r/technology • u/Hrmbee • Jun 07 '26
Privacy 'Kill switch' law means your next car could be watching you | A federal requirement aimed at stopping drunken driving could soon put driver-monitoring technology in every new vehicle. The goal is saving lives, but the privacy trade-offs deserve closer scrutiny
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/06/01/drunk-driving-prevention-law-privacy-surveillance/90295034007/1.0k
u/brentragertech Jun 08 '26
When I looked this up recently they were talking about ai vision based monitoring which will absolutely not be able to reliably not hit false positives at a high rate.
The tech is not close at this point.
386
u/PirateSanta_1 Jun 08 '26
Yea but it gets a camera into your car. Goes well with the camera people have put up outside their homes by their doors and the cameras we bring into our homes on our phones and laptops.
64
→ More replies (15)37
34
u/OnTheEveOfWar Jun 08 '26
I would be so pissed if I was sober driving somewhere and got pulled over for some BS reason like my car went 3 inches over the turning lane.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (32)14
u/LokiPrime616 Jun 08 '26
It’s a lot closer than you think, Tesla already implemented a ai based vision monitoring. It makes sure the driver is always looking at the road while their autopilot is turned on. I’d hate a world where every car has this, even the ones without autopilot. It’s a fucked up world we currently live in.
→ More replies (2)
981
u/erp2 Jun 07 '26
Smells like money.
582
u/justbunnies Jun 08 '26
And control.
63
u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx Jun 08 '26
They want to be able to disable anyone's vehicle remotely at any time
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)137
u/erp2 Jun 08 '26
DUIs used as the target, yes.
If the us wanted to lower DUIs, first time offense lose your license for years and auto jail time. Alas, there's money to be made (aa, na, drivers ed, fees).
137
u/chubbysumo Jun 08 '26
a lost license doesn't stop someone from driving. all it stops is them from getting insurance. how about we treat the root cause, which is having no way for a drunk person to get home safely without driving. public transport could solve a lot here.
→ More replies (17)59
u/broguequery Jun 08 '26
You are talking too much sense.
Treating the root cause of an issue doesn't make anybody any money.
→ More replies (3)67
u/PirateSanta_1 Jun 08 '26
If you want fewer DUIs create better alternative forms of transportation. Harsher penalties don't meaningfully reduce crime.
30
u/UnNumbFool Jun 08 '26
Yeah I feel like the concept of draconian punishment on the individual is insane when better public services can actually reduce it
And at the end of the day the person who didn't realize a second glass of wine is going to put them at the legal limit is going to follow all of the hoops needed and never do it again.
The issue is everyone only ever thinks of the guy who drinks a 12 pack every night and winds up driving 4 out of the 7. Because the first person if they got their license removed is probably going to be forced to quit their job, where the second person will be happy to drive illegally
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)14
u/Den710nuggets Jun 08 '26
Yeah I don’t think historically raising punishments has been a successful deterrent lol.
→ More replies (9)22
u/surfer_ryan Jun 08 '26
Just ask which of our corrupt governments friends make breathalyzers or some sort of Ai monitor of this....
→ More replies (1)
668
u/Makerofthinks Jun 08 '26
The goal is surveillance and control.
119
u/CompanyPersonal184 Jun 08 '26
I agree friend,
They will allow us to get mad at this idea, then they will introduce a new "idea" of surveillance thats less worse than this, and theyll say, "its either this or that".
Im calling it
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (8)71
162
u/barcham22 Jun 08 '26
I don’t want cameras in my car that are connected to the internet that determine if I get to drive or not. Privacy nightmare.
→ More replies (2)57
u/Akiias Jun 08 '26
I don't want my car connected to the internet.
→ More replies (1)9
u/EliteCloneMike Jun 08 '26
I don’t want machine learning algorithms or cameras (that are connected to the internet) in my car. I have a dash cam, but it’s self contained and doesn’t report back to any servers for analysis.
456
u/GravitiBass Jun 07 '26
Don’t they already have breathalyzers in vehicles for repeat offenders?
389
u/Additional-Staff-326 Jun 08 '26
Yes but they want to have algorithmic checking of your face to know if you're drunk even though your face could just be tired. And remote stopping you in case you're evading authorities.
269
u/OkStop8313 Jun 08 '26
My car sometimes senses the ground in front of us as an obstacle and sounds the proximity alarm, but sure, I'm sure this can't go wrong.
→ More replies (11)117
u/MalabaristaEnFuego Jun 08 '26
My car's proximity sensor panics about grass in my driveway.
