18 ms·

The scary part is not the GPS installed by the fleet company that previously owned the car, which in all likelihood was just forgotten there, but the GPS and eS

by afh1 2y ago

The scary part is not the GPS installed by the fleet company that previously owned the car, which in all likelihood was just forgotten there, but the GPS and eSIM that comes with most (all?) new cars and that in most (all?) new cars cannot be disabled. Apart from privacy concerns of your data being used or sold by the car vendor, government outreach is also a concern. There was a bill announced in the US for all new cars to be equipped with "driver impairment" tech which was called a "kill switch". Media rushed to say it's not really a kill switch, just "sensors or cameras to monitor the driver’s behaviors, head or eye movements" and "block the driver from operating the vehicle". So... a kill switch. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497 Anyway, I'm staying with my old gas Honda until it dies which is probably never with proper maintenance and eventually restoration. I'll never go electric. Modern cars are just smartphones on wheels at this point, and smartphones are just spying devices at this point.

pixl97 2y ago
The longevity of our car not only on how good you drive, but how bad others drive.
- bluGill 2y ago
  While not false, careful defensive driving makes a big difference. But most people hate someone cutting in front of them and so won't maintain large follow ng distances
  - ddingus 2y ago
    And maintaining that proper distance can be worse! I try, and often succeed and generally see risks all around. Too close, and often with few or no escape paths means maintaining best case attention and response times for the whole drive. That is tiring and usually just not enough. Too far back means people dropping into the gap non-stop! This too is tiring. I really hate how this aspect of driving.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I have learned to ignore those driving into the gap. In fact one reason for the gap is to leave room for those who need to switch lanes. in reality not many jump into the gap.
      - ddingus 2y ago
        True. I do hate it less these days. Perhaps I am headed your way on this.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    I'm not in that much of a hurry, a couple minutes later won't make a difference. I have a friend though, twice in the last year she was rear ended sitting at a red light. Both time the car was totaled. Terrible luck on her part, but not much defensive driving could do for her.
dclowd9901 2y ago
I'm with you here. I have an 89 BMW (which is old enough to have an actual servo motor attached to the intake manifold for cruise control) and an 83 Land Cruiser (whose most advanced feature is that it controls its emissions using vacuum controlled pneumatic circuitry). I'm very glad I've put in the time to learn how to work on cars because I have zero interest in the tech direction of modern vehicles.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > 89 BMW ... and an 83 Land Cruiser I'm with you. Our daily drivers are 2011 Mitsu, 96 Toyota, 92 Buick and a 63 Dart. Also a 61 Sunliner for when it's not-summer. The Mitsu is unfortunately drive-by-wire; I mostly avoid it.
  - volemo 2y ago
    How large is your family? Why do you need so many cars?
    - sgt 2y ago
      People who have many cars usually don't do it because of necessity, but because they love tinkering with the old automobiles.
      - cratermoon 2y ago
        At peak teenager/young adult time my family owned six cars. That's for two adults and three driving-age kids. The sixth car was something my dad, who was an old-school motor head of the sort who grew up using feeler gauges, just kept around for no obvious reason but to tinker now and then.
      - dclowd9901 2y ago
        Bingo.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > How large is your family? Why do you need so many cars? I live with my 5 adult sons. We also buy cars when deals show up. The Toyota had 41k for $500 and the Buick had 31k for $1300. We're working on a cheap 88 Dodge P/U; my son converted it to points and carburetor. We also have a 69 XL that seriously needs to go away. It does 130 at what feels like high idle.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
What does any of that have to do with a car being electric?
- sellmesoap 2y ago
  Let's find a list of electric cars without some form of network connection!
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Found it:
    - Huppie 2y ago
      You jest, but I have one: It's an Opel Ampera-E (in the states that's a Chevy Bolt), it's a 2018 model with all the connected features but first it was disconnected from OnStar with Opel being sold to PSA and later it was fully disconnected because it uses a 3G modem for communication but the 3G network was switched off (in most of Europe anyway...)
    - dlcarrier 2y ago
      Coda EV Rav 4 EV Nissan Leaf Fiat 500e Smart Fortwo electric drive ... There's probably a dozen or so first-generation (well for this century) electric vehicles that are just regular cars that happen to have an electric power plant. The upside is that you can buy them used, for a couple grand. The downside is that they were manufactured with a 100 mile range, and your lucky if you can find one that still retains half that. If aftermarket batteries become common, they'd be perfect around-town vehicles.
      - earleybird 2y ago
        I'm currently contemplating upgrading my 2013 Leaf battery to a 62Kwh (and much longer range). It's a substantial cost but that would extend the cars life another 15 years. (un)Fortunately I've taken decent care of the original 24Kwh which is at 80.6 SoH after 11 years. Its use case is daily commuter under 45 miles - that's over 11k miles/year (or 18k km/year). At 2% loss on the SoH, that's another 5 years before it hit's 70% and has a noticeable drop in range.
rcpt 2y ago
> a kill switch The funny thing is that's what cars do to other people because we don't have enough monitoring. My e-bike is limited to 20 because "safety". Your car should be to.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - kelnos 2y ago
    The thing that dismays me about your comment is that you seem to have decided that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so we should have fewer restrictions on everything, regardless of the danger of any particular thing, or what that particular thing is designed for. (If I've mischaracterized or misunderstood, my apologies; please correct me.) Let's take some two hopefully-simple examples: speed limiters on cars, and guns. I agree with you when it comes to speed limiters on cars. We shouldn't have them, and government should not be allowed to mandate them. Sure, some people drive too fast for conditions, and that's dangerous, and sometimes they hurt or kill other people by doing so. But we can combat this to some extent with education, licensing requirements, and the threat of penalties for when something bad happens. And I can think of several situations (emergency or otherwise) where someone might be justified in driving faster than a speed limiter might allow, and if the limiter was in place, that could also have bad consequences. But then let's look at guns. They are designed to injure and kill; that is their main intended purpose. Most gun deaths, IIRC, are attributed to suicides and accidental discharges (the latter of which often involve children; I am definitely not a "think of the children!" type person, but I think in this case it might actually apply). Other gun deaths involve mass shootings, gang violence, and other criminal activity. The threat of home invasions is highly overblown, and the vast majority of the people who buy them to keep at home for protection will never need them (and will sometimes be involved in accidents or other unintended bad uses). People (in the US, primarily) who think that they need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government are delusional (if the government/military really did try to violently oppress them, the idea that they'd be able to successfully fight back is laughable). There are lots of different types of guns, from small-caliber, small-capacity weapons that don't do quite as much damage; up to semi-auto and auto "military style" weapons that can be used to kill large numbers of people in a fairly short amount of time. