Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[BoberFett]

I'm an idiot.

And a moron.

I type a lot but never say anything interesting.

Let me repeat that again.

I'm an idiot.

And a moron.

Jackass234

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I am a doctor of engineering. What are your qualifications to lecture me on the subject of sensors and electronics? Pro tip: being an idiot is not a qualification.

I never lectured anyone I conceded to your mastery. Pro Tip: reading comprehension.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

5 years seems fair to me.

5 years in jail

 

[zsdersw]

5 years in jail

5-year ban from driving.

 

[yllus]

No, I'm saying the laws of physics make it easy to bypass. Engineers can't bend them - that's why they're called LAWS. You can't put a switch in a car that I can't simply bypass by running another wire. Take a physics course or stop pretending to make educated arguments - we are all well aware at this point that you are completely ignorant on this subject.

I'm pretty sure I could rig up a system that you wouldn't be able to circumvent without some very serious modifications.

Off the top of my head: Make the signal to start the engine electronic so it's encryptable. A wireless system built into the car phones home and downloads blocks of workings keys for each system you want to verify as present and active to use. (Speed limiter check, engine polluting check, alcohol thingy check, etc.) If any system is inactive for any reason, you fail the process and can't start the car. Alternatively, start the car but create a "stop and investigate" record in the local police department's computer for you to be pulled over randomly and have your system checked.

All of the pieces to create such a system already exist in some form, so it wouldn't even take much effort technologically - it's just the political will that's lacking.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I'm pretty sure I could rig up a system that you wouldn't be able to circumvent without some very serious modifications.

Off the top of my head: Make the signal to start the engine electronic so it's encryptable. A wireless system built into the car phones home and downloads blocks of workings keys for each system you want to verify as present and active to use. (Speed limiter check, engine polluting check, alcohol thingy check, etc.) If any system is inactive for any reason, you fail the process and can't start the car. Alternatively, start the car but create a "stop and investigate" record in the local police department's computer for you to be pulled over randomly and have your system checked.

All of the pieces to create such a system already exist in some form, so it wouldn't even take much effort technologically - it's just the political will that's lacking.

BLASPHEMY!!! Defying the laws of Physics@!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

5-year ban from driving.

no jail?

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm pretty sure I could rig up a system that you wouldn't be able to circumvent without some very serious modifications.

Off the top of my head: Make the signal to start the engine electronic so it's encryptable. A wireless system built into the car phones home and downloads blocks of workings keys for each system you want to verify as present and active to use. (Speed limiter check, engine polluting check, alcohol thingy check, etc.) If any system is inactive for any reason, you fail the process and can't start the car. Alternatively, start the car but create a "stop and investigate" record in the local police department's computer for you to be pulled over randomly and have your system checked.

All of the pieces to create such a system already exist in some form, so it wouldn't even take much effort technologically - it's just the political will that's lacking.

The starter can still be short-circuited locally downstream of the controller. Short of fundamentally changing the way the car works, you won't be able to stop me. The more you attempt to thwart workarounds, the more the capital costs make the solution less appealing. I could also sit down and physically remove all such systems from my car. If all of the tattling systems you mentioned were legally required on all new vehicles, I would make sure to remove all of them outright from any car I bought because they offer me no potential benefit but large potential drawbacks. Until the state gives me the car, I'll do what I please with it.

 

[yllus]

The starter can still be short-circuited locally downstream of the controller. Short of fundamentally changing the way the car works, you won't be able to stop me. The more you attempt to thwart workarounds, the more the capital costs make the solution less appealing. I could also sit down and physically remove all such systems from my car. If all of the tattling systems you mentioned were legally required on all new vehicles, I would make sure to remove all of them outright from any car I bought because they offer me no potential benefit but large potential drawbacks. Until the state gives me the car, I'll do what I please with it.

I don't think it'd cost that much to implement the changes needed. I've disassembled cars before, but I've never taken a look their electrical systems. Still, I imagine that there's already a system-on-a-chip in the engine that acts as its CPU, and you'd only need to add a bit of software to implement the command to only start on an authenticated request.

Cheap, effective, and it'd take a hell of a lot of work for you to bypass that. And if the state did mandate all of this equipment, version two at the latest would no doubt phone home on occasion and rat you out for altering or removing any part of it.

Actually, if anything, my own attack vector to defeat the system would be at the sensor level - fake the blow or the palm reading somehow. That's even further out of my area of expertise but it'd probably end up being something as simple as putting scotch tape over the sensors and ripping it off if the cops pull you over.

 

[zsdersw]

no jail?

Depends if death, injury, or property damage was caused as a result of the DUI. If someone was pulled over for DUI but had not gotten into an accident, then no.. I don't think jail time is warranted in addition to revocation of driving privileges and/or vehicle repossession.

 

[Red Dawn]

I am a doctor of engineering. What are your qualifications to lecture me on the subject of sensors and electronics? Pro tip: being an idiot is not a qualification.

So you've graduated from just being socially awkward to not even trying anymore:thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I don't think it'd cost that much to implement the changes needed. I've disassembled cars before, but I've never taken a look their electrical systems. Still, I imagine that there's already a system-on-a-chip in the engine that acts as its CPU, and you'd only need to add a bit of software to implement the command to only start on an authenticated request.

Cheap, effective, and it'd take a hell of a lot of work for you to bypass that. And if the state did mandate all of this equipment, version two at the latest would no doubt phone home on occasion and rat you out for altering or removing any part of it.

Actually, if anything, my own attack vector to defeat the system would be at the sensor level - fake the blow or the palm reading somehow. That's even further out of my area of expertise but it'd probably end up being something as simple as putting scotch tape over the sensors and ripping it off if the cops pull you over.

A software catch can be bypassed as well. either way, no matter what you throw at the car - it will be bypassable.

 

[wuliheron]

I know, we can take anyone convicted of drunk driving and use them as crash test dummies.

 

[bamacre]

A software catch can be bypassed as well. either way, no matter what you throw at the car - it will be bypassable.

You would think folks on a tech-related forum would understand this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You would think folks on a tech-related forum would understand this.

exactly.

OMG!!! a sensor!!! A software catch!!! OHTEHNOES!!! Seriously people, it would be bypassed almost immediately.

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't think it'd cost that much to implement the changes needed. I've disassembled cars before, but I've never taken a look their electrical systems. Still, I imagine that there's already a system-on-a-chip in the engine that acts as its CPU, and you'd only need to add a bit of software to implement the command to only start on an authenticated request.

Cheap, effective, and it'd take a hell of a lot of work for you to bypass that. And if the state did mandate all of this equipment, version two at the latest would no doubt phone home on occasion and rat you out for altering or removing any part of it.

Actually, if anything, my own attack vector to defeat the system would be at the sensor level - fake the blow or the palm reading somehow. That's even further out of my area of expertise but it'd probably end up being something as simple as putting scotch tape over the sensors and ripping it off if the cops pull you over.

Actually, faking out the sensor was my first bypass suggestion in this thread since it is unequivocally fool-proof and the one I know the most about. The others are simply additional ideas to prove the point.

 

[CycloWizard]

So you've graduated from just being socially awkward to not even trying anymore:thumbsup:

I graduated three years ago and got married two years ago. Sorry to piss in your Cheerios/stereotypes. In that same timeframe, you've graduated from spewing your retarded ideas to simply personally attacking forum members. :thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I graduated three years ago and got married two years ago. Sorry to piss in your Cheerios/stereotypes. In that same timeframe, you've graduated from spewing your retarded ideas to simply personally attacking forum members. :thumbsup:

No, he's done that for years here, it's nothing new.

 

[wuliheron]

exactly.

OMG!!! a sensor!!! A software catch!!! OHTEHNOES!!! Seriously people, it would be bypassed almost immediately.

If they get caught doing that then we can use their entire family as crash test dummies!

 

[alkemyst]

Yeah, let's start having to show our papers next!

 

[alkemyst]

I know, we can take anyone convicted of drunk driving and use them as crash test dummies.

U realize this is hundreds of thousands of people, right?

 

[LTC8K6]

I would support it but, unfortunately that would put many bars and restaurants out of business over night and the liquor/beer lobby would go nuts. Liquor is BIG BUSINESS.

So is the revenue to the state from DUI's...

 

[wuliheron]

U realize this is hundreds of thousands of people, right?

Afterwards we can grind them up and use them for fertilizer. Unemployment problem solved!