be pulled over, at which time you could explain the situation and undergo an actual breathalyser test if necessary.
Now if the system automatically connected to a central traffic offences database and listed you for drunk driving, THAT would be a real problem. In the future authorities will probably be relying more and more on computers for assistance, so it is not unthinkable that future systems may attempt to do this.
Quite frankly I'm not opposed to the basic concept, as long as it remains simple. Drunk driving is not a right. Drunk drivers kill innocent people on public roads.
According to the article, the researchers received NSF funding for this. So your tax dollars are going toward development of a device that can run roughshod over the Fourth Amendment. Nice.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I have always wondered about "Do not drink and drive". If you drink at all, is there a guarantee that you will be wise enough not to drive afterwards? To me, staying away from alcohol completely is a much better solution. You will be a lot healthier, and you will not do the stupid things that people do when they are drunk. When you are drunk you are not quite yourself, and yet you are still legally responsible for your actions. There exist a lot of ways to entertain yourself without losing your dignity through alcohol.
MySQL Developer
I think the argument goes that all the roads are government property, therefore using them means you signed an EULA which gives traffic cops the right to break your bones and search your rectum for crack and whatnot. Of course, this implies that you can drive offroad with more alcohol than blood in your system...
Dyolf Knip
our governemnt doesnt own the road
I agree, but by that line of reasoning we also own aircraft carriers and NASA and the CIA. You try throwing your weight around there and see how far you get.
Dyolf Knip
... city, state, and local law enforcment and politicians had 'em in thier vehicles. ;)
Having stopped at 3 road checks tonight, I'd have willingly submitted to a breathalyzer in my car to have it flash a "driver is clear" signal to the police at the check point and get waved through.
From a practical point of view, this would allow the police to set up more roadblocks because they wouldn't need to check each driver, only those drivers who didn't volentarily choose to take the breathalyzer when they got into the car this evening.
Obviously I am allowed to submit myself to a search. Eventually all sober drivers would as a matter of course turn their breathalyzer on when they get into the car, and the cops just need to sit at the side of the road and pull over cars that don't have the all clear signal broadcasting. Which since it's a roadblock that pulls over all cars without a all clear signal, itn't an unreasonable search (at least in the jurisdiction I live in) and we reach a luddible goal (a drastic reduction in DUIs) without unduely impacting people's rights.
OK, flame away!
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Instead of lowering the limits to where everyone is breaking the law .08.
The last I heard, most people, most of the time, have a blood alcohol content way below
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Yes, this is an unrealistic slippery slope. It's extreme, but you see my point.
Sadly, I wish I could agree with you on this last part, but I just can't find it in me. I see this as being a VERY realistic thing.
Is it just me, or did i notice nothing about identification or security. Guess it sucks to be me once someone figures out how to make it look like im the one thats drunk.
Although, this does introduce a new market possibly.....brethalizer jammers.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
The arguement i read also seemed to imply that you have a right to travel ON YOUR OWN. For example, if only the government would take you from place to place, then you could lose the right to travel if they decided they didn't want you going anywhere. Kinda like having the freedom of press, but not being allowed to distribute what you publish...
All in all i haven't decided if i accept the arguement myself, but it did get me thinking, and i just wanted to point out that its out there. At any rate, there are rights that we have that are not spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
Maryland currently uses a program along these lines. Repeat offenders or first offenders(if deemed necessary) get an ignition lock installed on their steering column. They must blow into the device every time they try to start the car. If they are intoxicated, the car doesn't start. Their is still the issue of the device failing or tricking the device in order to get the car started. I'm sure a sober friend can activate the starter for you!
I say don't make laws prohibiting it. I guess mandatory was a bad word to use. Better to say: default install, but you can even request a car without one. OK, fine, so make it an optional feature.
:)
In that case, I'm with you. I don't have a problem with people putting these in their cars by choice. Hell, I was arguing for freedom: If omeone wants one of these things in their car, I'm all for it. Have fun. As long as I don't have to put one in mine, I could care less what everyone else does.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig