• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Someone 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.

    • teft@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • QuadratureSurfer@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • teft@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

    • XLE@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

      • Archr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • XLE@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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

          • Archr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            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.

            Edit: the devices (at least the ones from intoxalock) require the driver to pay a subscription fee to keep the device working (about 100$/month) and also costs a 75$ fee for each time the driver needs to get it unlocked after a failed test.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…