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.
Everything in the US has become either ‘fighting terror’ or for ‘saving the children’
If you complain about any of the draconian measures that keep encroaching on our liberties then you are not a patriot or you are some sort of child hating monster.
Interesting how times have changed and our government here has twisted our constitution. Our founding fathers are no doubt rolling in their graves.
DemBoSain@midwest.social 11 months ago
I do this for a living, let’s sort this out…law is here, starting on page 403.
Section 24220, here we go:
yada yada yada…bullshit legal-speak, definitions…yada yada…
So far, not a kill switch, but some kind of technology to detect if you’re driving like a drunk person and disable the vehicle. Not really ideal, I personally don’t know if technology like this currently exists, if false positives would be a problem etc. Let’s continue
OOF, Congress is mandating a new FMVSS. And with only 3 years to do it. This is impossible. NHTSA (National Highway Safety and Traffic Administratiion) doesn’t do anything…I was about to write “quickly”, but a better term would be “not slow”. So, for NHTSA to issue a new FMVSS, here is a thumbnail sketch of the process:
I’m numbering this “0” because it will be entirely behind the scenes, and I don’t have any idea how much time it will take. Theoretically, NHTSA could already have a team working on this, but I doubt it. NHTSA will hold focus groups, industry meetings, etc. requesting input on how they can deal with this mandate from Congress.
NHTSA proposes a new Safety Standard. Someone writes a draft, and this is published to give the public a chance to read it (in the Federal Register, hereon FR). Most of what they publish will be page after page after page of justifications for what Congress has mandated, some of it will be an overview of what they’ve found from the meetings they’ve held, and a little of it will be the actual text of the draft. The will also request comments, and open a docket (www.regulations.gov) where they will publish the comments. Usually there’s a limit of 90 days on comments.
The comment time limit will get very close to expiring, and someone from the Automotive Industry will request an extension. NHTSA will extend for another 60 days.
Time will pass. More time will pass. You will forget this was ever an issue, because you have other things to deal with. I won’t forget though, because every once in a while I go to the docket to read absolute batshit anonymous comments from the public (yes, you can comment anonymously.)
Out of the blue, NHTSA will publish another notice in the Federal Register. This one will be page after page after page of analysis from the public comments. They won’t mention any from the actual public, just the ones from the major car manufacturers and industry lobbying groups. They will also either publish the Final Rule (and give a time limit for implementation), or say they are scrapping the entire thing and going back to the drawing board.
Okay, here it is. The time limit for this new rule is actually 6 years, but what Congress has really mandated is that NHTSA submit a report to them in 10 years on why they can’t implement a Safety Standard on how to implement a (passive) way to disable a vehicle due to an impaired driver.
One thing that NHTSA is very good at is using “vehicle safety” as a reason not to do something. For example, Europe and Canada already have regulations requiring Daytime Running Lights. These turn your headlights on automatically during the day. But NHTSA says there’s no data that proves DRLs improve safety, so they won’t make a rule requiring them in the US.
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. The mandate isn’t to give law enforcement a way to disable vehicles, but to disable vehicles “passively” when the car itself detects it’s being driven by an impaired driver.
This rule will die in committee. We’ll have self-driving cars before this technology ever becomes possible, and by then it won’t be necessary.
trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
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.”
motortrend.com/…/gm-onstar-adds-remote-ignition-b…
DemBoSain@midwest.social 11 months 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.