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that we shouldn't have any restrictions on gun ownership, and I would probably not even be bothered by the idea of a complete ban on private gun ownership (obviously not constitutionally possible here in the US). But as a middle ground, I at least support strict licensing and background-check requirements for firearm ownership, and I think that certain classes of weapons should be restricted from private ownership. I don't intend this to turn into a political discussion about gun control, but I just think it's weird to consider every possible kind of restriction on freedom in the same way, without critically examining what is being restricted, what it is designed to, what kind of harm a lack of restrictions will cause, and what are the negative/unintended consequences of putting those restrictions in place. A few specific comments: > I've realized with time that while drivers can be dangerous, they are relatively limited in how much harm they can create. This just doesn't ring true to me. Car-related fatality statistics paint a very different picture to me. > I honestly rather want everyone including me to have freedom to do stupid things instead of limiting freedom. Maybe this is where the disconnect is, and where we might not be able to agree on anything. The problem with this kind of statement is that it doesn't acknowledge that personal freedoms can come at a cost to other people. If I screw something up in the exercise of my freedoms, it usually doesn't just hurt me: others get caught up in it too. My "freedoms" should include being able to live my life in peace, without other people destroying that peace, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. Unfortunately that can't be done without putting restrictions on what I and others can do in many situations.
Gee101 2y ago
I'm sure there will be kits to swap the ice engine to eletricfor most popular cars eventually. Then you will have more control about what features is added.
- akira2501 2y ago
  I've seen people do this but I think it's unlikely. The weight on an ICE car is slung much differently from an EV and placing a battery bank where your engine used to be is not a great idea.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    I may be daft but it seems like a great idea. Same weight and everything. In France you get a decent subsidy if you convert your ICE to EV.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      Your engine is part of your crumple zone. You do not want your battery to be. Same reason the fuel tank is usually in the back of the vehicle.
      - djaychela 2y ago
        Engines do not crumple, and a proper electric conversion will retain appropriate space. Fuel tanks are not "in the back" for good (see: ford pinto) reasons.
        pvaldes 2y ago
        Fuel tanks are in the back for solid reasons. But they are placed before the second wheel axis. In case of crash that area will protect the tank. Pinto had it after the rear tires, so totally unprotected. A big battery in the place of the motor will turn you into a BBQ in case of collision because fire will fall directly towards the driver. Lithium batteries start burning when hit with some force, and can't be stopped once they start burning.
KumaBear 2y ago
That whole system looks like what we install on police patrol cars. Left switch allows you to keep car running even when keys are removed (but you can’t drive it will kill the ignition). GPS is for obvious reasons tracking. But these don’t look like patrol cars so it’s out of my wheel house.
Simran-B 2y ago
> Most people would have probably driven around for years with a foreign GPS tracker. So basically everyone with a smartphone? I'm not sure if it's really worse if the car has its own GPS and cell connectivity. How many people turn off their phone or leave it at home? And you can buy other people's location data, so...
- gruez 2y ago
  You can turn off your phone or go into airplane mode. Can you do that with your car? Even if most people don't use that option on a daily basis, doesn't mean it's fine.
  - markdown 2y ago
    So you put it in airplane mode while in a car and then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? What's the point of that?
    - gruez 2y ago
      >then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? Why would I need to disable it? If you're not using the built-in navigation (which probably costs money anyways) and are using carplay/android auto instead, you should be able to leave it in airplane mode indefinitely. What critical functionality would I be missing out on?
      - markdown 2y ago
        Well... for most people... everything. It sounds like you use a dumb phone. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously enough to use a dumb phone will be buying a dumb car.
      - chgs 2y ago
        OP isnt talking about putting the car in airplane mode, but the phone. The point is that you are already tracked via your phone (which is likely kit in airplane mode), so there’s not a massive gain to preventing car tracking.
clarkmoody 2y ago
Self driving + conversation monitoring => lock the doors and drive you to the nearest reeducation camp for uttering wrongspeak.
eastern 2y ago
Media people obviously thought that kill switch meant something that can kill the driver and rushed to reassure the public that no that was not the case. They're good people at heart. Don't misunderstand them.
MaxBarraclough 2y ago
Last year Mozilla did a study on the privacy of modern cars. Every car they tested showed terrible privacy problems. Privacy Nightmare on Wheels: Every Car Brand Reviewed by Mozilla https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443644 (edit I see I'm not the first to link this in this thread)
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  Whenever I talk about this issue with friends and family I bring up how that report revealed Nissan was gathering info on sexual activity in their cars and can sell it to third parties. That usually gets people to start listening.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Was Nissan actually collecting this data? All I can find is that the privacy policy retained the right to it (some lawyer probably though about what happens if they accidentally record you getting frisky, and put it in there preemptively), but no evidence if it actually happened.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      Does it matter? We can split hairs over whether or not they are actually doing the thing they give themselves the rights to do, but that feels unproductive and disingenuous.
      - brookst 2y ago
        Yes it matters. Or at least it matters whether the claims you make are true, and there is a difference between “had a right to” and “did”. Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to, and it’s splitting hairs whether he actually does or not.
        2y ago
cipheredStones 2y ago
> Media rushed to say it's not really a kill switch, just "sensors or cameras to monitor the driver’s behaviors, head or eye movements" and "block the driver from operating the vehicle". So... a kill switch. You're selectively quoting in a way that misrepresents the article. The post the article quotes: > “Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026,” read several posts shared widely on Twitter and Facebook. The actual functionality: > In either case, if a driver is found to be impaired [by automated monitoring within the car], the car might employ a warning message, block the driver from operating the vehicle, or if the vehicle is already in motion, direct it to a safe stop or automated ride home. > None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement of the data collected inside vehicles or give government agencies remote control of vehicles, according to Jeffrey Michael, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Injury Research and Policy. The car has an automatic system which can prevent the driver from operating it, but no one outside the car can trigger that system, which is clearly what the "kill switch" posts were claiming.
- adamsb6 2y ago
  If it’s not air gapped the company could be compelled to activate it remotely.
- emmelaich 2y ago
  So, it is a kill switch. Just not the sort of kill switch that someone (who?) sometime (when?) described, and such description is one that you've neither quoted or given.
  - cipheredStones 2y ago
