so, here it is, ACLU is raising privacy concerns about the congressional mandate as
@Hook Daddy said.
The vague mandate leaves the door wide open for intrusion and the collection of sensitive data.
www.aclu.org
Congressional Drunk Driver Detection Mandate Raises Privacy Questions
The vague mandate leaves the door wide open for intrusion and the collection of sensitive data.
Congress has mandated that starting later this decade, all cars must have a built-in ability to detect drunk drivers and to disable their cars. However, Congress left the Department of Transportation wide latitude to figure out how best to implement such a technology, creating a very real potential that we’ll end up with a system that could be a privacy disaster.
The measure, which was included in the $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill signed by President Biden last week, says vehicles must be equipped with “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.” What is that? Nobody really knows, but Congress defines it as a system that can either “passively monitor the performance of a driver” to detect if they are impaired, or “passively and accurately detect” whether the driver’s blood alcohol level is above the legal limit. If impairment or an illegal blood alcohol limit is detected, the system is required to “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.”
The article goes on to discuss the different ways to passively monitor a driver to detect drunk driving. It all sounds fantastic (as in fantasy) to me. This is not something already available. To me, this bill is intended to stimulate research by the auto makers into how to do it. I'm skeptical. Not that I'm saying it can't be done but need more proof before I'd go down the path of decrying "loss of privacy". We don't know what the tech entails.
The ACLU seems to be proactively raising the privacy issue because privacy is not yet at risk. Regulations haven't even been written yet. The provision in the spending bill calls for regulations in three years. As the ACLU says in this article:
"That means there will likely be many years in which to consider this issue and to debate how it’s implemented. We will be carefully watching every step of the way." Dudes and Dudettes, this article is a request for funding. I send them money every year. If you support what the ACLU is doing, including tracking developments like this, I hope you do too.
I'm skeptical, not cynical. I don't believe our government is pushing this in order to monitor us while in our cars, like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984. That would be cynical. I'm skeptical because I doubt this kind of passive monitoring system can be done within the time allowed. I don't see reason to be alarmed because we can't read regulations that haven't been written. But we should be ready to look them over when they are available. I'm also for research into tech that makes everybody safer. So, if congress is mandating research into better ways to prevent drunk driving, I'm not against it. Car companies probably would not fund this kind of research without this mandate, so, I don't see reason for much concern at this time.
That said, I completely support concerns the ACLU has regarding potenial invasion of privacy in this measure but not JUST this measure. If people are concerned about privacy -- which some on this thread voice concern over due to the unregulated invasion of privacy already taking place -- maybe a good start would be calling your congressional representation in DC and voicing support for H.R.5807, Digital Accountability and Transparency to Advance Privacy Act or the DATA Privacy Act
www.zdnet.com
