24/7 surveillance? Remote kill-switches? Welcome to the future of the automobile.

Artificial intelligence is already an insurgent in the most sacred of household products, but by the year 2027, it will fully invade the civilian automobile. One will no longer need to become lost in the pages of dystopian literature to imagine a world where deeply entrenched bureaucratic forces have the power to disable any motorized vehicle at any time. This move will be implemented under the guise of public safety and fighting drunk driving. Born of supposed social necessity, these forces will make a push to restrict freedom of movement through AI-powered vehicle monitoring technology. 

Your car will have a “remote kill switch”—the law has already mandated it. It is only a matter of time.

Section 24220: The Beginning of the End

Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed into law through bipartisan approval by the US government in November of 2021, snuck in a requirement for car manufacturers to install remote kill switches and "advanced impaired driving technology” that will “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.” This technology will allow vehicles to be remotely controlled or disabled through the decision of AI or an actual human actor.

Section 24220 mandates that the US Secretary of Transportation establish this requirement no later than November 15, 2024. After that, car manufacturers have three years to fully comply. All new cars manufactured for sale in the United States by the year 2027 will be equipped with technology that will passively monitor the impairment of the driver through various sensors, such as:

• Driving performance monitoring systems that monitor the vehicle movement using cameras and sensors that are outside the vehicle, such as lane departure warning and attention assist;

• Systems that monitor the driver’s head and eyes, typically using a camera or other sensors that are inside the vehicle;

• Alcohol detection systems that use sensors to determine whether a driver is drunk and then prevent the vehicle from moving.

Once the vehicle detects possible impairment through 24/7 surveillance of your “head and eyes,” it can disable itself using a local system onboard. The vehicle will first give the driver the opportunity to cease operation voluntarily. However, if the driver does not respond, autonomous driving technology can take control of the vehicle by force until it is disabled. Most ominously, there will also be an ability for law enforcement agencies to remotely disable vehicles using a built-in kill switch that is able to render the vehicle inoperable.

Though its scale is monumental, backlash to Section 24220 has been muted, mostly due to its anti-drunk driving justification. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) hailed it as the “single most important legislation” in their organization’s history and “the beginning of the end of drunk driving.” It could be—at what cost?

[Suicide Forums in a Dying Society]

Prophetically, French sociologist Jacques Ellul paralleled this future in The Technological Society (1954), lamenting, “The supremacy of technical instruments is a result of their exact correspondence to social necessities.” Ellul goes on to state the collection of rational methods which he referred to as “technique” eventually “causes the state to become totalitarian, to absorb the citizens’ life completely.” However, few heeded this warning of total impending takeover by rational techniques and the ever-blossoming instruments humans create in support of the narrative of eternal progress. In an age where AI is invading consumer electronics and haunting domestic life beyond the will of any person to resist the temptation of various “smart devices,” this is proving to be crushing.

Somewhat disturbingly in retrospect, it is likely that remote modification of vehicle operation has been possible for far longer than previously thought. It is probable that these powers have already been used in high-profile incidents: specifically, the crash that killed investigative journalist Michael Hastings in June of 2013. This incident comes to mind as the most obvious example of electronic systems in modern vehicles potentially being used for nefarious purposes.

The Suspicious Death of Michael Hastings

Michael Hastings was a high-profile journalist and vocal critic of government agencies. He was preparing a story that would incriminate high ranking officials when his 2013 Mercedes C250 Coupe suddenly sped to what onlookers described as “maximum speed.” The vehicle then spun out of control and collided with a palm tree near the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Highland Avenue in Los Angeles, CA. The engine block of the vehicle was found well over 100 feet away from the car, having been launched in the explosive crash that killed Hastings instantly. Days prior to this crash, he told people close to him that his car seemed like it was being tampered with. He then asked to borrow a friend’s Volvo, as he was afraid to drive his Mercedes to leave his apartment. 

At the time of the crash, Hastings was getting ready to release a profile of CIA director John Brennan for Rolling Stone while also working closely with Wikileaks, raising major questions about potential perpetrators that might want to silence him. He also told close confidants that he was being investigated by the FBI. While the FBI denied having Hastings under an active investigation, they eventually released their 2012 files on him, having kept tabs on him for some time leading up to the crash. One of the most incriminating pieces of evidence in the death of Hastings is a statement by Richard A. Clarke, former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-Terrorism. When asked to comment on the matter, Clarke said what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car cyber-attack." He was then quoted: "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers—including the United States—know how to remotely seize control of a car.”

[How the CIA Helped Create the First Mexican Cartel]

Regardless if this technology is on the horizon or was already used in the death of Michael Hastings, the supposed technological “progress” implied by these systems ushers in a new era of meddling and AI systems controlling every aspect of human life. All cars and farming equipment will come with remote kill switches and 24/7 surveilling technology, a fact most recently evidenced by the twenty-seven Ukrainian tractors disabled by John Deere after they were stolen by Russian looters. While many cheered on this act of cyber-sabotage, others foresaw the dystopian implications of such an action—it’s not so crazy to imagine the same, crippling fate awaiting organic farmers who refuse to participate in the global agricultural system, or small dairy farmers who don’t comply with the government’s emissions crackdown (a current reality for Dutch farmers).

Soon, a person won’t even be able to drive their own vehicle in a slightly erratic manner without being stifled by the leviathan of safety authoritarianism. One must not give in and fall victim to the bludgeoning of this safety worship enabled by modern technology. There are ways to evade these electronic monitoring systems.

How to Evade

One prudent step is to acquire classic automobiles and farm equipment which lack rampant over-utilization of computer chips while these machines are still available in good working condition. Any vehicle without an ECU (Engine Control Unit) is prime for evasion of an impending technological hellscape. These vehicles can be found in varying conditions and price ranges, but some models from the 1960s and 1970s can be found in various markets for less than $10,000 at present time of writing. Specifically, any vehicle built prior to 1981 will not have an ECU that would allow for any sort of cyber-attack.

The most secure route will always be total avoidance. While it appears overly cautious to avoid any computer systems in personal vehicles or farm equipment, lack of an ECU simply ensures that a vehicle can function autonomously and be repaired much more easily in a way that gives the average consumer the most control possible. Simple machines allow people to provide for their families and their community. The dedicated will enjoy life with older technologies, confident in their working knowledge of the machine, emboldened by their self-sufficiency.

Conclusion

When will the infringement of rights by the technological system be so crushing that resistance movements fighting against these instruments of safety authoritarianism may rise to push back against their proliferation in the public treadmill of consumption? Will it take place in the mood and fervor of the finale of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, where technologies are totally destroyed by those most oppressed by them? One scenario is passive co-existence with these technologies born of Section 24220, mixed with rare evasion by those who value a somewhat autonomous life. The other route is total heresy from the system itself—a return to an analog life of privacy similar to that before the events of September 11, 2001. One can now only remember a time before mass surveillance and anti-privacy technology gripped the world so tightly in a chokehold. However, a life apart is still possible. 

“Etymologically, heresy means choice. Thus, the heretic is one who commands free choice: the courage to deviate from orthodoxy…it is more urgent than ever to heighten heretical consciousness.” —Byung-Chul Han, Psychopolitics

Reading List:

• Society of The Spectacle, Guy Debord

• The Technological Society, Jacques Ellul

• Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power, Byung-Chul Han