New US Infrastructure Law Makes Backdoor Vehicle Kill Switch Mandatory By 2026

A new US Infrastructure law has made the installation of backdoor kill switch in vehicles mandatory by the year 2026. For automobiles constructed after 2026, the decision about whether or not a vehicle can be operated will be made by an algorithm on which the car’s proprietor or driver has no understanding or influence.

New US Infrastructure Law Makes Backdoor Vehicle Kill Switch Mandatory By 2026

A little-noticed “safety” provision which could very well comes into effect in five years is embedded deep within the huge infrastructure legislation recently approved by President Joe Biden, reports the Daily Caller. The bill, which was sold to Congress as a non-intrusive way to help combat intoxicated driving, will require automakers to install a “vehicle kill switch” across every vehicle.

This proposal is dangerously lacking on information, as has been customary for legislative demands imposed by Congress. What we do realize would be that the “safety” equipment must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”

This obligatory action ought to light red flares in everyone’s eyes.

To begin with, the word “passively” implies that the technology will be turned on at all times and continue to observe the automobile. Second, the device needs be able to communicate with the vehicle’s operating controls in order to deactivate the vehicle either beforehand or throughout driving if intoxication is identified. Third, it would be an “open” network, or at the very minimum one with a backdoor, which means that authorized (or unauthorized) third parties will be able to retrieve the system’s data remotely at any moment.

This is really a privacy catastrophe in the creation, as well as the reality that the clause passed Congress demonstrates — once again — how very poorly Congress members cares about their people’ privacy.

The absence of complete control over one’s car raises a slew of major safety concerns, concerns that should have been clear to Congress members before they approved on the bill.

What if, instead of being intoxicated, a motorist is drowsy, and the automobile compels itself to the roadside well before driver could really find a safe location to pull over and rest? Drivers will be forced into unsafe circumstances without their permission or control because there are no actual means to dispute or stop the automobile from becoming disabled.

For automobiles constructed after 2026, the decision about whether or not a vehicle can be operated will be made by an algorithm on which the car’s proprietor or driver has no understanding or influence.

If that isn’t enough to make you concerned, this regulation also has major legal implications. Numerous different vehicle-related policing techniques used by the Nanny State, including such traffic cameras and license plate readers, have long been flawed with constitutional issues, particularly with the right to not self-incriminate under the Fifth Amendment and the right to confront one’s accuser under the Sixth Amendment.

With these technological advances, the very same constitutional difficulties persist, but there’s much more ambiguity about what Congress implies by “impaired driving.” Is it allowed to be drunk, or is it possible to be under the influence but still “impaired” to some degree? Would the system invariably call the cops in attempt to make that decision? These are issues which should have been acknowledged publicly and extensively throughout the legislative procedure, rather than being left to later, behind-closed-door negotiations between interested parties other than individual car buyers, such as manufacturers, regulators, insurance companies, and law enforcement.

Ironically, or maybe deliberately, there is no mention of who would have accessibility to the information acquired and retained by the system in the Act. Is it possible for cops to use it and gain access to the data without the need for a warrant? What about insurance firms, who want to know how often their customers drive after consuming alcohol, even if they were within the legal limit? A treasure mine of data is a tempting reward for a variety of governmental and commercial groups (including hackers), none of whom have our best interests in mind.

Incorporating what equates to a backdoor government “kill switch” to automobiles is not just an infringement of our constitutional rights, but also an insult to what is — or used to be — an important part of our national identity. The individual liberty of the open road that personal vehicle possession actually introduced to the American Dream will be but just another hazy recollection of a period no longer to be enjoyed by future generations unless this regulatory mandate is promptly eliminated or rendered impotent by way of an appropriations rider prohibiting its integration.

Explore exclusive GGI coverage of Donald Trump’s assassination attempt.

Do you have a tip or sensitive material to share with GGI? Are you a journalist, researcher or independent blogger and want to write for us? You can reach us at [email protected].

5 Responses

  1. Freedom is to be illusion in the Deep State. Not about intoxicated drivers – – all about Kontrol of u and i , n’est-ce pas? …… …. shalom, al jenkins

  2. And what if it is applied to ANYTHING other than “drunk Driving”?? Like what if your car decides it doesn’t like the way you change lanes having only flashed a blinker for too short a time? What if your car decides it doesn’t think you should carve up a canyon road ?? What if your car decides you should no longer be allowed to go 5mph over the limit? SO MANY WAYS this can go horribly wrong, ….. and force people to either buy old cars, or use motorcycles !!!

  3. Look what they are doing to Canadians who committed a thought crime or donated $20 to truckers.
    They’re making them a non-person.
    I’m not doing this with vehicles.
    It’s unconstitutional.
    Puts owners at risk that someone else will hack into the car.
    What if there’s an emergency and I have to go to the hospital and the AI claims I’m drunk and I’m not?
    This is illegal and so f-=cked up.
    There’s going to be a lot of bad things to come of this.
    Must keep my cars I have now in good shape.
    We’ll be like Cuba with old cars we continue to fix up.

  4. This reminds me of the recent incident where someone was showcasing a new gun that required a fingerprint or something before firing. Basically, it didn’t work at all.
    So if you needed that gun for home defense, the home invaders would’ve murdered you because you couldn’t input your fingerprint correctly. This is going to fail, but there will be a lot of idiots who will virtue signal and claim it’s amazing. I’m so happy I’m getting older. I want out of this place.

  5. Nordic You’re absolutely right. I watched a video years ago an how the Cuban’s repair their old American cars. Home made brake shoes was very interesting, I can only imagine what they do when they need a waterpump or have to rebuild an engine, … but whatever it is, they certainly git ‘er done !! Might be a good idea to have as many of those video’s stashed on an external drive for use in the near future as How-To’s !!!

Leave a Reply