FITUG e.V. Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft

FC: California considers remote laser kill switches for cars

------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:54:51 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: politech@politechbot.com Copies to: ptrei@rsasecurity.com Subject: FC: California considers remote laser kill switches for cars Send reply to: 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_amended_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 Zurück