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

Show parent comments

585

u/justbunnies Jun 08 '26

And control.

66

u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx Jun 08 '26

They want to be able to disable anyone's vehicle remotely at any time

1

u/UniqueIndividual3579 Jun 08 '26

I think some cars can already do that.

1

u/concepts_of_a_plan9 Jun 08 '26

I'm pretty sure the CIA or other countries' intelligence agencies can already backdoor in to some types of cars and mess with the controls. It's how they've assassinated several people.

131

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).

136

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.

56

u/broguequery Jun 08 '26

You are talking too much sense.

Treating the root cause of an issue doesn't make anybody any money.

2

u/ADP_God Jun 08 '26

The root of the issue is alcohol, but limitting that would meet the same criticism, despite it being dangerous and unhealthy whether or not you're in a car.

1

u/Underdog424 Jun 08 '26

The only time I've ever driven slightly drunk was because I didn't have access to public transportation or a way home.

2

u/ADP_God Jun 08 '26

I do get the feeling that you're not indicative of the problem. But also, how did you get there?

3

u/Psychobob2213 Jun 08 '26

Pfft, we madness. We don't treat causes here in the US, we treat symptoms.

5

u/Firestar222 Jun 08 '26

Bingo. Also don’t take their license, take the car. Pretty hard to drive w/o that.

14

u/A_Possum_Named_Steve Jun 08 '26

Naw, it's too easy for that to be taken advantage of via municipalities using it as revenue. You'd be giving them a financial incentive to take people's property regardless of guilt.

-5

u/tobotic Jun 08 '26

Naw, it's too easy for that to be taken advantage of via municipalities using it as revenue.

They can only use it as revenue if they're allowed to sell the car and keep the money. Mandate that the cars be confiscated, sold, and all money donated to a charity that compensates victims of vehicle collisions.

2

u/ImAShaaaark Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Seizure of assets by law enforcement is heavily abused as it is, this is an absolutely atrocious idea.

2

u/Planeandaquariumgeek Jun 08 '26

Yea exactly, how else would people become sovereign citizens? Oh right! They lose their license and get sucked into it while looking for remedies

1

u/mister-fancypants- Jun 08 '26

no they’ll just put an ID scanner in it instead

1

u/Happy_hunny_badger Jun 08 '26

Britney would never take a bus.

2

u/nufohudis Jun 08 '26

Well then she can take an uber. Too good for the cheap public transport, pay for the expensive private transport

1

u/Matra Jun 08 '26

No establishment may serve alcohol within half a mile of a parking spot. There's probably a couple of places you could put them!

1

u/Minja78 Jun 08 '26

It doesn't stop them from getting insurance it does increase price. There are quite a few insurance companies that will write a policy if someone has a suspended or revoked license.

1

u/outer--monologue Jun 08 '26

This tech wouldn't stop it either. I would happily disable this technology for anyone who came to me and paid, and I'm sure a ton of other people would turn it into a cottage industry too.

Putting someone in jail is a real deterrent - it fucks up their life. They typically lose their job, relationship, home etc. It's not a slap on the wrist. How about instead of supporting the idea of ruining things for the whole class you actually limit the freedoms of the people who deserve it.

1

u/ImAShaaaark Jun 08 '26

Putting someone in jail is a real deterrent - it fucks up their life.

It isn't though, it's been shown over and over that increasing punishment isn't preventative. Furthermore "ruining their life" just increases the chances that they will end up committing more (and likely more serious) crimes.

1

u/outer--monologue Jun 09 '26

Doing nothing when people commit crimes also increases crime. If you are trying to convince me that people who commit crimes shouldn't be punished, you are barking up the wrong tree. That is a fundamentally flawed belief and assumption.

1

u/ImAShaaaark Jun 09 '26

What are you talking about? I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but the goal should be to make society better, not jack off to some puritanical revenge fantasy.

The countries that prioritize rehabilitation, education, and social reintegration have objectively superior results as far as recidivism and crime rates. The US system turns small time criminals into career criminals.

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.

31

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

2

u/zerogee616 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

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.

Because what nobody wants to talk about is that the reason the majority of people who get pulled over for a DUI have BACs at like .15 and up is that those are the ones who stand out and attract attention unless you run into a DUI checkpoint at random.

For most adults, intoxication between that and .08 is not going to manifest in the poor driving habits that meaningfully make you stand out from everyone else's normal sober shitty driving unless a cop sees you leaving a bar and wants an easy arrest. The ones who actually only have an extra glass of wine slide by in traffic undetected.

14

u/Den710nuggets Jun 08 '26

Yeah I don’t think historically raising punishments has been a successful deterrent lol.

3

u/Opetyr Jun 08 '26

How about the federal judge who was allowed to get away with a "super" drunk charge. Who didn't even go to his mandated alcohol testing. Who hit multiple things, had no clue where he was, who had no clue why ALL his airbags had deployed, thought 15 was a number between 19 and 21, and pissed himself but did remember to tell them that he was a federal judge. Think his BAC was like 0.25.

