Volvo Wants You To Ditch Car Keys For Its New Smartphone App (dailydot.com)

An anonymous reader quotes an article on DailyDot: Lending your car to a friend could be as easy as sending a text. That's the future Volvo is imaging with its smartphone app that enables keyless entry for the driver -- and anyone with permission to enter. Announced earlier this year and now prominently on display at the New York International Auto Show, the app does away with key fobs and puts the key right on the user's phone. Using the device's Bluetooth capability, the app can do just about everything that a standard key could do -- from unlocking the doors to popping open the trunk to even starting the engine of the vehicle without turning the ignition. Beyond just convenience for the primary holder, the Volvo app also allows others to take the wheel without requiring a physical key. Users are able to grant digital keys to others, allowing them temporary or ongoing access to the car.

Comments

It is inevitable

[the_other_one]

Someone will forget to charge their phone when parked in the desert.

Re:It is inevitable

[jbmartin6]

Worse than that, I need to get into the car to charge the phone.

Re:It is inevitable

[Ksevio]

Hopefully I can use my phone as an NFC card or something. Come to think of it, not sure that phones can do that without power...

Re:It is inevitable

[thewolfkin]

Someone will forget to charge their phone when parked in the desert.

Let's just go ahead and call it properly.. throw ahead to Burning Man

Re:It is inevitable

[stephanruby]

Most current keyless systems have a back up way to get into the car, whether it's a hidden mechanical lock, a back up numerical keypad, or an NFC card reader (that is powered by the car, not by the phone). That being said, the last two methods require a working car battery, so that might cause problems too.

Re:It is inevitable

[tripleevenfall]

Don't worry, you can just call Volvo to have them unlock the car so you can charge the phone.

Re:It is inevitable

[Locke2005]

Yeah, you know you still need to be able to unlock the car when the car battery goes dead, too, right? So regardless of what wireless keys exist, there will always be a mechanical unlocking mechanism present. My Mazda senses the transmitter/key in my pocket, but the transmitter also contains an old-fashioned key I can use to unlock the door and start the engine. In general, good engineers always design in mechanical backups to electronic systems... especially for electronic sunroofs!

Re:It is inevitable

[FrozenGeek]

Or needing help to unlock the car because it's locked and my phone is charging inside.

Re:It is inevitable

[Locke2005]

I'd extend that to ALL keyless entry systems include a mechanical lock as backup, because yes, car batteries DO go dead... especially when they are constantly drawing current because they are listening for keyless entry transmitters!

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

If the battery is too dead to unlock the car it's probably not going to start.

Re:It is inevitable

[TsuruchiBrian]

A mechanical lock is not going to do you any good if your car requires charge in the battery to start the engine.

Re:It is inevitable

[Nkwe]

If the battery is too dead to unlock the car it's probably not going to start.

Yes, but it would be nice to be able to get into the car so you can open the hood so you can attach jumper cables...

Re:It is inevitable

[thewolfkin]

Hopefully I can use my phone as an NFC card or something. Come to think of it, not sure that phones can do that without power...

An interesting question

Passive NFC devices include tags, and other small transmitters, that can send information to other NFC devices without the need for a power source of their own. However, they don’t really process any information sent from other sources, and can’t connect to other passive components. These often take the form of interactive signs on walls or advertisements.

I actually saw this quote last but this seems to clinch it. Regardless of how they would work in a situation where they both lack power they're both passive and therefore can't connect to each other.

The technology used in NFC is based on older RFID (Radio-frequency identification) ideas, which uses electromagnetic induction in order to transmit information.

...passive devices don’t require their own power supply, and can instead be powered by the electromagnetic field produced by an active NFC component when it comes into range [...] NFC technology does not command enough inductance to be used to charge our smartphones, but QI charging is based on the same principle.

Read/write mode, on the other hand, is a one way data transmission, where the active device, possibly your smartphone, links up with another device in order to read information from it. This is the mode used when you interact with an NFC advert tag.

