9 ms·

> Imagine if you bought a car from somebody, and they secretly kept a spare key and periodically used your car to run their personal errand. This is happening

> Imagine if you bought a car from somebody, and they secretly kept a spare key and periodically used your car to run their personal errand. This is happening already. Teslas can be controlled remotely, and it does not have to be the owner of said Tesla. Yes, somehow people are okay with that. The world we live in gets scarier and scarier every year.

prottog 3y ago
> The world we live in gets scarier and scarier every year. One could accurately summarize progress since the Industrial Revolution as asking whether we could (and how), and not whether we should (and why). You can see this expressed in the growing focus on STEM education vs. the liberal arts and results in things like remote-controlled Teslas. Cave Johnson said, "science isn't about why; it's about why not". The traditional counterbalance of that "why not" -- classical education, religion, etc. -- have all been falling behind.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  > Cave Johnson +1 for the Aperture ref.
  - ynniv 3y ago
    Aperture Science We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us.
- walleeee 3y ago
  yes, and instead of gradually retiring superstitious worldviews in favor of cautious, contemplative secularism, far too often we uncritically shift religious faith to technology this is yet another face of Moloch
- simonh 3y ago
  Yes to liberal arts, absolutely, but it’s not liberal arts that’s trying to stick its oar in to the place of science in society. It’s made up bullshit ‘social science’ that’s one step away from parapsychology and crystal healing. Liberal arts is a natural ally and fellow traveller with science and technology. In fact much of early science grew out of liberal arts endeavours. Geometry from sculpture and perspective in art and architecture. Chemistry from developing pigments for painting.
sourcecodeplz 3y ago
Piss of Elon and in the morning your car could be parked some couple of miles away OR FSD buggs out on the highway OR someone reports you for something and they disable your car to aprehend you. Good bye high speed chases.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  Disabling engines remotely by police has been a thing since at least 2010, in pretty much every modern car.
  - jakeogh 3y ago
    Got a spec on that? I am aware onstar can... its also possible to unplug it or the antenna.
JohnFen 3y ago
Yep. This is, in part, why not only won't I ever own a Tesla, but I won't be owning cars that are too new.
- dcow 3y ago
  Did you know a locksmith can unlock your car, too? You should add cars with physical keyed entry to your list too.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    What a strange point. The ability to break into a car is rather different than having a constant data connection to the car.
    - dcow 3y ago
      I’m trying to discern your point. If it’s about cars having a data connection then my point makes no sense, obviously. But your comment was in response to someone complaining about “remote control” which is just “remote unlock” (that’s all Tesla does remotely in the context of GGP). So that’s how I interpreted your response.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Yes, sorry, I could have been more clear. I see a huge difference between the ability to physically break into a car and having a datastream to a company that can be used to unlock the car. The latter is much more problematic -- especially if I can't choose who does or does not have that ability. This is all a subset of the problem that modern cars are surveillance platforms.
      - seretogis 3y ago
        It seems you're being deliberately obtuse. There is a clear and obvious difference between "well someone can break that" and "someone has built a backdoor into this thing you purchased, for their own use".
dcow 3y ago
Let me put it into perspective. 1) AFAIK Teslas cannot be driven remotely. But even if they could Tesla is not using cars for errands, like wtf c’mon. And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. 2) Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. This replaces a call to a locksmith and/or the towing company and is way more convenient. So yes, people are okay with being able to have their car remotely unlocked by a third party who they authorize, we always have been.
- jandrese 3y ago
  On the other hand, Teslas cannot be driven remotely YET. Enabling this functionality is a core goal of the Tesla company. It remains to be seen if it is abused once it actually works. Ford has already applied for patents for cars that will self repossess for example.
  - ballenf 3y ago
    Isn't the summon feature exactly that?
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Smart summon is a party trick that requires you to keep LOS to the vehicle the entire time. Like Full Self Driving it is not capable enough to be a problem yet. If there is any good news about this it is that Full Self Driving appears to be a more difficult problem than Elon expected and they are struggling with it.
- mindslight 3y ago
  "Into perspective" is exactly wrong, because it means accepting all the tenuous assumptions used to justify the design in the first place. The problem is not that an automaker wanted to have functionality that could legitimately unlock cars for legitimate customers. The problem is that creating this functionality entailed making a much larger backdoor that will invariably be abused by independent attackers, police, the company itself, etc - to do much more than merely unlock the doors.

