6 ms·

Being able to remotely enable the heating on freezing days is more than enough justification for connecting my car to the internet for me.

by padjo 3y ago

palata 3y ago
Even if it means that your car can be targeted by a ransomware or worse, hacked in such a way that it won't brake next time? Imagine a situation where your whole country is stopped because of a cyberattack. No car, no truck (maybe no fridge for those that bring food into your city), no emergency vehicle. Will it still be time at that point to realise that spending a few minutes in a cold car was not worth it? I guess that's my point: people choose base on "how much more convenient is it vs how much more expensive?" where security should be part of it. Somehow people seem to think that "security is under control". It is not: even BigTech gets hacked all the time.
- foobarian 3y ago
  Freezing weather already happens 3 months out of the year for me. But the cyber attack thing has not happened and tbh probably won't. Seems like a reasonable calculus then. It's similar to premature optimization or overengineering stuff at work. There is no need to overdo it.
  - palata 3y ago
    > But the cyber attack thing has not happened and tbh probably won't. You mean because you live in a country that has never been (and probably won't ever be) unstable or targeted by someone? Have you ever heard of NotPetya and its global consequences (which could have been much worse, to be honest)? We are connecting more and more critical stuff to the Internet, pretending that security is not an issue. That is a problem. > It's similar to premature optimization or overengineering stuff at work. There is no need to overdo it. Sure, I agree that there is no need to overdo it. Now if we need to talk about the state of the software industry, I feel safe in saying that most work is "underdone" these days. I haven't had an issue of premature optimization in a long time, but I have issues of "very bad code thrown out there without care" on a daily basis. Similarly, being paranoid and doing nothing because of security concerns is probably not the right way. But not caring about security at all is on the other extreme :-).
- drtgh 3y ago
  >Somehow people seem to think that "security is under control" I reached the same conclusion time ago. It is frustrating when I have to replace devices, it is a market for Elois waiting with complacency for the harvest. Maybe they rely in the fish shoal mass? You've been downvoted for your comment, so I guess mine is also going to be Eloized.
  - palata 3y ago
    > You've been downvoted for your comment, so I guess mine is also going to be Eloized. Haters gonna hate :-)
- padjo 3y ago
  The calculus for me is how likely is it to happen vs how convenient is it. The chance of me being one of the first people in the world to have their car ransomwared is pretty low, and if it happens I’ll claim it as a write off on my car insurance. If it becomes common maybe I pop the fuse for the radio. But today, it’s cold and I’d rather not sit in the car waiting for it to defrost
pclmulqdq 3y ago
Being able to remotely enable the heating on freezing days should be the justification for a limited bluetooth system in your car, not full internet connectivity. The principle of least privilege should apply here.
- ajross 3y ago
  If I have to be within 10m of the car to "remotely" enable the heating, I'm not remotely enabling the heating. No, if your BT feature doesn't work while sipping coffee in a ski lodge it's not an acceptable substitute. Add to that that bluetooth exploits are themselves a dime a dozen in the IoT world and I frankly don't even see what you gain. No, this is silly. Stuff is on the internet. If you're convinced it's safe for your phone[1] you should be able to be convinced it's safe for your car. [1] And, no, it's not particularly more safe for your phone than for your car. Apple and Google are incrementally better at this than GM is, surely, but everyone has zero days.
  - palata 3y ago
    > If you're convinced it's safe for your phone[1] you should be able to be convinced it's safe for your car. No no no no, NO! Your phone can NOT kill anyone. Because you trust the software running on your phone to show you the weather forecast should not (as in NOT AT ALL, EVER) mean that you should trust any software that would control a rocket sending you to space.
  - ijhuygft776 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be limited to 10m.... it could use something like LoRa and then you would be in the kilometers range.
bigbillheck 3y ago
Being able to remotely disable the heating on freezing days in this person's car is probably more than enough justification, etc.
geraldhh 3y ago
i hate cold, so i tend to agree. thou, there are other, less dangerous ways to implement that feature
- palata 3y ago
  Like wearing a jacket :-)

