ggc> I don't guess you read the article. It answers at least your first question.
OK, I admit I did not read the article before impulsively replying to your original email. Now that I have read it, there are still issues that should be cleared up before it is installed in every car. First, it still seems like it would be easy for false negatives: open windows or having the AC on full blast would no doubt redirect the driver's breath before it could be sucked in by the pump. This would defeat the purpose of the device in the first place. Or how about shielding the device so it is incapable of transmitting a signal at all? The solution for that could be constant transmission so the cops would know when one was tampered with. The whole thing leads down a very scary road. Worse, false positives wouldn't seem too difficult either. Driving with three or four drunk people in the car makes the whole car absolutely reek. With the windows down, it seems unlikely this wouldn't trigger the device. My objection is not with preventing people driving drunk. I don't even drink. I hate alcohol, it makes people stupid and dim. I'm not trying to protect any right to drive drunk. What I don't like is a fallible device capable of summoning the police to my car and then stopping and searching me, with the fallible device being their probable cause. Just the idea of a wireless transmitter in my car that is available to the police is frightening. I do not like it. EZ-Pass, anyone? ggc> favorable side effect of this public-monitoring, information-gathering tool of ggc> big brother's. Do you want big brother to have any more public-monitoring, information-gathering tools at their disposal? Don't you think maybe they have enough? -- stuart
