3 ms·

I don't want a connected car where the manufacturer or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car. I don't understand why that sort of ac

I don't want a connected car where the manufacturer or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car. I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger. It seems an unnecessary compromise of autonomy.

schiffern 3y ago
If you don't want any data connection, then—by definition—you must reject any sort of grid-interactive charging features of any kind. Baby, meet bathwater! Fortunately the vast majority of regular users (eg bengale with their Intelligent Octopus device) aren't bothered by it. They'll happily save money on EV charging and improve grid stability at the same time. > I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger I didn't say it needs to be included. However if you already have a fleet of connected EVs (eg Tesla), you could instantly roll out this feature overnight without any additional hardware investment.... (hint hint...)
- LegitShady 3y ago
  >If you don't want any data connection Thats not what I said.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    If there's a data connection which is used to stop charging, then if the data is hacked or spoofed it can—by definition—stop charging. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    - LegitShady 3y ago
      I don't think you understand what I said, and are arguing something else entirely.
      - schiffern 3y ago
        That's always possible! Can you clarify your position, so we might better understand each other? For a minute I did considered the possibility that you were leaning hard on the word manufacturer. However, I thought it was quite absurd that you would be fine with a situation where "[a third party] or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car." I intentionally avoided that less-than-charitable interpretation of your words, since IMO it would violate the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

schiffern 3y ago

If you don't want any data connection, then—by definition—you must reject any sort of grid-interactive charging features of any kind. Baby, meet bathwater! Fortunately the vast majority of regular users (eg bengale with their Intelligent Octopus device) aren't bothered by it. They'll happily save money on EV charging and improve grid stability at the same time. > I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger I didn't say it needs to be included. However if you already have a fleet of connected EVs (eg Tesla), you could instantly roll out this feature overnight without any additional hardware investment.... (hint hint...)

LegitShady 3y ago
>If you don't want any data connection Thats not what I said.
- schiffern 3y ago
  If there's a data connection which is used to stop charging, then if the data is hacked or spoofed it can—by definition—stop charging. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    I don't think you understand what I said, and are arguing something else entirely.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      That's always possible! Can you clarify your position, so we might better understand each other? For a minute I did considered the possibility that you were leaning hard on the word manufacturer. However, I thought it was quite absurd that you would be fine with a situation where "[a third party] or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car." I intentionally avoided that less-than-charitable interpretation of your words, since IMO it would violate the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.