Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Skulking Rogue]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:52:29 -0600, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver
>and calls the police has been developed by a team of engineers at
>Texas Christian University. A pump draws air in from the passenger
>cabin, a platinum catalyst converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which
>then produces a current proportional to the concentration of alcohol
>in the air. A chip analyses the data, and if it is too high, turns on
>a wireless transmitter that calls the police.

Great, a perfect reason for using Tequila Air Freshener. Or perhaps
vodka, since it's less likely to stain the upholstery. And then sue
the living fuck out of the pigs. And since it's succeptible to tobacco
smoke, Joe Camel just became my new best friend. Pack a day? Only when
I'm driving.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Harmon Seaver]

   I wonder what the effect would be in states like WI which don't require auto
insurance. Insurance is noticably cheaper here than in MN which does require it. 


On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:25:05PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 08:52 AM 03/10/2003 -0500, david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, you [whoever that was?] wrote:
> >> On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote:
> >> > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any
> >> > other individual to subsidize your welfare.
> >> >
> >> > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity,
> >> > would violate fourth amendment protections against
> >> > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do
> >> > the same thing.
> >>
> >> But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
> >> in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the
> >> police or just the insurance company) ?
> >>
> >> Right ?
> 
> I wouldn't mind if some insurance companies required that,
> as long as any laws against annoying the police with bogus complaints
> didn't affect me.  In particular, if the "Bad Drivers' Insurance Company"
> wanted to offer them with a special rate to people who might otherwise not
> be able to get insurance because of previous drunkenness, great.
> That level of market differentiation is unlikely to become available
> in most of the US, because states tend to "protect" consumers by
> regulating what kind of insurance is available and at what prices, though.
> 
> I'd mind substantially if _my_ insurance company required it,
> because I've been fairly satisfied with the service and prices I get from 
> them,
> and I'd have to go find a new company that wasn't blazingly stupid.
> 
> I'd mind a lot if the government required insurance companies to use them,
> and required every driver or car owner to use one of those insurance 
> companies,
> especially if drivers were still responsible if their machines
> made incorrect calls to the police.

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[david]

On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, A.Melon wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote:
> > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any
> > other individual to subsidize your welfare.
> >
> > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity,
> > would violate fourth amendment protections against
> > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do
> > the same thing.
>
> But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
> in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the
> police or just the insurance company) ?
>
> Right ?

Not as long as it was truly a free market transaction involving no 
government regulation of the insurance company or laws requiring 
you to buy the insurance.  Any transaction freely entered into by 
both parties is acceptable.

David Neilson

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Bill Stewart]

At 08:52 AM 03/10/2003 -0500, david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, you [whoever that was?] wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote:
> > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any
> > other individual to subsidize your welfare.
> >
> > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity,
> > would violate fourth amendment protections against
> > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do
> > the same thing.
>
> But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
> in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the
> police or just the insurance company) ?
>
> Right ?
I wouldn't mind if some insurance companies required that,
as long as any laws against annoying the police with bogus complaints
didn't affect me.  In particular, if the "Bad Drivers' Insurance Company"
wanted to offer them with a special rate to people who might otherwise not
be able to get insurance because of previous drunkenness, great.
That level of market differentiation is unlikely to become available
in most of the US, because states tend to "protect" consumers by
regulating what kind of insurance is available and at what prices, though.
I'd mind substantially if _my_ insurance company required it,
because I've been fairly satisfied with the service and prices I get from them,
and I'd have to go find a new company that wasn't blazingly stupid.
I'd mind a lot if the government required insurance companies to use them,
and required every driver or car owner to use one of those insurance companies,
especially if drivers were still responsible if their machines
made incorrect calls to the police.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[david]

On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, you wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote:
> > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any
> > other individual to subsidize your welfare.
> >
> > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity,
> > would violate fourth amendment protections against
> > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do
> > the same thing.
>
> But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
> in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the
> police or just the insurance company) ?
>
> Right ?

