509
The Feds' Vehicle 'Kill Switch' Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy | Jon Miltimore (fee.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 2 years ago (3 children)

First part to get ripped out of new cars

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago*

    Just disconnect the antenna and/or cover the module with something that will block any wireless signals. It's easier upfront and simple to undo when you want to sell the vehicle.

    It was my go-to solution whenever I bought a vehicle with OnStar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    Look at fleet trucks. Usually you can get them without 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    That's not really how it works even when a new car goes into limp mode. Usually what happens isn't that they limit the spark. It's that the PCM (Power train Control Module) provides a ground to various systems (which are always powered via the battery/alternator charging system). When the PCM or ECM (Electronics Control Module that monitors network traffic in the vehicle) detects missing voltage from a monitored network sensor, or too much voltage from a monitored network sensor) it will put your vehicle into limp mode to prevent more damage that would occur if you keep driving. For instance if your camshaft sensor is providing a reading that would suggest it's not spinning or is "stuck". That could do internal damage to the engine if the vehicle continues to be driven.

    But even so what they meant was that disabling a vehicle in motion is actually dangerous to the driver, any passengers and any other people driving or riding on the road.

    Additionally, if the government can do it, that tech could be used by a bad actor for the same purpose and that's just not going to fly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •