5 ms·

The hard part about this nobody is willing to experiment with their $30k+ vehicle and risk bricking it. If you want a car that doesn’t spy on you you’re gonna h

The hard part about this nobody is willing to experiment with their $30k+ vehicle and risk bricking it. If you want a car that doesn’t spy on you you’re gonna have to look back a decade or so.

mdp2021 3y ago
> their $30k+ vehicle and risk bricking it. If you want a car that doesn’t spy on you Reminder that those who bought it, voted for it. In economics, wallet is voting power - what you buy you feed and endorse.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > Reminder that those who bought it, voted for it. I truly loathe this argument. I've seen it for cars, seen it for laptops, seen it for mobile devices. For years. People like you really think not purchasing the bad will fix stuff like this? Purchasing decisions let you pick between competitors. That is all. You can't pick the open-source car that does not exist, unless you want to start your own car company just to build one. If you don't buy any car at all, then you simply don't exist to them, and they don't care about you. Nobody is going to quit locking down their software just because a rounding error doesn't like it that way. They don't do it because they need people's votes, they do it because the company simply wants the software locked down, they don't care what customers think about it. Even if nobody bought the car, and everybody told them directly to offer open access, they'd probably still refuse to provide it, until and unless something like a regulation is passed that mandates it. Cars aren't spying on you because people are voting for the spying. Nobody who buys the car is voting for it to spy on them, unless I guess their hypothetical dystopian future insurance gives them a bonus/discount for allowing them to view the data from the vehicle and they're actually okay with that. Just look, you have a limited number of choices. You can "vote" for anything that is currently on the market. That is all the choice you have. If you want a car from the current market, you're going to have to pick one to vote for. Odds are they're all going to have some sort of surveillance-state bullshit, or the ones that don't have it are just going to be less-nice vehicles in general. Similar to how, before Framework, everyone concerned about open-source system firmware was most likely rocking a speedy 2004 ThinkPad with a couple gigabytes of RAM. They were unable to simply vote for an actually fast, modern machine, as all of them had proprietary blobs doing who-knows-what. So someone had to come out and actually build one, and now we have Framework. I believe that for phones, we might have Purism sometime in the 2030s, once they work out the most basic issues with their software stack, probably caused by trying to use existing Linux userland. For cars... I haven't heard anything yet. Nobody's come out and built an open-source car company yet. So we're currently in the phase where you simply can't vote for an open-source car. Now, do you still need a car anyway? Then I guess you vote in favor of a locked-down vehicle. Even if you're not actually trying to vote, and you just need a car right now. So that's why I hate this argument. Just because you bought a car doesn't mean you should be on the hook for "voting" for every feature the car has. You voted for the car. Doesn't mean it's perfect.