In order to determine what sort of information is to be exchanged between devices, the NFC standard currently has three distinct modes of operation for compliant devices. Perhaps the most common use in smartphones is the peer-to-peer mode, which allows two NFC-enabled devices to exchange various pieces of information between each other. In this mode both devices switch between active, when sending data, and passive states when receiving.

[What is NFC?]

Bah I was going to try to organize all of this into a comprehensive order to prove that I think sans power it wouldn't work but hopefully this is enough.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

It will allow you to open the door so you can get to the hood latch you have to pull so you can open the hood so you can jumpstart the car or replace the battery.

It might also allow you to get to the phone you locked in the glovebox so you can call for assistance.

Or if we want the most extreme form, to allow you to get to the insulin in the car so you can live long enough to even care that the battery is dead.

When you let marketing make engineering decisions, people die.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

My older friend had a keyless rental car. Went to do some work someplace, came out 6 hours later to find it running (so quiet it's barely noticeable). Apparently it was running the entire time he was inside, since he put the fob in his pocket and accidentally triggered something.

Fucking with the old system is not going to be any good.

Re:It is inevitable

[mrbester]

This is why you have a manual gearbox. At least you can bump start those.

Re:It is inevitable

[TsuruchiBrian]

I am not saying that having a mechanical lock is bad. I am saying that it will not allow you to start your car if your battery is dead. My comment was a response to a comment that said that mechanical keys are necessary because batteries do go dead.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that all these doom and gloom scenarios you're forecasting have literally always been the problem with cars? If I lose my physical car keys today (or they're stolen), I'm fucked: I am locked out of my car, and have literally no way of getting in short of smashing a window, or calling a locksmith to get me into the car.

In your "moments matter" scenario, the *mechanism* that's locking you out of your car is completely irrelevant - either way, you're locked out and can't get to your insulin. (note - this is why diabetics dependent on their insulin are incredibly unlikely to ever go anywhere for any reason without their medication on their person.

Re:It is inevitable

[ncc74656]

Someone will forget to charge their phone when parked in the desert.

...or you'll lose your phone while on a trip (guilty!) and will have no way to get back in when you return.

Do Not Want.

Re:It is inevitable

[cayenne8]

Hell, I hope this is optional.

A regular old analog key works JUST fine for me...

Heck at this point, I'm trying to make sure I can DISable many of the new car "innovations" before I get a new one, especially if something like OnStar or UConnect which are no longer options, but are imposed upon you.

I just want a car that works, looks nice and goes fast...I don't need the tracking, surveillance or other multiple points of failure, like a missing, out of power, or stoled cell phone required to make my automobile function.

I rarely ever let others drive my car to begin with....

Re:It is inevitable

[Blaskowicz]

And to get the jumper cables stored inside the car.

Re:It is inevitable

[ShanghaiBill]

...or you'll lose your phone while on a trip (guilty!) and will have no way to get back in when you return.

How is that any different from losing your car keys?

Do Not Want.

Just buy a new phone, and then call Volvo to activate it.

Re:It is inevitable

[Wycliffe]

You realize that all these doom and gloom scenarios you're forecasting have literally always been the problem with cars?

The big difference is the frequency of occurrence? How many times have you lost your keys and weren't able to find them? I've NEVER permanently lost my the keys to my car. I might misplace them and I've even left them in a store or restaurant a handful of time but I've always been able to find them. I've also never lost a cellphone. On the other hand, I've broken my cellphone multiple times and my cell phone battery has gone dead on me more times than I can count. Whether it is not being near a charger, using it too much, or forgetting to charge it at night. This isn't a super big deal under normal circumstances but becomes a much bigger deal if you need a working cellphone to start your car. How do you even drive to the nearest cell phone store to buy a replacement phone?

Re: It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that any different than losing your keys? Or are you saying you want a car without door locks?

Re:It is inevitable

[dwye]

Hell, I hope this is optional.

