Remote Breathalyzer 519
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."
Designated Driver ? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a really good idea.
So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Every citizen should be kept under surveillance! (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Excuse me but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Driver vs. Passenger (Score:2, Insightful)
MAD and similar groups would be well advised to consider this chilling effect before advocating the use of such devices.
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Excuse me but... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
BigBrotherLand2000 (Score:4, Insightful)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
- Ben Franklin
Maybe, maybe not (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Problems (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah, so that's where all those "you can become a heterosexual too" programs come.
Christianity and science cannot co-exist. Christianity is fundamentally anti-intellectual and anti-science because instead of the nature it worships some never-seen-never-heard-about god. Anybody who claims otherwise is just fooling himself.
Re:Excuse me but... (Score:2, Insightful)
gob of caulk (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:here's a better idea (Score:1, Insightful)
I remember seeing a story on Tomorrow's World (or something similar) about cars that required a breath test before the ignition would work. I think this is a much better solution (assuming the technology works) as it can enforce a positive result by immobilising the engine, and it doesn't impinge on privacy like the system at hand appears to. (I guess one major flaw is that a sober friend could perform the breath test for you, but then why aren't they driving in the first place?)
Personally, I know that my driving is not 100% when I've had even a single drink, and that's a good enough reason for me not to drink and drive at all.
Re:Like the radar gun, this is a good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
A better idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Designated Driver ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just for kicks, say all cars had the multi-zone climate system, how well would this system work if the windows are down? If you have the windows opens I would imagine the wind would whip around the air to a point where it might not get a good reading. I think this would also lead to false positives since with a lot of air flow a drunk passenger might set off the sensor.
I can see these big brother systems leading to people being slower to buy the new items with these "features."
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:here's a better idea (Score:2, Insightful)
People DON'T take responsibility for themselves. People ARE too stupid to take responsibility for themselves. That's why there are so many drunk drivers and drunk driving accidents and fatalities.
Isn't this obvious? If people were responsible, they would not be driving drunk in the first place.
Lawyer: when hell freezes over . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This device legitimizes DUI (Score:2, Insightful)
"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
Canada is worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:I Saw This Presentation (Score:3, Insightful)
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.