    You and afh1 seem to be reading both the article and my comment as focused on whether it's appropriate to characterize a device that prevents a car from starting as a "kill switch". I didn't say anything at all about that term in my comment, and while the article says it's hyperbolic, arguing about that term is clearly not the focus of the article. Just going to quote the whole opener here - it's about the claim that the law enables cops to monitor you and shut down your car, which is clearly false. --------------- [Headline] Posts distort infrastructure law’s rule on impaired driving technology CLAIM: President Joe Biden signed a bill that will give law enforcement access to a “kill switch” that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While the bipartisan infrastructure bill Biden signed last year requires advanced drunk and impaired driving technology to become standard equipment in new cars, experts say that technology doesn’t amount to a “kill switch,” and nothing in the bill gives law enforcement access to those systems. THE FACTS: In November 2021, Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, ushering into law a $1 trillion bipartisan deal to maintain and upgrade the country’s roads, bridges, ports and more. One provision in the legislation aims to prevent drunk driving deaths by requiring all new vehicles to soon include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as “standard equipment.” However, in the months since the law passed, some social media users have misrepresented the provision online, falsely claiming it will give police access to data collected by the technology or allow the government to shut down cars remotely. “Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026,” read several posts shared widely on Twitter and Facebook.
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
_ea1k 2y ago
Government overreach is the big thing that I'm worried about. All of the overreactions to adas is really heavily driving it. At some point, they will have to realize that the same attention systems used for adas could be used all of the time. Given that there are hundreds of deaths each year due to inattention, it'd be almost irresponsible not to look into it. But a lot of people won't like where that leads.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  What is "adas"?
  - nereye 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver-assistance_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver-assistance_s...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
endofreach 2y ago
> Modern cars are just smartphones on wheels at this point, and smartphones are just spying devices at this point. Exactly. I saw a clip of an elon musk interview where he was asked if tesla would ever build a smartphone. I had to chuckle and think to myself, they already do. It just doesn't fit in your pocket, has wheels and actually tries to kill you physically.
heresie-dabord 2y ago
> Modern cars [...] and smartphones are just spying devices at this point. I take it that you need a car (which is true for many) and also need a computer (also true for many). What precautions do you take in computing given that you use a computer that is connected to the Internet ? The former (i.e. computer) has an unknowable supply chain with blobs of code that you don't vet yourself, and the latter (the Internet) has overtly become a surveillance system.
valval 2y ago
I know your comment is just the traditional HN karma grab, but rejecting technological advancement in vehicles based on privacy concerns means missing out on significant improvements in safety, efficiency, and comfort. Would you also reject modern healthcare because hospitals use connected devices?
- dmichulke 2y ago
  One is likely an emergency of a necessary system (body) and the other is not an emergency of a much less necessary system (car). Not sure your analogy fits.
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    More Americans live without healthcare than without cars
- wruza 2y ago
  What is the nature of karma grab?
  - valval 2y ago
    The "I'm a tech guy so I shoot my printer if it makes a weird noise" meme essentially.
ddingus 2y ago
I just picked up a low mile, garage kept Toyota sedan. V6 sedan, my favorite combo! This one has plenty of power, looks totally unassuming, and can get great economy when I drive modestly. I plan on driving it a very long time. Same reasons. It also predates the big infotainment systems. I really dislike the big screen and many functions turned into touch controls dangerous to use in motion. Finally, it is easy to service. I will do that myself as long as I am able.
bluescrn 2y ago
> Modern cars are just smartphones on wheels at this point. Complete with non-replaceable batteries.
ajuc 2y ago
Why are kill switches in cars bad? It's a vehicle that can easily kill other people. It often does. It's reasonable to require drivers to be in good enough shape before trusting them with lives of random innocent people.
- throw16180339 2y ago
  I'm not against enhancing safety, but I have serious concerns about whether auto manufacturers can implement such a feature securely, reliably, and without leaving it vulnerable to misuse by third parties. That said, I would support mandatory breathalyzers in all new cars. While this idea is likely too controversial and complex to become reality, I believe it could significantly reduce fatalities.
zfnmxt 2y ago
I understand your position (and it's one I'm absolutely swayed by to a degree and sympathize with), but I can't help but think that you are assigning unreasonable weights to privacy vs. safety/convenience. (Or, perhaps more honestly, I have to remind myself to be reasonable about these weights in my life.) Do you think preserving your privacy in this one aspect of your life will have a greater net benefit to your life than driving a safer car (under the assumption that newer cars are safer)? Especially given that presumably there's still data being collected on you even in an old car (cameras on the road, other people's cars, your phone, etc). By analogy, what's the marginal benefit of not eating any food in packaged in plastic if your water supply is full of (unavoidable, for the sake of argument) microplastics? Is doing so worth the cost (no food for you, buddy!)? I guess this is just another round of being principled duking it out with pragmatism.
- ftrobro 2y ago
  Privacy is a safety concern. If some government agency can control your car remotely, chances are that others also will find a way to do that.
  - throw16180339 2y ago
    This is especially true if you keep a car for decades. My car is a 2001 and I've had it since 2008. It's possible that a manufacturer could provide security updates for a comparable period, but that seems like an extraordinary claim.
chgs 2y ago
Even without the privacy aspect it’s a problem. Last weekend I was driving home in my ICE car guzzling on those dead dinosaurs, and maps on my CarPlay unit went haywire, first I was slightly off to the east by say 50 metres, but this got worse and at one point I was 10 miles away. Unplugging my phone and the location snapped back to he correct place. Seems that in CarPlay an iPhone will believe what the car says about position, and when it’s wrong, tough.
markus_zhang 2y ago
Since I'm going to buy a new car in the following years, wondering which cars don't have those? I don't mind old gas cars but I don't have the knowledge to tell whether the car contains those eSIMs.
- b112 2y ago
  These days, the better question is in which cars can you disable the esim. Some have a fuse you can pull for the modem, without disabling anything else. Others you can pull the antenna, and add a resistor instead.
  - inahga 2y ago
    In some disconnecting the antenna isn't enough, it just reduces the range of the modem. Another option is if the modem can be physically removed. e.g. http://sandsprite.com/blogs/index.php?uid=7&pid=462&year=2019 http://sandsprite.com/blogs/index.php?uid=7&pid=462&year=201.... I think this head unit is shared amongst Chrysler vehicles, so Chrysler is an option (but then you'll have two problems).
    - chiph 2y ago
      A Lexus forum member went through several attempts to physically disconnect from the Toyota cloud and ultimately had to compromise on this, as the hands-free Bluetooth also went through the data communications module and they weren't willing to give that up. The interesting part is that even though the antennas were disconnected, there was enough RF making it's way through the plastic sides of the module to give him 2-bars of signal strength. Wrapping it in grounded aluminum foil still allowed enough signal strength for transmission when they were very close to a cell tower. GPS signals were also being routed to the communications module over the car's network from the entertainment module (not sure why the entertainment module needs a GPS antenna or location data). Ultimately they opted-out from data collection using the Lexus app and will rely on legal protections - in addition to disconnecting the antennas. https://www.clublexus.com/forums/gx-2nd-gen-2010-2023/983214-howto-disable-dcm-data-transmission-in-lexus-gx460-2022-and-earlier-model-years-2.html#post11279130 https://www.clublexus.com/forums/gx-2nd-gen-2010-2023/983214...
