Toyota developing blood alcohol sensor in steering wheels

[boobaloo]

Originally Posted by Looger

well, it's pretty simple.

it's not directly connected to the emerging police state, but why connect it?

our rights disappear more and more and one of those rights is to not be searched without suspicion or reason.

we keep handing pieces of our freedom away, and eventually, if we really work on it, our descendents will have nothing of what we think of as freedom today.

and that's all assuming there ISN'T anything pushing any of these agendas, and there are.

Are you seriously trying to say that you have the right to drive drunk?

I think it's a wonderfully appropriate idea. I personally would like to see one less 15 (insert any number) year old killed by a drunk driver.

[pope04]

Yep, if this got one more drunk off the road, it's all cool with me.

Calf's right: breathalyzers have been linked to ignition systems for years. Usually they're used for drivers just coming off an impaired.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by boobaloo

Are you seriously trying to say that you have the right to drive drunk?

here's how it goes, right here, i can see this ridiculous logic twist minds.

we have the right to not be suspected of being drunk, and when computers on our cars are directly linked or download periodically the content of our bodily fluids to an authority, that is taken away.

make of that what you will.

[moon]

Originally Posted by calf

breathalizers linked to your ignition? I think those exist as well.

I think the market will determine if something like this is wanted. Naturally, if one drinks & drives, they probably won't purchase one of these vehicles (until such devices become mandatory...? )

Can others breathe for you in those? Are there sensors to detect that it is infact your DNA?

It seems that the sweat detector has many more loopholes to get around it in my view.

I guess it is designed to stop the majority and in both cases if you are determined enough you can beat them. Just doesn't seem to be all that effective enough to warrant spending money on as a manufactuer or consumer.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Looger

well, it's pretty simple.

it's not directly connected to the emerging police state, but why connect it?

our rights disappear more and more and one of those rights is to not be searched without suspicion or reason.

we keep handing pieces of our freedom away, and eventually, if we really work on it, our descendents will have nothing of what we think of as freedom today.

and that's all assuming there ISN'T anything pushing any of these agendas, and there are.

But is this really a right we're losing? Your not forced to drive this car and you can choose if you want to purchase it. Your doing it on your own will and when you buy the vehicle I'd hope you'd be fully aware of what your purchasing. I see nothing wrong with this right "disappearing" when you know what your getting into.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by calf

breathalizers linked to your ignition? I think those exist as well.

I think the market will determine if something like this is wanted. Naturally, if one drinks & drives, they probably won't purchase one of these vehicles (until such devices become mandatory...like seatbelts, and other parts of the net )

It won't be the market determining if something like this is wanted. It will be insurance companies and if they need some help, they'll just lobby our govt. until it's law.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jar_e

But is this really a right we're losing? Your not forced to drive this car and you can choose if you want to purchase it. Your doing it on your own will and when you buy the vehicle I'd hope you'd be fully aware of what your purchasing. I see nothing wrong with this right "disappearing" when you know what your getting into.

if we have to hang disclaimers and addendums on everyday things we take for granted like driving a car, then we are in trouble.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Looger

here's how it goes, right here, i can see this ridiculous logic twist minds.

we have the right to not be suspected of being drunk, and when computers on our cars are directly linked or download periodically the content of our bodily fluids to an authority, that is taken away.

make of that what you will.

based on the article, it seems that the technology is being used to slow down your car to a stop, not send the information to the authorities. A bit of a leap, imo.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Looger

if we have to hang disclaimers and addendums on everyday things we take for granted like driving a car, then we are in trouble.

It's not like the manufactuer is hiding the fact that the car would be capable of doing such thing...if anything it would be a selling feature. I am blind to see how you think this feature, even if it saved single life, is infringing on our privacy and making our society a police state. It's unbelievable that you'd argue the semantics about this when this could even save a single life.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It won't be the market determining if something like this is wanted. It will be insurance companies and if they need some help, they'll just lobby our govt. until it's law.

good call.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by calf

based on the article, it seems that the technology is being used to slow down your car to a stop, not send the information to the authorities. A bit of a leap, imo.

eventually i'm sure the idea will be standardized by the government or insurance or registration or whatever, and wedded to other tracking and logging items going in, i mean it's only logical.

this by itself isn't some huge police state leap.

it is one more small step we all can collectively not take.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jar_e

It's not like the manufactuer is hiding the fact that the car would be capable of doing such thing...if anything it would be a selling feature. I am blind to see how you think this feature, even if it saved single life, is infringing on our privacy and making our society a police state. It's unbelievable that you'd argue the semantics about this when this could even save a single life.

an 11 o'clock curfew would sure save a lot of lives.

protecting us or others from the stupidity of our actions has to have a line.

soviet citizens were pretty safe, unless they made a stink.

[Flash Walken]

who wants a false positive broadcast to their office when they're late for work, only for the car to stop on the way?

"Sorry I was late boss, you won't believe my car jus-"

"You have until 5 pm to clean out your desk."

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

an 11 o'clock curfew would sure save a lot of lives.

protecting us or others from the stupidity of our actions has to have a line.

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure actions against drunk drivers isn't where that line rests.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Looger

an 11 o'clock curfew would sure save a lot of lives.

protecting us or others from the stupidity of our actions has to have a line.

soviet citizens were pretty safe, unless they made a stink.

But no one is proposing an 11 o'clock curfew. We're proposing a single, voluntary-use device. Stop with the slippery slope arguments as neither you nor me know what will happen in five years with this device. Yes, you can assume, but just because you assume something doesn't make it true. Your assuming something will happen is as valid as my assumption nothing will happen.

This isn't a radical idea as you seem to relate it to.

edit: i should point out that with the bolded part I meant voluntary to buy (not use) and no body is forcing you to use it.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jar_e

This isn't a radical idea as you seem to relate it to.

this is information (BAC) that should be the property only of ourselves and whatever law enforcement has a reason to test it.

this introduces the middle man of whatever corporate agenda or backroom deal with law enforcement could exist.

this is seen with the phone companies in the states and the NSA, where cooperation existed long before it became a hot-button political issue.

yes, it's voluntary use, until it's the law that every new car has one.

if that's slippery slope, then call me slick looger.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Looger

eventually i'm sure the idea will be standardized by the government or insurance or registration or whatever, and wedded to other tracking and logging items going in, i mean it's only logical.

this by itself isn't some huge police state leap.

it is one more small step we all can collectively not take.

what are you basing your logic on? I'm having trouble figuring out how you're connecting these dots. Is it the fact that other technologies are being eyed by the police to track the public? The fact that the police tracking every movement wouldn't violate the charter? The fact that there wouldn't be a massive outcry of the use/abuse of such technology?

You're turning an invention that will stop a car from starting/continuing to operate due to the presence of alcohol into a police tracking device...imo, yea, it's a pretty big leap.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure actions against drunk drivers isn't where that line rests.

this is actions against ALL drivers, until code written on a chip decides what to do with that data, based on what agenda wrote the paycheque of the firmware developer.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by calf

You're turning an invention that will stop a car from starting/continuing to operate due to the presence of alcohol into a police tracking device...imo, yea, it's a pretty big leap.

fair enough, i guess you're right.

it's double-plus-good.

i hear choco rations are up 30 grams!

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Looger

yes, it's voluntary use, until it's the law that every new car has one.

if that's slippery slope, then call me slick looger.

Just as I said in the post before...that assumption is as valid as me assuming it won't happen.