Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed. Meanwhile, the state has steadily expanded its use of mass surveillance, largely under the pretext of fighting “terror.”
This is a toxic mixture.
I don’t see any problem with a system to detect drunk driving and bring the car to a stop. There is no right to drive a car while drunk or otherwise impaired. Inventing one by calling upon privacy also ignores that the cops can pull you over and give you a sobriety test if they have reason to anyway. In 2021, over 13,000 people in the US died from drunk drivers. They deserve protection.
While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it’d only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn’t renew the registration before-hand.
Fair enough, didn’t want to appear pro stupid car lock mechanism. I think it would be beneficial to to limit drunk driving as much as possible, but but not in a way that overcomplicates driving and makes it more dangerous.
Had to laugh at ‘Hands were tied’ though lol, sounds too realistic
If you’re only using your car on public roads it technically doesn’t matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything (“public roads”)
Your entire argument forgets one thing. Presumed innocence. You are right. You can’t drive a car if you’re convicted of driving intoxicated. However, anything prior to that conviction is an allegation. You can’t take away peoples rights and privileges based on allegations, including forcefully stopping their car under the suspicion of intoxicated driving. There is a reason they must pull you over first and conduct the test.
Once suspicions of their intoxication are confirmed people are still only arrested for being allegedly intoxicated. That’s why those vehicular impairment devices are only installed under court order and after a conviction.
To reemphasize what others have said, I’m sorry but I’m not giving the government access to my private property let alone the fucking police. Are you out of your god damn mind?
Have you ever heard of undue search and seizure? What would be the legal framework required in order to forcefully stop someone’s car via kill switch? Lastly, what stops s government official from just poking the red button because a cutie with too little clothing darted on by and they wanted to chat her up for a few minutes?
The entire thing is rife with legal implications and I’m only scratching the surface with this comment. This is one of those “good initiative bad judgment” ideas.
You’re right about the undue search and seizure. For me, it isn’t the politicians I fear in this hypothetical scenario. I fear the corporations and police that would be the case-by-case adjudicators.
I don’t see any problem with a system to detect drunk driving and bring the car to a stop. There is no right to drive a car while drunk or otherwise impaired. Inventing one by calling upon privacy also ignores that the cops can pull you over and give you a sobriety test if they have reason to anyway. In 2021, over 13,000 people in the US died from drunk drivers. They deserve protection.
While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it’d only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn’t renew the registration before-hand.
Doesn’t the government already greenlight vehicle usage with the drivers license?
You can drive without one. If there is an emergency you can escape a fucking forest fire for example.
“Man dies after forest fire engulfs home; couldn’t outrun flames and car was remotely disabled due to overdue registration; ‘Hand were tied’ says DMV”
Fair enough, didn’t want to appear pro stupid car lock mechanism. I think it would be beneficial to to limit drunk driving as much as possible, but but not in a way that overcomplicates driving and makes it more dangerous.
Had to laugh at ‘Hands were tied’ though lol, sounds too realistic
If you’re only using your car on public roads it technically doesn’t matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything (“public roads”)
Your entire argument forgets one thing. Presumed innocence. You are right. You can’t drive a car if you’re convicted of driving intoxicated. However, anything prior to that conviction is an allegation. You can’t take away peoples rights and privileges based on allegations, including forcefully stopping their car under the suspicion of intoxicated driving. There is a reason they must pull you over first and conduct the test.
Once suspicions of their intoxication are confirmed people are still only arrested for being allegedly intoxicated. That’s why those vehicular impairment devices are only installed under court order and after a conviction.
To reemphasize what others have said, I’m sorry but I’m not giving the government access to my private property let alone the fucking police. Are you out of your god damn mind?
Have you ever heard of undue search and seizure? What would be the legal framework required in order to forcefully stop someone’s car via kill switch? Lastly, what stops s government official from just poking the red button because a cutie with too little clothing darted on by and they wanted to chat her up for a few minutes?
The entire thing is rife with legal implications and I’m only scratching the surface with this comment. This is one of those “good initiative bad judgment” ideas.
You’re right about the undue search and seizure. For me, it isn’t the politicians I fear in this hypothetical scenario. I fear the corporations and police that would be the case-by-case adjudicators.