9 ms·
Miss a Payment? Good Luck Moving That Car
- rurounijones 12y agoOk, ignoring the moral repugnancy of the whole thing for a moment. > T. Candice Smith, who testified before the Nevada Legislature that her car, which had a starter interrupt device installed, was shut down while she was driving on a Las Vegas freeway, nearly causing her to crash > Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights. How the hell is that legal?! Surely you should only be able to disable a car when the engine is not running just on safety principles.
- themartorana 12y agoIt is likely untrue, but anecdotal. That said, how are subprime loans still legal??
- crsmithdev 12y agoThey'll remain legal as long as they're at all profitable and that profit exceeds any fines or losses in lawsuits.
- dogecoinbase 12y agoIt is likely untrue... Why do you believe this?
- themartorana 12y agoBecause for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. More likely is someone who has had a remote start block activated in the past (keeps you from starting the car) likely experienced engine failure while the car was running and associates it with past experiences. This has no bearing on any argument for or against this practice, in any way. If it was found to be true that the engine could be remotely stalled while moving, it would be horrifying.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago> Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. This isn't as outlandish a thought as you imply, especially when it comes to vehicles and the sales practices around them. Also, someone could believe it's okay to stall a car at any time without even considering the ramifications in the case that it's moving. All they need to be thinking is "deadbeat owes me money, brick his car." Any questions of timing, context, ethics or other considerations needn't enter into the picture.
- sk5t 12y agoYes, it _is_ an outlandish thought. The folks who design and manufacture auto parts of this type have to think about this stuff, or else they'd be quickly sued into oblivion.
- dogecoinbase 12y agoBecause for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses. No, it only requires them to fail to test that their device cannot be used to shut off an operating car. Stop and think -- what criteria define an "operating car"? It's not "the car is on" since it's entirely possible to stall out while moving. It's not "the car isn't moving" since that doesn't cover the stoplight situation. It would be trivially easy to code a device that would not permit the car to be restarted even if the car stopped in a dangerous situation.
- joshAg 12y agoI assume you're talking about the subprime home mortgage debacle? Because the issue wasn't that the loans were subprime, so much as it was the massive amounts of institutional fraud across many layers of the mortgage business that enabled unqualified people to get loans (or loans larger than they qualified for). IOW, subprime loans were the murder weapon, not the murderer. EDIT: BTW, a subprime loan is just a loan that comes with terms that aren't as good as they could be due to the applicant having some sort of issue in their application (eg, no credit history, a bankruptcy, lots of missed payments, no collateral, lots of other debt, etc.).
- themartorana 12y agoYou are right, of course, but (IMHO) it sure would be nice to have consumer protections against such weapons.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- nkozyra 12y agoWhy would a subprime loan be illegal? The price meets the risk of the loan. It's a wholly logical agreement that provides potential benefit for both parties.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Lazare 12y agoOf course it's not legal. However, the article also quotes the "other side" claiming that it's impossible for the device to do that, and the manufacturer claiming that the device has is not designed to do that, and that they have no record of it doing such a thing. And on their website they say the device "can never shut down a running vehicle." So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective. It's possible that her car broke down on the freeway, and she assumed it was the starter interrupt when in fact it was not. But it's exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to design. (Or Passtime is about to get one humongous fine and/or judgement...)
- declan 12y agoAny company that did this would be risking crippling judgements. And it doesn't look like the technology (starter disabling) permits it. Cars die. I once had an old car, a Saab 900 SPG (160 hp!), which completely died when I was going at speed on I-78 in the left lane. Turns out it was the ECU. I managed to coast to the side of the highway without incident. Most of the cars mentioned in this article are older ones, which would have more mechanical difficulties. Put another way, if you can buy a nice reliable 911 Turbo S to cart your groceries around in, you're probably not doing that with a subprime car loan.
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoPasstime really should embrace the full Micheal Barr treatment toothsweet.
- dogecoinbase 12y agoSo...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective. But the manufacturer, of course, could neither be lying nor could have produced a device that didn't perfectly represent this notional design. This entire thread is full of people who have no idea how the device actually works or what actually happened jumping to the conclusion that the female poor person is lying or doesn't understand what happened with her own car that she was driving at the time. It is, of course, possible. But it's also classic Hacker News.
- ohsnap 12y agoHighly doubtful the car just shut down (unless she perhaps stalled the car). Article mentions the device is tied to the ignition.
- joshAg 12y agoCan't onstar shut down/disable cars that are reported as stolen, even when they are on and in gear and moving?
- ohsnap 12y agoI don't think this is onstar. It's a third party device attached to the ignition. Ignition interlocks have been around for a long time -- though not tied to gps device as they are now.