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Declan McCullagh]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:56:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I'm not crazy about everything that the government does, but there
> are trade- offs in a non-perfect society. One of them is monitoring
> the innocent to, in turn, attempt to prevent the guilty from
> trampling over everything, God willing.

Yes. Perhaps you'll be the first to volunteer for 24/7 invasive,
implant-based, GPS-trackable, body-cavity-explorable monitoring
to keep the rest of us safe? After all, you're innocent, and you
have nothing to hide, right?

-Declan

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Kevin S. Van Horn]

david wrote:

But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the
police or just the insurance company) ?
Right ?

If I did mind, I'd just find a different insurance company.  It's a 
little bit harder for me to say, "I don't like government X; I choose to 
be governed by Y instead" while continuing to live in the same spot.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:31:40 -0500 (est), Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Screw that - just buy a few thousand of these little devices, disable them
>so that they're always transmitting "drunk driver" and install them in
>politicians' cars all over DC (make sure you install'em in cop
>cars too.)  You can also leave them in cabs.
>
>They'll be banned immediately.

What the fuck makes you think you'd need to "disable" them for
politicians? Ted Kennedy, anyone?

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[A.Melon]

On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote:
> Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any other
> individual to subsidize your welfare.
>
> This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity, would
> violate fourth amendment protections against self-incrimination.
> DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do the same thing.

But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the 
police or just the insurance company) ?

Right ?

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[david]

On Friday 07 March 2003 00:52, gann wrote:

> A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a
> drink-driver and calls the police has been developed  

> I'm in favor of it  


Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any other 
individual to subsidize your welfare.

This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity, would 
violate fourth amendment protections against self-incrimination.  
DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do the same thing.

DUI laws define a political crime (as opposed to a crime with an 
actual victim) based on an arbitrary biological baseline (blood 
alcohol content).  Reckless endangerment of another person is a 
real crime with a real victim regardless of the amount of alcohol 
or other drugs in the person's system.  Laws against reckless 
endangerment can be enforced without violating constitutionally 
protected rights.  DUI laws need to be abolished.

This would all be academic if this were not a socialist country 
where the roads are built on stolen property with stolen money.  If 
the roads were private property owned by private individuals then 
you would be free to travel on roads that required onboard breath 
testers, submission to random searches of your vehicle and body 
cavities, along with background checks of your criminal history, 
credit, and bank records if that made you feel safe and secure.  If 
the terms of use of that road company were not to your liking you 
would be free to travel on a competing company's roads.

Live free or die,
David Neilson

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Thomas Shaddack]

> Fuck you and fuck the man.  I don't need any electronic snitch in my
> car.  Do you?  If you do, maybe you're in need of professional help!

Hey! Keep him alive! :)

If he's genuine, he can serve as a study material for observing the
Adversary-sympathetic mindset. Think zoo, or a lab animal.

The other possibility is he's a troll that managed to escape from
Slashdot, and then the shouting and anger is what he gets attracted to.

Regarding such snitch devices, one thing plays for us: Tamperproof (quite
like bulletproof) isn't.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

- Original Message -
From: "Dan Veeneman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police


> I had an acquaintance years ago that always kept a bottle of cologne
> in the car.  If he was ever pulled over after drinking, he would take
> a swig of the cologne before the cop got to his window.  All the cop
> would then smell was the cologne and not the beer/whiskey/whatever
> he was drinking.

He is to be commended for beating the system and endangering his own and
other lives.

> >  A chip analyses the data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless
> > transmitter that calls the police.
>
> Hackable and able to be spoofed.

True, but not by dumb drunk drivers.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Tim May]

On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 12:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I would fairly entertain said discussion.

Erle
http://ganns.com
You're on the wrong list here for at least four reasons:

1. You're spamming us with some idea I have a hunch you are connected 
with in some way.

2. You're a statist.

3. You're a pedant, especially with your "I would fairly entertain said 
discussion" silliness.

4. This breath tester is not related to list topics. Off-topic 
discussion happens, especially when regulars know each other and have 
something they want to say to their colleagues. Your off-topic post 
doesn't fall into this category.