Just don't buy a Volvo. How much is all the supposed safety worth if your car steals itself, some night, and drives to the nearest chop shop?

Re: It is inevitable

[Imrik]

You're more likely to misplace something that you use frequently like a cell phone. On the other hand, you're also more likely to notice it's missing.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, you can just call Volvo t...

With an empty phone.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh crap. I'm out of prepaid minutes/data. I'll just launch my prepaid phone provider's app to recharge the minutes. (Yes, there really are providers out there like this where it's like, "oh crap, can't recharge because my data plan ran out and I need data to recharge. Wifi, yes. But not always convenient.)

Re:It is inevitable

[jshark]

except for the inevitable DRM that will eventually be added to the battery that will not allow it to be charged except by a volvo-specified charging certified mechanic that uses a plug with 16.8 prongs all varying in length by 1 millimeter. The DRM will be cracked less than 24 hours after it's been put on the market but the 8 year old who cracks it will spend his entire adolescent and adult life involved in endless DMCA suits and appeals.

Re:It is inevitable

[Ol Olsoc]

I'd extend that to ALL keyless entry systems include a mechanical lock as backup, because yes, car batteries DO go dead... especially when they are constantly drawing current because they are listening for keyless entry transmitters!

I have an idea. A metal stick, with a preconfigured way of opening and starting the vehicle.

We'll call it a ignition key. Off to the patent office we go!

Re:It is inevitable

[Lumpy]

Because car thieves dont steal volvos... Nobody has any interest in buying the parts.

Re:It is inevitable

[Lumpy]

Most modern cars, if parked for 2 weeks will have a dead battery. Just ask people that fly out for an extended vacation to find a dead car in the long term parking. It's very common now days to the point that airports now offer a service where an attendant will start your car and run it for 30 minutes once a week while you are gone, the kiosk for this is over by the car rentals.

Re:It is inevitable

[Lumpy]

That would be great for older cars that have the battery under the hood. Better modern cars have them in back where it has better weight balance. Oh and that rear hatch pop... IT's a solenoid.. so you need to have someone hook up a charger to the hood terminals so you can power the car, so you can pop the trunk/ rear hatch to get to the battery.

All because car engineers are dumb as boxes of rocks today. Honestly, these engineers are stupid as hell for not giving a no power required open option to the FUCKING CAR BATTERY.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

Geniuses, the lot of them!

At the rate we're going, the stories of people starving to death while trapped in their car can't be far away.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

They still sound pretty necessary if you hope to recover from the dead battery without a cutting torch.

Re:It is inevitable

[Ksevio]

Could the car act as the active device and the Smartphone as a passive device (when not powered)?

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

Not really, no. Dead batteries happen. If there is no mechanical lock, you're smashing the window if you EVER want to start the car again. With a mechanical lock, you have to have at least 2 things go wrong (3 if you're smart enough to make a copy of the door key and leave it at home or with a friend) before you must resort to smashing the window.

Re:It is inevitable

[MightyYar]

There is quite literally no excuse for this. A car battery is on the order of 40-50 amp-hours. To discharge even a half-dead car battery in 2 weeks means drawing a constant 60mA.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

you are permitted to break the windows in case of possible death.
(its in the manual)

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not saying that having a mechanical lock is bad. I am saying that it will not allow you to start your car if your battery is dead. My comment was a response to a comment that said that mechanical keys are necessary because batteries do go dead.

I carry a jumpstart battery in the trunk that can start the car when the battery is dead. If that fails I have jumper cables.

For either one I need to pop the hood and the trunk. If I need to get a tow because the car will not open without a working battery, well... that is idiotic.

Does anyone think about practical use with new technology?

Re:It is inevitable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Necessary is not the same as sufficient. Also, you don't need a cutting torch.. you can just break a window if you need to get into a locked car.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

With an empty phone.

I believe this is the time to say: "Whoosh."

