It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool
Comment on Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded across the US
OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
And here I was thinking these blow-and-go contraptions were self contained. I should have known better.
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 13 hours ago
x00z@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Please explain further because I do not believe that.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
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.
bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.
XLE@piefed.social 7 hours ago
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?
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 hours ago
If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…
teft@piefed.social 11 hours ago
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.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 hours ago
If you want to circumvent it, it’s as simple as disconnecting it. Source: I’ve done it (professionally)
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
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 11 hours ago
Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic.
Archr@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
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 4 hours ago
Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.