Cyberattack on a Car Breathalyzer Firm Leaves Drivers Stuck (wired.com) 118
Last week, hackers launched a cyberattack on an Iowa company called Intoxalock that left some drivers unable to start their court-mandated breathalyzer-equipped cars. Wired reports: Intoxalock, an automotive breathalyzer maker that says it's used daily by 150,000 drivers across the U.S., last week reported that it had been the target of a cyberattack, resulting in its "systems currently experiencing downtime," according to an announcement posted to its website. Meanwhile, drivers that use the breathalyzers have reported being stranded due to the devices' inability to connect to the company's services. "Our vehicles are giant paperweights right now through no fault of ours," one wrote on Reddit. "I'm being held accountable at work and feel completely helpless."
The lockouts appear to be the result of Intoxalock's breathalyzers needing periodic calibrations that require a connection to the company's servers. Drivers who are due for a calibration and can't perform one due to the company's downtime have been stuck, though the company now states on its website that it's offering 10-day extensions on those calibrations due to its cybersecurity disruption, as well as towing services in some cases. In the meantime, Intoxalock hasn't explained what sort of cyberattack it's facing or whether hackers have obtained any of the company's user data.
The lockouts appear to be the result of Intoxalock's breathalyzers needing periodic calibrations that require a connection to the company's servers. Drivers who are due for a calibration and can't perform one due to the company's downtime have been stuck, though the company now states on its website that it's offering 10-day extensions on those calibrations due to its cybersecurity disruption, as well as towing services in some cases. In the meantime, Intoxalock hasn't explained what sort of cyberattack it's facing or whether hackers have obtained any of the company's user data.
Next time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time don't drink and drive. Are we supposed to have sympathy for these sociopaths? I mean both the drunkards and the corporate dregs making a profit off of this. Feels like a popcorn moment. The only news I'd care about is if they didn't recover from the cyberattack and why. I don't care if some CTO gets fired or some drunkard can't unlock their car. Call a fucking cab.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Next time don't drink and drive. Are we supposed to have sympathy for these sociopaths?
I’m going to assume you have zero personal faults and do not require any form of medication strictly because of shitty life choices to be able to stand on such a pedestal. Otherwise, remind me why I should have sympathy for sugar junkies suffering from preventable diabetes when the insulin factory gets hacked. Call a fucking nutritionist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I’m going to assume you have zero personal faults
Drink and driving is not a mistake or a personal fault. It's a conscious and truly FUCKING DUMB decision that should have significant consequences for you personally and no one else.
Comparing it to diabetes is just stupid. No one killed anyone else by getting diabeties, unless they accidentally sat on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Drink and driving is not a mistake or a personal fault. It's a conscious and truly FUCKING DUMB decision
No, one of the characteristics of alcohol is that it reduces the ability to differentiate between good and bad ideas. It is fundamentally not a conscious decision.
that should have significant consequences for you personally and no one else.
We should also have functional public transportation, which was destroyed in America by a literal conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, one of the characteristics of alcohol is that it reduces the ability to differentiate between good and bad ideas.
And unless you are slipping alcohol into people without their knowledge or consent your entire point is meaningless. You acknowledge the requirement to drive before you drink. That's the point the dumb fucking decision is consciously made.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m going to assume you have zero personal faults
Drink and driving is not a mistake or a personal fault. It's a conscious and truly FUCKING DUMB decision that should have significant consequences for you personally and no one else.
Comparing it to diabetes is just stupid. No one killed anyone else by getting diabeties, unless they accidentally sat on them.
I've heard of traffic 'accidents' where a diabetic went hypoglycemic, passed out, and drove into other cars, pedestrians, etc. For some reason the news always reports it as a 'medical event', but the point is, people are killed by diabetics due to their diabetes way too often. It is an apt analogy. An idiot decides to drink and drive an puts people at risk. An idiot with diabetes fails to control their blood sugar and decides to drive, putting people at risk.
Re: Next time... (Score:2)
Including a (then) sitting congressman: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbn... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
people are killed by diabetics due to their diabetes way too often.
I've heard of it once != way too often. Wake me when 11000 fatalities are caused yearly in the USA due to diabetics.
Also diabetes is a fully manageable disease. One of my friends is heavily diabetic and his phone will ring with a warning long before he gets hypoglycemic. And yeah this has also happened while we were driving once, we pulled over, he injected himself and we kept going.
Comparing it to driving while voluntary impaired by alcohol is just the dumbest fucking thing I've heard.
