4 ms·

If the remote kill switch exists, it's going to be hijacked into government having the power to disable your car. It starts innocuously, something that everyon

If the remote kill switch exists, it's going to be hijacked into government having the power to disable your car. It starts innocuously, something that everyone will agree with, like drunk drivers. Next will be drug dealers, who could disagree with that? Then deadbeat parents who owe child support. Then tax-owing deadbeats. Then who knows what other classes of "undesirables". Proof? It already happened: driver licenses already went through every one of those steps, getting hijacked way beyond the original purpose of denoting that you had the training to drive a car, into government-imposed threats against all sorts of "bad" behavior. I don't trust any expansion of government power in good faith.

BoorishBears 5y ago
Again, this is just like saying that a camera existing enables the government to hack it, so rear view cameras are part of forming a surveillance state. There is literally no reason for automakers to do this, and yes I know now the FUD comes in "well they will cuz reasons! cuz gubbmint!" But just like the rear view camera... you're imagining that they'll spend significant time and money to do something with no use other than incriminating themselves... So sure maybe your rear view camera can be rigged to stream to their servers 24/7, some already record and upload incidents anyways right? But it's a massive jump from the happy path. This is 100000x easier to do on the car without looping in a remote server and opens them up to 100000000000x more liability if the interface is hacked. They wouldn't do it.
- mark-r 5y ago
  > Again, this is just like saying that a camera existing enables the government to hack it, so rear view cameras are part of forming a surveillance state. That might be the best example of a straw-man that I've ever seen.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >> Again, this is just like saying that a camera existing enables the government to hack it, so rear view cameras are part of forming a surveillance state. >That might be the best example of a straw-man that I've ever seen. I think that was the point. Replace "rear view cameras" with "onboard tools to detect and deter/prevent impaired driving" and you have the same straw man.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      This right here, that was an ironic comment to read on their part...

BoorishBears 5y ago

Again, this is just like saying that a camera existing enables the government to hack it, so rear view cameras are part of forming a surveillance state. There is literally no reason for automakers to do this, and yes I know now the FUD comes in "well they will cuz reasons! cuz gubbmint!" But just like the rear view camera... you're imagining that they'll spend significant time and money to do something with no use other than incriminating themselves... So sure maybe your rear view camera can be rigged to stream to their servers 24/7, some already record and upload incidents anyways right? But it's a massive jump from the happy path. This is 100000x easier to do on the car without looping in a remote server and opens them up to 100000000000x more liability if the interface is hacked. They wouldn't do it.

mark-r 5y ago
> Again, this is just like saying that a camera existing enables the government to hack it, so rear view cameras are part of forming a surveillance state. That might be the best example of a straw-man that I've ever seen.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >> Again, this is just like saying that a camera existing enables the government to hack it, so rear view cameras are part of forming a surveillance state. >That might be the best example of a straw-man that I've ever seen. I think that was the point. Replace "rear view cameras" with "onboard tools to detect and deter/prevent impaired driving" and you have the same straw man.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    This right here, that was an ironic comment to read on their part...