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    > People like you really think not purchasing the bad will fix stuff like this? Well yes, certainly. A market exists because it has buyers - without them, it withers. And a market exists because there is a need, that producers will ride. «if nobody bought the car», they would not produce it. > If you don't buy any car at all, then you simply don't exist to them So you misunderstood the proposed idea. It is not the individual that changes the market: a critical mass does. But the responsibility is individual. > Cars aren't spying on you because people are voting for the spying The statement is, "if people did not accept it it would not happen, and by financing it they accept it". > If you want a car from the current market If the «current market» only contained traps ("and you will give us rights to your grandson" etc.), why would one «want [an item] from the current market». > Odds are they're all going to have some sort of surveillance-state bullshit, or the ones that don't have it are just going to be less-nice vehicles in general This makes it sound like "some people will trade decency for items that they see as nicer". That is plain sinister. > before Framework There is a difference between suboptimal products - "optimal is not available yet" - and unacceptable products - "this service comes with jus primae noctis". > do you still need a car anyway? Then I guess you vote in favor of a locked-down vehicle Let us hope you won't, and find other solutions. But the problem is not about open-source: it is about reliability, security and privacy. > for "voting" for every feature the car has. You voted for the car By financing and simply purchasing a product you endorsed it, and with it all its implications. You are responsible. Sweatshop shoes? Responsible. You are given a faculty of awareness and an obligation to use it. Some implications are good, some are minor, some are immoral, some are bringer of dire social consequences.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      << You are responsible. There is plenty of blame to go around. From corporate owners, through captured regulators to end users. Between all those parties I think the ones that have to choose between grades of shit are the least to blame. This does not absolve consumers, but it does put into question the framing you presented.
      - mdp2021 3y ago
avar 3y ago
If you'd like to experiment with bricking the head unit on your new car you can shop around and find a totaled specimen. If all you need is a working head unit you should be able to get that for <$1000. It's still an investment, but nowhere near $30k. The real reason nobody bothers with this is that it's just the infotainment, and if you really want a custom one you can just buy a new head unit, or glue a tablet where the existing one resides. You won't get access to the engage electronics, emissions controls etc. Those are all other dedicated computers.
- tyingq 3y ago
  Assuming the head unit isn't DRM locked to a specific VIN, etc. That's then extra cost to chase that rabbit trail.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    The one taken off your car to be recycled could be, the new one cannot be because you DYOR and install a compatible third party unit.
    - tyingq 3y ago
      Context of the parent was buying a spare OEM unit from a junkyard for experimenting. Third party can be a money pit also. Like a volume knob that controls the factory amp via canbus rather than the fixed output level head unit. And the amp is conveniently not close to the head unit. And, mentioned elsewhere, but additional stuff for steering wheel controls, car data that the OEM head unit displayed (mpg, trip meter, etc).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NotSammyHagar 3y ago
You can just turn off via breaker the lte modem inside a tesla. Original ones had a 3g modem, they were replaced eventually with an lte one. Spying is under your control at least overall. The insidious thing is there are so many useful things in the tesla ui, you want to use it. I have experimented with disabling the modem but it was just so useful to have maps and current and accurate traffic that I quickly put it back. Also using voice commands to play music. There's just nothing as good for the phone. There is potential for someone to make an ipad app that did all these things and connected to say your phone's hotspot so you could control everything. Soon you would be remaking android auto though. I think there's no market for a "you control your privacy" type thing.

