18 ms·
KIA Dealership in Canada remotely disables car over $200 fee
- metalliqaz 9y agoThe article says it well. The GPS only benefits the dealers, and they demand that the customers pay the fees to install, maintain, and remove the devices. 60 years ago this kind of hostile, predatory bullshit would have been met with torches and pitchforks. Today people just have to eat it.
- compiler-guy 9y agoExcept the guy didn't eat it. They tried to make him, his representative disputed, and he didn't end up paying it.
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoStill, a wide gap from torches and pitchforks.
- wdewind 9y agoBecause they weren't necessary because the legal system worked just fine in this case?
- grasshopperpurp 9y agoDid I miss the part where the legal system punished the dealership?
- fmj 9y agoYou realize the situation was just resolved yesterday, right? I'm not that familiar with the Canadian legal system, but if its anything like the US its going to take more than a few days to work its way through the legal system. Just give it some time.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- javajosh 9y agoPeople don't have to eat anything they don't like. They can sue if there is a law against it; if there is no law they can lobby their legislature to pass laws against it. The problem is that petty injustices like this are hard to fight because finding other plaintiffs is hard. The only thing connecting them is the defendant, who is not interested in helping them find each other. (In general, I believe that the sum of the damage of petty injustice is far greater than the major injustices that occasionally get some action on them, and that addressing these smaller injustices is a big juicy problem for society to solve.)
- averagewall 9y agoWhat's the alternative? Don't lend money to people with a bad credit history, even if they need a car to get a job to pay their debt, like this guy seems to? What would have happened 60 years ago in that situation? You can't just keep trusting people to pay their debts when they didn't before. I made that mistake and the guy still owes me thousands of dollars which I might never see.
- cowsandmilk 9y agoThe alternative is that you build the cost of installing, maintaining, and removing the GPS into your loan terms and/or purchase price. Breaking stuff out into fees can make sense when you want to discourage certain behaviors and therefore charge a fee for them. But everyone with a loan will have the device installed, maintained during the term, and removed at the end of the term or on default. There is not a behavior to modify, so these fees are stupid nonsense.
- SilasX 9y agoThe original comment was objecting to GPS tracking/disabling on high-risk loans altogether. You're talking about the issue of the GPS removal being a separate fee, which is a different issue.
- yahna 9y agoIt's not even about lending. It's about consumer rights being eroded all over the place and losing any real concept of ownership. You buy a tesla, but oh it's not really yours to do with as you please. You agreed to terms on the software. Get fucked by a company. Can't sue anymore, mandatory arbitration clauses. Farmers can't fix their tractor anymore.
- robrenaud 9y agoWhat if the GPS remote disabler was de-risked the car loan enough that it made the difference between the guy getting the car and having no car at all? It's plausible that in an alternate world with no remote disable function, the car loan would be too risky to be worthwhile.
- TylerE 9y agoIt benefits the customer because otherwise no one is going to sell even a very cheap car to a broke-ass barely-employed with terrible credit.
- atemerev 9y agoAh, Quebec.
- sandworm101 9y agoNote that every canadian pundit is rightly calling this illegal. Disabling a car they no longer had any title over was a mistake and everyone knows it. That said, cars are disabled every day for non-payment of even smaller amounts. These lockouts are vicious tools.
- whipoodle 9y agoI bet it's also illegal to "tamper" with your own car in such a way as to stop this from happening, but clearly it's been decided the law is not important here.
- RijilV 9y agoWhile I'm no legal expert, I believe the crux of the issue is in this case the dealership had already signed over the title, meaning the had no legal right over the car. Bad on them for demanding a $200 fee to remove it which wasn't clear upfront (though the dealership never responded to the reporters so all we have is the one sided story) That being said, I think you're referencing the more common cases where these devices are used to disable vehicles on lease to customers. In that case the lease holder is not the owner, so yeah tampering with someone else's car is probably not legal. atleast on the surface that seems reasonable, I wouldn't want someone messing with my vehicle. I'll agree that leasing agreements are often predatory and there is confusion over who's vehicle it is, but if you want ownership you really need to have purchased the title.
