Can’t wait for that to be hacked.
5 Likes
That’s right. The repo man can easily extract the data once he has the car itself.
So I suppose that if the vehicle is encumbered then you can’t even start the vehicle unless the vehicle is online to the internet, which of course means permanent tracking whenever the vehicle is started.
It is unclear how this would work in areas where there is no mobile signal (that being the obvious means of communication) but maybe they plan a tie up with a satellite provider.
(Satellite isn’t mentioned among the overly broad list of communication technologies that the patent includes.)
as well as just relocating it off private property or other inaccessible areas
Don’t reckon the vehicle or the patent is capable of opening gates or garage doors. Looking at the patent it would seem that they have a shot at hacking the garage door if it has a remote control.
I assume that no such car actually exists at this stage?
2 Likes
Pretty sure it’s preemptive. The liability alone (running some old lady down while crossing the street) would keep them from actually implementing it.
But even if it did, cover up its cameras and/or sensors and it can’t go anywhere.
3 Likes
… well until you actually want to drive the car. Which I think is the point: harass the user so much that the car is basically unusable (except in an emergency).
Did you read the patent? One of the items is “emit an incessant and unpleasant sound” when a person is in the car.
Yes, in addition to your suggestion, it seems like there is a risk that, in an emergency, the exemptions don’t work. So someone dies because the driver can’t get to hospital or the car wants to go to a different medical facility. The patent talks about detecting a heart attack. Yeah right.
2 Likes
I haven’t seen the film but I know the title - and that was the reference.
2 Likes
Very fun, absurd film with lots of punk-era humor and music.
3 Likes
I don’t think anybody would pay for a car that couldn’t be driven with non-functioning sensors/cameras, at least not yet. But, then again, people surprise me all the time…
As for the incessant noise, speakers can be rendered mute pretty easily.
But to my initial point, I don’t believe a car company would be willing to take control from the driver because then they’re taking liability from the driver.
3 Likes
I would like to have this power to use while walking down the street.
1 Like
I get your thinking but that presumes that you have a choice i.e. if all manufacturers go in this direction then you won’t have a choice. Hold onto your old tech car until it literally won’t go any more.
There is so much tech in cars these days that it is anyone’s guess what will happen if you intentionally disable sensors.
(For example, on my car the lane-keeping assist relies on the front-facing camera to detect lane markers - and it will be nudging the steering wheel if it thinks I am going out of my lane, which would be annoying but not serious. Likewise the automatic high-beam cancellation relies on some kind of front-facing image sensor - but obviously that only applies if driving at night - and that can be overridden by taking manual responsibility for high-beam cancellation. Then there are front and back obstacle sensors. …)
Maybe if you get critical mass of “failed” sensors, the car really would disable itself e.g. under the assumption that there has been a major fault.
It may be unlawful however to mute the horn. (Conversely, in an emergency, you just go for it - and take the risk that the cops issue a fine for unlawful use of the horn.) NB: This comment strongly depends on what applicable legislation exists in your jurisdiction.
Yes. Everything Tesla and more. Lawyer’s paradise, particularly in the US where legal claims are astronomical and payouts still eye-watering. The car company would have to decide whether it is a net financial gain.
2 Likes
Yeah, maybe someday in the distant future cars will become automated shuttles, but besides us not being close to that tech yet, I don’t think there would be any private owners of cars at that point.
Right, but I’m fairly certain if you tape over the sensors or otherwise block them then you can still drive the car. If not, then I’d sue the manufacturer (if you can in Oz).
Maybe, but the risk of getting caught for that alone is miniscule, and if the cops are searching your car thoroughly enough to find out you disabled the horn, you’ve got much bigger problems.
And, with the damage to the reputation such accidents would cause, almost assuredly not worth it. Tesla can at least blame the driver for not paying attention, but commanding the car to drive on its own and resulting in damage/injury/death would be a whole nother shitstorm.
2 Likes
Some of the recordings caught Tesla customers in embarrassing situations. One ex-employee described a video of a man approaching a vehicle completely naked.
Tesla: “…designed from the ground up to protect your privacy…”
Employees: “Hey, check out this naked dude! Heehee…”
3 Likes
Don’t you get your freak on in your connected car.
2 Likes
Here is a more useful and direct link for those looking to take more actionable steps.
There are other categories too, but I do not trust any of Mozilla’s assessments whatsoever. Their approval of the Apple HomePod Mini is a clear reminder of why I keep my relationship with them locked down.
Here is the quote that rang the alarm bells in my head:
About as safe as trusting Mozilla and Apple combined.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Purism needs to make a Librem car.
3 Likes
I can see it now though … yes, it runs AGL … but … the “bootloader” is locked down so that you can only install firmware signed by the manufacturer … and all the signed firmware “collects data from your car”.
In other words, like Unprivate Secure Boot, but without the option to disable it.
I think this would present some difficult challenges for the regulatory authorities - since a car that is running non-standard, buggy firmware could be a lethal weapon, lethal to the driver or lethal to other road users. Who is going to take legal liability if the firmware goes awry?
Note that under existing Purism policy, Purism would not sign the firmware. If it is signed at all, you would sign the firmware (to prevent an Evil Maid Attack).
Running non-standard firmware might void your Compulsory Third Party insurance (or such other name as it might be known in other jurisdictions) and it might void your Comprehensive insurance (ditto) and it might void other insurance. So the right to run your own firmware might in practice not be worth much.
These legal problems of course exist regardless of whether the Librem Car exists. That is, as cars become more and more complex, who is liable when something goes wrong? There have already been a number of court cases - and the manufacturer will want to “collect data from your car” so that they can use it as exculpatory evidence for themselves in the event of a court case.
2 Likes
Discussion identified and indexed.
A little good news: One of the major sellers of detailed driver behavioral data is shutting down | Ars Technica
3 Likes