Re:Next time... (Score:5, Informative)
Except in general, you don't get interlock systems forced on you for your first mistake. Interlocks are generally the last resort.
The first DUI is usually a fine, maybe some light jail time (a couple of weeks) if it's bad. The second time is a much larger fine and more jail time
The third time is usually when you either get your driving privileges taken away or you get required to install an interlock (at your expense - it's not cheap to install, and the monthly fees and activities you have to do to maintain it certainly aren't easy).
Most drivers stop at 1. Which can be a simple mistake and most people learn from it and never do it again. Get caught a second time and it's usually a wake up call to start cleaning up your life. The third time generally means it's time for forceful intervention.
So if you're forced to get an interlock on your car, basically you've failed multiple times at trying to fix your life and you got lucky the judge has sympathy for you. For they could easily just toss you in jail for a good long while as well.
You don't get the interlock for a mistake. Some jurisdictions require a pattern of DUIs before they'd force it on you so it's not even your 3rd time, it's far more times. It also means you are also giving permission to be pulled over randomly for a sobriety check - a cop passing has the right to purposefully stop you to do this.
If you have an interlock, it means you've failed to try to fix your alcoholism yourself and if the interlock makes your life difficult or inconvenient, well, you could be forced to catch the bus everywhere instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah but still fuck all the companies that make these things.
I've never had one and don't drink and drive but they're the same as the scammy prison phone companies and stuff.
"You deserve it" isn't some excuse to enrich a "private public partnership"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you don't HAVE to get an interlock installed. The judge can easily just say you're not allowed to drive at all as the alternative.
It's an option to being forced to use Uber/Lyft or public transit.
I mean, sometimes the alternative is preferable - maybe you o
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, in this case we can say "fuck you" to drunk drivers and the don't deserve sympathy, but this everything must be cloud connected trend is going to fuck us all eventually.
The problem is that the above sentence requires a person to be able to hold two thoughts in their head at the same time, which appears to be above almost everyone commenting in this thread.
Re: (Score:1)
And, yet... there are stories about false-positives (including diabetic ketoacidosis, breath mints causing readings, regular prescriptions can cause it, too).
And, I'm sure there's some areas that don't exactly follow the third-strike rule, and now that cars are so much more computerized, it's tons easier to install the lock-out devices (if not have them already built-in).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have many faults. None of them involve altering my mental state and operating heavy machinery in a way that puts OTHER people at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
I have many faults. None of them involve altering my mental state and operating heavy machinery in a way that puts OTHER people at risk.
Your mental state varies naturally during the day. Ever drive tired? That's as dangerous as driving drunk.
Re: (Score:1)
shooting randomly into crowds is also dangerous. We may as well do all 3 if we're going to do 1 or 2.
I didn't say driving drunk is good, I implied that hypocrisy is bad, and perspective is necessary. I know this is too complicated for cowards to understand since you also can't understand why no one likes you.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, remind me why I should have sympathy for sugar junkies suffering from preventable diabetes when the insulin factory gets hacked. Call a fucking nutritionist.
How many "sugar junkies" are plowing into innocent people on the roads?
Re: Next time... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Please elaborate. On the surface it seems like a good analogy: both alcohol and sugar can be avoided by making a choice, both are addictions (including everything that comes with addiction), both cause health issues, both have a cost for society. Analogies don't have to be a perfect 1:1 fit, they just have to work well enough for the points being discussed. We could probably make a decent analogy with smartphone addiction too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a contradiction. If it's an addiction, it can't be avoided. That's the definition of addiction (as compared to abuse) that you no longer have control over the need for a substance.
Re: Next time... (Score:2)
People stop smoking every day, without external help too. Are you saying that these people were not addicted to begin with? I suggest that your definition is simplistic and not useful for this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
People stop smoking every day, without external help too. Are you saying that these people were not addicted to begin with? I suggest that your definition is simplistic and not useful for this discussion.
Well, not my definition. Pure coincidence I was just listening to an interview with a researcher on alcohol related diseases and he said checking if it's addiction or just "regular" abuse is the first step if you want to quit as that decides the best way to do so.
I'm pretty sure it is a bit more complicated than that simple statement, but the definition of addiction are withdrawal and overpowering cravings that make quitting not just a simple decision.
IMHO that's a good working definition, though probably o
Re: (Score:2)
Given the main issue with drink driving is killing other people an analogy that compared another activity that killed other people might be more appropriate don't you think? Unless you're a drunk yourself and are looking for that whole moral equivalence BS excuse. "Oh look, I'm no worse than someone who eats too much!"
