this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
146 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

82884 readers
3916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (4 children)

Someone knowledgeable enough could tamper with the local equipment to get it to give false negatives, or always pass regardless of blood alcohol content. If it doesn't phone home, the company (or the court) doesn't know it's been tampered with.

This is all theoretical, I know nothing about this tech.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If somebody is good enough to tamper with the part that checks for BAC, why not also tamper with the part that phones home? Would they even need to?

[–] Archr@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

The device doesn't just phone home while driving. It does it constantly. It's likely that any tampering would alert the vendor and by proxy the court.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 9 hours ago

If it knows it's been tampered with, it doesn't need to phone home, it can be disabled locally...

[–] bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.

[–] teft@piefed.social 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with you in principle but you could just have the person show up once a week for tamper checking. Those interlock devices are punishment for DUI/DWI so making the user show up once a week wouldn’t be too harsh, imo.

[–] QuadratureSurfer@piefed.social 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Showing up once a week isn't a problem if it's only a handful of people going to the same place.

However, when you have a lot of people on this device in a small area, you'll have to ask them to go farther and farther away. Or else you're going to outsource who is checking on the device, and that's going to start driving up the price for this service.

[–] teft@piefed.social 0 points 13 hours ago

According to some stats I found there were about 350k interlock devices in use in the entire US in 2016. That's a tiny fraction of the amount of drivers we have. Unless they're all concentrated in the same spot and have tripled or more in numbers this isn't going to be a problem in a population of 350 million.