Conservative

364 readers

3 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee

The Feds' Vehicle 'Kill Switch' Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy | Jon Miltimore (fee.org)

submitted 10 months ago by Blamemeta@lemm.ee to c/conservative@lemm.ee

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know I posted about this yesterday, but this article does a much better job than I can.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You seem stuck on the vertically of this scenario, and a trained software would likely make the same assumptions, yet they’d be wrong in some cases.

Fair enough.

I fail to see what problem this solution is supposed to address

Drunk driving

Odds of this being a transparent, properly audited, open source solution are nil.

I don't disagree with you there, but just because it might end up being closed source and such doesn't mean it will be connected to the internet and giving your info to companies/the government. The bill specifies that it should be a passive system.

If it merely flagged you for review or something, maybe? I’d have no issue with such a system if it merely tried to wake the driver up when it thinks you’ve fallen asleep.

I wouldn't have a problem with either of those two options.

Drunk drivers would either not opt-in, or bypass them illegally… like they already drive drunk, without licenses or plates illegally.

I don't think it is that clear cut. Drunk driving isn't exactly a premeditated crime. It's one that generally happens on a whim. Sure, some people know they have a habit of doing it and would find a way to opt out, but it would still help address other drunk drivers.

In Canada, we already have alcotest machines mandated in cars for people that have DUI infractions, maybe this technology could complement that.

I would be open to that as well.

If we are really being honest, the easiest solution is to stop having car dependent cities and transportation networks. Nobody is gonna drive drunk when the train/subway/bus/sidewalk can get you home safely, quickly, cheaply, and easily.

Take a look at Japan's drunk driving fatalities. They have almost none. Part of that is their 'draconian' laws/low legal alcohol limits, and also probably culture. But they have fantastic public transportation, and it's a great option for drunks to get home.