434
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
434 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
83126 readers
3192 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.
Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight?
Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering.
It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local.
Yeah I don't know, that's a whole bunch of unnecessary surveillance.
Make the device work locally, make it in any way tamper resistant and mandate a yearly check up at a certified autoshop.
The solution to problems does not have to be "control every possible thing at all times".
People deserve not to be monitored around the clock.
Uhhh nope, there's no reason for a remote connection.
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI, by your logic ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Don't break the law If you don't want to be monitored by the state.
Yes I am actually aware, thanks.
Ankle monitors monitor location. Interlock devices monitor intoxication levels, and locally send a signal to the vehicle about whether it's ok to drive. The difference should be obvious.
Spoken like someone never targeted by LE.
Nope because I live somewhere that isn't a police state.
I'm very happy for you. My point stands.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
Of course I am?
I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea.
Deoending on the way it's implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y'know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly.
But. That's the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car.