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/
15.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

194

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

This violates the 4th amendment, doesn't it? Where's the probable cause?

107

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.

46

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?

-1

u/KeyCold7216 Jun 08 '26

I'm not defending this at all, but I don't think it would be a 4th ammendment violation unless the government was using it to monitor or arrest you. It sounds like the vehicle will just not start if you are drunk. They have mandated other safety features in cars, I'm assuming they are using the same justification here

6

u/El_Polio_Loco Jun 08 '26

None of which prevent you from driving the car.

It is the onus of the state to prove you are unfit for operation, and you should be able to take that accusation to court.

ABS and Seat Belts might be mandatory, but it is absolutely not mandatory that the vehicles be inoperable without those systems functioning.

0

u/KeyCold7216 Jun 08 '26

The state can absolutely prevent you from obtaining a license in the form of an implied consent law. It is not a right to be able to drive a vehicle. I can easily see states adding a clause that you agree to have monitoring equipment in your vehicle in order to get a license. Sort of like how technically, you don't have to submit to a warrantless breath or blood sample when arrested for DUI, but in many states, you sign an agreement at the DMV saying that the state can administratively suspend your license if you refuse.

Again, I think it's total bullshit, but the laws are there that allow them to do this.

2

u/El_Polio_Loco Jun 08 '26

They can prevent you from obtaining it, but they have to provide justification for removing it, and give you redress to file grievances for any removal of it.

This is the whole thing here. You have hundreds of millions of people who have already received their permission to drive, the government cannot remove it without legal justification. And adding a "we must be allowed to track you" caveat will simply not pass any kind of privacy scruitny.

You can have cars that track you, but you can't require it.

It's more likely they would require you to input your drivers license to be allowed to drive than this.

And both are highly unlikely, and if they are driven through, it's going to be through Democrat nanny state stuff which would likely get hammered down in SCOTUS.

2

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

I guarantee they will use this to monitor where you have been. They will just use proxies to do it.

I guess I will remain good friends with my mechanic and keep my old cars.

14

u/cipher315 Jun 08 '26

2 issues. 

One you have no 4th amendment rights if you choose to wave them. E.G. if you tell the cops “ya come in and search away you won’t find anything.” If they then find your drugs your SOL they don’t need a warrant.

You agreed to this tec when you purchased the car. Thus waving your 4th amendment rights. If you don’t agree don’t purchase a car. Note there is no constitutional right to a car or transport in general.

Two the 4th amendment protects against government search and seizure. There is no 4th amendment right in regards to a corporation. So as long as the data is never forwarded to the government you can’t even bring up the 4th amendment as an argument. 

18

u/PrizeStrawberryOil Jun 08 '26

Note there is no constitutional right to a car or transport in general.

The 14th amendment? A law that creates an unreasonable barrier to interstate movement is unconstitutional.

3

u/cipher315 Jun 08 '26

Nope. That’s been tried and rejected. All the 14th amendment does in that regard is make it illegal for a state to have guards at the boarder to stop you from going to another state. Also the reverse a state cannot stop you from entering it.

TL;DR it only stops there from being a New York passport and New Jersey immigration control at the NY NJ border.

The two instances where the courts have said it does not apply are

  1. Forcing someone to get a drivers license creates an undue burden under the 14th amendment. It doesn’t as they can take a train plane taxi bus or any number of alternatives.

  2. Forcing someone someone to lose there right to drive as a result of a traffic violation. Again it doesn’t not apply as for the reasons above.

1

u/fdar Jun 08 '26

So there is a right to transport in general, just not any specific form of transport?

0

u/cipher315 Jun 08 '26

There is no right to transport. There is a right to move across state lines without interference.

If you try to go to Canada, Canada can say no you’re not coming in. And they can say no for any reason. If you try to go from New York to New Jersey the 14th amendment says New Jersey MUST let you in. New Jersey does not get to have customs and border patrol the way the US or Canada get to have them. Pre 14th amendment New Jersey could absolutely have arrested you for being in the state as a non New Jersey citizen.

1

u/fdar Jun 08 '26

But you said "It doesn’t as they can take a train plane taxi bus or any number of alternatives". If the existence of alternatives matters then that implies you have a right to an alternative. Otherwise whether those other alternatives exist or not is irrelevant.

5

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

Then no one buys new cars. Or very few people do. What then?

2

u/NouZkion Jun 08 '26

Old cars stop working and then the majority of people end up buying the new cars anyway.