sebstefan 2y ago
There should not be an expectation of privacy from the authorities when operating a motor vehicles on public roads on which you need a license to drive
- telgareith 2y ago
  Then leave the US.
  - sebstefan 2y ago
    Ideally, I'd like that everywhere else too.
- Lio 2y ago
  Why do you think you should not have an expectation of privacy when driving? Do you not consider reasonable to have an expectation of innocence when going about your business?
  - sebstefan 2y ago
    > Some other good ones: there should not be an expectation of privacy when performing surgery. There should not be an expectation of privacy when performing the monopoly on the legal use of force.
    - sebstefan 2y ago
      There should be an expectation of privacy when travelling on foot, bike, or any vehicle that doesn't require a license to operate, though.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  We're not talking about monitoring traffic on roads there, but about an embedded spying device that is enabled even when you're in your own garage and is also being used commercially to monetize your private life.
- 2y ago
Someone 2y ago
> but the GPS and eSIM that comes with most (all?) new cars All. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall: “eCall (an abbreviation of "emergency call") is an initiative by the European Union, intended to bring rapid assistance to motorists involved in a collision anywhere within the European Union. The aim is for all new cars to incorporate a system that automatically contacts the emergency services in the event of a serious accident, sending location and sensor information. eCall was made mandatory in all new cars approved for manufacture within the European Union as of April 2018.”
- aagha 2y ago
  It's crazy the EU passed this and collecting someone's IP address or assigning them a random UUID is considered a GDPR violation.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Assuming the tech is not abused, it makes perfect sense (GDPR Art. 6(1)(d)). And, in fact, abusing the tech would be a GDPR violation. You might consider it foolish, but it's not inconsistent.
  - callalex 2y ago
    Quite the opposite! Since people can have faith that they are protected by GDPR, they can have machines that actually work to help them, instead of hobbling them out of fear of being exploited.
    - parineum 2y ago
      Except for those car machines
      - immibis 2y ago
        How so? A manufacturer who's found to use this information for any purpose other than calling emergency services when you crash will go bankrupt because of the GDPR. This is a strong incentive not to.
0x3444ac53 2y ago
I have a '98 Honda with 324K miles on it. I'm awful at maintenance but I've had it for ten years and it refuses to die.
_heimdall 2y ago
This is a huge reason why I won't buy more modern vehicles. Safety features and fuel economy are night and day when comparing a 5 year old car and a 30 year old one, but between the privacy issues and inability to diagnose or fix a new car I just can't do it. I bought an 80s model truck that sat in a garage for over a decade and has 50k original miles on it. I'm still chasing down a couple gremlins in the system, but its nice to be able to work on it myself. Bonus that it may not be driving perfectly right now but its happy keep on chugging, even if a sensor is bad or I get an occasional code for running lean.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  Isn’t the gas mileage really really bad though?
  - uoaei 2y ago
    Everyone chooses their own balance of bills. Personally (I'm not who you're replying to) I'm happy to pay more in rent and utilities if it means I can ride my bicycle most places instead of, say, being a 10-minute drive from the nearest crosswalk. In the end, my emissions are probably much lower than someone who can't imagine leaving their house without their car keys even though I drive an ICE.
    - alchemist1e9 2y ago
      Makes sense. The other issue that is mentioned would be the safety features. Air bags and side impact systems are massive jumps forward in safety. Most people aren’t concerned enough with privacy to trade those for it.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Safety is definitely a tricky tradeoff for me. If I couldn't work on the vehicle myself either way I'd have something newer, the combo of privacy and maintenance tip the scales for me (definitely an outlier though).
snozolli 2y ago
tech which was called a "kill switch". Media rushed to say it's not really a kill switch, just "sensors or cameras to monitor the driver’s behaviors, head or eye movements" and "block the driver from operating the vehicle". So... a kill switch. It's not a kill switch, the link you provided explains that it's not a kill switch, yet you still call it a kill switch. If you were paying any attention, then you know that idiots online were portraying this as the cops being able to remotely disable your car at their will. In fact, the requirement is for the vehicle to pull safely to the side of the road when it detects an impaired driver (DUI or medical emergency). There is no external initiation, it's entirely self-contained. It's not a kill switch. It's not remotely like a kill switch. Having personally been within minutes of crashes involving a drunk driver who blew a stop sign and smashed into a fire hydrant, and another driver experiencing a health emergency who crashed through an intersection at 80mph in a 25mph zone, I say bring it on. Ignore the Rogan-sphere FUD peddlers.
prirun 2y ago
> Anyway, I'm staying with my old gas Honda until it dies which is probably never with proper maintenance and eventually restoration. I would have stuck with my 2003 Honda Accord too, except that some woman, probably talking or texting on her cell, slammed into me while I was stopped at a light, totaling my car and damaging 3 others. I got $8K for my car after arguing with the insurance company, and paid $28K for a 3 y/o replacement. The fine for texting while driving in Kentucky is $25.
- DoneWithAllThat 2y ago
  What is the relevance of your anecdote? I’m genuinely confused.
  - ronsor 2y ago
    That other drivers determine whether or not you get a new car just as much (if not more than) you do.
sampo 2y ago
> There was a bill announced in the US for all new cars to be equipped with "driver impairment" tech which was called a "kill switch". In addition to de-banking, they can also de-car you.
wslh 2y ago
I am new to the car/data show, is an eSim really installed on cars around the world? Or is it an Amrican thing? Thinking for example on Europe data regulations. If so, this is a good fit for a class action.
Moto7451 2y ago
For what it’s worth a lot of the transmitters for in car connectivity are in the headliner lighting unit. A lot of electronics end up there like front facing cameras for driver assists. You can in my current Porsche, my past Camaro, and a couple other cars I’ve looked at just unplug the module there. Sometimes you lose your Homelink garage door transmitter. If you lookup the repair procedure for the cellular unit you will have found the way to disable it.
77pt77 2y ago
> GPS and eSIM that comes with most (all?) new cars and that in most (all?) new cars cannot be disabled. I believe the name of that module is DCM You can disable some models, but I have my doubts. In rentals you can forget about it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pc86 2y ago
The more serious preppers I know (e.g. the people prepping/worried about realistic scenarios as opposed to the civil war LARPers) pretty early on make sure they have access to a fully mechanical vehicle - to the extent that's even possible - and have the skills to maintain it.
Auracle 2y ago
There was just an incident in my area that involved OnStar shutting down a hijacked car at the police’s behest and the guy got out and shot and killed another driver in the attempt to carjack him. So, any car with OnStar apparently already has a remote kill switch. Perhaps they needed the owner’s permission first?

