A cyberattack on a vehicle breathalyzer company has left thousands of drivers stranded across the United States, unable to start their cars. The incident exposes a troubling reality: when courts mandate IoT devices, they're creating critical dependencies on systems that weren't built for security.
The company affected makes ignition interlock devices - breathalyzers installed in vehicles of people convicted of drunk driving. Before the car starts, the driver must blow into the device to prove they're sober. It's a reasonable requirement in theory. In practice, it means your ability to get to work, pick up your kids, or handle an emergency depends on a connected device made by the lowest bidder.
When the cyberattack hit, users across the country suddenly couldn't start their vehicles. The devices connect to a backend system to report test results to authorities. No connection, no ignition. The system was designed to prevent circumvention, but the security measures that keep drunk drivers from gaming the system also mean there's no backup when the servers go down.
This isn't a hypothetical risk - it's a design failure that was always inevitable. Any IoT device that acts as a gatekeeper to critical functionality is a single point of failure. Add in a profit-driven company operating on thin margins, outdated security practices, and you get exactly this outcome.
The broader issue is that courts are mandating technology without understanding the technical risks. Judges order interlock devices without considering what happens during a cyberattack, a company bankruptcy, or simple server maintenance. The law assumes these systems will work reliably. That assumption is dangerously naive.
I've built hardware products. I know what corners get cut to hit price targets. These devices aren't being designed by security-first companies with robust infrastructure. They're being built by the vendors who can win government contracts with the lowest bid.
What's the alternative? Some jurisdictions use alcohol monitoring anklets instead - also problematic, but at least they don't prevent you from getting to work. Others are exploring systems with manual overrides for emergencies. The technology exists to do this better.
But the real issue is that we're solving social problems with mandatory technology without thinking through the failure modes. When you make an IoT device a legal requirement, you're creating a critical dependency. And critical systems need to be built to much higher standards than we're seeing here.