--Tim May

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Pete Capelli]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police


> - Original Message -
> From: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police
> 
> 
> > False positives: What about folks with vinegar on their breath?
> 
> I think that being pulled over once a year for a couple minutes is worth
> catching a bunch of other real drunk drivers.
> 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

- Original Message -
From: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police


> False positives: What about folks with vinegar on their breath?

I think that being pulled over once a year for a couple minutes is worth
catching a bunch of other real drunk drivers.

> False negatives: I could remember to use an airpump in an ethanol state
> in which it would be illegal/immoral to drive in.

Then you would successfully defeat the device and continue to drive under
the influence.

> Fools: giving the police a link to your location and activities.  And
> paying for the privledge.

As if I care if cops know where I am. Maybe if they notice my radio beacon
pulled over to the side of the road nowhere near an intersection, they might
roll by to see if I need assistance.

Erle
http://ganns.com

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

You seem to be such a hopeless case that I don't even know where to start.
Your vulgarity alone gives paints a pretty good picture of you. If you
prefer to carry on like an immature grade-school kid, I'll be ignoring you.
Let me know when you want to have an actual conversation with viable content
instead of scraping the bottom of the vocabulary barrel.

- Original Message -
From: "Sunder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sycophantic Boot Licker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police


>
>
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 Sycophantic Boot Licker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not crazy about everything that the government does, but there are
trade-
> > offs in a non-perfect society. One of them is monitoring the innocent
to, in
> > turn, attempt to prevent the guilty from trampling over everything, God
willing.
>
> Tradeoffs you say?  Monitor the innocent to find the guilty?  Hmm, why,
> isn't that like being guilty before proven innocent?  Hmmm... I think
> you're a total dickwad and work for the man.  Fuck you.  And fuck your
> willing God.  It's assholes like you and who think like you that bend over
> and take it every time that kill our freedoms.
>
> Fuck you and fuck the man.  I don't need any electronic snitch in my
> car.  Do you?  If you do, maybe you're in need of professional help!
>
> > There are countries that are very differing in their laws and liberties.
Don't
> > lose hope by thinking that this is the only one for you. You can try a
few of
> > them until one suits your flavor. Isn't freedom great? Amen!
>
> If you don't like freedom, I'm sure Communist China will be more to your
> liking.  Or perhaps Iraq?
>
>
> --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
>  + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
>   \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
> <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
>   /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
>  + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Sunder]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 Sycophantic Fascist Troll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> farted:

> You seem to be such a hopeless case that I don't even know where to start.

Oh, but I do know where you could start! Leaving this list would be a
great start, but in your case, I'd recomend that you get totally drunk and
then go for a nice long drive on the same tracks facing the business end
of an oncoming freight train.

Either that, or have yourself lobotomized - oh wait, from your comments I
see you've already been snipped, and are now a worthless mouthpiece tool
of the man.

> Your vulgarity alone gives paints a pretty good picture of you. If you
> prefer to carry on like an immature grade-school kid, I'll be ignoring you.

Oh horrors!  I've managed to piss off a pussified busy-body boot licking
ass whore who values the false security of prison fasicsm over freedom.  
Oh woe is me, whatever shall I do, I'm being ignored by a brain washed
sheep!

My vulgrarity pales in comparison to the real damage you and your kind of
spineless smiley glad hand fascists do to our freedoms.

> Let me know when you want to have an actual conversation with viable content
> instead of scraping the bottom of the vocabulary barrel.

That's great!  How about the day that you figure out that liberty and
privacy are far more valuable than netting few drunk driving morons that
are going to be eliminted from the gene pool anyway?

Please, do tell us which day that will be, so I can mark my calendar.  
Meanwhile, go find yourself a nice anti-American dictatorship to
expatriate yourself out to.  You'd fit right in, slimeboy.

And whatever you do, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT procreate!  You're a prime
candidate for a Darwin Award, don't forfeit your reward by having kids.  
They'd only rat you out to the man, and all they'd get for their troubles
would be a lousy D.A.R.E T-shirt.