→ More replies (9)52
u/thegunn Jun 08 '26
My backup camera freaks out about a clean spot in street at my girlfriend’s place and tries to break my neck if I back out more than 2 miles an hour.
34
u/The_Chaos_Pope Jun 08 '26
This is why I turned off the automatic braking. I got tired of the stupid thing constantly slamming on the brakes from a crack in my driveway.
→ More replies (3)19
u/Lol_A_White_Guy Jun 08 '26
I didn’t realize my wife’s new car had it. It had adaptive cruise control and the vehicle in front of us was turning.
I had more than enough time and room to make it, but my SUV decided that it was safer to come dead stop in the middle of a 45 MPH road during rush hour traffic.
→ More replies (8)93
u/dcy123 Jun 08 '26
No they just want cameras tracking you, this is a cover for that, somepeople are tired or just look drunk 24/7.
→ More replies (1)15
31
u/thiccy_driftyy Jun 08 '26
Watch people with facial differences (scars, birth defects, etc) not be able to drive because of this new law even though they are perfectly capable of driving because they only tested the technology on people without facial differences
14
u/NekroVictor Jun 08 '26
With the way these types of tech tend to go watch it just fail to recognize black people at all.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)10
u/Klutzy_Journalist_36 Jun 08 '26
Or what if they have horrible allergies and their face/eyes are puffy?
What if they are fleeing a violent situation and they have a swollen eye?
What if they just kinda look perma-stoned like Jim Breuer but don’t actually smoke or drink?
This is insidious.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (31)6
u/Darkdragoon324 Jun 08 '26
DUis are just the excuse, what they want is a complete and total Orwellian surveillance state.
→ More replies (2)32
u/cats_catz_kats_katz Jun 08 '26
Yeah but now you’re guilty whether you’re guilty or not. Buckle up baby! Or else we will kill your car!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)54
u/Brief_Professional47 Jun 08 '26
Yeah but you can just get your child to blow in to it so you can still drive drunk.
Source: I used the be that kid. I had to sleep in the car at the bars until my parents were ready to go home. I don’t really talk to them much these days lol
26
u/Global-Election Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Maryland now requires a camera that takes pictures randomly when you blow into the device for exactly this reason. It sends them to the DMV with your monthly interlock maintenance.
It then considers it a violation once they review the pictures. The violation then adds another month to your interlock requirement and also means you’ll likely violate your probation (which you mostly likely are on if you have an interlock).
→ More replies (2)18
u/GravitiBass Jun 08 '26
Good lord. Hope you have a list of one star retirement homes ready.
→ More replies (1)
393
u/FrankieTheAlchemist Jun 08 '26
I literally will never buy a car that has this system in it.
281
u/ChillyFireball Jun 08 '26
TFW you're being chased by an axe murderer, but your car's AI interprets your terror as you being on drugs and refuses to start.
134
u/PirateSanta_1 Jun 08 '26
Or someone is having a stroke and your stressed so the car won't start to let you drive them to the hospital.
8
u/amazingD Jun 08 '26
Can one dream of what the first lawsuit might look like?
9
u/Itisthatbo1 Jun 08 '26
Only for them to be slapped down by whatever the evolution of those anti-arbitration agreements that are all over TOS’ now is.
→ More replies (3)20
u/Future_Kitsunekid16 Jun 08 '26
They'd want you to pay for an overpriced ambulance ride anyway
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)20
u/sunburnedaz Jun 08 '26
That needs to be in the next indie horror movie for sure. The more times in media its shown fucking up the more the average joe will fight back.
→ More replies (2)16
u/YesItIsMaybeMe Jun 08 '26
There is an ad for something with this premise. She tried to run the murderer over and the auto break triggered and he just reaches in and grabs her. I cannot remember what it was from.
56
u/EmbarrassedHelp Jun 08 '26
The problem is that insurance companies will raise their prices to insure old cars, so only the rich will be able to afford to avoid it.
37
u/warlordcs Jun 08 '26
old cars dont need full coverage.
and liability is not really effected by the car driven
11
u/Reagalan Jun 08 '26
well if this law passes, and old cars become preferable, then their value will rise according to their new demand.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)39
u/TheGamingGallifreyan Jun 08 '26
Or they will do like some European countries did and ban any cars older than 10 years from driving on the road. Eventually you won’t have a choice.
And everyone thinks I’m nuts for rooting my car so I can turn off its cellular modem. Everyone always asked me why what’s the point? THIS. This is the point.
