Please explain further because I do not believe that.
Comment on Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded across the US
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 11 hours agoIt makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool
x00z@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 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.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 hours ago
If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…
bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.
XLE@piefed.social 5 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?
Archr@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
The device doesn’t just phone home while driving. It does it constantly. It’s likely that any tampering would alert the vendor and by proxy the court.
teft@piefed.social 9 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.
QuadratureSurfer@piefed.social 7 hours ago
Showing up once a week isn’t a problem if it’s only a handful of people going to the same place.
However, when you have a lot of people on this device in a small area, you’ll have to ask them to go farther and farther away. Or else you’re going to outsource who is checking on the device, and that’s going to start driving up the price for this service.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 hours ago
If you want to circumvent it, it’s as simple as disconnecting it. Source: I’ve done it (professionally)