this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
123 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

82884 readers
2725 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
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 42 minutes ago

drinking is some baby idiot garbage

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Boo for the cyber attack but fuck people who drive drunk repeatedly to the point of needing an interlock device. Maybe don't drink and drive you fucking sack of shit.

[–] plz1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I know someone that did it once and having to have one of these as a result. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.

Nope, shouldn't of done it once. Pretty easy to not drink and drive.

[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 22 points 7 hours ago

This is a great story to illuminate the large number of problems that could be addressed by decent public transit, better options for walking and biking, etc.

[–] OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world 50 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

And here I was thinking these blow-and-go contraptions were self contained. I should have known better.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 25 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They want to be able to remotely disable vehicles, but in the process have made us vulnerable to all sophisticated actors to do so. Our leaders have their priorities all screwed up.

[–] teft@piefed.social 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic.

[–] Archr@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device

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.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Please explain further because I do not believe that.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] XLE@piefed.social 3 points 6 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 5 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.

[–] bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world 4 points 10 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 10 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 8 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 8 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.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Hegseth is gonna be even more angry than born normal when he can't drive from point a to point b because of this.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

That’s why he lives in the base. So he doesn’t have to admit he got his license revoked.

[–] UniversalBasicJustice@quokk.au 2 points 11 hours ago

To be fair, I too would be angry had I been born normal.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 7 points 11 hours ago

How are these people planning to drive? The cost of fuel is excruciating! If it wasn’t because of Operation Epstein Fury, driving may have been an option.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world -3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Only those cars that needed a breathalyzer for reasons.

Not much of a loss, I'd say.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Per bidens Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that's going to be every new car starting this year

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Not sure how I didn't hear of this already. Apparently it's not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.

I don't drunk drive and barely even drink, but that's horrifying. I can't believe this went under the radar for me.

More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That's a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I'm hearing of it.

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 1 points 5 hours ago

Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle?

There are already cameras inside most new cars, but the purpose is to see if you're nodding off when driving and such. It's a good thing to keep unsafe drivers off the road. The bad thing is the lack of privacy regulation.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

2027 mandates every car have this. Its infuriating.