RFID-enabled Vehicles: Pinch My Ride

Billosaur writes "Wired has an excellent article on the problems with the theft of RFID-enabled vehicles and how insurance companies are so over-confident in the technology, they are denying claims when such vehicles are stolen. Example: "Emad Wassef walked out of a Target store in Orange County, California, to find a big space where his 2003 Lincoln Navigator had been. The 38-year-old truck driver and former reserve Los Angeles police officer did what anyone would do: He reported the theft to the cops and called his insurance company. Two weeks later, the black SUV turned up near the Mexico border, minus its stereo, airbags, DVD player, and door panels. Wassef assumed he had a straightforward claim for around $25,000. His insurer, Chicago-based Unitrin Direct, disagreed." Their forensic examiner concluded that since all the keys were accounted for, there was no way the engine could have been started, despite the evidence that the ignition lock had been forced and the steering wheel locking lug had been damaged."

Comments

In other news

[BlackCobra43]

A local man who was the victim of a Home Invasion was shocked to learn that his insurance claim was denied because "As all of his home keys were still in his property, no one could have entered the house". Shard of broken glass, the robber's blood, his conviction in court and a lucky passerby's videotapes were also dismissed as "clever fakes". InsuranceCo stock jumped another 3 points today...

Wired had a bit about this last month

[dfn_deux]

Seems that there are at least a handful of commonly known/used methods for circumventing rfid embedded key/security systems in cars. Several of these are documented by the manufacturers of the cars. It is a ridiculous notion that if say all the keys to the car had been lost that it would then be impossible to somehow replace the keys or reprogram the system for another set. Any insurance company making such claims is obviously letting the smell of money overwhelm their senses and has overlooked what is quite simply the fact of the matter...

The man in the headline should clearly be bending his insurer over a barrel and giving them a good legal fucking...

Insurance companies will seek any excuse...

[Robotech_Master]

...to deny claims. That's what they do. Insurance companies aren't in business to pay for people's losses, they're in business not to pay for people's losses, because the less they pay out, the greater profit they make. The portrayal in The Incredibles was just about dead-on. So getting them to fork over is often like trying to squeeze blood from a stone even at the best of times.

Re:Insurance companies will seek any excuse...

[Phreakiture]

Insurance companies aren't in business to pay for people's losses, they're in business not to pay for people's losses, because the less they pay out, the greater profit they make.

Insurance companies are corporate gamblers. They are betting you are a good driver and that your car won't get stolen or damaged. Your insurance premium is reflective of how good of a bet this is.

That said, when they lose the bet, they will try to weasel out of paying it.

Re:Who really telling the truth

[HugePedlar]

You don't think the issue here is RFID spoofing, perhaps?

Insurance fraud....

[russotto]

If the car can't (according to the insurance company) be stolen, then by accepting premiums for insurance which covers loss due to theft (without any intention of ever paying said claims), they are comitting fraud. Sounds like some insurance company executives need to go to jail.

Re:Insurance fraud....

[tdvaughan]

You can still steal the car by towing it away which is insurable against. If, however, they find evidence that the car was driven then they assume that the owner was complicit in the car's theft as they believe that the car is only drivable with the keys in the ignition.

Apparent InsCo greed aside...

[CrazedWalrus]

...which is what I really think is going on here, it's at least partly a classic case of turning off reasoning and common sense wherever technology is involved. The same amazingly intelligent people who can't operate the clock on the VCR are running the world and denying your claims.

Re:Apparent InsCo greed aside...

[IAmTheDave]

Insurance - especially car insurance, which one is required by law to carry - is forced extortion. I have seen denied claims, paid claims with increased premiums that beyond-covered the paid-out claim, my own insurance premiums rise after my car was hit while parked, etc., etc., etc.

Insurance companies are evil, ladies and gentlemen, and will do everything in their power to stop from having to pay out a dime. While I'm now paying $35 copay for prescriptions through Aetna, they also have a new thing called "precertification" whereby the doctor has to call the insurance company and "approve" the use of a drug. Now, if the doctor hadn't wanted me to have the drug, I'm sure I wouldn't be at CVS with my prescription. Nonetheless, yet another roadblock to actual payout of insurance coverage.

You think Pharma = evil? Check out insurance. Especially in the case of Katrina. Home insurance doesn't cover flood insurance. Flood insurance doesn't cover mud damage. Etc.

Makes me sick.

Re:DNA

[damiangerous]

If your DNA is found inside of a rape-victim's vagina, however, then yes, you probably are guilty.

You're guilty of having sex with her around the time she was raped, yes. Is that enough to convict you of her rape? Not by a long shot.

Not necessarily...

[Belial6]

When I was in college, there were groups going around telling women that "you may just not know you were raped." They had a clear goal of blurring the line between the words "rape" and "regret". It is nieve to believe that EVERY woman who claims rape really was raped. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need courts. Just a woman pointing a finger, and the man could be hauled off to jail.

Re:Not necessarily...

[TrentC]

When I was in college, there were groups going around telling women that "you may just not know you were raped." They had a clear goal of blurring the line between the words "rape" and "regret".

No, they had a clear goal of making women understand that having a guy cornering them in their room and not letting them out until they "give it up" isn't something they should be expected to live with, or that waking up in a frat house with no clothes on and no memory of last night, isn't just something that "just happens".

Women have an impressive double-standard to live with; if they get assaulted or raped, well, obviously they should have known better. But if they assume that a man might try to rape her if they are alone together, or doesn't want to be in a position where she can be overpowered or outnumbered, well, then she's obviously a man-hater/feminist/dyke. Nowhere in either of those equations is the man's behavior held to any standard.

It is nieve to believe that EVERY woman who claims rape really was raped.

The staistics for false claims of rape are in line with false claims for other crimes. (Well, it depends on who you ask and what time period the study in question covers; the numbers seem to swing from 1 percent to 25 percent of claims, with each end of the range having its defenders.) Also, many rapes go unreported, which would make the percentage of false claims vs. actual rapes even smaller still. But of course, any attempt to raise awareness or to encourage women to talk about what happened to them is "blurring the line between 'rape' and 'regret'".

By your reasoning, we should assume that any person who claims they were robbed or assaulted is lying just because some people lie about it, or live in fear that we could be sent to jail by having someone pointing a finger at us and saying "he stole from me" if we don't defend the reputation of accused thieves.