Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Remote Breathalyzer

Posted by michael on from the what-you-gonna-do-when-they-come-for-you dept.

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."

23 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. Why not... by maddogsparky · · Score: 3, Interesting
    just disable the car if the driver's breath doesn't pass? That would be cheaper for them and the rest of us since we wouldn't have to pay the cost of the police processing and legal procedings, and they wouldn't drive in the first place and get a fine or jailtime.

    --
    science is a religion
  2. Designated Driver ? by Tomun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like it signals police if ANYONE in your car has been drinking.
    What a really good idea.

  3. Hmmm... by The+Fast+Choker · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  4. So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. oh this is just fanTAStic. by Emil+Muzz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...
  6. here's a better idea by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:here's a better idea by isa-kuruption · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because the liberals/socialists want to be the "big brother" of society... they don't believe in people taking responsibility for themselves. In fact, they probably believe people are too stupid to take responsibility for themselves.

      There was a story here in NJ where a drunk fell over himself at a bar and sued the bar. Of course, the bar had insurance, and despite the fact it was the drunk's own fault, the bar was "guilty of serving alcohol to a guy who was already drunk." (or so the prosecution claimed). The case was settled out of court by the bar's insurance company, but it just goes to show that people just don't think other people are responsible enough for themselves.

      But just notifying police as a drunk guy drives by seems kind of "too late" to me. If the user has to drive a mile before getting to a point where a cop is, then that's 1 mile the drunk driver could kill someone. A few years ago they were talking about putting these systems in cars of people convicted of prior DUI's. The premise was before they could turn the key, they'd have to blow into the breathalyzer and if you werent at or above the limit, it would allow you to start the car. This is probably a better solution.

      This problem would also be solved if we had a better public transportation system in the U.S. If people relied more on public transportation than their own automobile to get around, we wouldn't have so many of these problems... but this is another subject altogether...

  7. When driving drunk becomes a crime... by Sunken+Kursk · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Party School? by small_dick · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT by fhknack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Excuse me but... by Kenneth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't it make just a little more *sense* for the sensor to disable the ignition or something?

    Not really. I don't particular like this either, but disabling the ignition would make such things as designated drivers impossible as it would disable the ignition if SOMEONE ELSE in the car had been drinking as well.

    --
    There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
  11. BigBrotherLand2000 by SubtleNuance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  12. Re:Like the radar gun, this is a good idea. by Subliminal+Fusion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Due process... by firewort · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

  14. A better idea... by toupsie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT by Tack · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This in itself isn't such a horrible thing, true.

    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.

  16. Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT by paRcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. I Saw This Presentation by Milican · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:I Saw This Presentation by BarefootClown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...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."

      Probably the same way they always do things: automakers would be "encouraged" to include them in all new cars. Inclusion would not be mandatory, but probably in the same way that compliance with the mafia is not mandatory. The government could simply say "we think this is a good idea," and mutter things under their breath to the effect of "...and you'll get a looser tax audit if you comply." Same way they got the "black box" into airbags (you do know that if your airbag goes off, a vehicle data recorder notes your speed, whether or not your seatbelt was on, magnitude of acceleration (g-forces), etc.). Once the manufacturers include the devices, including the radio transmitters, the police wouldn't need a warrant--they would need only to listen to off-the-air broadcasts, which is perfectly legal.

      Getting these things into cars and into use wouldn't really be that difficult, and the people could probably be convinced to accept them: "The Chevy Boozer: the first car that will warn you if the kid driving next to you is drunk." Include an interlock device, you get "The Ford Fuzzy Navel: parents, don't you want to keep your kids from driving drunk?" With the proper marketing, the American sheeple will assent to anything. You'd be a "bad parent" if you didn't use the technology.

      The big problem is that sooner, rather than later, somebody (somebody like me, for instance) will find a way to toy with the unit...take a paper towel soaked in pure ethanol and wrap it around the sensor to indicate a 50% blood alcohol level, particularly to somebody else's car (great practical joke!), or route a tube to the outside of the vehicle so that it only receives outside air, thus never registering alcohol. Oh, sure, this will be made illegal, just like smoking in the lavatory on an airliner and rolling back an odometer. Works pretty well, too.

      In short, yes, this can happen. Be afraid, be very afraid.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

  18. Not all that new.... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  19. Lawyer: when hell freezes over . . . by hawk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.


    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 :). But this is for a convicted drunk driver.


    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.

  20. Better devices already exist by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  21. The most offensive thing is: by HamNRye · · Score: 4, Funny

    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