prottog 3y ago

> The world we live in gets scarier and scarier every year. One could accurately summarize progress since the Industrial Revolution as asking whether we could (and how), and not whether we should (and why). You can see this expressed in the growing focus on STEM education vs. the liberal arts and results in things like remote-controlled Teslas. Cave Johnson said, "science isn't about why; it's about why not". The traditional counterbalance of that "why not" -- classical education, religion, etc. -- have all been falling behind.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
> Cave Johnson +1 for the Aperture ref.
- ynniv 3y ago
  Aperture Science We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us.
walleeee 3y ago
yes, and instead of gradually retiring superstitious worldviews in favor of cautious, contemplative secularism, far too often we uncritically shift religious faith to technology this is yet another face of Moloch
simonh 3y ago
Yes to liberal arts, absolutely, but it’s not liberal arts that’s trying to stick its oar in to the place of science in society. It’s made up bullshit ‘social science’ that’s one step away from parapsychology and crystal healing. Liberal arts is a natural ally and fellow traveller with science and technology. In fact much of early science grew out of liberal arts endeavours. Geometry from sculpture and perspective in art and architecture. Chemistry from developing pigments for painting.

sourcecodeplz 3y ago

Piss of Elon and in the morning your car could be parked some couple of miles away OR FSD buggs out on the highway OR someone reports you for something and they disable your car to aprehend you. Good bye high speed chases.

asynchronous 3y ago
Disabling engines remotely by police has been a thing since at least 2010, in pretty much every modern car.
- jakeogh 3y ago
  Got a spec on that? I am aware onstar can... its also possible to unplug it or the antenna.

JohnFen 3y ago

Yep. This is, in part, why not only won't I ever own a Tesla, but I won't be owning cars that are too new.

dcow 3y ago
Did you know a locksmith can unlock your car, too? You should add cars with physical keyed entry to your list too.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  What a strange point. The ability to break into a car is rather different than having a constant data connection to the car.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I’m trying to discern your point. If it’s about cars having a data connection then my point makes no sense, obviously. But your comment was in response to someone complaining about “remote control” which is just “remote unlock” (that’s all Tesla does remotely in the context of GGP). So that’s how I interpreted your response.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Yes, sorry, I could have been more clear. I see a huge difference between the ability to physically break into a car and having a datastream to a company that can be used to unlock the car. The latter is much more problematic -- especially if I can't choose who does or does not have that ability. This is all a subset of the problem that modern cars are surveillance platforms.
    - seretogis 3y ago
      It seems you're being deliberately obtuse. There is a clear and obvious difference between "well someone can break that" and "someone has built a backdoor into this thing you purchased, for their own use".

dcow 3y ago

Let me put it into perspective. 1) AFAIK Teslas cannot be driven remotely. But even if they could Tesla is not using cars for errands, like wtf c’mon. And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. 2) Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. This replaces a call to a locksmith and/or the towing company and is way more convenient. So yes, people are okay with being able to have their car remotely unlocked by a third party who they authorize, we always have been.

jandrese 3y ago
On the other hand, Teslas cannot be driven remotely YET. Enabling this functionality is a core goal of the Tesla company. It remains to be seen if it is abused once it actually works. Ford has already applied for patents for cars that will self repossess for example.
- ballenf 3y ago
  Isn't the summon feature exactly that?
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Smart summon is a party trick that requires you to keep LOS to the vehicle the entire time. Like Full Self Driving it is not capable enough to be a problem yet. If there is any good news about this it is that Full Self Driving appears to be a more difficult problem than Elon expected and they are struggling with it.
mindslight 3y ago
"Into perspective" is exactly wrong, because it means accepting all the tenuous assumptions used to justify the design in the first place. The problem is not that an automaker wanted to have functionality that could legitimately unlock cars for legitimate customers. The problem is that creating this functionality entailed making a much larger backdoor that will invariably be abused by independent attackers, police, the company itself, etc - to do much more than merely unlock the doors.