return2ozmaCyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded across the US
OldQWERTYbastardAnd here I was thinking these blow-and-go contraptions were self contained. I should have known better.
They want to be able to remotely disable vehicles, but in the process have made us vulnerable to all sophisticated actors to do so. Our leaders have their priorities all screwed up.
teftNot sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.
UlrichSince disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device
Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI, by your logic ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Don’t break the law If you don’t want to be monitored by the state.
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI
Yes I am actually aware, thanks.
ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Ankle monitors monitor location. Interlock devices monitor intoxication levels, and locally send a signal to the vehicle about whether it’s ok to drive. The difference should be obvious.
Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight?
Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering.
It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local.
Yeah I don’t know, that’s a whole bunch of unnecessary surveillance.
Make the device work locally, make it in any way tamper resistant and mandate a yearly check up at a certified autoshop.
The solution to problems does not have to be “control every possible thing at all times”.
People deserve not to be monitored around the clock.
I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea.
Deoending on the way it’s implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y’know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly.
But. That’s the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car.
Wait, are you telling me…
…that a device meant to disable a vehicle…
…was used to disable a vehicle?
Whould’ve thought?
JensSpahnpastaIt makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool
x00zSomeone knowledgeable enough could tamper with the local equipment to get it to give false negatives, or always pass regardless of blood alcohol content. If it doesn’t phone home, the company (or the court) doesn’t know it’s been tampered with.
This is all theoretical, I know nothing about this tech.
I agree with you in principle but you could just have the person show up once a week for tamper checking. Those interlock devices are punishment for DUI/DWI so making the user show up once a week wouldn’t be too harsh, imo.
Showing up once a week isn’t a problem if it’s only a handful of people going to the same place.
However, when you have a lot of people on this device in a small area, you’ll have to ask them to go farther and farther away. Or else you’re going to outsource who is checking on the device, and that’s going to start driving up the price for this service.
According to some stats I found there were about 350k interlock devices in use in the entire US in 2016. That’s a tiny fraction of the amount of drivers we have. Unless they’re all concentrated in the same spot and have tripled or more in numbers this isn’t going to be a problem in a population of 350 million.
It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.
If somebody is good enough to tamper with the part that checks for BAC, why not also tamper with the part that phones home? Would they even need to?
The device doesn’t just phone home while driving. It does it constantly. It’s likely that any tampering would alert the vendor and by proxy the court.
How often do these devices phone home that tapering would be detected? Surely they can’t do it that indefinitely. Or maybe they can. I don’t know
I am not sure on what interval they do but from what I have read online and from talking with someone I know who has one. They constantly phone home. Even when parked and turned off. This means that it will drain your battery and if you don’t drive for long enough (from what they said a week or two) then you can end up with a dead battery. Additionally, when driving, the device requires the driver to re-blow every 45-60 minutes. So the driver needs to pull over and test again otherwise their alarm will go off.
As far as what tampering prevention mechanisms they have I have no idea. I would assume they keep that as secret as possible.