--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 02:56 PM 3/7/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm not crazy about everything that the government does, but there are
trade-
>offs in a non-perfect society. One of them is monitoring the innocent
to, in
>turn, attempt to prevent the guilty from trampling over everything,
Allah willing.

Wrong compromise.  See Franklin, B.

>I'm pretty sure that your Jack-dipped cotton swab will fall under
tampering and
>intentional abuse of law enforcement resources, so you will pay your
fine, then
>come back here to complain about "the man" that is trying to take away
your
>world of lawlessness and accountability.

You might have picked the wrong list.

We analyze systems.   And societies are systems too.
We look at weaknesses from an adversary's viewpoint.
We switch viewpoints faster than Kasparov.  We are the rabbit, and the
fox,
and the dynamics.  We argue about which cuts of the sacred cow are the
tastiest.  We believe such studies are interesting by themselves, and
sometimes
practical, for instance letting us strengthen these systems based on our

reasoning and experimentation.  We use the plural singular as agitprop
and to piss Tim off.   Security science, bub.  You propose
a (hysterical big brotheresque--is some friend red asphalt?) system, and
we study
it.  You don't even have to ask us, just make us aware of it :-)

>There are countries that are very differing in their laws and
liberties.

Yes, doncha just miss the Stasi?   And what sharp uniforms!

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Sunder]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 Sycophantic Boot Licker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm not crazy about everything that the government does, but there are trade-
> offs in a non-perfect society. One of them is monitoring the innocent to, in 
> turn, attempt to prevent the guilty from trampling over everything, God willing.

Tradeoffs you say?  Monitor the innocent to find the guilty?  Hmm, why,
isn't that like being guilty before proven innocent?  Hmmm... I think
you're a total dickwad and work for the man.  Fuck you.  And fuck your
willing God.  It's assholes like you and who think like you that bend over
and take it every time that kill our freedoms.
 
Fuck you and fuck the man.  I don't need any electronic snitch in my
car.  Do you?  If you do, maybe you're in need of professional help!
 
> There are countries that are very differing in their laws and liberties. Don't 
> lose hope by thinking that this is the only one for you. You can try a few of 
> them until one suits your flavor. Isn't freedom great? Amen!

If you don't like freedom, I'm sure Communist China will be more to your
liking.  Or perhaps Iraq?


--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

Wow, easy there, chief. I think you have some aggression you may want to let a 
professional address. Besides that...

I'm not crazy about everything that the government does, but there are trade-
offs in a non-perfect society. One of them is monitoring the innocent to, in 
turn, attempt to prevent the guilty from trampling over everything, God willing.

I'm pretty sure that your Jack-dipped cotton swab will fall under tampering and 
intentional abuse of law enforcement resources, so you will pay your fine, then 
come back here to complain about "the man" that is trying to take away your 
world of lawlessness and accountability.

There are countries that are very differing in their laws and liberties. Don't 
lose hope by thinking that this is the only one for you. You can try a few of 
them until one suits your flavor. Isn't freedom great? Amen!


Quoting Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> 
> So you hook it up to a wad of cotton dipped in Jack...  Whatever.  Fuck
> Big Brother.  Fuck it in the ass until it squeals, then fuck it some more.
> 
> --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
>  + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
>   \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
> <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
>   /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
>  + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Good job. You just caused law enforcement to ignore emitters from all cabs,
> 
> > government, and police vehicles.
> > 
> > My guess is that the unit will perform a self-check and emit a "broken"
> signal 
> > instead of "drunk". Maybe the police will only pull over "broken" vehicles
> not 
> > listed above, knowing that broken ones from average citizens are far
> likelier 
> > to have been sabotaged.
> 
> 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 2:56 PM -0500 on 3/7/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


> Wow, easy there, chief.

You're new here, aren'tcha?

:-)

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

I would fairly entertain said discussion.