Moron.
Re: Next time... (Score:2)
The beginning of your answer was interesting. Then you projected things on me that are false, not sure why. Then you insulted me. You could have stopped while you were reasonable and respectful, that would have been a better answer by any sensible criterion. Not sure why you sabotaged your answer like that. There's no need to be a dickhead, and no benefit either.
Re: (Score:2)
Either one or the other of my statements was correct. Which one was it?
Re: Next time... (Score:2)
Making up a false dichotomy doesn't mean that people fall nicely on one side or the other of it. It probably says something about you though.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the main issue with drink driving is killing other people an analogy that compared another activity that killed other people might be more appropriate don't you think?
So you mean you DO think that phone addiction is comparable? Approximately 1.6 million crashes are caused annually by drivers using cell phones and texting. [edgarsnyder.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no issue with someone who causes a crash and injury or death due to being on the phone being banged up for a significant time.
Re:Next time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Drinking and driving is not cool.
Making a device that could and should operate locally rely on a cloud service is also not cool. Breathalyzers have been around for decades, and do not need calibration all the time.
Sure, in this case we can say "fuck you" to drunk drivers, but this everything must be cloud connected trend is going to fuck us all eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Breathalyzers have been around for decades, and do not need calibration all the time.
No, they only require calibration if you want the results to be accurate.
Re: Next time... (Score:1)
I didn't say they don't need calibration.
I said they don't need calibration all the time.
Failure to connect to the cloud should not result in immediate device failure. Manual calibration steps should be possible. Or at least a message "cloud service unavailable, device will stop working in 48h" or similar.
I don't understand why people are willing to bootlick the company in this case. Cloud connected everything is cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we supposed to have sympathy for these sociopaths?
This isn't the point.
The point is that a fwir justice system should deliver the punishment exactly as established, not give off "I altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further".
The original deal was: you don't drink, you get to drive your car. Not "maybe", not "if nothing comes im between."
If you think that's too soft on crime, we can also discuss "you never get to drive a car again".
In any case stick to the f-ing deal. Being a criminal doesn't make you vogelfrei.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is shit. A cyberattack isn't "altering the deal", it's an error. If you rent a van and a third party vandalizes it to the point it won't function, nobody altered the rental agreement. Shit happens, and I'm sure Intoxalock has stuff like this in their contract because nobody can guarantee perfect cybersecurity.
Re: Next time... (Score:2)
If you rent a van and a third party vandalizes it to the point it won't function, nobody altered the rental agreement. Shit happens [...]
So... does this mean that if "shit happens" while you're in possession of a rental van you're off scott free, not responsible?
Or that if "shit happens" after you've signed the rental contract and paid, but before pickup, it's tough titties "no van and no money for you"?
Did you ever rent a van?
You put your monkey in a bank, and the bank gets robbed - shit happens, your money is gone?
Have you ever been to a bank?
No, "shit" doesn't 'happen" when you earn money making yourself responsible for 150.000 people bei
Re: (Score:2)
You put your monkey in a bank, and the bank gets robbed - shit happens, your money is gone?
But is the monkey OK?
Re: Next time... (Score:2)
Well, apparently it's rich now, so you figure... :-D
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"The original deal" was you don't go out and take other peoples lives.
Most people with these devices did not take anyone's lives.
THAT is the deal they were given. They made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.
They decided to not have working public transportation? Fuck all the way off.
Oh no! (Score:2)
Anyway [knowyourmeme.com]
Re:Next time... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize these devices are slowly on their way to become mandatory in all cars?
They're coming for you next...
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize these devices are slowly on their way to become mandatory in all cars?
They are not even remotely. Please stick to the moon landings being faked when forming your conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3)
Good god...
In France, between 2012 and 2020, it was mandatory to have a breathalyzer test in your car.
What do you think this is : https://www.carscoops.com/2026... [carscoops.com]
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You are missing the point of the story. Entirely. It is not about drunk driving.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The headline is "Cyberattack on a Car Breathalyzer Firm Leaves Drivers Stuck" and then "Intoxalock hasn't explained what sort of cyberattack it's facing". So if the story has no details about the cyberattack, and you say it's not about inconvenienced drunk drivers, what's the story about? I mean, if you want to be a mysterious cunt smugly telling other people they are stupid without explaining why, that's fine with me, but you should expect to get called out on that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still completely missing what this is about.