Being able to remotely enable the heating on freezing days is more than enough justification for connecting my car to the internet for me.

by padjo 3y ago

Being able to remotely enable the heating on freezing days is more than enough justification for connecting my car to the internet for me.

palata 3y ago

Even if it means that your car can be targeted by a ransomware or worse, hacked in such a way that it won't brake next time? Imagine a situation where your whole country is stopped because of a cyberattack. No car, no truck (maybe no fridge for those that bring food into your city), no emergency vehicle. Will it still be time at that point to realise that spending a few minutes in a cold car was not worth it? I guess that's my point: people choose base on "how much more convenient is it vs how much more expensive?" where security should be part of it. Somehow people seem to think that "security is under control". It is not: even BigTech gets hacked all the time.

foobarian 3y ago
Freezing weather already happens 3 months out of the year for me. But the cyber attack thing has not happened and tbh probably won't. Seems like a reasonable calculus then. It's similar to premature optimization or overengineering stuff at work. There is no need to overdo it.
- palata 3y ago
  > But the cyber attack thing has not happened and tbh probably won't. You mean because you live in a country that has never been (and probably won't ever be) unstable or targeted by someone? Have you ever heard of NotPetya and its global consequences (which could have been much worse, to be honest)? We are connecting more and more critical stuff to the Internet, pretending that security is not an issue. That is a problem. > It's similar to premature optimization or overengineering stuff at work. There is no need to overdo it. Sure, I agree that there is no need to overdo it. Now if we need to talk about the state of the software industry, I feel safe in saying that most work is "underdone" these days. I haven't had an issue of premature optimization in a long time, but I have issues of "very bad code thrown out there without care" on a daily basis. Similarly, being paranoid and doing nothing because of security concerns is probably not the right way. But not caring about security at all is on the other extreme :-).
drtgh 3y ago
>Somehow people seem to think that "security is under control" I reached the same conclusion time ago. It is frustrating when I have to replace devices, it is a market for Elois waiting with complacency for the harvest. Maybe they rely in the fish shoal mass? You've been downvoted for your comment, so I guess mine is also going to be Eloized.
- palata 3y ago
  > You've been downvoted for your comment, so I guess mine is also going to be Eloized. Haters gonna hate :-)
padjo 3y ago
The calculus for me is how likely is it to happen vs how convenient is it. The chance of me being one of the first people in the world to have their car ransomwared is pretty low, and if it happens I’ll claim it as a write off on my car insurance. If it becomes common maybe I pop the fuse for the radio. But today, it’s cold and I’d rather not sit in the car waiting for it to defrost

pclmulqdq 3y ago

Being able to remotely enable the heating on freezing days should be the justification for a limited bluetooth system in your car, not full internet connectivity. The principle of least privilege should apply here.

ajross 3y ago
If I have to be within 10m of the car to "remotely" enable the heating, I'm not remotely enabling the heating. No, if your BT feature doesn't work while sipping coffee in a ski lodge it's not an acceptable substitute. Add to that that bluetooth exploits are themselves a dime a dozen in the IoT world and I frankly don't even see what you gain. No, this is silly. Stuff is on the internet. If you're convinced it's safe for your phone[1] you should be able to be convinced it's safe for your car. [1] And, no, it's not particularly more safe for your phone than for your car. Apple and Google are incrementally better at this than GM is, surely, but everyone has zero days.
- palata 3y ago
  > If you're convinced it's safe for your phone[1] you should be able to be convinced it's safe for your car. No no no no, NO! Your phone can NOT kill anyone. Because you trust the software running on your phone to show you the weather forecast should not (as in NOT AT ALL, EVER) mean that you should trust any software that would control a rocket sending you to space.
- ijhuygft776 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be limited to 10m.... it could use something like LoRa and then you would be in the kilometers range.

bigbillheck 3y ago

Being able to remotely disable the heating on freezing days in this person's car is probably more than enough justification, etc.

geraldhh 3y ago

i hate cold, so i tend to agree. thou, there are other, less dangerous ways to implement that feature

palata 3y ago
Like wearing a jacket :-)