Erle
http://ganns.com

Quoting Pete Capelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Yes.  Won't someone please think about the *children*?  We shouldn't
> have a problem with being monitored 24x7 if we aren't doing anything
> illegal, right?  Especially since it's for such a good cause!
> 
> Did you ever think that perhaps this bothers people for reasons *other* than
> getting caught drunk driving?
> 
> -p
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police
> 
> 
> > I don't guess you read the article. It answers at least your first
> question.
> >
> > Another option to breathing through a tube might be to not drink alcohol
> before
> > driving. Wow, you know... deterring people from drinking and driving might
> be a
> > favorable side effect of this public-monitoring, information-gathering
> tool of
> > big brother's.
> >
> > Erle
> > http://ganns.com
> >
> 
> 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Bill Stewart]

At 09:28 AM 03/07/2003 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 12:52 AM 3/7/03 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver
>and calls the police has been developed by a team of engineers
Would you buy one if you're drunk?  Would you put one in your trunk?

Who's the target market for this sort of thing?
Engineers can build things for the existential pleasure of it,
but usually they're trying to solve problems for people,
and it's not clear what the business requirement is here.
Did someone fund them?  Who?  Why?
Doing the technical part of detecting alcohol vapor is cool,
but doing the systems integration to make it call the police
makes a large number of assumptions about the occupants of the car
and the legality of the actions they're about to perform
and the probability of false positives and false negatives
and the willingness of the police to be called about it.
(Police, for instance, don't like false alarms from burglar alarms.)
Validating those assumptions is part of the engineering job,
just like validating the effect of opening all the car windows
before you get in is.  Newspaper clippings usually don't do a good
enough job on details to let you estimate whether the engineering
was done well (except of course when things fail spectacularly.)
Building a device that can call any pre-programmed number
is a much different problem - it's almost identical technically,
but applications include selling to parents for their kids' cars
(and be sure to include a speakerphone in the communications part.)
(Bobby!  The machine says you're drunk!  Are you ok?
I'm fine, ma, I'm just driving Alice and Carol home.)
or if you're trying to sell it to people who are habitual drunks,
having it programmed to call a taxi makes more sense.
There may be some captive market for selling to people on probation,
who might accept it as an alternative to not being allowed to drive at all,
but that's clearly a niche market, not an install-on-all-new-cars market.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Pete Capelli]

Yes.  Won't someone please think about the *children*?  We shouldn't
have a problem with being monitored 24x7 if we aren't doing anything
illegal, right?  Especially since it's for such a good cause!

Did you ever think that perhaps this bothers people for reasons *other* than
getting caught drunk driving?

-p

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police


> I don't guess you read the article. It answers at least your first
question.
>
> Another option to breathing through a tube might be to not drink alcohol
before
> driving. Wow, you know... deterring people from drinking and driving might
be a
> favorable side effect of this public-monitoring, information-gathering
tool of
> big brother's.
>
> Erle
> http://ganns.com
>

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Dan Veeneman]

At 12:52 AM 3/7/03 -0600, you wrote:
A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum catalyst converts 
any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current proportional to 
the concentration of alcohol in the air.
I had an acquaintance years ago that always kept a bottle of cologne
in the car.  If he was ever pulled over after drinking, he would take
a swig of the cologne before the cop got to his window.  All the cop
would then smell was the cologne and not the beer/whiskey/whatever
he was drinking.
In any case, alcohol in the cabin does not equate to an impaired driver.

 A chip analyses the data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless 
transmitter that calls the police.
Hackable and able to be spoofed.

Cheers,

Dan

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

I don't guess you read the article. It answers at least your first question.

Another option to breathing through a tube might be to not drink alcohol before 
driving. Wow, you know... deterring people from drinking and driving might be a 
favorable side effect of this public-monitoring, information-gathering tool of 
big brother's.

Erle
http://ganns.com

Quoting stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> ggc> University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum
> catalyst
> ggc> converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
> ggc> proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip analyses
> the
> ggc> data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls
> the
> ggc> police.
> 
> but what about other passengers who have been drinking, and what about open
> windows? unless we're going to be forced to drive with tubes stuck in our
> mouths...
> -- 
> stuart

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

Actually, read the article. It covers sober driver and drunk passengers.