- Lazare 12y agoIt can, but it's a very different device. Rather than preventing the vehicle from starting, OnStar talks to the engine computer and can slowly reduce power, or, yes, cause it to come completely to a halt. But OnStar is also careful about when and how they do it. See, for example, this story where OnStar waited for confirmation that the cops were directly behind the car: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/18/cant-just-shut-it-off-anywhere-onstar-stops-stolen-camaro-during-police-chase/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/18/cant-just-shut-it... Or this story about the slow down feature: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/09/onstar-debuts-stolen-vehicle-slowdown-service/ http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/09/onstar-debuts-stolen-vehi... So basically, OnStar can shut down moving vehicles, but they only do it with the involvment of police (as far as is known). Whereas the auto loan ignition interrupts cannot shut down moving vehicles, but can be triggered with no oversight. Apparently.
- lifeformed 12y agoIt should give a warning before shutting down, and then only shut down overnight, when nobody is driving it, to ensure people are at least back at home or at a reasonable place. There's no reason why it needs to be able to shut down at a moment's notice.
- arjie 12y agoMy hypothesis is that the device cuts out the starter motor. So if this sequence of events occurs, you can be stranded at a stop light: 1. Start the car. 2. Once the car is started, the order to cut off the starter comes in. 3. You drive. 4. The car stalls for whatever reason. 5. You can no longer start it.
- bunderbunder 12y agoIt might be even easier than that. A lot of newer cars have a gas-saving feature where they automatically stop the engine when the car's stopped at a red light, and automatically start it again when you take your foot off the gas pedal. If you've got a car like that, then every traffic signal could be an opportunity for your car to be disabled.
- pacaro 12y agoThe woman who needed a pickup to deliver pizza is symptomatic of a different problem too. In many places it would always be the responsibility of the pizza joint to provide the vehicle because typical consumer auto insurance expressly forbids commercial use. The pizza chains not only pay minimum wage, they also expect their employees to provide the business equipment...
- ilaksh 12y agoThe thing many people aren't getting is that this type of thing isn't limited to one instance and isn't just that business owners are greedy. Its because the entire economy is being squeezed, turning a profit is extremely difficult, and there are many unemployed people who have to put up with those types of situations because they need money.
- maratd 12y agoIf we skip the moral indignation and look at the situation plainly, this sort of technology enables a whole subset of people to actually own cars that were considered too risky before. That's a good thing. Given the choice between no car and a car that won't start if I don't pay, I'll go with a gimped car.
- pacaro 12y agoYeah, if they wanted to be evil, they'd do deals with the gas companies and the further behind your payment is the worse your gas mileage
- Havvy 12y agoThat'd be illegal under US gov't. regulations.
- adt2bt 12y agoWhile I think the whole situation is ridiculous (how would you even make a car less gas-efficient on the fly?), consider the many laws broken each day by large companies with the $ to make the suits disappear.
- aianus 12y ago> how would you even make a car less gas-efficient on the fly? My car has a 'sport mode' which seems to do a pretty good job of this ;)
- pandler 12y agoI love it. "You can't afford to make payments, so we will make you less able to make payments."
- idlewords 12y agoIt also affects a population of buyers who would have been sold an ungimped car before, but will now be sold a gimped car That's not a good thing. How the two factors balance out is not obvious.
- lutorm 12y agoMaybe people should buy cheaper cars if they can't get a reasonable loan? I guess it wasn't clear from the article if these were loans for new or used cars, though.
- jimmaswell 12y agoYeah, you shouldn't need a loan for a decent used one.
- sk5t 12y agoShouldn't, but might anyway... a lot of folks don't have HN-type dough on hand, and the vehicles in the article were 2005 and 2001 vintage.
- jimmaswell 12y agoYou can go a lot farther back than 2005 or 2001. My used ones are from the 80s through 90s and they were only around $600 to $800
- ilaksh 12y agoA "decent" used car will cost several thousand dollars. The number of people who can easily part with $5,000 is much smaller than you think it is.
- danielweber 12y ago"Decent" depends entirely on the SES of the speaker. Click and Clack have said for 20 years that if you just need to get from point A to point B you can do that with a $500 car, and once a year or so you will need to get a new-to-you $500 car. With inflation that might be $1000 these days.
- bunderbunder 12y agoThat car will be one that could break down at any moment. Most people in the income bracket where this might be an attractive option are unfortunately also working for employers who won't graciously accept "my car broke down" as a reason for showing up late to work.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- sk5t 12y agoOn a technical note, a "starter interrupt" could not reasonably affect a running vehicle (the starter motor only runs when turning over a stopped engine). However, if these devices actually operate inline with the ignition system--delivering or interrupting spark to the fuel-air mixture during operation--that's an entirely different matter and cause for safety concerns.
