It’s not a good solution to traffic fatalities but I guess at least it’s something.
*I guess the privacy of new car buyers is more important than human life. God forbid the thing that already tracks and sells your location also check if you’re drunk driving.
**this story/outrage is even dumber than I thought. Not only does this regulation not exist yet, it seems to only have resurfaced because of the NHTSA reporting to congress that they need another extension because passive BAC detection isn’t real yet. This yahoo story is pure clickbait fantasy ragebait. Here is a writeup actually based in reality. If you can actually read this yahoo clickbait and not get suspicious you are a credulous moron.
40,000 deaths per year is worse than needing to give up some privacy for access to public roads. 99% of people are fine with giving up more privacy for a hell of a lot less. In the abstract it sucks but in a society that has given up on the concept of privacy at least it’s being applied for something other than targeted advertising.
People that really give a shit can continue to use old cars or other means of transportation.
Until we actually know what the implementation looks like you’re just talking out of your ass and have no right to be condescending.
The entire story is that the NHTSA is obligated to make rules for the implementation of impairment detection. It absolutely does not follow that ‘obviously it won’t detect impairment’
my wild take of ‘maybe get mad at stuff that is actually real instead of reading a clickbait headline that is already detached from reality and then going even further making up even more stuff that isnt real to scare yourself with’
I don’t think online porn kills 40,000 americans every year. I even suspect that maybe theoretical impairment detection tech that doesn’t exist yet is not the same thing as facebook wanting to tie all of your online activity to your ID.
The point is age verification is not for protecting the kids, and it doesn’t. It either makes kids easier to find or excludes them from learning tech in their free time so they don’t inderstand how computers work, taking tech control and ownership of em.
The government couldn’t give less of a fuck about them, except for actually fucking them. Same for this, it won’t protect anyone, it’ll just dynamically increase gas prices or some shit.
There have to be accepted levels of risk in the world or no one can do anything. No one should drive at all, nor fly planes, ride a boat at sea, or ride a horse. No one should run any heavy machinery etc etc. The list goes on and on. But just because someone else makes bad choices, does not mean all people need to sacrifice their rights.
It is when you live in a car-centric society with an abysmal lack of accessible public transit that necessities the ability to travel by way of a personal vehicle in order to survive.
Your excuse is just as pathetic as “if you don’t like the working conditions just get a better job”. Such simple-minded, ignorant bullshit.
Explain which part of this unimplemented regulation that would require passive BAC detection is oppressing you and preventing you from driving a car made before it goes into effect
It’s not a good solution to traffic fatalities but I guess at least it’s something.
*I guess the privacy of new car buyers is more important than human life. God forbid the thing that already tracks and sells your location also check if you’re drunk driving.
**this story/outrage is even dumber than I thought. Not only does this regulation not exist yet, it seems to only have resurfaced because of the NHTSA reporting to congress that they need another extension because passive BAC detection isn’t real yet. This yahoo story is pure clickbait fantasy ragebait. Here is a writeup actually based in reality. If you can actually read this yahoo clickbait and not get suspicious you are a credulous moron.
Yeah, it’s something dystopian.
40,000 deaths per year is worse than needing to give up some privacy for access to public roads. 99% of people are fine with giving up more privacy for a hell of a lot less. In the abstract it sucks but in a society that has given up on the concept of privacy at least it’s being applied for something other than targeted advertising.
People that really give a shit can continue to use old cars or other means of transportation.
You can’t honestly believe that mass surveillance will help prevent those deaths, right?
It won’t. It’ll be used punitively.
Until we actually know what the implementation looks like you’re just talking out of your ass and have no right to be condescending.
The entire story is that the NHTSA is obligated to make rules for the implementation of impairment detection. It absolutely does not follow that ‘obviously it won’t detect impairment’
Can you describe an example of detailed mass surveillance that has not been used against us?
Can you explain how this tech that doesn’t exist will be used against you?
This regulation, which doesn’t exist but was due to be implemented, is not meaningfully different than requiring a passive breathalyzer interlock.
If the cameras and tracking systems inside cars don’t stop them, why will this one?
By preventing engine startup or with a very low speed limiter presumably.
And how do they know you’re drunk? Cameras? Mandatory blood samples?
That’s the thing from the article they linked to. NHTSA says the tech does not exist yet, hence why they are asking for an extension.
Demanding the specifics of what can be broadly understood is a waste of time.
Yeah man fuck reality you’ve got the world in your head where you can make stuff up to get mad at
Ah yes, everyone else must live in a different reality that does not hold your wild takes.
my wild take of ‘maybe get mad at stuff that is actually real instead of reading a clickbait headline that is already detached from reality and then going even further making up even more stuff that isnt real to scare yourself with’
This is like saying that “age verification” is for protecting the kids
I don’t think online porn kills 40,000 americans every year. I even suspect that maybe theoretical impairment detection tech that doesn’t exist yet is not the same thing as facebook wanting to tie all of your online activity to your ID.
The point is age verification is not for protecting the kids, and it doesn’t. It either makes kids easier to find or excludes them from learning tech in their free time so they don’t inderstand how computers work, taking tech control and ownership of em.
The government couldn’t give less of a fuck about them, except for actually fucking them. Same for this, it won’t protect anyone, it’ll just dynamically increase gas prices or some shit.
So you agree with everything else I said?
Sure whatever, everything else was unrelated to anything I’ve said.
You live under a rock if you think this info will not be used against you.
Yeah sure the tech that only exists in your head is probably going to work the way it does in your head.
There have to be accepted levels of risk in the world or no one can do anything. No one should drive at all, nor fly planes, ride a boat at sea, or ride a horse. No one should run any heavy machinery etc etc. The list goes on and on. But just because someone else makes bad choices, does not mean all people need to sacrifice their rights.
Driving was never a right. If you don’t want a car that checks if you’re impaired then don’t buy one.
It is when you live in a car-centric society with an abysmal lack of accessible public transit that necessities the ability to travel by way of a personal vehicle in order to survive.
Your excuse is just as pathetic as “if you don’t like the working conditions just get a better job”. Such simple-minded, ignorant bullshit.
Explain which part of this unimplemented regulation that would require passive BAC detection is oppressing you and preventing you from driving a car made before it goes into effect
Do you even understand what passive bac detection entalls? Its not blowing into a device, that would be active detection.
Removed by mod
Privacy is a right.