First part to get ripped out of new cars
The Feds' Vehicle 'Kill Switch' Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy | Jon Miltimore
Submitted 11 months ago by TangledHyphae@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 11 months ago
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Might be more difficult than that. I’m in the hunt for a new work truck, a ram 2500. I’m specifically targeting a 2019-2020, because the 4G cellular module is easily removed, whereas in newer models it is soldered directly to a main telematics board and is pretty tricky to remove.
These companies don’t want you removing these systems in their current state, as they’re harvesting your data and selling it off as another revenue stream. I suspect these future monitoring systems, if removed, will brick the vehicle in one way or another.
oatscoop@midwest.social 11 months ago
It’s easier to disconnect the antenna and/or cover it with something that will block the signal. I did that to every car I bought with OnStar.
teamevil@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I suspect that like John Deere there will be a Ukrainian style jack that undermines this bullshit.
EmoBean@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Look at fleet trucks. Usually you can get them with any bs. Like even no ac, just a frame, body, and powertrain.
Also fancy electronics like that are pretty easy to disable hardware wise. Break a cap in the voltage regulation, break a few pins of a IC, anything really that functional kills it but still let’s everything else think it’s there or there a problem it has to ignore. Like microphone modules, I shove a pin it and scramble it then fill it with CA glue. Hardware thinks it’s there but it ain’t doing anything.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 11 months ago
A vehicle that doesn’t work without internet? That should turn out well.
otter@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Someone linked a nice explainer on the topic in this thread, but my takeaway was that this is unlikely to ever exist
TLDR of the TLDR (which I recommend reading)
-
the regulatory body is super slow, and won’t approve a change unless all the ducks are in a row
-
there’s no safe way to stop or disable a car while it’s moving, so the regulatory body won’t approve it anytime soon
CompostMaterial@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That second part isn’t really true. Many cars now have cellular modems in them to provide WiFi and infotainment features. That means there is already a remote access capability in those vehicles. Disabling a modern vehicle with software is easy enough as the spark is controlled by the cars computer. So having a built-in feature to allow a remote actor to limit or disable the vehicle’s spark isn’t a big leap.
-
TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 11 months ago
It will go in the scrap bin right next to the OnStar module.
hltdev@lemmy.world 11 months ago
…but wait you don’t love accidently talking to someone in Texas every time you go to turn your dome light off/on ?
MagneticFusion@lemm.ee 11 months ago
If this becomes law, I will literally refuse to purchase any new cars. We have made a ton of current cars to have scrap parts for another 30-40 years
randon31415@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was signed on Nov 15th, 2021 becomes law?
MagneticFusion@lemm.ee 11 months ago
im disappointed
laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
I think they more mean goes into effect
krakenx@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Which part of that harms the used car market? Genuinely asking.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not effective until 2026 according to the article.
Drusas@kbin.social 11 months ago
Glad I bought a Subaru a couple years ago.
EmoBean@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I sure hope I never get injured using my chainsaw out in the forest with no cell service. It’s going to be so awesome bleeding out in a truck that cuts to 5mph max because I’m too busy holding the tourniquet on my leg while I drive. That’s certainly NEVER happened. NEVER happens, to nobody, including my mother.
qooqie@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Wild that’s exactly what happened to one of my professors. He like to log for a side gig (dunno why) and nearly chopped his leg off with his chainsaw and had to hold his leg together while he hauled ass to the hospital.
EmoBean@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yup. Quick slip is all it takes. My mom and plenty of other people have had it happen.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So this isn’t an external kill switch. It’s far more likely to be a lane and driver monitoring system integral to the car itself.
The big problem is what do you do with a car that’s stopped itself? Obviously you need emergency services, and obviously you can’t depend on the passengers to call them. So the real effect here is to mandate the integration of vehicles into the emergency service networks so the car can call up dispatch.
I would say this is another brick in the argument for an open source car operating system that keeps the car offline and gives you the tools you want.
clegko@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I would say this is another brick in the argument for an open source car operating system
…Go analog with a carb, maybe? Only thing that can stop a carb from working is it being out of gas. Or changing altitude. Or bad fuel. Or it’s too cold and/or hot. … OK lots of things can stop carbs, but the government sure can’t, at least.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 months ago
OK lots of things can stop carbs, but the government sure can’t, at least.
Nixon thought he could, hence the war on drugs.
rustyriffs@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Do you think that last sentence will ever happen though? I’d be stoked if it did, but the cynical side of me says we’re already doomed…
Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Not outside of a niche group with the skills to do it themselves.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m just waiting for the moment that this kill switch is hacked, and whole cities come to a complete standstill.
4lan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Please stop…I can only get so erect
DemBoSain@midwest.social 11 months ago
There’s no possible way this ever makes it to law. Read analysis here:
Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 11 months ago
Looking at the other articles on the site, I count one antivaxx and another that claims the newly elected fascist in Argentina is a "Libertarian".
Thanks for linking to a sane review.
Wrench@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I literally downvoted before reading anything besides the title. An unknown publication making an outlandish claim. Obvious rage bait. It’s sad to see so many of these nothing stories gain traction here. It’s so fucking obvious.
yukichigai@kbin.social 11 months ago
I think the analysis is correct in that the implementation will die in committee before ever making it to effect, not to mention the practical considerations of implementing this in the lighting-fast timeframe of 3 years. However, I cannot help but point out this part:
So far, not a kill switch, but some kind of technology to detect if you’re driving like a drunk person and disable the vehicle.
"Disable the vehicle" is literally what people mean when they talk about a "kill switch". At best that's an argument over semantics. The law mandates a thing that deliberately stop your car from functioning.
admiralteal@kbin.social 11 months ago
It's not a lie. There's no malicious intent. It's just not even wrong. It so fundamentally lacks understanding of the underlying bureaucracy, technology, product lifecycle, and surrounding politics politics that it amounts to nothing.
spaxxor@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I see where they’re coming from, but like every good idea the government has had its going to be abused and mutated into Satan’s Christmas tree of a bill, and either be draconian or useless.
riodoro1@lemmy.world 11 months ago
American solution to a problem of deadly car chases.
I guess „don’t chase cars” would be too simple.
Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So any crime committed while in a car is free-game? No need for license plates, just buy a generic looking car and never stop.
riodoro1@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You just said license plates dude.
All around the world when the police sees you speeding in a school zone and you don’t stop they won’t go and speed in a school zone as well. But we also don’t sell guns in supermarkets and later have a problem with gun violence.
TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is already a concerning power to hand to a government, which could cause issues regarding the right of freedom of movement. But even if we assume an ideal and responsible government that never misuses their powers, can we be sure such a backdoor would be secure enough not to be exploited by other parties?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m sure we’ll never find out that the kill switch was disproportionately used on people of color.
tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Can’t wait to patch that out, should be as fun as that dumbshit auto-shutoff they have now.
Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 11 months ago
?
tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Cars are computers. All those fancy features run on software. Software can be patched to get rid of unpleasant functionality.
It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and the more of these stupid features they add, the more people spend time working on undoing them.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Autoatart stop. It’s a “feature” of newer hasoline vehicles that allows them to save gas by shutting the engine off when you’re idling (at a stop light or similar) until you touch the throttle/gas pedal and the computer reactivates the engine. This assumes there isn’t significant load on the battery like there would be if you were using your heat/AC or even the radio.
pingveno@kbin.social 11 months ago
I don't see any problem with a system to detect drunk driving and bring the car to a stop. There is no right to drive a car while drunk or otherwise impaired. Inventing one by calling upon privacy also ignores that the cops can pull you over and give you a sobriety test if they have reason to anyway. In 2021, over 13,000 people in the US died from drunk drivers. They deserve protection.
NumbersCanBeFun@kbin.social 11 months ago
Your entire argument forgets one thing. Presumed innocence. You are right. You can’t drive a car if you’re convicted of driving intoxicated. However, anything prior to that conviction is an allegation. You can’t take away peoples rights and privileges based on allegations, including forcefully stopping their car under the suspicion of intoxicated drivers. Once suspicions of their intoxication are confirmed they are still only arrested for being allegedly intoxicated.
To reemphasize what others have said, I’m sorry but I’m not giving the government access to my private property let alone the fucking police. Are you out of your god damn mind?
Have you ever heard of undue search and seizure? What would be the legal framework required in order to forcefully stop someone’s car via kill switch? Lastly, what stops s government official from just poking the red button because a cutie with too little clothing darted on by and they wanted to chat her up for a few minutes?
The entire thing is rife with legal implications and I’m only scratching the surface with this comment. This is one of those “good initiative bad judgment” ideas.
swiftcasty@kbin.social 11 months ago
You’re right about the undue search and seizure. For me, it isn’t the politicians I fear in this hypothetical scenario. I fear the corporations and police that would be the case-by-case adjudicators.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 11 months ago
While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it’d only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn’t renew the registration before-hand.
door_hater@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Doesn’t the government already greenlight vehicle usage with the drivers license?
cheese_greater@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If you’re only using your car on public roads it technically doesn’t matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything (“public roads”)
CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You need to think about unintended consequences.
PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Like the used car market going ape shit and poor people having no chance of picking one up? We’ve done that before recently.
KroninJ@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Next step will be to have it drive you to the police station and alert them of your arrival.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I remember when a remote kill switch was the unlikely yet dystopian “next step”
ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi 11 months ago
Driver entitlement episode 456: “what do you mean my death machine needs to have a remote kill switch???”
Insane.
4am@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Listen I get that there are disadvantages but you “fuckcars” people need to chill
ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi 11 months ago
“Disadvantages” warrant a killswitch
psivchaz@reddthat.com 11 months ago
Car accidents cause about double the number of deaths in America as homicide, but no one ever says “you need to chill about violent crime.” Cars cause another 1.5 million injuries on top of that. Cars contribute around 30% of the CO2 pollution in America, but only the truly insane would say people need to “chill” about global warming.
Our entire public infrastructure was gutted, such that we went from a pioneer in public transportation to basically only being able to use cars because oil companies and car manufacturers wanted it that way. We have the least efficient, most expensive, most polluting, most stressful form of travel but it’s totally okay you guys because some people really like having a big truck that they can put truck nuts on and drive to the office in and it would be an infringement on their rights if we used taxes to build a fucking monorail or something.
TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You know, I’m not the biggest fan of personal vehicles, but if you want to talk about “death machines”, you might also spare some thoughts towards police brutality and whether cops can really be trusted to hijack people’s vehicles at will.
…nevermind that such a backdoor could be exploited by other parties also.
ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi 11 months ago
Just roll a pilot in one state and see how it goes.
TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 11 months ago
Because I personally don't drink and drive, never have, never will, and I am sick and tired of being mandated to do shit because OTHERS are being dumbfucks.
Snapz@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Don’t have time right now the deep dive into that absolute wall of text. Did get a few paragraphs in to find that your champion is Thomas Massie ® (Nut Job), that’s clarity enough for now…
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
The problem with a vehicle kill switch is the same problem as an encryption backdoor for law enforcement. It will leak, quickly (inside a year) and so not only will law enforcement misuse this power (history shows they’ve misused all powers they’ve been given) but nefarious interests will use it to cause havoc.
scottywh@lemmy.world 11 months ago
one problem…
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 11 months ago
From what I read, the mandated system cannot be activated remotely. The bill describes a local subsystem that somehow determines if the driver is incompetent and disabled the car. The only real danger here, imo, is the extreme vagueness of the “somehow” (not to discredit the seriousness of this danger).
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Slippery slope. What if an update is pushed to the car that can determine if the driver is incompetent?