Quoting Bill Frantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> At 10:52 PM -0800 3/6/03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver and
> calls
> >the police has been developed by a team of engineers at Texas Christian
> >University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum
> catalyst
> >converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
> >proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip analyses
> the
> >data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls the
> >police.
> 
> So much for the sober designated driver with a load of drunk passengers.
> 
> Cheers - Bill
> 
> 
> -
> Bill Frantz   | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting
> (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
> 
> 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 12:52 AM 3/7/03 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver
and calls
>the police has been developed by a team of engineers at Texas Christian

>University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum
catalyst
>converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
>proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip
analyses the
>data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls
the
>police.

False positives: What about folks with vinegar on their breath?

False negatives: I could remember to use an airpump in an ethanol state
in which it would be illegal/immoral to drive in.

Fools: giving the police a link to your location and activities.  And
paying for the privledge.

And who gives a fuck if its a fuel cell, (Texas Christian media whores)
its just a catalytic detector, big deal.

>
>http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cars/article.jsp?id=2069
>
>I'm in favor of it if they can overcome attempted bypass of the unit.
Unless
>it cryptographically allows the car to operate only when functional,
someone
>will figure out how to defeat it.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[gann]

Good job. You just caused law enforcement to ignore emitters from all cabs, 
government, and police vehicles.

My guess is that the unit will perform a self-check and emit a "broken" signal 
instead of "drunk". Maybe the police will only pull over "broken" vehicles not 
listed above, knowing that broken ones from average citizens are far likelier 
to have been sabotaged.

Quoting Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Screw that - just buy a few thousand of these little devices, disable them
> so that they're always transmitting "drunk driver" and install them in
> politicians' cars all over DC (make sure you install'em in cop
> cars too.)  You can also leave them in cabs.
> 
> They'll be banned immediately.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver and
> calls
> > the police has been developed by a team of engineers at Texas Christian
> > University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum
> catalyst
> > converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
> > proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip analyses
> the
> > data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls
> the
> > police.
> 
> 

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Sunder]

So you hook it up to a wad of cotton dipped in Jack...  Whatever.  Fuck
Big Brother.  Fuck it in the ass until it squeals, then fuck it some more.

--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Good job. You just caused law enforcement to ignore emitters from all cabs, 
> government, and police vehicles.
> 
> My guess is that the unit will perform a self-check and emit a "broken" signal 
> instead of "drunk". Maybe the police will only pull over "broken" vehicles not 
> listed above, knowing that broken ones from average citizens are far likelier 
> to have been sabotaged.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Bill Frantz]

At 10:52 PM -0800 3/6/03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver and calls
>the police has been developed by a team of engineers at Texas Christian
>University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum catalyst
>converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
>proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip analyses the
>data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls the
>police.

So much for the sober designated driver with a load of drunk passengers.

Cheers - Bill


-
Bill Frantz   | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[Sunder]

Screw that - just buy a few thousand of these little devices, disable them
so that they're always transmitting "drunk driver" and install them in
politicians' cars all over DC (make sure you install'em in cop
cars too.)  You can also leave them in cabs.

They'll be banned immediately.


--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> A tiny fuel cell that detects the alcoholic breath of a drink-driver and calls
> the police has been developed by a team of engineers at Texas Christian
> University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum catalyst
> converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
> proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip analyses the
> data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls the
> police.

Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police

[stuart]

ggc> University. A pump draws air in from the passenger cabin, a platinum catalyst
ggc> converts any alcohol to acetic acid, which then produces a current
ggc> proportional to the concentration of alcohol in the air. A chip analyses the
ggc> data, and if it is too high, turns on a wireless transmitter that calls the
ggc> police.

but what about other passengers who have been drinking, and what about open
windows? unless we're going to be forced to drive with tubes stuck in our
mouths...

-- 
stuart

We are the only nation on earth capable of exporting security in a sustained
fashion, and we have a very good track record of doing it.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm