The Feds' Vehicle 'Kill Switch' Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy | Jon Miltimore
fee.org
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.

Vehicle ‘Kill Switch’ Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy::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.

  • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    64·
    1 year ago

    Instead, NHTSA will say that intentionally disabling a vehicle while it’s potentially driving on a busy highway will “impact safety in a negative manner”, and they’ll be completely right.

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Vehicles equipped with OnStar already have anti-theft features such as “Remote Ignition Block” and “Stolen Vehicle Slowdown.”

    Not long ago, GM launched “Stolen Vehicle Slowdown” on certain OnStar-equipped models, allowing the OnStar operator to remotely reduce engine power in a stolen car at the request of police. Now, GM is taking it a bit further with “Remote Ignition Block,” which prevents a stolen car from being restarted once it’s been turned off.

    As with Stolen Vehicle Slwodown, (sic) Remote Ignition Block can only activated by OnStar after the vehicle’s owner has reported the theft to OnStar and law enforcement has confirmed the legitimacy of the case. GM plans to make the technology available on select 2009 and 2010 models immediately and more in the future.

    https://www.motortrend.com/news/gm-onstar-adds-remote-ignition-block-prevents-stolen-cars-from-being-restarted-5591/

    • Dem Bosain@midwest.socialEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      There’s no regulation requiring Remote Ignition Block, and no regulation forbidding it either. Expect NHTSA to wait until there’s a problem before it takes action one way or the other.

      This is also not a “passive” system, and therefore not relevant to the hysteria surrounding this issue.

      • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        They only require the system to passively monitor the driver, e.g. doesn’t require the driver to blow in a breathalyzer.

        • Dem Bosain@midwest.socialEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, yes, the new mandated system is “passive”. It’s all contained within the car, works automatically, doesn’t require any outside commands, doesn’t require any specific actions by the driver.

          The Onstar system requires a request from police. They request the shutdown/slowdown, presumably when the car is in a safe location.