by afh1 2y ago

pixl97 2y ago

The longevity of our car not only on how good you drive, but how bad others drive.

bluGill 2y ago
While not false, careful defensive driving makes a big difference. But most people hate someone cutting in front of them and so won't maintain large follow ng distances
- ddingus 2y ago
  And maintaining that proper distance can be worse! I try, and often succeed and generally see risks all around. Too close, and often with few or no escape paths means maintaining best case attention and response times for the whole drive. That is tiring and usually just not enough. Too far back means people dropping into the gap non-stop! This too is tiring. I really hate how this aspect of driving.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I have learned to ignore those driving into the gap. In fact one reason for the gap is to leave room for those who need to switch lanes. in reality not many jump into the gap.
    - ddingus 2y ago
      True. I do hate it less these days. Perhaps I am headed your way on this.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  I'm not in that much of a hurry, a couple minutes later won't make a difference. I have a friend though, twice in the last year she was rear ended sitting at a red light. Both time the car was totaled. Terrible luck on her part, but not much defensive driving could do for her.

dclowd9901 2y ago

I'm with you here. I have an 89 BMW (which is old enough to have an actual servo motor attached to the intake manifold for cruise control) and an 83 Land Cruiser (whose most advanced feature is that it controls its emissions using vacuum controlled pneumatic circuitry). I'm very glad I've put in the time to learn how to work on cars because I have zero interest in the tech direction of modern vehicles.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> 89 BMW ... and an 83 Land Cruiser I'm with you. Our daily drivers are 2011 Mitsu, 96 Toyota, 92 Buick and a 63 Dart. Also a 61 Sunliner for when it's not-summer. The Mitsu is unfortunately drive-by-wire; I mostly avoid it.
- volemo 2y ago
  How large is your family? Why do you need so many cars?
  - sgt 2y ago
    People who have many cars usually don't do it because of necessity, but because they love tinkering with the old automobiles.
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      At peak teenager/young adult time my family owned six cars. That's for two adults and three driving-age kids. The sixth car was something my dad, who was an old-school motor head of the sort who grew up using feeler gauges, just kept around for no obvious reason but to tinker now and then.
    - dclowd9901 2y ago
      Bingo.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > How large is your family? Why do you need so many cars? I live with my 5 adult sons. We also buy cars when deals show up. The Toyota had 41k for $500 and the Buick had 31k for $1300. We're working on a cheap 88 Dodge P/U; my son converted it to points and carburetor. We also have a 69 XL that seriously needs to go away. It does 130 at what feels like high idle.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

What does any of that have to do with a car being electric?

sellmesoap 2y ago
Let's find a list of electric cars without some form of network connection!
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Found it:
  - Huppie 2y ago
    You jest, but I have one: It's an Opel Ampera-E (in the states that's a Chevy Bolt), it's a 2018 model with all the connected features but first it was disconnected from OnStar with Opel being sold to PSA and later it was fully disconnected because it uses a 3G modem for communication but the 3G network was switched off (in most of Europe anyway...)
  - dlcarrier 2y ago
    Coda EV Rav 4 EV Nissan Leaf Fiat 500e Smart Fortwo electric drive ... There's probably a dozen or so first-generation (well for this century) electric vehicles that are just regular cars that happen to have an electric power plant. The upside is that you can buy them used, for a couple grand. The downside is that they were manufactured with a 100 mile range, and your lucky if you can find one that still retains half that. If aftermarket batteries become common, they'd be perfect around-town vehicles.
    - earleybird 2y ago
      I'm currently contemplating upgrading my 2013 Leaf battery to a 62Kwh (and much longer range). It's a substantial cost but that would extend the cars life another 15 years. (un)Fortunately I've taken decent care of the original 24Kwh which is at 80.6 SoH after 11 years. Its use case is daily commuter under 45 miles - that's over 11k miles/year (or 18k km/year). At 2% loss on the SoH, that's another 5 years before it hit's 70% and has a noticeable drop in range.

rcpt 2y ago

> a kill switch The funny thing is that's what cars do to other people because we don't have enough monitoring. My e-bike is limited to 20 because "safety". Your car should be to.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- kelnos 2y ago
  The thing that dismays me about your comment is that you seem to have decided that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so we should have fewer restrictions on everything, regardless of the danger of any particular thing, or what that particular thing is designed for. (If I've mischaracterized or misunderstood, my apologies; please correct me.) Let's take some two hopefully-simple examples: speed limiters on cars, and guns. I agree with you when it comes to speed limiters on cars. We shouldn't have them, and government should not be allowed to mandate them. Sure, some people drive too fast for conditions, and that's dangerous, and sometimes they hurt or kill other people by doing so. But we can combat this to some extent with education, licensing requirements, and the threat of penalties for when something bad happens. And I can think of several situations (emergency or otherwise) where someone might be justified in driving faster than a speed limiter might allow, and if the limiter was in place, that could also have bad consequences. But then let's look at guns. They are designed to injure and kill; that is their main intended purpose. Most gun deaths, IIRC, are attributed to suicides and accidental discharges (the latter of which often involve children; I am definitely not a "think of the children!" type person, but I think in this case it might actually apply). Other gun deaths involve mass shootings, gang violence, and other criminal activity. The threat of home invasions is highly overblown, and the vast majority of the people who buy them to keep at home for protection will never need them (and will sometimes be involved in accidents or other unintended bad uses). People (in the US, primarily) who think that they need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government are delusional (if the government/military really did try to violently oppress them, the idea that they'd be able to successfully fight back is laughable). There are lots of different types of guns, from small-caliber, small-capacity weapons that don't do quite as much damage; up to semi-auto and auto "military style" weapons that can be used to kill large numbers of people in a fairly short amount of time. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that we shouldn't have any restrictions on gun ownership, and I would probably not even be bothered by the idea of a complete ban on private gun ownership (obviously not constitutionally possible here in the US). But as a middle ground, I at least support strict licensing and background-check requirements for firearm ownership, and I think that certain classes of weapons should be restricted from private ownership. I don't intend this to turn into a political discussion about gun control, but I just think it's weird to consider every possible kind of restriction on freedom in the same way, without critically examining what is being restricted, what it is designed to, what kind of harm a lack of restrictions will cause, and what are the negative/unintended consequences of putting those restrictions in place. A few specific comments: > I've realized with time that while drivers can be dangerous, they are relatively limited in how much harm they can create. This just doesn't ring true to me. Car-related fatality statistics paint a very different picture to me. > I honestly rather want everyone including me to have freedom to do stupid things instead of limiting freedom. Maybe this is where the disconnect is, and where we might not be able to agree on anything. The problem with this kind of statement is that it doesn't acknowledge that personal freedoms can come at a cost to other people. If I screw something up in the exercise of my freedoms, it usually doesn't just hurt me: others get caught up in it too. My "freedoms" should include being able to live my life in peace, without other people destroying that peace, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. Unfortunately that can't be done without putting restrictions on what I and others can do in many situations.

