(Washington) Cars in the United States may soon refuse to drive if the driver is intoxicated, thanks to sensors capable of detecting alcohol in the breath or through the skin. But these technologies challenge the defenders of privacy and freedoms.
President Joe Biden this week signed a law that will force automakers to incorporate such tools in the years to come.
In a country where drink driving kills more than 10,000 people each year, and where the rate of alcohol allowed is on average higher than in many other Western countries, the new legislation is generating great enthusiasm.
“I cry tears of joy,” responded Alex Otte, president of MADD, an NGO that sees this law as a way to save thousands of lives. “This is the beginning of the end of drunk driving.”
But the text also raises questions: what will happen if the car is wrong and refuses to start? Will the vehicles potentially become witnesses against their owner in the event of a lawsuit?
The American authorities have three years, potentially renewable, to pronounce on these subjects.
The technology is almost ready. Researchers have developed sensors that suck and test the driver’s breath.
Starter snitch
They also developed a scanner, integrated with the engine start button, which measures the alcohol level in the blood vessels under the skin of the fingers, using infrared light.
These inventions were developed through a collaboration between an association of automobile manufacturers for road safety (ACTS) and the authorities concerned.
Anti-cheat systems will be built in to prevent the car from starting if the alcohol level exceeds the 0.08% limit, which is in effect in most states in the United States, explained Robert Strassburger, chairman of ACTS.
“We all emit carbon dioxide when we breathe out, (and the system) knows how to detect if the sample is coming from the driver and not elsewhere,” he said.
As for the digital starter sensor, it is connected to a circuit between the seat and the on-board computer: “If a passenger presses the button, the circuit does not work and the measurement is not taken,” explains Mr. Strassburger.
These tools are considered “passive”, as opposed to existing devices, which require action from the conductors, such as blowing a tube before they can travel.
This type of in-vehicle breathalyzer is mandatory in some jurisdictions for a conviction for impaired driving.
“Unconstitutional”
Some experts are in favor of these technologies, as long as they are properly regulated, but others point to the dangers and potential abuses.
Laura Perrotta, president of the American Highway Users Association, thinks these sensors are great, as long as they work properly.
“Imagine someone getting a mouthwash and can’t start their car or the system doesn’t detect that someone has had too many drinks,” she remarks. “It could pose a real problem.”
For the defenders of individual freedoms, the issue is not technical but legality.
“It is completely unconstitutional that our cars monitor us on behalf of the government,” protested Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the NGO Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.
“It is no less illegal than if the government forced telephone operators to install hidden microphones in all houses to ensure that no one commits a crime in the future,” he added.
Robert Strassburger argued that other technologies that collect information in cars are already regulated, and police need a warrant to access them.
But the final decision, according to him, will be up to “manufacturers or legislators, who will not leave them the choice.”