Re: (Score:3)
The story here has nothing to do with sympathy; it's about incompetence.
"You used a n^2 query on a billions-of-records database?!"
"Well, yeah, but it's ok because the only people who use it are assholes."
That the victims of the breathalyzer's incompetent implementation happen to be people I mistrust, doesn't make the breathalyzer's makers look any less incompetent. They had one job, and they failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And, being that we all want the infotainment systems and built-in computers and all that... it's easier than ever to build in a breathalyzer... just require a cop or someone to activate it with a USB thumbdrive, and it's on until the same thumbdrive is connected again... "that'll be two grand".
I can't see anybody ever pranking their buddy with this!
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, take notice. There's a bunch of ideas being kicked around out there to subject ALL drivers to an automatic intoxication screening, even life-long non-drinkers. Might be worth looking at what could go wrong.
IoT == Internet of Trash (Score:2)
Modern devices and machines appear to me like some hilarious Brazil-style cyberpunk joke-reality. Imagine an effing cyberattack bricking a lock on your car or engine-starter. LOL! Well, I guess it's not called "Internet of Trash" for no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story. Do you always make ignorant knee jerk reactions to a story without having a clue? These devices are not internet connected and don't require an internet connection to operate.
What is going on here is that the service centres aren't able to renew the calibration of the devices - that requires an internet connection periodically - one from the tool used for calibration. The devices are offline devices that are locking out when the calibration period expires (the calibration needs to be done every
Re: (Score:2)
What is going on here is that the service centres aren't able to renew the calibration of the devices - that requires an internet connection periodically - one from the tool used for calibration. The devices are offline devices that are locking out when the calibration period expires (the calibration needs to be done every 30 days)
That sounds very similar to "...internet connected and ... require an internet connection to operate."
Suggestion (Score:2)
an Iowa company called Intoxalock ...
Spend more time/money on your system security and infrastructure and less on a clever name and marketing. /s
Drink-driving. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does America have 150,000 drivers who can't be trusted to not drink and drive?
And why are they allowed a licence?
Re: (Score:3)
And why are they allowed a licence?
Wouldn't a breathalyzer lockout on a car's ignition be a better safety feature than taking away their license? I mean, it's not like you have to scan a valid license to operate a vehicle. Taking away theirs would likely just result in a bunch of unlicensed drunk drivers behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but their cars plates would be registered and if they were spotted driving them it would be prison time.
Re: (Score:1)
Because prison is not the answer to everything for fuck's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
It fucking is if you kill someone because you're drunk so fuck you you hand wringing moron.
Re: (Score:1)
Me: Prison is not the answer to everything.
You: It is because (insert specific scenario).
Let me introduce you to the word "everything" and what it means.
This whole article is about how to STOP people from driving while drunk. I'm not hand wringing, I just don't think that prison is the only solution here.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd been banned from driving for DUI yet go out and drive again anyway then clearly they're beyond reasoned discussion. However a few months in a cell would probably focus their minds quite well. We're talking adults here who are responsible for their actions, not young children.
Re: (Score:1)
Are these the same responsible adults who leave their kids at home so they can make a drug run, or lie on their SNAP application?
Me and mom went to get Thanksgiving turkey and stuff one year (a while back), and were waiting for a cab, and there was a little girl who's mom apparently took off without her (we stayed with her until the manager got there)... those responsible adults?
Or, the responsible adults who leave their $900 cell phone on the car's roof, then drive off (causing the screen to break, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what your point is. Do you think because there are plenty examples of idiots doing dangerous things none of these idiots should be punished?
Re: (Score:1)
How many idiots out there today have guns who shouldn't be allowed to even have or be around a pocket knife?
While doing ten years in prison for drunk driving is just ridiculous, if you plow down a college frat party (let's not get into why the party was in the street), that's vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, which if I remember right, is probably longer than ten years in prison.
And, in response to your post below Viol8... banned from driving doesn't mean jack.
I've never had my license once, and I c
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, it's just for show. True, if the person isn't drunk at the time they can start their car. But if they are buzzed they can still have their non-drunk friend blow into it for them. So they don't really prevent anything (unless they're internet connected and get hacked...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, when the drunk driver crashes there's chance he'll kill the passenger, too, thereby eliminating more humans, reducing the human effects of climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a breathalyzer lockout on a car's ignition be a better safety feature than taking away their license? I mean, it's not like you have to scan a valid license to operate a vehicle. Taking away theirs would likely just result in a bunch of unlicensed drunk drivers behind the wheel.
