If Slate incorporates surveillance tech, I’m 100% out [ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[E90400K]

TL;DR - Clickbait. Article is flat out wrong. This is not something Slate or consumers will see in the next few years.

The "final rule" linked to in the article is for automatic emergency braking, which must be standard in new vehicles starting in 2029. It has nothing to do with impaired driver detection.

Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act does direct NHTSA to develop a standard for impaired driving detection. NHTSA has already missed the 2024 deadline and still has nothing more than than an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that identifies the technologies and methods they're considering.

A "final rule" is likely still years away, and automakers will have years after that before incorporation in new vehicles becomes mandatory. And that assumes the political will/funding for the regulation activity remains in place through another half dozen years of federal budgetary turmoil.

Regardless, the ability for the technology to be integrated into the vehicle is in the legislation. In the US though, there is legal precedence that the technology is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. If you read the Act, it allows for the technology to drive the vehicle to the shoulder to the road and shut off the engine to prevent the driver from driving further. Only law enforcement is allowed to arrest you from driving if the LEO detects you are intoxicated or in capacitated from driving safely. The LEO has to have probable cause under the 4th Amendment to pull you over and arrest (prevent) you from driving further. A technology system (i.e. the vehicle Manufacturer) has no right to prevent you from driving.

The deadlines have been missed because the integration of driver monitoring technology under the Act will easily be found unconstitutional. Manufactures are not going to invest in the R&D to develop the technology when it will be found unconstitutional.

The concern here however is the legislation was devised and passed into law.

 

[KevinRS]

The article is more than clickbaity. It is fully lying. It says next year this impairment detection will be in all vehicles, but the only thing happening is automatic emergency braking, 2 years later, in 2029.
The links that should go to the "rule" that was due in 2024 and was approved to supposedly require tracking of driver condition only go to the emergency braking rule.
It's not necessarily about whether it is unconstitutional, it is about whether it is technically feasible. If that tech was here, you would see it be required in DUI cases for DUI offenders to get their licenses back, but the only thing you see even for them is breathalyzer interlocks.

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

fundamentally for the mase population sure it could work but its to easily bypassed for real world applications. hell I've seen people make there own car ecu with a Arduino. rip the old, a little coding later, put in the new. no gooberment, no surveillance

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

there is to many loop holes and to many fail points for it to work properly.

 

[TPL]

I'm 100% for any and all tech that keeps irresponsible narcissists from slaughtering the innocent by driving drunk, sleepy, drugged, or angry.

I can think of lots of tech that I would not want society to use for that purpose.

The first that comes to mind is Terminators.

 

[cadblu]

 

[Kopsis]

If you read the Act, it allows for the technology to drive the vehicle to the shoulder to the road and shut off the engine to prevent the driver from driving further.

No, it doesn't. It defines the system as follows:

(A) can— (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;
(B) can— (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

Part of NHTSA's rule making process is to further define "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation." They could chose driving to the shoulder as the means to implement that, but nothing in the Act is actually that specific. They could just as easily specify limiting power output (like Kia/Hyundai's infamous "turtle mode") and would meet the definition in the Act. Also, the way the Act is written, any one of (A) or (B) would meet the legislative requirement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing any of this. But too much of the discussion I've seen online is significantly disconnected from the actual facts of the legislation.

 

[Johnologue]

Hopefully, the Slate will be simple enough to make these systems easy to defeat. Worst-case scenario, you aren't losing a bunch of tightly-integrated software features and physical things like a dashboard tablet by bypassing the factory electronics.

 

[KevinRS]

Hopefully, the Slate will be simple enough to make these systems easy to defeat. Worst-case scenario, you aren't losing a bunch of tightly-integrated software features and physical things like a dashboard tablet by bypassing the factory electronics.

It's HIGHLY doubtful that they would include anything like that. There is no indication that ANY automaker is building these systems into their cars, as the NHTSA has not made a rule on them yet, mainly because the tech isn't there. In theory there could be a face tracking camera or something, but having false detections would be a liability, and no one's close to having such a system that actually works well enough. Even when they do make a rule, it would still be 2 years minimum before it would be enforced.

 

[SichuanHot]

Ford already does this in many of their cars. The hardware is there and already in vehicles. Greg on youtube covered this:

 

[E90400K]

No, it doesn't. It defines the system as follows:

(A) can— (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;
(B) can— (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

Part of NHTSA's rule making process is to further define "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation." They could chose driving to the shoulder as the means to implement that, but nothing in the Act is actually that specific. They could just as easily specify limiting power output (like Kia/Hyundai's infamous "turtle mode") and would meet the definition in the Act. Also, the way the Act is written, any one of (A) or (B) would meet the legislative requirement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing any of this. But too much of the discussion I've seen online is significantly disconnected from the actual facts of the legislation.

You are arguing about the techinical implementation outcome of the legislation. I am arguing the constitutionality of the legislation.

The point is the legislation allows the manufacturer the authority to prevent the citizen from driving his automobile where the manufacturer does not have the legal (i.e. constitutional) power to do so.

 

[MotoGary]

You are arguing about the techinical implementation outcome of the legislation. I am arguing the constitutionality of the legislation.

The point is the legislation allows the manufacturer the authority to prevent the citizen from driving his automobile where the manufacturer does not have the legal (i.e. constitutional) power to do so.

Many vehicles are already equipped with technology that takes control away from the driver under certain conditions that are deemed unsafe (automatic collision avoidance systems). Your argument would suggest that this technology is also unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I agree with this legislation, but I don't think that it's unconstitutional for the reason you suggest. I think the stronger argument is the privacy issue if data is shared.

 

[E90400K]

Many vehicles are already equipped with technology that takes control away from the driver under certain conditions that are deemed unsafe (automatic collision avoidance systems). Your argument would suggest that this technology is also unconstitutional.

I'm not saying I agree with this legislation, but I don't think that it's unconstitutional for the reason you suggest. I think the stronger argument is the privacy issue if data is shared.

My argument absolutely does not say that ADAS (Advance Driver Assistance Systems) are unconstitutional. Impaired driving due to substance abuse/use is a legal matter that only law enforcement agencies (i.e. the Government) is allowed under the constitution to enforce.

ADAS are enhancements of the vehicle's hardware/software to aid drivers in the act of driving beyond the human's physical capabilities. An example is a stability control system. Such a system can control each wheel brake independently as well as control engine power output to individual wheels (if it has the drivetrain hardware to do so), all of which can better control the vehicle direction to compensate for poor traction conditions. The human driver cannot independently control all four brakes of an automobile because the human does not have four (4) feet to independently push four (4) separate brake pedals. Nor does the human have control over engine torque applied at each independent wheel because the there are no controls to physically direct torque to each wheel. There are no such controls because the human does not have four appendages that could move the controls as necessary.

 

[MotoGary]

Impaired driving due to substance abuse/use is a legal matter that only law enforcement agencies (i.e. the Government) is allowed under the constitution to enforce.

There's a difference between employing technology to prevent an unsafe operating condition of a vehicle and enforcement of driving laws. The technology is only responding to a set of data conditions. There is no "law enforcement" going on. Now if they track and report data to authorities for prosecution, that's another story.

 

[E90400K]

There's a difference between employing technology to prevent an unsafe operating condition of a vehicle and enforcement of driving laws. The technology is only responding to a set of data conditions. There is no "law enforcement" going on. Now if they track and report data to authorities for prosecution, that's another story.

The vehicle is not operating under an unsafe condition; the driver is illegally operating the vehicle under an unsafe condition because he is inebriated, or so the tech thinks.