this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
622 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
84110 readers
3059 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 closer to reality.
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.
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.
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'
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?
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 imagine stuff that doesn't exist to get mad at