- FussyZeus 9y ago> "Immobilizers are most often seen in cases of sub-prime borrowers with questionable credit," he said. "The devices are very effective at keeping people on time with their payments." John Oliver did a whole segment on these scummy dealerships, unloading shitty cars at massive markups deliberately (and not even hiding that they are) targeting borrowers who will probably default, so they can repo the car and resell it to some other poor person. None of this is illegal (except in this case obviously) but it still feels like something that should be illegal, amazes me we're so poor at going after what's obviously a predatory business practice.
- throwawaybzx9 9y agoIt amazes you? Really? It doesn't at all seem par for the course for a system that rewards this type of behavior? Profit no matter what is designed to fuck people over like this. Follow the money and it won't be surprising at all why the system still exists as it does.
- Danihan 9y agoIt rewards taking a risk on people with questionable credit histories?
- jnordwick 9y agoWhile i sympathize, with a high risk of default you need to charge very high interest rates and markups. You cannot get around the economics with a Care Bear stare.
- FussyZeus 9y agoI agree with you in theory, except that the artificially high prices and higher interest means that the people most at-risk for default are then made MORE RISKY. I understand that a bank has to be careful with high risk loans, but this is effectively like tying a ball and chain to an olympic runner, and then sending them to prison when they lose the race. And frankly, all of that is forgivable; what is not is when the dealers then use these remote GPS devices to disable the vehicles, with NO GODDAMN IDEA what the vehicle is currently doing: Sure, they could tell if it was on the highway but would they actually care? And what if the person is working a night job, as many in poverty do? How do they get home? Or what about the case awhile back of the woman who's baby was in the damn car when it was towed? I get it, it's a business risk, but these things are DESIGNED, purposely, to fuck people out of their money and do tons of damage besides that. Exactly how much is a bank allowed to ruin someones life over a CAR LOAN? Crap like this is why we need a Consumers Bill of Rights.
- Digory 9y agoGood news: blockchain of the future will prevent disabling a car for the debt of a person outside the chain of title. Bad news: This is the kind of smart contract I see blockchain handling well: locking people out of cars, houses, hotel rooms, over non-payment. ed: heh. I have touched a sore spot, apparently.
- AckSyn 9y agoNo. Blockchain is an answer looking for a problem. We can't shoehorn it in everywhere for the sake of cool. People need to stop this "blockchain for everything" crap.
- Kpourdeilami 9y agoWhat would have blockchain solved in this case? IMO, nothing. If people don't read contracts written in English, how do you expect them to read and understand a smart contract that would contain the same clauses as the original contract but coded in a language they don't understand?
- Digory 9y agoIn this case, it appears the title had already passed to Grandma. A blockchain title could/should prevent Dealer from shutting down Grandma's car over Grandson's debt. If Grandson is right about the clause not appearing in the contract, of course, he'd be doubly good. To say it less flippantly, the low-hanging fruit in blockchain-assisted contracting seems to be these automatic self-help remedies and simplifying title disputes -- which, right now require judges and police for even simple disagreements. You'll have fewer wrong denials of access, but perhaps more denials overall.
- jimktrains2 9y agoBeing generous, I believe go meant to assume that the device would be programmed to disable itself once the contract is settled.
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoAftermarket alarms, installing stereos and removing unwanted 3rd party electronics on newish cars are all cake compared to mechanical work for the most part. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a car stereo/alarm/electronics shop in Sherbrooke that isn't known to other shops for removing these sort of things. You'd probably have pretty good luck going to the U-pull on a Saturday AM and asking the girl at the desk to point out someone who's a regular then offer them $50 to remove the system. Obviously those sorts of actions are slightly outside of the box for most people but if dealerships want to act scummy then the workarounds become more widely known. Edit: Please do some googling, window shop a few models, read a few installation instruction pdfs for trackers and aftermarket alarm systems before saying they're impossible to remove. If you can install a stereo or aftermarket alarm then you can install/remove on of these. They are not designed to be Ft. Knox. They are designed to be a deterrent for the layman.
- balls187 9y agoIf the device could simply be removed, it would be pretty easy to circumvent. I'd imagine there is some sort of phone-home that indicates the device is still connected, and any tampering of the device could result in heavy penalties--including forfeiting the vehicle.