- jedanbik 12y agoI wish it wouldn't sound out of touch and pretentious to suggest bicycle use as a form of resistance, I really do.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dblotsky 12y agoFor those more familiar with cars, a question: when the article mentions disabling the ignition, does that mean that only the starter is disabled, or that the actual spark plugs / fuel delivery are disabled (and there is some check for whether the engine is running)? The former sounds reasonable, but the latter sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
- jccooper 12y agoI doubt the article is being precise, first, and might use one for the other. That said: ignition means the electrical system that fires the spark plugs. Starter is the motor that starts the mechanical bits moving, so the ignition can do its job and keep the mechanical bits moving. Any car with the traditional keyed start even shows these circuits as separate positions on the cylinder. Most motorcycles have separate controls for those two circuits: a toggle switch for ignition, and a momentary switch for starter--you must set ignition to "on" before the starter will do any good. Disable the ignition system, and nothing's going anywhere. Disable the starter motor, and it's just not going to start--unless you push it down a hill or, say, short the relay with a screwdriver (as mentioned in the article). While technically you could put a remote controlled relay anywhere (the dome light won't light up if you're late on payments--take that!) it sounds from the description of the device ("starter interrupt") and other clues that it's the starter system that's being killed. And that makes a lot of sense: that way if the device fails it at least won't bother you while you're in motion.
- thenmar 12y agoIt's hard to break this down because there are so many different problems going on here, but let's pretend for a minute that the moral issues related to privacy and dignity are irrelevant, and that the arbitrary credit score threshold of 640 that necessitates this system is reasonable and determined by transparent and fair processes (it's not, but stay with me). Does this _actually_ solve a problem? Are cars that difficult to repossess? Is it possible this is a marketing gimmick and the securities backed by it are sold to investors who just really like the idea of being able to f*ck over a poor person the second he or she misses a payment? Is this really an economic innovation that lets riskier borrowers have cars, or is it a sales tactic appealing to veiled social darwinist sympathies?
- hackuser 12y agoIt shines light on a troubling broader issue: As information and communication technologies (in which many of us are involved) spread, they put power in the hands of those who control them, from Google to Verizon to your electric company (via your smart meter) to car loan agencies. It gives them power over other people, including whether they can drive their own car. Not everyone wants to give others this power, but do we and will we have a choice? Perhaps legislators will pass laws protecting the interests of people like those reading HN, or vendors will appease us because of our economic and political power. It is the poor, powerless, and disenfranchised who will be abused, with little recourse (other than not owning a car, a phone, etc.). If something like what the article described happened to HN readers, there would be an uproar. But these things will and probably already do happen off our radar to marginalized groups. Perhaps that's why the Internet protocols put control in the hands of the end users.
- discardorama 12y agoMeta: Why is this not on the front page? It has 53 points and was submitted 4 hours ago (and is a technology story to boot). The #5 link on the FP is a story with 26 points and submitted 5 hours ago.
- jc123 12y agoA rough idea of a possibility in the future, the car owner can scan a QR code in the car, confirms the transaction, which is recorded on a blockchain, monitored by a smart contract, which activates the car's engine.
- furyg3 12y agoThis is very shortsighted. Most people in the US use their car to get to work. Lenders have a vested interest in their borrower's current and future ability to earn money.
- slouch 12y agoThe car dealers that regularly repossess customer vehicles print money. I've seen data come across were the dealer's cost of a vehicle was -2,000 because it had been sold and came back a few times.
- rootlocus 12y agoI do believe they signed a contract before getting the lend saying: "It's OK to block my car if I miss a payment by X days." Why should they complain? If you don't agree with the terms, don't sign.
- _cipher_ 12y agoIt would be interesting to see what would you do if your child need immediate medical attention and your car won't start because, apparently, "you signed". ;) Legal != Ethical
- rootlocus 12y agoI would call a cab. It's what people who don't own cars do every day. Ethics has no meaning in this context.
- jakebrake 12y agoDoes anyone know how widespread and available the ability is to disable vehicles via OnStar? I heard today that a woman in Missouri had her 2005 Dodge disabled (by a lending institution) for allegedly being 1 day overdue on a car payment. Like, does it go on in all parts of north America, and would it be available for just charter banks, or any joe schmoe money lender? Would anyone also know if there are systems other than OnStar, that will allow tracking/disabling of a given vehicle?
- jakebrake 12y agoDoes anyone know how widespread and available the ability is to disable vehicles via OnStar? I heard today that a woman in Missouri had her 2005 Dodge disabled (by a lending institution) for allegedly being 1 day overdue on a car payment. Like, does it go on in all parts of north America, and would it be available for just charter banks, or any joe schmoe money lender? Would anyone also know if there are systems other than OnStar, that will allow tracking/disabling of a given vehicle?