People just bring their kids along to blow into the tube.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the question is not why does America have that, but rather why do you think that other countries don't. America is only slightly worse than average when it comes to DUI. In other countries I genuinely question whether they are being investigated correctly. E.g. in Australia I used to pass random breath test checkpoints maybe every 3 weeks. In Europe I've been tested twice in the past decade.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.sandlawnd.com/dui-... [sandlawnd.com]
(I don't understand the odd wording at the start of this quoted paragraph because it sounds like it's being set up for a contradiction when it's not)
"While the United States may seem like we have high numbers for DUI accidents every year, we actually are the third worst country when it comes to drunk drivingâ"which obviously isnâ(TM)t great. In 2015, South Africa was ranked number one as the worst country when it comes to drunk driving. With 58% of their fatal acci
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how you cut the statistics. The problem is there is very little consistency between not just how data is gathered, but also how laws are passed. For example: That very article you quote shows the number of fatal alcohol related deaths to be around 10k / yr. That article quotes 31% DUI related fatalities, but statistics show there's 41k deaths a year due to motor vehicles. Elsewhere the stats list that 31% is the number of fatal accidents that include *any* level of alcohol, not just above 0.08
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how you cut the statistics. The problem is there is very little consistency between not just how data is gathered, but also how laws are passed. For example: That very article you quote shows the number of fatal alcohol related deaths to be around 10k / yr. That article quotes 31% DUI related fatalities, but statistics show there's 41k deaths a year due to motor vehicles. Elsewhere the stats list that 31% is the number of fatal accidents that include *any* level of alcohol, not just above 0.08. Then how do you compare that to Germany where they only consider incidents above 0.05 (different limit, different recording method).
The entire statistic analysis and collection for this could be a masters thesis topic. Simply comparing numbers directly doesn't work.
I did a LOT of research on the USA data reporting ~20 years ago.
Throughout the 80s/90s/00s, USA drunk driving stats were drastically overreported due to poor standards across jurisdictions, a sloppy verbal technicality, and pre-digitized-OCR searching/indexing. During that era, the technical definition used for creating the national aggregate data, was actually "alcohol-involved" fatalities. Basically, if ANY of the people involved in a traffic incident were found to have alcohol, the incident was classifie
Re: (Score:2)
The claim being that different countries measure differently? You don't need to live abroad to see that statistics gathering between countries is not comparable, you just need to read the stats themselves.
Comparing countries could be the topic of a master thesis to actually get a meaningful answer. The world is more complicated than you think.
Re: (Score:1)
calling for checkpoints? what?
Re: (Score:2)
And why are they allowed a licence?
They are allowed a license because US public transportation is total crap. And because it is better for society to have these people be productive, even if they need this guardrail.
But that is not actually what the story is about. The story is about doing infrastructure on the stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are delusional.
Re: (Score:1)
because we have no public transit and having people who can't drive... in america... is a giant social risk because they'll drive illegally or turn to crime for work.
Because we have too many cops (Score:2)
We also have a recent case of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does America have 150,000 drivers who can't be trusted to not drink and drive?
America has millions, but only 150k currently under orders. Let me know which country has solved the drunk driving problem. America could then model its programs after that country's programs to achieve higher compliance. Humans are the same everywhere.
And why are they allowed a licence?
Because revoking a license essentially revokes a person's ability to support themselves. Do you want to dump 150k onto the welfare roles in one shot? How about the year over year count of people getting convicted of DWI/DUI? Do you REALLY want that many peopl
Why does it even need a connection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would such a device need a connection to anything?
Surely it can take the breath sample locally, analyse it, and then either start the car or refuse to do so entirely locally. This is yet another case of things being tied to a cloud service for absolutely no reason, and becoming useless when that service fails.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that this is the nub of the problem here, in the UK it is fairly common for insurance companies to fit trackers that report on the driver's behaviour in return for substantial discounts on their premiums and I can also see governments applying this sort of technology to drivers who have multiple speeding convictions.