Gee101 2y ago

I'm sure there will be kits to swap the ice engine to eletricfor most popular cars eventually. Then you will have more control about what features is added.

akira2501 2y ago
I've seen people do this but I think it's unlikely. The weight on an ICE car is slung much differently from an EV and placing a battery bank where your engine used to be is not a great idea.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  I may be daft but it seems like a great idea. Same weight and everything. In France you get a decent subsidy if you convert your ICE to EV.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    Your engine is part of your crumple zone. You do not want your battery to be. Same reason the fuel tank is usually in the back of the vehicle.
    - djaychela 2y ago
      Engines do not crumple, and a proper electric conversion will retain appropriate space. Fuel tanks are not "in the back" for good (see: ford pinto) reasons.
      - pvaldes 2y ago
        Fuel tanks are in the back for solid reasons. But they are placed before the second wheel axis. In case of crash that area will protect the tank. Pinto had it after the rear tires, so totally unprotected. A big battery in the place of the motor will turn you into a BBQ in case of collision because fire will fall directly towards the driver. Lithium batteries start burning when hit with some force, and can't be stopped once they start burning.

KumaBear 2y ago

That whole system looks like what we install on police patrol cars. Left switch allows you to keep car running even when keys are removed (but you can’t drive it will kill the ignition). GPS is for obvious reasons tracking. But these don’t look like patrol cars so it’s out of my wheel house.

Simran-B 2y ago

> Most people would have probably driven around for years with a foreign GPS tracker. So basically everyone with a smartphone? I'm not sure if it's really worse if the car has its own GPS and cell connectivity. How many people turn off their phone or leave it at home? And you can buy other people's location data, so...

gruez 2y ago
You can turn off your phone or go into airplane mode. Can you do that with your car? Even if most people don't use that option on a daily basis, doesn't mean it's fine.
- markdown 2y ago
  So you put it in airplane mode while in a car and then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? What's the point of that?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? Why would I need to disable it? If you're not using the built-in navigation (which probably costs money anyways) and are using carplay/android auto instead, you should be able to leave it in airplane mode indefinitely. What critical functionality would I be missing out on?
    - markdown 2y ago
      Well... for most people... everything. It sounds like you use a dumb phone. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously enough to use a dumb phone will be buying a dumb car.
    - chgs 2y ago
      OP isnt talking about putting the car in airplane mode, but the phone. The point is that you are already tracked via your phone (which is likely kit in airplane mode), so there’s not a massive gain to preventing car tracking.

clarkmoody 2y ago

Self driving + conversation monitoring => lock the doors and drive you to the nearest reeducation camp for uttering wrongspeak.

eastern 2y ago

Media people obviously thought that kill switch meant something that can kill the driver and rushed to reassure the public that no that was not the case. They're good people at heart. Don't misunderstand them.

MaxBarraclough 2y ago

Last year Mozilla did a study on the privacy of modern cars. Every car they tested showed terrible privacy problems. Privacy Nightmare on Wheels: Every Car Brand Reviewed by Mozilla https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443644 (edit I see I'm not the first to link this in this thread)

Forgeties79 2y ago
Whenever I talk about this issue with friends and family I bring up how that report revealed Nissan was gathering info on sexual activity in their cars and can sell it to third parties. That usually gets people to start listening.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Was Nissan actually collecting this data? All I can find is that the privacy policy retained the right to it (some lawyer probably though about what happens if they accidentally record you getting frisky, and put it in there preemptively), but no evidence if it actually happened.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    Does it matter? We can split hairs over whether or not they are actually doing the thing they give themselves the rights to do, but that feels unproductive and disingenuous.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Yes it matters. Or at least it matters whether the claims you make are true, and there is a difference between “had a right to” and “did”. Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to, and it’s splitting hairs whether he actually does or not.
      - 2y ago

cipheredStones 2y ago

> Media rushed to say it's not really a kill switch, just "sensors or cameras to monitor the driver’s behaviors, head or eye movements" and "block the driver from operating the vehicle". So... a kill switch. You're selectively quoting in a way that misrepresents the article. The post the article quotes: > “Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026,” read several posts shared widely on Twitter and Facebook. The actual functionality: > In either case, if a driver is found to be impaired [by automated monitoring within the car], the car might employ a warning message, block the driver from operating the vehicle, or if the vehicle is already in motion, direct it to a safe stop or automated ride home. > None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement of the data collected inside vehicles or give government agencies remote control of vehicles, according to Jeffrey Michael, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Injury Research and Policy. The car has an automatic system which can prevent the driver from operating it, but no one outside the car can trigger that system, which is clearly what the "kill switch" posts were claiming.

adamsb6 2y ago
If it’s not air gapped the company could be compelled to activate it remotely.
emmelaich 2y ago
So, it is a kill switch. Just not the sort of kill switch that someone (who?) sometime (when?) described, and such description is one that you've neither quoted or given.
- cipheredStones 2y ago
  You and afh1 seem to be reading both the article and my comment as focused on whether it's appropriate to characterize a device that prevents a car from starting as a "kill switch". I didn't say anything at all about that term in my comment, and while the article says it's hyperbolic, arguing about that term is clearly not the focus of the article. Just going to quote the whole opener here - it's about the claim that the law enables cops to monitor you and shut down your car, which is clearly false. --------------- [Headline] Posts distort infrastructure law’s rule on impaired driving technology CLAIM: President Joe Biden signed a bill that will give law enforcement access to a “kill switch” that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While the bipartisan infrastructure bill Biden signed last year requires advanced drunk and impaired driving technology to become standard equipment in new cars, experts say that technology doesn’t amount to a “kill switch,” and nothing in the bill gives law enforcement access to those systems. THE FACTS: In November 2021, Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, ushering into law a $1 trillion bipartisan deal to maintain and upgrade the country’s roads, bridges, ports and more. One provision in the legislation aims to prevent drunk driving deaths by requiring all new vehicles to soon include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as “standard equipment.” However, in the months since the law passed, some social media users have misrepresented the provision online, falsely claiming it will give police access to data collected by the technology or allow the government to shut down cars remotely. “Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026,” read several posts shared widely on Twitter and Facebook.

throwaway984393 2y ago

[dead]

_ea1k 2y ago

Government overreach is the big thing that I'm worried about. All of the overreactions to adas is really heavily driving it. At some point, they will have to realize that the same attention systems used for adas could be used all of the time. Given that there are hundreds of deaths each year due to inattention, it'd be almost irresponsible not to look into it. But a lot of people won't like where that leads.