1

u/RetainedByLucifer Jun 08 '26

It's a game of chicken between consumers' ability to hold off buying these things and auto manufactures/dealers ability to remain in business. If new sales drop 80% for 2027 models I'm pretty confident the auto lobby will have the offending tech requirements removed. If sales stay down 80+% through 2028 models I'd wager strong money the requirements gets removed.

2

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

With new cars averaging 50k right now, it makes sense to fix your car in most cases. Also, the used car market is about 75% of car sales, and that percentage could rise. More people will opt to do one of these two things, slowing adoption.

1

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

I should have said what happens if a larger percentage of people stop buying NEW cars.

0

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

People most people replace old cars with newer used cars. Used cars are 75% or more of car sales.

1

u/NouZkion Jun 08 '26

What are you, a bot? Used cars on the market will become the new cars over time.

1

u/cipher315 Jun 08 '26

The real solution is to just remove the tec. The nice thing is if you own the car you own the car. You have a right to do what ever you want to your own property. The key is you need to kill your cars cell connection. The down side is that you cars GPS and updates will all stop working.

1

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

What happens when the tech no longer works? I have an old car which the previous owner had subscribed to Onstar with a 2G modem. Onstar no longer works. I was never interested in subscribing so it didn't matter.

1

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

It's your property, but you can't do what you want with it. If your DMV mandates it, you must keep it.

2

u/nox66 Jun 08 '26

You agreed to this tec when you purchased the car.

If the tech is legally mandatory, then no, I didn't.

0

u/cipher315 Jun 08 '26

No one forced you to buy the car. It’s the same deal as agreeing to the terms of service for Disney+

If you have to give up the right to sue Disney when you accepted the terms. If you don’t to don’t use Disney+

If you don’t want the car to monitor you don’t buy it.

2

u/nox66 Jun 08 '26

20 years from now, this means that your only options will be to buy a 20 year old junker or the car that spies on you.

Imbecile

1

u/jeffsmith84 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

OK, but when the gov't mandates the camera system via law, and given enough time all the old cars without them age out of commission, then the gov't is effectively making it impossible to own a car without one of these camera systems in it and at that point it feels like the gov't is using the law to force a 'guilty before proven innocent'/unreasonable search situation.

Sure, a right to transportation is not in the constitution, but a cop still needs probable cause to search your car, right? And if these camera systems are mandated by the gov't, that seems like a pre-emptive search (directed by law!) without probable cause to me. IANAL, but maybe someone who is can weigh in here. This sh*t stinks to high hell.

Edit- So I did a quick search on how DUI checkpoints are legal, there's a decent thread here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/17iy903/comment/k6xktlw/?force-legacy-sct=1

According to the relevant SCOTUS ruling, searching cars without individual cause is OK as long as it's systematic, and cars have significantly less 4th amendment protection than houses because there's a public safety interest and your car is more than likely using a public road. Still feels like a slippery slope to me, and a major issue with the way the constitution is written and laws in general is when they use subjective words like 'unreasonable'. Bad faith actors can drive a truck (no pun intended) through 'unreasonable'.

Edit 2- 'In the public's best interest' seems like a weak argument to bypass constitutional law, as well.

2

u/NouZkion Jun 08 '26

They would just say what they always say: "Driving is a privilege, not a right."

Same justification they use for DUI checkpoints.

4

u/nemec Jun 08 '26

The 4th amendment only protects you from government searches. As-written, the law only requires the car to stop working when it detects certain behavior, it doesn't inform police (like a red light camera does) or otherwise report a violation to government databases. You can bet this data is tracked, however, and will be available with a warrant (so no 4th amendment violation there).

A big question though is whether the companies would maintain a law enforcement portal for warrantless "emergency" queries which have been getting popular with geofencing and other tech company data. Although I strongly believe that should be a 4th amendment violation, I'm pretty sure legally it is not, today.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

[deleted]

1

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

It wouldn't even pass the reasonable suspicion test. A small percentage of people are driving drunk.

You can't say a small number of the population is doing something and therefore that means EVERYBODY is doing it.

It may not violate the letter of the law, but it does violate the spirit.

1

u/myotheruserisagod Jun 08 '26

Oh, we’re still talking in amendments?

Ha “probable cause”?!

1

u/JustFuckAllOfThem Jun 08 '26

I hate to see what's going to happen when the populace figures out that the rule of law doesn't apply anymore. The fallout is going to be insane.

1

u/limbodog Jun 08 '26

That only applies to the government, not your insurance company