The hard part about this nobody is willing to experiment with their $30k+ vehicle and risk bricking it. If you want a car that doesn’t spy on you you’re gonna have to look back a decade or so.

mdp2021 3y ago

> their $30k+ vehicle and risk bricking it. If you want a car that doesn’t spy on you Reminder that those who bought it, voted for it. In economics, wallet is voting power - what you buy you feed and endorse.

LoganDark 3y ago
> Reminder that those who bought it, voted for it. I truly loathe this argument. I've seen it for cars, seen it for laptops, seen it for mobile devices. For years. People like you really think not purchasing the bad will fix stuff like this? Purchasing decisions let you pick between competitors. That is all. You can't pick the open-source car that does not exist, unless you want to start your own car company just to build one. If you don't buy any car at all, then you simply don't exist to them, and they don't care about you. Nobody is going to quit locking down their software just because a rounding error doesn't like it that way. They don't do it because they need people's votes, they do it because the company simply wants the software locked down, they don't care what customers think about it. Even if nobody bought the car, and everybody told them directly to offer open access, they'd probably still refuse to provide it, until and unless something like a regulation is passed that mandates it. Cars aren't spying on you because people are voting for the spying. Nobody who buys the car is voting for it to spy on them, unless I guess their hypothetical dystopian future insurance gives them a bonus/discount for allowing them to view the data from the vehicle and they're actually okay with that. Just look, you have a limited number of choices. You can "vote" for anything that is currently on the market. That is all the choice you have. If you want a car from the current market, you're going to have to pick one to vote for. Odds are they're all going to have some sort of surveillance-state bullshit, or the ones that don't have it are just going to be less-nice vehicles in general. Similar to how, before Framework, everyone concerned about open-source system firmware was most likely rocking a speedy 2004 ThinkPad with a couple gigabytes of RAM. They were unable to simply vote for an actually fast, modern machine, as all of them had proprietary blobs doing who-knows-what. So someone had to come out and actually build one, and now we have Framework. I believe that for phones, we might have Purism sometime in the 2030s, once they work out the most basic issues with their software stack, probably caused by trying to use existing Linux userland. For cars... I haven't heard anything yet. Nobody's come out and built an open-source car company yet. So we're currently in the phase where you simply can't vote for an open-source car. Now, do you still need a car anyway? Then I guess you vote in favor of a locked-down vehicle. Even if you're not actually trying to vote, and you just need a car right now. So that's why I hate this argument. Just because you bought a car doesn't mean you should be on the hook for "voting" for every feature the car has. You voted for the car. Doesn't mean it's perfect.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > People like you really think not purchasing the bad will fix stuff like this? Well yes, certainly. A market exists because it has buyers - without them, it withers. And a market exists because there is a need, that producers will ride. «if nobody bought the car», they would not produce it. > If you don't buy any car at all, then you simply don't exist to them So you misunderstood the proposed idea. It is not the individual that changes the market: a critical mass does. But the responsibility is individual. > Cars aren't spying on you because people are voting for the spying The statement is, "if people did not accept it it would not happen, and by financing it they accept it". > If you want a car from the current market If the «current market» only contained traps ("and you will give us rights to your grandson" etc.), why would one «want [an item] from the current market». > Odds are they're all going to have some sort of surveillance-state bullshit, or the ones that don't have it are just going to be less-nice vehicles in general This makes it sound like "some people will trade decency for items that they see as nicer". That is plain sinister. > before Framework There is a difference between suboptimal products - "optimal is not available yet" - and unacceptable products - "this service comes with jus primae noctis". > do you still need a car anyway? Then I guess you vote in favor of a locked-down vehicle Let us hope you won't, and find other solutions. But the problem is not about open-source: it is about reliability, security and privacy. > for "voting" for every feature the car has. You voted for the car By financing and simply purchasing a product you endorsed it, and with it all its implications. You are responsible. Sweatshop shoes? Responsible. You are given a faculty of awareness and an obligation to use it. Some implications are good, some are minor, some are immoral, some are bringer of dire social consequences.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    << You are responsible. There is plenty of blame to go around. From corporate owners, through captured regulators to end users. Between all those parties I think the ones that have to choose between grades of shit are the least to blame. This does not absolve consumers, but it does put into question the framing you presented.
    - mdp2021 3y ago

avar 3y ago

If you'd like to experiment with bricking the head unit on your new car you can shop around and find a totaled specimen. If all you need is a working head unit you should be able to get that for <$1000. It's still an investment, but nowhere near $30k. The real reason nobody bothers with this is that it's just the infotainment, and if you really want a custom one you can just buy a new head unit, or glue a tablet where the existing one resides. You won't get access to the engage electronics, emissions controls etc. Those are all other dedicated computers.

tyingq 3y ago
Assuming the head unit isn't DRM locked to a specific VIN, etc. That's then extra cost to chase that rabbit trail.
- numpad0 3y ago
  The one taken off your car to be recycled could be, the new one cannot be because you DYOR and install a compatible third party unit.
  - tyingq 3y ago
    Context of the parent was buying a spare OEM unit from a junkyard for experimenting. Third party can be a money pit also. Like a volume knob that controls the factory amp via canbus rather than the fixed output level head unit. And the amp is conveniently not close to the head unit. And, mentioned elsewhere, but additional stuff for steering wheel controls, car data that the OEM head unit displayed (mpg, trip meter, etc).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

NotSammyHagar 3y ago

You can just turn off via breaker the lte modem inside a tesla. Original ones had a 3g modem, they were replaced eventually with an lte one. Spying is under your control at least overall. The insidious thing is there are so many useful things in the tesla ui, you want to use it. I have experimented with disabling the modem but it was just so useful to have maps and current and accurate traffic that I quickly put it back. Also using voice commands to play music. There's just nothing as good for the phone. There is potential for someone to make an ipad app that did all these things and connected to say your phone's hotspot so you could control everything. Soon you would be remaking android auto though. I think there's no market for a "you control your privacy" type thing.