BurningFrog 2y ago
What is "adas"?
- nereye 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver-assistance_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_driver-assistance_s...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

endofreach 2y ago

> Modern cars are just smartphones on wheels at this point, and smartphones are just spying devices at this point. Exactly. I saw a clip of an elon musk interview where he was asked if tesla would ever build a smartphone. I had to chuckle and think to myself, they already do. It just doesn't fit in your pocket, has wheels and actually tries to kill you physically.

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> Modern cars [...] and smartphones are just spying devices at this point. I take it that you need a car (which is true for many) and also need a computer (also true for many). What precautions do you take in computing given that you use a computer that is connected to the Internet ? The former (i.e. computer) has an unknowable supply chain with blobs of code that you don't vet yourself, and the latter (the Internet) has overtly become a surveillance system.

valval 2y ago

I know your comment is just the traditional HN karma grab, but rejecting technological advancement in vehicles based on privacy concerns means missing out on significant improvements in safety, efficiency, and comfort. Would you also reject modern healthcare because hospitals use connected devices?

dmichulke 2y ago
One is likely an emergency of a necessary system (body) and the other is not an emergency of a much less necessary system (car). Not sure your analogy fits.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  More Americans live without healthcare than without cars
wruza 2y ago
What is the nature of karma grab?
- valval 2y ago
  The "I'm a tech guy so I shoot my printer if it makes a weird noise" meme essentially.

ddingus 2y ago

I just picked up a low mile, garage kept Toyota sedan. V6 sedan, my favorite combo! This one has plenty of power, looks totally unassuming, and can get great economy when I drive modestly. I plan on driving it a very long time. Same reasons. It also predates the big infotainment systems. I really dislike the big screen and many functions turned into touch controls dangerous to use in motion. Finally, it is easy to service. I will do that myself as long as I am able.

bluescrn 2y ago

> Modern cars are just smartphones on wheels at this point. Complete with non-replaceable batteries.

ajuc 2y ago

Why are kill switches in cars bad? It's a vehicle that can easily kill other people. It often does. It's reasonable to require drivers to be in good enough shape before trusting them with lives of random innocent people.

throw16180339 2y ago
I'm not against enhancing safety, but I have serious concerns about whether auto manufacturers can implement such a feature securely, reliably, and without leaving it vulnerable to misuse by third parties. That said, I would support mandatory breathalyzers in all new cars. While this idea is likely too controversial and complex to become reality, I believe it could significantly reduce fatalities.

zfnmxt 2y ago

I understand your position (and it's one I'm absolutely swayed by to a degree and sympathize with), but I can't help but think that you are assigning unreasonable weights to privacy vs. safety/convenience. (Or, perhaps more honestly, I have to remind myself to be reasonable about these weights in my life.) Do you think preserving your privacy in this one aspect of your life will have a greater net benefit to your life than driving a safer car (under the assumption that newer cars are safer)? Especially given that presumably there's still data being collected on you even in an old car (cameras on the road, other people's cars, your phone, etc). By analogy, what's the marginal benefit of not eating any food in packaged in plastic if your water supply is full of (unavoidable, for the sake of argument) microplastics? Is doing so worth the cost (no food for you, buddy!)? I guess this is just another round of being principled duking it out with pragmatism.

ftrobro 2y ago
Privacy is a safety concern. If some government agency can control your car remotely, chances are that others also will find a way to do that.
- throw16180339 2y ago
  This is especially true if you keep a car for decades. My car is a 2001 and I've had it since 2008. It's possible that a manufacturer could provide security updates for a comparable period, but that seems like an extraordinary claim.

chgs 2y ago

Even without the privacy aspect it’s a problem. Last weekend I was driving home in my ICE car guzzling on those dead dinosaurs, and maps on my CarPlay unit went haywire, first I was slightly off to the east by say 50 metres, but this got worse and at one point I was 10 miles away. Unplugging my phone and the location snapped back to he correct place. Seems that in CarPlay an iPhone will believe what the car says about position, and when it’s wrong, tough.

markus_zhang 2y ago

Since I'm going to buy a new car in the following years, wondering which cars don't have those? I don't mind old gas cars but I don't have the knowledge to tell whether the car contains those eSIMs.

b112 2y ago
These days, the better question is in which cars can you disable the esim. Some have a fuse you can pull for the modem, without disabling anything else. Others you can pull the antenna, and add a resistor instead.
- inahga 2y ago
  In some disconnecting the antenna isn't enough, it just reduces the range of the modem. Another option is if the modem can be physically removed. e.g. http://sandsprite.com/blogs/index.php?uid=7&pid=462&year=2019 http://sandsprite.com/blogs/index.php?uid=7&pid=462&year=201.... I think this head unit is shared amongst Chrysler vehicles, so Chrysler is an option (but then you'll have two problems).
  - chiph 2y ago
    A Lexus forum member went through several attempts to physically disconnect from the Toyota cloud and ultimately had to compromise on this, as the hands-free Bluetooth also went through the data communications module and they weren't willing to give that up. The interesting part is that even though the antennas were disconnected, there was enough RF making it's way through the plastic sides of the module to give him 2-bars of signal strength. Wrapping it in grounded aluminum foil still allowed enough signal strength for transmission when they were very close to a cell tower. GPS signals were also being routed to the communications module over the car's network from the entertainment module (not sure why the entertainment module needs a GPS antenna or location data). Ultimately they opted-out from data collection using the Lexus app and will rely on legal protections - in addition to disconnecting the antennas. https://www.clublexus.com/forums/gx-2nd-gen-2010-2023/983214-howto-disable-dcm-data-transmission-in-lexus-gx460-2022-and-earlier-model-years-2.html#post11279130 https://www.clublexus.com/forums/gx-2nd-gen-2010-2023/983214...

