The Feds' Vehicle 'Kill Switch' Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy | Jon Miltimore
The Feds' Vehicle 'Kill Switch' Mandate Is a Gross (and Dangerous) Violation of Privacy | Jon Miltimore
Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed. Meanwhile, the state has stea...
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.
one problem...
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).
First part to get ripped out of new cars
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.
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.
I suspect that like John Deere there will be a Ukrainian style hack that undermines this bullshit.
A vehicle that doesn't work without internet? That should turn out well.
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.
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
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.
-
It will go in the scrap bin right next to the OnStar module.
...but wait you don't love accidently talking to someone in Texas every time you go to turn your dome light off/on ?
Always check your sources…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education
They literally gave an award to Charles Koch.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
They can be a source of egregious right wing propaganda undermining our democracy at every turn (which they are), and also occasionally still have legitimate grievances with our legislators sneaking bullshit like this into otherwise critical legislation.
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill. Are you saying any of their claims about what the bill says are untrue? It's good to have a healthy amount of skepticism, especially for groups with known biases, but what's your point in calling this out here?
Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed.
Just the framing of the first line is like something out of an Ayn Rand hallucination. When I see something that heavily tilted the first thing I look for is WHO is writing it and WHY would they.
Yes one of their quotes is the opinion section of the bill at the beginning that has no effect on the law.
And "kill switch" is trying to get you to think that the police get a button to turn off the car, which is the one thing it doesn't do. It wants the thing most current luxury cars have where the car detects the driver falling asleep, but tune it to also detect drunk driving.
That's also bad if you just want a manual car that isn't full of DRM, but FEE is trying to tell idiots that BRANDON is giving the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT a SWITCH to KILL YOUR FAMILY just like in your favorite CAMERON DIAZ movie THE BOX (2009).
They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill.
And the direct quotations from the bill were less-than-damning without several paragraphs of editorial leading the reader down the garden path. This is on the same level as the 'death panel' hysteria from about 10 years ago.
At some point in the future cars will have to incl. some form of assistance technology as a standard feature, big whoop. It doesn't say it has to be enabled by default, or always turned on, and with all the assists and autonomous driving features already being added to cars, it's very likely most manufacturers will end up meeting the requirements of the bill without even trying.
...
If
driver behaving erratic and interfering with safe function of car
Then
pull safely to the side of the road and temporarily disable ignition
...
BuT mUh FrEeDoMs. Something something 'right to travel' = right to operate a car whilst intoxicated (sounds like some SovCit bullshit), as opposed to right to a functional public transport system or something...
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.
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.
I'm just waiting for the moment that this kill switch is hacked, and whole cities come to a complete standstill.
Please stop....I can only get so erect
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.
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.
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.
Also, this idea is shit for brains stupid lol
American solution to a problem of deadly car chases.
I guess „don’t chase cars” would be too simple.
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.
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?
There's no possible way this ever makes it to regulation. And most of you haven't read the law, so don't understand you're being lied to. Read analysis here:
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.
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. That's a kill switch.
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.
And the overall point still stands. We should be skeptical of these kinds of intrusions into our devices from the state. We should resist them as a default posture.
I'm sure we'll never find out that the kill switch was disproportionately used on people of color.
Can’t wait to patch that out, should be as fun as that dumbshit auto-shutoff they have now.
?
Autostart stop. It's a "feature" of newer gasoline 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.
Next step will be to have it drive you to the police station and alert them of your arrival.
I remember when a remote kill switch was the unlikely yet dystopian “next step”
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 (R) (Nut Job), that's clarity enough for now...
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.
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.
You need to think about unintended consequences.
Like the used car market going ape shit and poor people having no chance of picking one up? We've done that before recently.
Driver entitlement episode 456: "what do you mean my death machine needs to have a remote kill switch???"
Insane.
Listen I get that there are disadvantages but you “fuckcars” people need to chill
"Disadvantages"
43 000 deaths a year and you cry at the slightest inconvenience
Drivers need a reality check
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.
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.
You can get rid of all those uncertainties by just rolling out a pilot and seeing how it goes. There's no way cops being able to stop cars remotely causes any more trouble than them actually flipping cars over if they take .3 seconds too long to park for a traffic stop, like they did to that pregnant woman who died in 2022.
The police has also demonstrated many, many times that they can't be trusted to rationally judge whether to indulge in hugely dangerous car chases or not, and they routinely end up making perps crash into random people/objects for traffic stop evasions that turn out to just be a guy fleeing because they have felony quantity of coke or a revoked license. You give it a pilot and see how it goes, if it does more good than harm, then you keep it.
For security, there are many remote-access-control security dances out there, and it's a solved problem. Tons of them are just a certificate to authenticate, and do a little challenge to solve to be protected from repeat attacks. If one certificate gets leaked or abused you can revoke it and that's that. If that somehow still has flaws - that's why you're doing a pilot.
Oh, stop being sensationalist. A car is a car, that's all it ever will be. It's clear you didn't even read the article because its not talking about remote kill switches.
Cars kill 43 000 people a year in the U.S.
I'm talking about people's reactions in this thread when they haven't read the article. All of those people opposing a hypothetical "cop presses a button" remote kill switch are insane.
Private citizens do not have a right to operating a motor vehicle any way they see fit. You license it, you license your skills, you get it looked at periodically and you use it on public roads with the state's blessing only if you can manage to get along with other people using that same road. There is no sense opposing a kill switch for "freedom".
We can't trust cops with their stupid car chases that result in crashes, and their maneuvers for flipping cars over on the freeway.
You give them a killswitch