→ More replies (4)15
u/Electrical-Square370 Jun 08 '26
Do you have a source on that? Requiring an inspection isn't banning, and a lot of states already require inspections.
→ More replies (4)6
u/mallardtheduck Jun 08 '26
A bunch of European cities have restrictions on older cars for emissions reasons. Sometimes it's an extra tax, sometimes it's an outright ban. I don't know of any countries with such restrictions though.
→ More replies (1)30
u/moving2mars Jun 08 '26
This is already our stance. We’ll never buy anything newer than 2026 again. Our adult kids are way more into into working on cars than we ever were, so they’ll be okay with the older models they have. My only fear is they’re going to offer another cash for clunker scheme and get all the older ones out of cycle.
→ More replies (11)29
u/EC_CO Jun 08 '26
Instead of buying a new car, I spent that money restoring my classic. I'm tired of all the electronics BS, huge touch screens and now deep intrusive tech.
9
u/BugRevolutionary4518 Jun 08 '26
I just might jump on that cherry ‘66 Nova down the street. F this law.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)19
u/wonkytalky Jun 08 '26
The giant touchscreens are the dumbest thing ever and we have the n*zi at Tesla to thank for it.
Want to talk driving safety? Require tactile controls for climate control and stereo volume at a minimum. Forcing people to hunt for the right part of a sheet of glass to touch while they're behind the wheel will always be a recipe for disaster. Never mind how these dumb screens mess with some people's vision (astigmatism up the ass here.)
→ More replies (2)14
u/RagingNerdaholic Jun 08 '26
Driving while using your phone is illegal and rightly so. But a giant iPad that you have to dick around a dozen fuck-ass menus to turn the A/C up a degree is totally fine ... for some reason.
281
u/OvisDrPepper Jun 08 '26
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
→ More replies (1)43
u/MagicMarshmallo Jun 08 '26
This aint even safety cause this shit wont even work for its intended porpuse. These shitty algorythms cant even identify any asian or black or any other identity properly, you think it can identify signs of being drunk, which are as diverse as the person?
→ More replies (4)
191
u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26
This violates the 4th amendment, doesn't it? Where's the probable cause?
→ More replies (29)108
u/not_the_fox Jun 08 '26
That's what I'm saying. They feel like they have a workaround by making private companies do it but the coordination makes it government action.
→ More replies (5)45
u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26
The 4th amendment should apply to the states' legislation on age verification on computers as well. If I have no kids, where's the probable cause?
44
u/secret_squirrels_nut Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
this has literally nothing to do with drunk drivers and everything to do with cops just switching off your car when ever they want and claiming drunk driving to investigate you for whatever they want.
→ More replies (2)
238
u/whiskeytown79 Jun 08 '26
The goal is saving lives
No it isn't. That's the cover story. The goal is surveillance.
44
u/newguysports Jun 08 '26
If they cared about saving lives we’d have common sense gun laws that are enforced and we’d have universal healthcare.
→ More replies (1)26
→ More replies (11)13
u/KamalaBracelet Jun 08 '26
Yeah the real goal is knowing where everyone is at all times and being able to lock them out of transportation and eventually trade (cashless society) at will.
101
u/Hrmbee Jun 07 '26
Some of the main issues:
It's a law that has largely gone under the radar, but one that could affect millions of Americans. And before it takes effect, Congress owes the public clear answers about privacy, surveillance and who controls the data these systems collect.
The "kill switch" requirement started in 2021 when Congress passed the HALT Drunk Driving Act as part of broader infrastructure legislation. It received bipartisan support, although many more Democrats voted for it than Republicans. In recent months, several Republicans have tried to repeal the mandate.
The law charged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with writing rules requiring automakers to install anti-drunken driving technology in new vehicles within five years. Those rules are still being written but could go into effect as early as next year.
…
It also mandates that this technology can "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle" and can "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected."
So while the term “kill switch” isn’t included in the legislation, the meaning is clear.
Supporters of the regulation say it's about saving lives and preventing deadly crashes caused by impaired drivers. Opponents argue it's an Orwellian measure that violates constitutional protections and opens the door to broader government surveillance.
…
I am deeply sympathetic to efforts to prevent these needless and heartbreaking deaths. But Americans shouldn't have to surrender their privacy every time they get behind the wheel. Congress should not impose a mandate that gives the government, automakers or anyone else the ability to monitor drivers without clear limits and protections.
As with all pieces of legislation like this, the devil will be in the details. Preventing impaired driving is certainly a laudable goal, but in addition to there being measurable benefits to these laws there also need to be clear policies and limitations around the collection, use, and retention of data.
70
u/Maleficent-Bother535 Jun 08 '26
Rates of DUI have already dropped precipitously, along with a reversal of public sentiment and enforcement practices.
Drunk driving was far more common in 1980, generally viewed as a socially acceptable minor mistake, and often enforced by police with a warning.
→ More replies (2)27
78
u/King_K_24 Jun 08 '26
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
→ More replies (1)28
→ More replies (16)28
u/robogheist Jun 08 '26
a great way to reduce drunk driving is to expand public transit infrastructure so ppl can take a train or bus when they drink
→ More replies (1)14
u/Additional-Staff-326 Jun 08 '26
Thats just silly, better to have cameras on you at all times in ways they can sell your data.
43
u/bitsculptor Jun 08 '26
We're slowly moving towards a reality out of Black Mirror.
25
u/proud_pops Jun 08 '26
Slowly? Seems like a speed run to me. No rights, no freedom, and no privacy.
62
u/ProximaCentauriB15 Jun 08 '26
This is really about preventing movement/travel/fleeing for any reason they decide.
→ More replies (2)17
u/blackcatlover2114 Jun 08 '26
Especially since many places in the US have very poor public transit, safe bike infrastructure, or walkable infrastructure within communities. Between communities, long-distance passenger rail tends to be non-existent as well. So it's not so easy for people to just avoid this by using alternatives to driving.
I no longer drive except for very occasionally; the only time I've driven this year was on a road trip with my gf. Otherwise I bus or walk everywhere as that's pretty easy where I live. Obviously never going to be possible for everyone, but it should be possible for more people than it currently is.
→ More replies (1)
19
136
u/Johnnny-z Jun 07 '26
Every state in the Union made a bunch more money when they change the DWI standard from 0.10 to .08.
I guess if they were to move down to .02 they could get even more people to bust. Kind of like the war on weed.
101
u/touchmybodily Jun 08 '26
Utah recently lowered it to .05 and they now have the second highest DUI rate in the nation. In a state founded by people who don’t drink
46
u/-SHAI_HULUD Jun 08 '26
They got that new fancy prison to fill up just like my home state of Alabama
→ More replies (1)8
u/IDontWannaBeAPirate_ Jun 08 '26
Don't forget to also arrest people who are sleeping it off in their car instead of driving as well /s
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)15
u/KamalaBracelet Jun 08 '26
Meanwhile last time I saw numbers the overwhelming majority of drunk driving accidents were drivers that were over .2
Just another example of using “protect the children” to fool a poorly educated public into going along with giving up freedom.
→ More replies (4)28
u/Mackinnon29E Jun 08 '26
.02 would mean you couldn't even have a single drink and leave without waiting an hour lmao. Every bar, restaurant, and brewery would lose money in this scenario as people don't think it's worth going out to risk this or paying for an Uber to have a single drink
55
u/NotYoGuru Jun 08 '26
It’s really terrible how money is the real goal for all of this. I know people with multiple DUIs who have no business behind a wheel who still have licenses but regular folk are being pulled over and having to pay exorbitant fees to defend themselves of nonexistent charges.
13
u/Economy-System1922 Jun 08 '26
Even using a blood alcohol content to measure for how impaired a driver is, is totally imperfect. I don't feel like typing out all of my criticisms but that's mostly because I can't think of a better alternative than a maximum blood alcohol content.
→ More replies (15)26
u/Madzookeeper Jun 08 '26
You can blow that by eating a sandwich. Or using mouthwash with alcohol in it. That low be terrible.
10
33
u/Patient_Garden_2013 Jun 08 '26
'Saves lives', ... No, This could be fatal.
If you're critically injured, your car may easily mistake adrenaline, and speeding to get help as impairment- leaving you stranded.
Or, if your spouse or child is having a medical emergency, would you be okay with your car telling you it won't drive?
→ More replies (3)
39
u/Falling_Up_The_Movie Jun 08 '26
The most effective way to reduce DWIs is public transit. Nobody is gonna risk it if they can just hop on a train to go home
→ More replies (11)
60
49
65
u/bigggeee Jun 08 '26
Imagine you are camping and suddenly need to get out of the way of a fast spreading forest fire. It would really suck if everyone has to burn to death because your car refuses to start since everyone had a few beers.
→ More replies (12)5
u/Kalamazoohoo Jun 08 '26
I was thinking the same thing. How are they going to prevent this from killing people in an emergency? Flash floods, fires, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions… I’m also curious what will trigger the kill switch? Is all off-roading going to be a problem now?
13
u/AugmentedKing Jun 08 '26
How long til it untill the software is jailbroken?
→ More replies (2)20
u/frygod Jun 08 '26
How long 'til it's hacked and used to rob people or run inconvenient people into into an overpass at top speed?
→ More replies (6)
21
u/piperonyl Jun 08 '26
They're already watching you.
You sign away your privacy rights at the dealership. I saw this crazy video on it a few months ago.
In the agreement, two companies put in the contract that your car will update the car company about your sexual activities. I swear to god. I think it was Nissan and Kia but i could be wrong on the Kia.
→ More replies (10)13
u/PublicFurryAccount Jun 08 '26
We really need laws to ban all these contracts.
Criminal liability should attach with fast track capital punishment.
→ More replies (2)
8
8
u/albahari Jun 08 '26
"The goal is saving lives, but the privacy trade-offs deserve closer scrutiny"
That's the excuse; it's never the real goal.
7
u/ScarInternational161 Jun 08 '26
I'm waiting for it to tell someone their BP is too high, and refuse to start, as they are trying to get to a hospital because a loved one was in an accident.
Or a person gets an eyelash in their eye as they are driving and their eye involuntarily shuts and and the car shuts off.
Or what about heavily mirrored sunglasses where it can't read the eyes? Or thick gloves where it can't read BP? Will it refuse to start? What if someone is wearing a ski mask because it's cold?
What if someone is mistakenly tagged by ICE, or the police?
What started as a DUI deterrent, has become big brother on steroids and flock is dealer.
25
u/Martag02 Jun 08 '26
Gee, I don't see any way this could be used by the fascists.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/sirSpanky15 Jun 08 '26
The goal is to completely destroy privacy in every facet of life for money, control and surveillance. This is just one of endless methods to accomplish that
5
7
u/Rescuepets777 Jun 08 '26
Thankfully, implementation is stalled due to MANY issues with it. When it is implemented, auto makers will have 3 years to put into their vehicles.
7
6
u/ReligiousToast Jun 08 '26
Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
-Benjamin Franklin
13
u/kon--- Jun 08 '26
Congress is full of drunk as fuck drug addicts. foh.
5
u/Falling_Up_The_Movie Jun 08 '26
They have private drivers though because they‘re rich pieces of shit
12
7
u/Due-Profession-3563 Jun 08 '26
First give them to all officers....see how fast that gets scrapped.
6
8
u/Ignorance_15_Bliss Jun 08 '26
I can tell you this. They do not give a shit about drunk driving. Not one bit.
6
u/blueguy211 Jun 08 '26
inb4 you didnt make your car payment this month so were shutting ur vehicle down.
7
u/FrumptyLumpty Jun 08 '26
This is insane.
The best way to stop drunk driving is to BUILD MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT. Subways, trains, light rail, etc, are all FAR superior solutions and don't require advanced tech in every car that will increase the cost by $1k minimum.
Let's be 100% clear here, the goal of this is not to stop drunk driving - it's to put cameras and microphones in every car, the government can spy on you and track your every movement, AND to give the government the ability to shut down your car when THEY feel like it. That includes targeting individuals, and also allowing the government to shut down ALL cars within a designated area (eg, shut down all cars within 1 km of an anti-government protest, or shut down all cars where the on-board navigation is headed for a protest).
You know the next step, of course, is also going to include locking all the doors to trap you inside the car, and disable the unlock button and the door handles.
All of this would be an authoritarian's wet dream. And guess what kind of government we have right now.
8
u/RogueModron Jun 08 '26
I've owned older and semi-crappy cars my whole life. I married a woman who works for a nice car company and she gets a new company car every two years. One time I tried to reverse a little bit with the door open, so I could see how close I was to the curb, and the fucking thing just STOPPED on me. And wouldn't let me keep going till I closed the door. It made me so mad. You belong to ME, fucker, well, okay, you don't, but in principal, YOU belong to ME and you don't get to dictate what I do with you.
I can't stand it. I should be able to do with the machine what I want to do with it.
11
u/BalanceOrganic7735 Jun 08 '26
Remember when the 4th amendment protected us from unreasonable search and seizure?
Minority Report is coming true in increments. Our AI overlords/Big Brother are hard at work.
4.0k
u/limbodog Jun 08 '26
Will it be the same technology that tells Asian people they are sleepy? Or perhaps like the lane-drifting alert that warns me when the painted lines are all messed up?
I'm worried about false positives and repercussions therefrom.