sebstefan 2y ago

There should not be an expectation of privacy from the authorities when operating a motor vehicles on public roads on which you need a license to drive

telgareith 2y ago
Then leave the US.
- sebstefan 2y ago
  Ideally, I'd like that everywhere else too.
Lio 2y ago
Why do you think you should not have an expectation of privacy when driving? Do you not consider reasonable to have an expectation of innocence when going about your business?
- sebstefan 2y ago
  > Some other good ones: there should not be an expectation of privacy when performing surgery. There should not be an expectation of privacy when performing the monopoly on the legal use of force.
  - sebstefan 2y ago
    There should be an expectation of privacy when travelling on foot, bike, or any vehicle that doesn't require a license to operate, though.
littlestymaar 2y ago
We're not talking about monitoring traffic on roads there, but about an embedded spying device that is enabled even when you're in your own garage and is also being used commercially to monetize your private life.
2y ago

Someone 2y ago

> but the GPS and eSIM that comes with most (all?) new cars All. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall: “eCall (an abbreviation of "emergency call") is an initiative by the European Union, intended to bring rapid assistance to motorists involved in a collision anywhere within the European Union. The aim is for all new cars to incorporate a system that automatically contacts the emergency services in the event of a serious accident, sending location and sensor information. eCall was made mandatory in all new cars approved for manufacture within the European Union as of April 2018.”

aagha 2y ago
It's crazy the EU passed this and collecting someone's IP address or assigning them a random UUID is considered a GDPR violation.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Assuming the tech is not abused, it makes perfect sense (GDPR Art. 6(1)(d)). And, in fact, abusing the tech would be a GDPR violation. You might consider it foolish, but it's not inconsistent.
- callalex 2y ago
  Quite the opposite! Since people can have faith that they are protected by GDPR, they can have machines that actually work to help them, instead of hobbling them out of fear of being exploited.
  - parineum 2y ago
    Except for those car machines
    - immibis 2y ago
      How so? A manufacturer who's found to use this information for any purpose other than calling emergency services when you crash will go bankrupt because of the GDPR. This is a strong incentive not to.

0x3444ac53 2y ago

I have a '98 Honda with 324K miles on it. I'm awful at maintenance but I've had it for ten years and it refuses to die.

_heimdall 2y ago

This is a huge reason why I won't buy more modern vehicles. Safety features and fuel economy are night and day when comparing a 5 year old car and a 30 year old one, but between the privacy issues and inability to diagnose or fix a new car I just can't do it. I bought an 80s model truck that sat in a garage for over a decade and has 50k original miles on it. I'm still chasing down a couple gremlins in the system, but its nice to be able to work on it myself. Bonus that it may not be driving perfectly right now but its happy keep on chugging, even if a sensor is bad or I get an occasional code for running lean.

alchemist1e9 2y ago
Isn’t the gas mileage really really bad though?
- uoaei 2y ago
  Everyone chooses their own balance of bills. Personally (I'm not who you're replying to) I'm happy to pay more in rent and utilities if it means I can ride my bicycle most places instead of, say, being a 10-minute drive from the nearest crosswalk. In the end, my emissions are probably much lower than someone who can't imagine leaving their house without their car keys even though I drive an ICE.
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    Makes sense. The other issue that is mentioned would be the safety features. Air bags and side impact systems are massive jumps forward in safety. Most people aren’t concerned enough with privacy to trade those for it.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Safety is definitely a tricky tradeoff for me. If I couldn't work on the vehicle myself either way I'd have something newer, the combo of privacy and maintenance tip the scales for me (definitely an outlier though).

snozolli 2y ago

tech which was called a "kill switch". Media rushed to say it's not really a kill switch, just "sensors or cameras to monitor the driver’s behaviors, head or eye movements" and "block the driver from operating the vehicle". So... a kill switch. It's not a kill switch, the link you provided explains that it's not a kill switch, yet you still call it a kill switch. If you were paying any attention, then you know that idiots online were portraying this as the cops being able to remotely disable your car at their will. In fact, the requirement is for the vehicle to pull safely to the side of the road when it detects an impaired driver (DUI or medical emergency). There is no external initiation, it's entirely self-contained. It's not a kill switch. It's not remotely like a kill switch. Having personally been within minutes of crashes involving a drunk driver who blew a stop sign and smashed into a fire hydrant, and another driver experiencing a health emergency who crashed through an intersection at 80mph in a 25mph zone, I say bring it on. Ignore the Rogan-sphere FUD peddlers.

prirun 2y ago

> Anyway, I'm staying with my old gas Honda until it dies which is probably never with proper maintenance and eventually restoration. I would have stuck with my 2003 Honda Accord too, except that some woman, probably talking or texting on her cell, slammed into me while I was stopped at a light, totaling my car and damaging 3 others. I got $8K for my car after arguing with the insurance company, and paid $28K for a 3 y/o replacement. The fine for texting while driving in Kentucky is $25.

DoneWithAllThat 2y ago
What is the relevance of your anecdote? I’m genuinely confused.
- ronsor 2y ago
  That other drivers determine whether or not you get a new car just as much (if not more than) you do.

sampo 2y ago

> There was a bill announced in the US for all new cars to be equipped with "driver impairment" tech which was called a "kill switch". In addition to de-banking, they can also de-car you.

wslh 2y ago

I am new to the car/data show, is an eSim really installed on cars around the world? Or is it an Amrican thing? Thinking for example on Europe data regulations. If so, this is a good fit for a class action.

Moto7451 2y ago

For what it’s worth a lot of the transmitters for in car connectivity are in the headliner lighting unit. A lot of electronics end up there like front facing cameras for driver assists. You can in my current Porsche, my past Camaro, and a couple other cars I’ve looked at just unplug the module there. Sometimes you lose your Homelink garage door transmitter. If you lookup the repair procedure for the cellular unit you will have found the way to disable it.

77pt77 2y ago

> GPS and eSIM that comes with most (all?) new cars and that in most (all?) new cars cannot be disabled. I believe the name of that module is DCM You can disable some models, but I have my doubts. In rentals you can forget about it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pc86 2y ago

The more serious preppers I know (e.g. the people prepping/worried about realistic scenarios as opposed to the civil war LARPers) pretty early on make sure they have access to a fully mechanical vehicle - to the extent that's even possible - and have the skills to maintain it.

Auracle 2y ago

There was just an incident in my area that involved OnStar shutting down a hijacked car at the police’s behest and the guy got out and shot and killed another driver in the attempt to carjack him. So, any car with OnStar apparently already has a remote kill switch. Perhaps they needed the owner’s permission first?