4 ms·
> the ability of the dealer to remotely control the car's operation (!!) This could be misleading. From the small article at least, the only action I assume th
by Humdeee 9y ago
> the ability of the dealer to remotely control the car's operation (!!)
This could be misleading. From the small article at least, the only action I assume that was done was the cruise control being disengaged from it's faulty state. There is no evidence that a rogue service employee could play real life mario kart from afar (although it wouldn't surprise me).
I also somewhat expected this from a high end car manufacturer in this day and age. Why is this inherently a bad thing? Surely it would do more good than bad, would it not?
What bothers me is the poor response time.
inb4 privacy concerns, big brother, etc. I'm thinking engine shutdowns during car chases (expensive vehicles are a target), etc.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoIt's quite possible that there's no ability to actually drive the vehicle as such, but remote access is inherently a massive security hole regardless. Remember the remote Jeep hack from a couple of years ago, where the vehicle could be remotely controlled over DAB? (https://www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4m-vehicles-bug-fix/ https://www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4...)