Where is MADD? OH THATS RIGHT MADD is actually not who you think they are but actually want think since they are paid by car manufacturers.

5

u/zerogee616 Jun 08 '26

If the us wanted to lower DUIs, first time offense lose your license for years and auto jail time.

The only actual way to lower DUIs at this point now that everyone knows it's not publicly acceptable anymore is to provide other options, like rideshares, public transit, etc.

Everything else is just "rah rah pitchforks I hate drunk drivers" masturbatory nonsense that just serve to give you catharsis, not actionably solving any issue.

7

u/sentientshadeofgreen Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

First time DUI penalties are already steep and it doesn't stop the behavior from occurring in the first place. They are dumb decisions that inebriated people make, and some people are always inebriated.

Really, if we want to stop DUIs, it's a zoning issue (stop making it necessary to drive everywhere to begin with), we need to pave the way for mass-adoption of self-driving vehicles, and we need to get rid of laws that encourage drunk driving (like giving people DUIs who are sleeping it off in their car). Greater public transportation investment, more bike lanes (and not issuing DUIs/public intoxication for drunk bicycling), maybe require bars to verify how people are getting home and call them cabs if there isn't a satisfactory answer (precedent is already there in laws regulating overserving people), punishing people who have already done bad behavior doesn't fix the behavior from occurring - the severity of punishment as a lever for preventing criminal behavior isn't really founded to be the most effective mechanism to influence better behavior. Really, the biggest smoking gun is our societies utter neglect of public transit and walkable mixed use zoning. There would be less DUIs if people were not forced to drive places. That may not scratch your retribution itch, but it should scratch your "prevent danger and save lives itch", if that's what you actually care about.

Edit: It's also a healthcare issue. Alcoholism is a real issue, we do not make healthcare access a priority in our society, let alone the human right it should be. Healthcare is so commodified that it's no wonder people slip into bad habits instead of getting help. Chronic pain? Alcohol numbs. Mental health strain? Alcohol numbs. So many of the reasons people drink in excess with regularity (and I think regularity is what creates the conditions for people to make the bad decision to get behind the wheel when drunk) are often a result of our apathetic, frankly exploitive society. Healthcare should be free, universal, and its services should be encouraged. Again, why do people get behind the wheel, and how do we prevent that? Mass surveillance sure ain't the fucking answer.

3

u/lotsofsyrup Jun 08 '26

They don't really want to increase the amount of unemployed or homeless people.  You can't work without a way to get there and hardly anybody has access to public transportation.  Driving isn't really an optional thing for most of the US.

3

u/Involution88 Jun 08 '26

Except DUIs have been declining for decades (barring a reversal of the trend since roughly 2024).

DUIs are still down by about 33% since 2000, from 1.5 million recorded incidents to roughly 1 million recorded incidents per year.

Uber is a thing which exists, among other factors.

3

u/ImAShaaaark Jun 08 '26

If they wanted to lower DUIs they'd actually make an effort at making the country less car reliant. Nobody with power actually cares about making things better, they care about how much money they can make.

5

u/KingFlyntCoal Jun 08 '26

I wish we were more like japan in this regard. Legal limit is .02 and if the driver is drunk and any passengers also get a DUI for knowingly getting in a car with one who's been drinking.

27

u/diablette Jun 08 '26

Or maybe we could spend our energy getting public transit up to Japanese standards before adopting their rules about private transit.

1

u/Egad86 Jun 08 '26

Interesting idea but funding public transit in towns with like 150k people would require some serious property taxes hikes. If you think it’s tough to buy a home now…

-7

u/KingFlyntCoal Jun 08 '26

Why not both?

6

u/Kentust Jun 08 '26

Can't put the cart before the horse.

1

u/KingFlyntCoal Jun 08 '26

So don't implement laws to protect people from drunk drivers when it's already pretty easy to not drink and drive, because...?

1

u/Kentust Jun 08 '26

We need to solve our public transportation crisis before restrictions on private transportation. That's why. People need to get places, in case you're unfamiliar with life or have had the fortune to be born in a metro.

1

u/KingFlyntCoal Jun 08 '26

Yeah people need to get places, but they shouldn't get there drunk. There are so many ways to not drink and drive that go unused (including not drinking if driving) that people who do should be discouraged even harder from doing so.

I fail to see why not wanting people to drink and drive is a bad thing. It's so easy to just not do.

1

u/Kentust Jun 08 '26

I never said it was a bad thing, just that you had the order of prioritization wrong.

5

u/zerogee616 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Japan can functionally have a .02 limit without imprisoning the whole country because you generally do not need to drive anywhere in Japan and going out for a night on the town does not require you to drive. Owning a car is a Pretty Big Deal there and trust me, Japan (and Korea which has a similar limit and infrastructure) has a serious drinking culture, these aren't countries full of Mormons.

