87329868723

The comment I replied to said that the various ways this technology/regulation could have harmful effects were theoretical "what if" scenarios. I pointed out that the ways it could have beneficial effects are also theoretical "what if" scenarios. I'm not saying that people dying because of drunk driving is "what if", I'm saying that this technology/regulation preventing drunk driving is just as much of a "what if" as it doing anything else. Just because something is advertised as having certain effects by its proponents doesn't mean it actually has those effects.

Some technologies work and some don't, although I can't think of anything that works and was mandated before it was already in widespread use. In any case, this is much more involved and fuzzy than normal safety technologies. Additionally, see the edit to my previous comment, the state having a remote backdoor into cars is incredibly dangerous.

I think it may be theoretically possible, but I don't think it will be implemented in a way that will work when it's mandated by law. Betting against regulations fulfilling their advertised purpose is usually a good bet. I think the most likely outcome of this is that it will make no difference to any driver, but that cars will be a little more expensive and collect more data that can be used for harmful purposes. Regardless, if we shouldn't assume that it will be harmful, we also shouldn't assume that it will be helpful.

EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.

Presumably the same way you would back up the assumption that it will work, preconceived notions on the effects of regulations in general?

The theory that the "system will prevent a person from losing their life or becoming disabled for life because of a drunk driver" is just as much of a "what if" as anything they said. I would say it's more likely to be abused and malfunction than it is to work as advertised.

What does "democratic control over our economy" mean? Does it mean surrendering control to ostensibly democratic state monopolies that respond with violence to any attempt at competing with them?

I prefer 'consensual' to 'democratic'. Most blockchain-based systems are consensual in that they operate based on rules that enjoy the unanimous consent of everyone they apply to. If I and everyone I want to interact with via a blockchain agrees to change the rules, we can freely do so, but if someone doesn't agree, we either have to stop interacting or come to an agreement.

I strongly believe political fights should be avoided whenever possible because they are (at best) win-lose. Political fights are about who should get to control everyone or what everyone should be forced to do. Technological solutions can sometimes allow everyone to get what they want without imposing their vision and preferences on others.