„Kill-Switch“-Gesetz bedeutet, dass Ihr nächstes Auto Sie beobachten könnte | Eine Bundesvorschrift zur Unterbindung von Trunkenheit am Steuer könnte bald dazu führen, dass jedes neue Fahrzeug mit einer Fahrerüberwachungstechnologie ausgestattet wird. Das Ziel besteht darin, Leben zu retten, aber die Kompromisse beim Datenschutz verdienen eine genauere Prüfung
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/06/01/drunk-driving-prevention-law-privacy-surveillance/90295034007/
40 Kommentare
Don’t they already have breathalyzers in vehicles for repeat offenders?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AutoHumor/s/La2Jl5cmNu
Smells like money.
Some of the main issues:
>It’s a law that has largely gone under the radar, but one that could affect millions of Americans. And before it takes effect, Congress owes the public clear answers about privacy, surveillance and who controls the data these systems collect.
>
>The „kill switch“ requirement started in 2021 when Congress passed the HALT Drunk Driving Act as part of broader infrastructure legislation. It received bipartisan support, although many more Democrats voted for it than Republicans. In recent months, several Republicans have tried to repeal the mandate.
>
>The law charged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with writing rules requiring automakers to install anti-drunken driving technology in new vehicles within five years. Those rules are still being written but could go into effect as early as next year.
>
>…
>
>It also mandates that this technology can „passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle“ and can „prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.“
>
>So while the term “kill switch” isn’t included in the legislation, the meaning is clear.
>
>Supporters of the regulation say it’s about saving lives and preventing deadly crashes caused by impaired drivers. Opponents argue it’s an Orwellian measure that violates constitutional protections and opens the door to broader government surveillance.
>
>…
>
>I am deeply sympathetic to efforts to prevent these needless and heartbreaking deaths. But Americans shouldn’t have to surrender their privacy every time they get behind the wheel. Congress should not impose a mandate that gives the government, automakers or anyone else the ability to monitor drivers without clear limits and protections.
As with all pieces of legislation like this, the devil will be in the details. Preventing impaired driving is certainly a laudable goal, but in addition to there being measurable benefits to these laws there also need to be clear policies and limitations around the collection, use, and retention of data.
Every state in the Union made a bunch more money when they change the DWI standard from 0.10 to .08.
I guess if they were to move down to .02 they could get even more people to bust. Kind of like the war on weed.
I literally will never buy a car that has this system in it.
When I looked this up recently they were talking about ai vision based monitoring which will absolutely not be able to reliably not hit false positives at a high rate.
The tech is not close at this point.
Will it be the same technology that tells Asian people they are sleepy? Or perhaps like the lane-drifting alert that warns me when the painted lines are all messed up?
I’m worried about false positives and repercussions therefrom.
They’re already watching you.
You sign away your privacy rights at the dealership. I saw this crazy video on it a few months ago.
In the agreement, two companies put in the contract that your car will update the car company about your sexual activities. I swear to god. I think it was Nissan and Kia but i could be wrong on the Kia.
[Found it.](https://nypost.com/2023/09/06/nissan-kia-collect-data-about-drivers-sexual-activity/)
The goal isn’t saving lives, that’s just the excuse.
We’re slowly moving towards a reality out of Black Mirror.
Never. I will buy and maintain older cars gladly.
The “it’s to be safe” argument is always one that scares me. China used it to deploy widespread facial recognition (for public safety) and now is used against political dissent. We’ve used this argument (safety from terrorists) to extend FISA to communication between US citizens and those outside. Looking ahead, insurers could monitor your car and ding you on premiums for unsafe driving (oh, is that really looking ahead?).
How long til it untill the software is jailbroken?
Congress is full of drunk as fuck drug addicts. foh.
Gee, I don’t see any way this could be used by the fascists.
Buying a car that will sell your information, habits, data, no thanks, if passes then dump cars will be bought. Teach a lesson to the rich guys. They should only buy it
This is really about preventing movement/travel/fleeing for any reason they decide.
The goal is surveillance and control.
This feels a lot like the patriot act, but with cars.
This violates the 4th amendment, doesn’t it? Where’s the probable cause?
‚Saves lives‘, … No, This could be fatal.
If you’re critically injured, your car may easily mistake adrenaline, and speeding to get help as impairment- leaving you stranded.
Or, if your spouse or child is having a medical emergency, would you be okay with your car telling you it won’t drive?
Remember when the 4th amendment protected us from unreasonable search and seizure?
Minority Report is coming true in increments. Our AI overlords/Big Brother are hard at work.
I just don’t understand how conservatives / Trump supporters / Republicans can say they want „small government“ while constantly advocating for things like this
Edit – Acknowledging Many have Informed me that This bill was signed by Biden, I admittedly did not know that when I made this comment, and to clarify I mentioned the Republicans because I assumed it was predominantly supported by them, as well as the fact that they have for a long time said they are champions of small government which is just so pathetic and untrue
Edit 2: yes, dems on average love big government too, but in different ways
Imagine you are camping and suddenly need to get out of the way of a fast spreading forest fire. It would really suck if everyone has to burn to death because your car refuses to start since everyone had a few beers.
I don’t want cameras in my car that are connected to the internet that determine if I get to drive or not. Privacy nightmare.
The goal is to completely destroy privacy in every facet of life for money, control and surveillance. This is just one of endless methods to accomplish that
Get very loud about opposing this.
The technology doesnt exist yet. They’re doing this preemptively so when it is possible, we wont see it coming, and it will already be legal, so much more difficult to oppose.
The goal is definitely not “saving lives”
Thankfully, implementation is stalled due to MANY issues with it. When it is implemented, auto makers will have 3 years to put into their vehicles.
>The goal is saving lives
No it isn’t. That’s the cover story. The goal is surveillance.
„The goal is saving lives, but the privacy trade-offs deserve closer scrutiny“
That’s the excuse; it’s never the real goal.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
The most effective way to reduce DWIs is public transit. Nobody is gonna risk it if they can just hop on a train to go home
First give them to all officers….see how fast that gets scrapped.
Bikes looking more attractive to anyone?
It’s not if these systems will be abused, it’s when and how often.
We need states to Oppose this
this has literally nothing to do with drunk drivers and everything to do with cops just switch off your car when ever they want and claiming drunk driving to investigate you for whatever they want.