The total reliance on a service in the cloud will inevitably brick the whole vehicle should that service become unavailable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My friend had one of these and it does all kinds of other things like taking photos of the driver performing the test. I can't remember everything he listed. Yes, someone fucked up the service, but this kind of device is supposed to failsafe with a disabled vehicle. It's not the same as a a car that gets over the air updates, which would failsafe with your vehicle continuing to run on old firmware. I'm pretty sure the over the air "periodic calibrations" they are talking about is the failsafe for tampering
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that would explain it. I was wondering why it would need periodic "calibration" because my only experience with such a thing was that a fellow student back when I was in college in the mid '90s had one, and it certainly wasn't internet connected. And I believe he had a friend (not me) blow into it at least once.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of having it phone home is that otherwise you could trivially bypass it. At some point it has to snitch or it's meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why does it even need a connection? (Score:4, Informative)
Why would such a device need a connection to anything?
Surely it can take the breath sample locally, analyse it, and then either start the car or refuse to do so entirely locally. This is yet another case of things being tied to a cloud service for absolutely no reason, and becoming useless when that service fails.
Everything is done locally. This isn't a cloud issue. The devices do not need a cloud connection to operate. The people who are locked out are those who have their calibration due. It's the Service Centres that do the calibration who are unable to recalibrate the devices (which does require a connection to back home) and that results in a device that gets locked out when the calibration expires.
Everything is completely local for the end user. The only people affected are those who had their calibration fall due in the couple of day period where the service centres were unable to calibrate them.
TFS and TFA is useless at explaining this.
Re: (Score:1)
it's called capitalism and it's why we cannot trust our own legal system, because it understands absolutely nothing and is run entirely by reactionaries who put the force of law behind shit as stupid as requiring an internet connection to start a car.
They just put their heads down and do their impossible jobs, just like the rest of us, and in so doing, they break everything, and no, endless compromise with obvious evil is not a good thing, nor a "progress" thing, nor an inevitable thing. It's just an incom
I interviewed there once... (Score:1)
I intentionally blew the interview because I could see their attack surfaces were porous and their "hybrid cloud" architecture was weak at best. The biggest problem, as I saw it, was that their then-current posture was what management had mandated and they had no interest in making their network and security architecture "better". Also, they were lobbying for "stronger" anti-drunk-driving laws so that they could "get more business", if you know what I mean. All told, I'd rate the company as a C to C- but
Lorem ipsum dolor sit, you drunken bastard (Score:2)
Not a surprise, seeing their lack of attention attention to detail.
Right now, on their home page under "We Make Getting Back on the Road Simple"
there's 4 testimonials, all with placeholder text.
I'd bet their automated billing for $75/mo is running just fine.
Parasites.
I have an idea (Score:2)
Cyber technology not fit for purpose. (Score:2)
So ... (Score:2)
And are they hiring?
No fault of ours? (Score:2)
> "Our vehicles are giant paperweights right now through no fault of ours," one wrote on Reddit.
No fault? None at all? That seems... counter-intuitive.
I get it that the technology failed spectacularly, and that this is a serious problem for which people need to be held to account, but my car is working just fine.
It's not what you think (Score:3)
For those of you that come in here saying "Oh well these drunks get what they deserve" and that these devices are only for repeat offenders, think again. Every state is slowly selling out to these shitty device manufacturers to make money.
In the state of Connecticut, even just being arrested/accused of a DUI, the DMV processes it and requires you to have a IID device like Intoxalock for 6mo to 12mo even on first offense. (2 and 3 years or parament for further offenses). No if ands or buts and no way to plead your case, just being arrested for it not even convicted of it. All automatic without due process. Automatic interlock, no other conditions like accident, or other charges needed, and treated like a 2nd class citizen for even the smallest mistake.
You receive a separate Criminal / Motor Vehicle case in the judicial system where normal court procedure occur, and you case can be pleaded, and/or reduced, deferment programs, etc if it's your first offense. So you can effectively have the criminal case dismissed and found not guilty, but the DMV will still require one of these interlock devices.
Re: It's not what you think (Score:1)
These Devices Do More Than Breath Tests (Score:3)
I have no sympathy for people who have to suffer with these devices, they are lucky they are still being allow driving privileges at all. Intoxalock is honestly one of the best manufacturers of the devices though, and they make life miserable for everyone including the shops that service them. I have no idea why the owners signed a contract with them, they little bit of money we made on install and removal was easily eaten up by the constant calibration headaches.
Dirty secret of these devices is they can easily be bypassed by jumping a pin on the starter relay. The GPS will detect the anomaly and go in to a service lock out, but you'll be able to start the car with the jumper. I wouldn't do this if I was on probation, but if some bullshit like this bricked my car and I had to get to work I'd do it.
??? This is a bad thing ??? (Score:1)