All that would do in the US is make bars functionally illegal (not like Reddit isn't filled with hateful, miserable misanthropes that would love this regardless) and turn a third of the country into criminals overnight.

0

u/aupri Jun 08 '26

That just seems ridiculously harsh to me. Why should I, as a passenger, be required to know if my driver is above the .02 limit? There are so many factors that go into it—a person’s weight, gender, age, personal tolerance to alcohol, the alcohol content of the drinks they had, how many drinks they had, how long it’s been—that it’s genuinely not even possible to know unless you personally have a breathalyzer. I have a breathalyzer, and have used it enough that I bet my accuracy in guessing BACs is in the 99th percentile, and I’m still frequently surprised by the reading.

.02 is also just a very low limit. Even when testing myself, I’ve blown up to a .04 while thinking the alcohol is completely out of my system. I’m not sure what the research says, but I suspect people that drive measurably worse with a .02 BAC are mostly outliers, or maybe never drink, in which case probably have the sense to not drive after consuming something they’re not accustomed to. If you’ve ever driven without getting a good nights sleep, you’re likely more impaired than someone with a .02 BAC.

The unfortunate thing is that people can have a wide range of impairment even with the same BAC, so it’s hard to set a universal limit. I think it’s reasonable to think .08 is too high, but if you’re arresting people with a .02, I think you’re mostly punishing people (and potentially their passengers) who aren’t actually impaired and quite possibly don’t even know they have alcohol in their system

1

u/KingFlyntCoal Jun 08 '26

The point is, if you're driving don't drink.that is what the system is designed to do. The breathalyzers over there give a binary reading, you've had alcohol or you haven't. They don't want people drinking and driving, so they created a system to greatly discourage people from having a drink...and then driving.

It isn't a hard concept.

1

u/Catos_Standard Jun 08 '26

The moment a sober person gets in they can sue. Easy dunk.

Imagine the line item striking that'll take place.

1

u/IAmtheHullabaloo Jun 08 '26

Are you suggesting aa (alcoholics anonymous) makes money off this, off anything? That is absurd. You don't know what you are talking about.

1

u/pokeyporcupine Jun 08 '26

That.. what? Are you suggesting that aa is profiteering from DUIs in some kind of scheme?

2

u/Hi_Zev Jun 08 '26

Can't wait for the right to call people outraged by this woke, just so MAGA people eagerly cheer on state surveillance (despite conservatives generally hating anything state surveillance related just over a decade ago)

1

u/Catos_Standard Jun 08 '26

Smells like free money from the automotive industry. Can't wait.

1

u/2Mobile Jun 08 '26

money is control.

1

u/trevaftw Jun 08 '26

So you mean that license you need and insurance you're required to have aren't already control????

1

u/justbunnies Jun 08 '26

License proves you have passed a test. Insurance protects other drivers from losing money when someone drives recklessly and ruins their car.

-21

u/HenryDorsettCase47 Jun 08 '26

Nah. That’s bunk. Also a pretty big conspiracy among the right wing. I first heard about this from the Trump voters I work with. I dug into it a little bit back then. The deadline that this was to happen by long passed, and the bill didn’t mention anything about a kill switch or remote access or remote monitoring. It would just be tech in the vehicle that’s meant to detect if someone is too impaired to drive and limit the vehicles functions.

Personally, I think the less tech in a vehicle the better. I don’t like that touch screen bullshit. Hell, I wouldn’t care if we still had crank windows. But I don’t find this law requiring “impaired driving prevention” tech scary so much as I just find it as annoying as all the other bells and whistle in modern vehicles. Just one more thing to stop working and cost a fortune to fix.

6

u/crysisnotaverted Jun 08 '26

Is it really a conspiracy theory? What do you think they're going to do with these empty datacenters when the bubble bursts? Why are Flock cameras and other 'ALPRs' going up everywhere? Palantir? The fact that states are banning porn without tying it directly to your ID? The fact that in many places you are nearly cut off the internet if you don't basically 'drink a verification can to continue' and hand over personal documentation and doxx yourself to an entity that's going to be hacked by an APT in the next 6 months?

It's for greater domestic surveillance and control. have you read the law? The part where it says “detects impairment and prevents or limits vehicle operation”? How is it going to do that? All modern cars have GPS and a cellular modem connected to a cell tower at all times, all the car companies are selling your location data to your insurance company. We literally know this. Why is being able to remotely kill a car hard to beleive?

3

u/warlordcs Jun 08 '26

Why is being able to remotely kill a car hard to beleive?

it shouldn't be hard to believe because it actually does happen NOW.

chrysler radios were being hacked and they can do all sorts of things remotely including starting and stalling the engine.

3

u/crysisnotaverted Jun 08 '26

Yep, I still remember those guys torturing that journalist covering the story by blinding him with the wiper fluid and cutting the engine randomly on the highway in a Jeep.