FC: California considers remote laser kill switches for cars

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

What an amazingly awful idea. A quick read of the bill says you can't
remove this "encrypted laser activated shutoff device" from your own
car upon penalty of two months in jail. The description of what
California is considering is: "An electronic or electromechanical
device, including, but not limited to, one or more computer chips that
are installed either in, or functions in conjunction with, an
automobile's onboard electronics system or fuel system, or both the
electronics system and fuel systems."

Does anyone think that this will work flawlessly?

Even if it does, the privacy issues are worrisome enough. It would, as
Peter points out in this cypherpunks thread below, allow random
inspections by cops: "Upon demand of a peace officer, every person who
drives a motor vehicle that is subject to a pursuit intervention
termination management system requirement under any provision of law
shall allow an inspection of the pursuit intervention termination
management system to determine that it is installed and functioning
properly."

The bill:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_2001-2050/sb_2004_bill_20000504_amended_\sen.html

-Declan

*********

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:31:18 -0400
From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei () rsasecurity com>
Subject: [OT] California senator tries to mandate remote kill switches for

The California legislature recently considered a law
(it apparently died in committee this year) which would 
mandate that all cars in the state be fitted with a device, 
which upon recieving an encrypted signal by laser or radio, 
would kill the engine. 

The apparent goal is to prevent car chases. 

The, bill, introduced by (State?) Senator Speier, is at 
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_2001-2050/sb_2004_bill_20000504_amend
ed_sen.html

There is substantial discussion at
http://www.technocrat.net/968678895/index_html

The bill requires that cars sold in the state after 2004 have the system, 
and cars registered after 2007 be retrofitted if neccessary.

It would be a crime to fail to fit or maintain it, or to bypass it.

It includes a provision to allow any peace officer to stop any
car at any time to inspect the system, without any mention
of warrants or probable cause.

I may write something for RISKS Digest about this.

Peter Trei

***********

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:48:19 -0400
From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka () lsil com>
Subject: Re: [OT] California senator tries to mandate remote kill switches for

This has been around for a couple of years. It was started by a
politician from San Jose who I think has some connection$ to a startup
that makes a product called Halt. Golly, he wouldn't be abusing the
public trust would he? A quick search didn't turn up either the SJMN
article or anything else but it's there somewhere. Anyway, these are
bad^H^H^H truly evil people^H^H^H^H^H^H scumbags. It's worth keeping an
eye on them and trying to create publicity when the bill mutates and
crawls out of the cesspool again. Which it will do annually until it is
passed. I would doubt that voters would approve a measure like this if
they knew enough about it. Generally it's limited publicity controlled
by the proposers that lets this sort of garbage bloom. 

Found something : http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383094c56f00.htm

OK background. Discussion board. All predictable stuff. 

When a bill is passed the sooner the system is hacked and the mfgrs are
in the liability courts the better. I can't really say what I want to
say about the company and the politicians...the sensors are everywhere.

Mike

***********

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:11:26 -0400
From: Tim May <tcmay () got net>

At 1:48 PM -0400 9/12/00, Michael Motyka wrote:
> This has been around for a couple of years. It was started by a
> politician from San Jose who I think has some connection$ to a startup
> that makes a product called Halt. Golly, he wouldn't be abusing the
> public trust would he? A quick search didn't turn up either the SJMN
> article or anything else but it's there somewhere. Anyway, these are
> bad^H^H^H truly evil people^H^H^H^H^H^H scumbags. It's worth keeping an
> eye on them and trying to create publicity when the bill mutates and
> crawls out of the cesspool again. Which it will do annually until it is
> passed. I would doubt that voters would approve a measure like this if
> they knew enough about it. Generally it's limited publicity controlled
> by the proposers that lets this sort of garbage bloom.
>
> Found something : http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383094c56f00.htm
>
> OK background. Discussion board. All predictable stuff.
>
> When a bill is passed the sooner the system is hacked and the mfgrs are
> in the liability courts the better. I can't really say what I want to
> say about the company and the politicians...the sensors are everywhere.

There was some talk on the Cypherpunks list some years back. May be 
findable in the archives with Google.

The political scumdroids will of course write liability exemptions 
into the laws. (Don't think they can do that? It's done a lot, 
especially when "it's for the children!!" gets invoked.)

As for what should be done with such scumdroids and the legal pieces 
of shit who support their actions, I'm not afraid to say what should 
be done with them: more freedom fighters like McVeigh need to park 
trucks filled with ANFO in front of their dens. That, or biological 
and nerve agents. Wiping out several hundred in one legislative 
session would send a message.


--Tim May
-- 
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.


************

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:01:10 -0400
From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka () lsil com>

> The political scumdroids will of course write liability exemptions 
> into the laws. (Don't think they can do that? It's done a lot, 
> especially when "it's for the children!!" gets invoked.)
Oh, I believe it. It fits right in with the "tort reform" platform.

> As for what should be done with such scumdroids and the legal pieces 
> of shit who support their actions, I'm not afraid to say what should 
> be done with them: more freedom fighters like McVeigh need to park 
> trucks filled with ANFO in front of their dens. That, or biological 
> and nerve agents. Wiping out several hundred in one legislative 
> session would send a message.
I enjoy the rhetorical device of visiting death and destruction on the
bad guys and clearly there is no shortage of politicians whose actual
passing out of this life -by unspecified means- would make the world a
safer, cleaner place but calling McVeigh a "freedom fighter" is off the
mark. 0 points for that one. 

Anyway, I'd like to see some details about that Halt disease so that
when my car catches it the vaccine development is already well underway.

Mike

**********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------