4 ms·

>The other problem with backdoors is that they are accessible to hackers. More like a bad OTA update stops your car from turning on. Miss a car payment, remot

>The other problem with backdoors is that they are accessible to hackers. More like a bad OTA update stops your car from turning on. Miss a car payment, remote shut down( this is already a thing for certain high risk buyers). I hope to never own a car again, but this is bad.

WFHRenaissance 5y ago
> Miss a car payment, remote shut down( this is already a thing for certain high risk buyers). Do you have a source for this? Just curious
- kylehotchkiss 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U2eDJnwz_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U2eDJnwz_s Entertaining take on the topic by John Oliver that touches on the subject
josephcsible 5y ago
> Miss a car payment, remote shut down( this is already a thing for certain high risk buyers). This doesn't really bother me. I don't like when people don't have total control over things they own, but if you default on a secured loan, you don't own the collateral anymore.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  This assumes the system works 100% of the time. I'm more than okay with them physically taking the car from you, but imagine a nightmare scenario where your wife has a stroke and instead of being able to drive her to the hospital 5 miles away you watch her die since your Tesla XL couldn't verify payment status. Mistakes happen, Stripe API down, no driving for you .
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But can't mistakes happen with low-tech repossession too?
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      Of course, but in this scenario you can clearly see the physical asset is gone. We have an entire legal framework around how to repossess a car, No one knows what's going to happen once you let Tesla remotely shut off your car since they think you might have missed a payment or something.
  - dTal 5y ago
    I suppose, as with "self driving" technology, you have to balance the "nightmare scenarios" with the positive impact and consider the net result. I don't think it would be defensible to disable a car over missing payments, for the reason you describe, but disabling a car because the driver is clearly inebriated would save far more lives than it costs.

WFHRenaissance 5y ago

> Miss a car payment, remote shut down( this is already a thing for certain high risk buyers). Do you have a source for this? Just curious

kylehotchkiss 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U2eDJnwz_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U2eDJnwz_s Entertaining take on the topic by John Oliver that touches on the subject

josephcsible 5y ago

> Miss a car payment, remote shut down( this is already a thing for certain high risk buyers). This doesn't really bother me. I don't like when people don't have total control over things they own, but if you default on a secured loan, you don't own the collateral anymore.

999900000999 5y ago
This assumes the system works 100% of the time. I'm more than okay with them physically taking the car from you, but imagine a nightmare scenario where your wife has a stroke and instead of being able to drive her to the hospital 5 miles away you watch her die since your Tesla XL couldn't verify payment status. Mistakes happen, Stripe API down, no driving for you .
- josephcsible 5y ago
  But can't mistakes happen with low-tech repossession too?
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    Of course, but in this scenario you can clearly see the physical asset is gone. We have an entire legal framework around how to repossess a car, No one knows what's going to happen once you let Tesla remotely shut off your car since they think you might have missed a payment or something.
- dTal 5y ago
  I suppose, as with "self driving" technology, you have to balance the "nightmare scenarios" with the positive impact and consider the net result. I don't think it would be defensible to disable a car over missing payments, for the reason you describe, but disabling a car because the driver is clearly inebriated would save far more lives than it costs.