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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
a dutch insurance company is (going to?) offer this for speeding. get a gps installed, and you pay a whole lot less, unless you actually do speed. this is NOT related in any way to speed-tickets..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
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
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'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.
You have no right to drive.
Driving is a privelige not a right. We gave it up as a right when we allowed ourselves to be licensed to drive.
My grandfather learned to drive, and was driving for several years before licenses were around. Then, it was equivalent to owning a horse. If you owned a car, it was your right to drive it anywhere you pleased, and it was in your best interest to not drive like a lunatic, so that you wouldn't kill yourself, others, and damage a really expensive car.
Life was better then in a lot of ways from the perspective of rights that we have since signed away.
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.
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.
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.
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
To quote you...
this is an unrealistic slippery slope.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
2) What happened to "innocent until proven..."? I mean, right now, they are installing similar devices into convicted drunk drivers' cars. If they want to install them into everyone's car, what is that saying?
Well, if it alerted the police it would give the driver a chance to prove his innocense. If it disabled the car, the system would be assuming guilt, and overriding it would problematic..
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
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.
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.
Hell, a bottle of rubbing alcohol. Less likely to be able to give a pissed off cop enough to press an 'open container' charge. "It's the damnedst thing, officer. My wife was trying to clean some nail polish off, when I hit a bump, and the alcohol spilled ALL OVER the sensor, and now it's constantly registering at the top if it's scale."
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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
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
There is a difference between the right to privacy and the right to no unreasonable searches and seizures. If, without a warrant, the police set up a video camera in your house to tape you smoking marijuana, that's illegal, because they violated your right to privacy. If you're driving along the highway smoking a joint and a cop sees you, they can pull you over, because you don't have a right to privacy in your car. Neither of those situations has anything to do with being detained by an officer with no probable cause for doing so, no matter where you are.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
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.
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?
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
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 ?
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!"
> 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.
"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
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."
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.
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!
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
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.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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 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
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?
Someone suggested that it could be spilt on you on your way out of the restaurant. But what about cologne or aftershave? Windshield wiper fluid. Any number of ordinary products could contain enough alcohol to set this thing off. It's not a perfect detector, it's not likely to be improved to anything even remotely reliable for law enforcement, but they'll go ahead and use it anyway. It's stupid, so so stupid.
Dyolf Knip
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