- devmunchies 9y agoremove the battery first?
- gargravarr 9y agoTrackers have internal battery backups for exactly this reason.
- balls187 9y agoRemove the battery & the backup battery would mean the device is no longer phoning home. Flag any vehicles that haven't reported in over a 24-hour period.
- almonj 9y agoIf we confult Experience and the credible Relati- ons of others, we fiiall find it probable enough that many things receive Nourilhment from meet Elements.
- spraak 9y agoAre you a bot with a glitch? :)
- graphitezepp 9y agoLooks more like drunk posting to me, a bot would spell better.
- rdtsc 9y agoIf it can be done remotely, it can be hacked. So just waiting for shady dealers paying hackers to disable cars their competitors sold to drive them out of business.
- afarrell 9y agoYour larger point is very correct, but far more likely would be organized crime disabling a fleet of commercial vehicles to secure a ransom.
- averagewall 9y agoI doubt these are the factory immobilizers built into the ECU. You can probably just connect two wires together to bypass it. So the ransom would have to be less than the cost of an urgent callout of a mechanic.
- Balgair 9y agoI would really doubt that with most cars made in this century. The On Board Computer (OBC) likely has a satellite hook-up via OnStar or some similar system. You'd likely have to replace the entire OBC, which is many thousands of dollars. I guess you could push-start a manual and get that working, but good luck with that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nthj 9y agoThese are separate machines from the OBC that wire into the ignition system. As best I can tell, they are simple timers that reset when they receive a text message over the cellular networks. A friend of mine was warned not to go camping in the boonies near their payment date.
- Balgair 9y ago
- Kpourdeilami 9y agoHow are these GPS trackers installed? I'm assuming they're somehow plugged in through the OBDII port under the dash. If that is the case, can't he just pull out the tracker and continue driving?
- metalliqaz 9y agoNo, they are wired in to the car's ignition system, at least.
- jessaustin 9y agoIf accessory power is on, the starter solenoid can usually be shorted across with a screwdriver? Admittedly I haven't tried this on any really new cars...
- MrFoof 9y agoThey are not plugged into the OBD-II port. They are hardwired. Example: http://i.imgur.com/G2HVLGI.jpg http://i.imgur.com/G2HVLGI.jpg
- gm-conspiracy 9y agoSo, splice the green wires and we are good?
- rootsudo 9y agoThe real crime is the $14,000 pricetag for a lease on a KIA. What the fuck.
- Kpourdeilami 9y agoIf it helps, $14,000 CAD is roughly $11,000 USD
- evanlivingston 9y agoDo you think that's high or low?
- Mikeb85 9y agoKia's are pretty nice vehicles these days (it's a marque within the Hyundai empire).
- dingo_bat 9y agoI was highly confused until I read the article. Here is a summary: 1. Guy's mom pays off his car loan 2. Dealer says we installed a remote immobilizer to protect our loan 3. Dealer demands $200 to remove the device since the loan is paid off now 4. Guy understandably refuses 5. Dealer immobilizes car I think this sort of behavior should mean the end of your dealership. I cannot quantify/identify the actual wrongdoing here but I'm pretty sure there is something illegal.
- csours 9y agoThese immobilizers are commonly installed on cars from "buy here, pay here" used car dealerships - the kind of place where customers physically bring cash every month for their car payment. I'm very surprised to learn than an official Kia branded dealership would install these, and then act this scummy - not a good look for the brand. > Iny said Lallier's case is a good example of the conditions faced by borrowers with bad credit. > "Immobilizers are most often seen in cases of sub-prime borrowers with questionable credit," he said. "The devices are very effective at keeping people on time with their payments."
- tinbad 9y agoJust like with other brands, in the automotive industry, there are different tiers. At the top, you have the ultra premium (Bentley, Ferrari) and premiums (BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc.) followed by brands like Toyota and Ford where cars are still desirable and people will buy them no matter what. So they can be picky and only sell to folks with good credit. Once you get to the bottom you'll have stuff like Dodge and Nissan. At the very bottom, there's brands like Kia that are not much more off the "buy here, pay here" stuff. It's often the only way they can move the metal at all. EDIT: getting a lot of heat. Oh well, I guess I should've linked to 5 articles supporting what people in the industry already know.
- maxerickson 9y agoDodge and Nissan aren't bottom tier brands. If Dodge was bottom tier, there never would have been an $85,000 Dodge Viper. And plenty of people would buy a Maxima before they would buy a Taurus. The Korean automakers (Kia and Hyundai) both entered the US market on the bottom, but they have comparatively high quality at the price points they started at, price points that other automakers sell plenty of vehicles at.
- fish_fan 9y agoI wonder if this is something insurance should handle.
- _nrvs 9y agoGlad this made me remember Cory Doctrow riffing on similar scenarios in 2012 with his talk "The Coming Civil War over General-purpose Computing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
- cmurf 9y agoThere's going to be future battles, effectively DRM for automobiles. Epson has chipped their ink tanks, so you can only use their inks in their printers. Apple does this with their own iPhone spare parts. You have no right to a 3rd party repair, or authorization to hack and replace the software with something else (hence the right to repair laws in the works). So why can't car companies chip all OEM spare parts, and disallow the car from operating if it's had any unauthorized repairs? Just put it into the sales contract. No more 3rd party repairs. Reduced competition. More profit for the car companies and dealers.
- cardiffspaceman 9y agoI've read that in some cases the car DEALER doesn't get full diagnostic information. Instead the mechanics exchange emails with technicians working for the manufacturer, who will send back instructions like "measure voltage on test point X in module Y" and this will cycle until "replace module M" or some other conclusion is reached.
- bluGill 9y agoEnough customers would care that no car OEM would try. The type of person who replaces their car every 3 years wouldn't care (most work is warranty, and even basic maintenance probably goes to the dealer as that is the best way to ensure if there is a warranty issue, there is not question that the maintenance was done correctly) but when they go to trade the car in the used car buyers will care because they don't always go to the dealer. Any manufacture trying this will discover that trade in value of their cars is the scrap price. (the manufacture is probably the one who owns the lease so it is their dollar so it will hit them hard) That is just practical reasons. There are a lot of laws about car repairs: car manufactures are required by law to make repair information available to third party repair shops. Independent car mechanics are a large enough group as well that any attempt to work around the law will result in more laws.
- djaychela 9y agoIn the EU, I think that's specifically prohibited - a lot of work done to open things up has been done by the EU, to allow (for instance) warranties to be valid providing the correct servicing has been done, regardless of the garage doing the servicing.
- aneutron 9y agoWhat's interesting is that with such system in place, you could easily kill people. For example, disable the car when you're in a deserted region that hardly sees a traveler every 2 weeks. And while the example is kind of unlikely, the possibility of that happening is frightening. Especially that the protocol behind is MOST LIKELY un-authenticated and could probabaly be spoofed easily by expert researchers.
- tdb7893 9y agoIf the place is that infrequently traveled they could just shoot you with a gun. Even if they disabled my car somewhere where there wasn't cell service and literally no one drives my family would still send people out to look for me before I starved to death. A car on the side of a road is pretty easy to find so it's unlikely you would actually die from something like that
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pavel_lishin 9y ago> If the place is that infrequently traveled they could just shoot you with a gun. Not from the comfort of their couch in Moscow.
- 5ilv3r 9y agoIsn't the UN considering that issue right now?
- averagewall 9y agoCar break down on their own too. If you're gambling with your life driving in such a place without taking precautions, you're already in greater danger anyway. Where I'm from, engine reliability isn't part of vehicle safety inspections.
- quuquuquu 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- caspercba 9y agoI wonder why his grandmother bought the car instead of giving him 13.000. then he could pay a car in installments and have the rest for any emergencies. I never understood why people prefer cancelling credits in an economic crisis instead of keeping them.
- hoppa_liza 9y agoMaybe she does not trust him much with the money. In which case she would pay for the car and let him drive it.
- darkarmani 9y agoI guess she wanted the extra liability when he has an accident and the victims look for the deep pockets! ;)
- Zehaas 9y agoCan we get one of these installed on former President Obama? He's no longer in charge, but he's still screwing things up. I'll pay the $200 just to have it installed.