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

Do any of you crazy bastards actually know how cars work? *sighs*

To get into a locked car you need a plastic wedge and a hammer and then something to reach the inside to trigger the locking mechanism. You go in at the top-rear with the wedge and tap it in enough to spread it away from the door frame. You then pop the lock. You can buy a kit online - just lie and say you're a mechanic. Do NOT put that kit in your trunk, that's just silly. Get a second kit for your trunk so you can LET OTHER PEOPLE do it to their own car if they don't have AAA. Do not do it for them. It will bend the door a little. To bend the door back, use the same plastic wedge and put it between the bottom-rear of the open door and close it by pushing in at the top. Let it sit like that for a few minutes and you're good to go. That last step is not always required. A variety of wedge sizes is nice. No broken windows required.

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

Dude, I once lost my car... Not entirely unlike the movie except mine was way out in the woods in NW, Maine. (That's a pretty big area.)

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever actually lost my keys - even when I was drinking. But I did lose a car. I'm not typing the story out again but, suffice to say, you'd be surprised where you can put a Subaru if you don't care about it.

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

Holy shit, people. Stay the fuck away from my cars. Do NOT smash a window. Get wedge car unlocking kit and leave it at home and carry a second one in your trunk for people you run into who need a hand. There's no need to smash your fucking window if you're locked out. Breaking into locked cars is a done deal - we've been pretty good at it for a long time.

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Encase it in a Faraday cage?

Re:It is inevitable

[someoneOtherThanMe]

...and then something to reach the inside to trigger the locking mechanism.

But that also won't work with a dead battery.

Re:It is inevitable

[tandavanadesan]

I just want a car that works, looks nice and goes fast..

then you're probably not interested in what Volvo are doing.

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

Nah, those all open from the inside without power. Well - they *currently* do. That doesn't mean they won't change that in the future.

Re:It is inevitable

[sociocapitalist]

If the battery is too dead to unlock the car it's probably not going to start.

Yes, but it would be nice to be able to get into the car so you can open the hood so you can attach jumper cables...

Or the boot, as it's Volvo and the batteries are in the back...

Re:It is inevitable

[Calydor]

A mechanical lock on your car that is normally unlocked by your phone is necessary because sometimes PHONE batteries go dead. Happens far more often than car batteries going dead, too.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

The wedge depends on being able to get at a mechanical lever or knob to unlock the car. At the rate we're going, there won't be one.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

Sorry, no. The auto engineers really are just that thick. When you wedge a door, you still have to reach in with a metal hook and get at the lock button/knob, lever. Usually the lock button which depends on the battery to operate. If the mechanical locks are gone, good luck with that.

And yes, people have actually been trapped inside their car and had to smash the window to get out.

Re:It is inevitable

[dwillden]

You can't DRM a decades old technology in wide distribution. There is no profit is redesigning a standard product that others can produce far cheaper than the car manufacturer can.

DRM applies to digital content. Not clamping oversized alligator clamps onto lead contact rods.

Re:It is inevitable

[dwillden]

I don't have a spare phone attached to my car via a small magnetic box in a hidden spot.

Also a new key costs a couple bucks. $80 if it's chipped. A new phone is not so cheap usually.

Re:It is inevitable

[ncc74656]

...or you'll lose your phone while on a trip (guilty!) and will have no way to get back in when you return.

How is that any different from losing your car keys?

In 27 years of driving, I've managed to avoid losing my car keys.

A couple of months ago, I put my phone down at a taco stand in Ensenada and forgot to pick it back up before leaving. (Stupid? Yes, but I blame the beer...and whatever other forms of alcohol we had on trail that day. :-) ) My car keys, OTOH, were packed away in my luggage on the boat, as I wasn't going to need them until we were Stateside.

Re:It is inevitable

[Grishnakh]

That would be great for older cars that have the battery under the hood. Better modern cars have them in back where it has better weight balance.

Citation needed. All the new cars I've looked at have batteries under the hood. The last cars I've seen with batteries in weird, inaccessible places were crappy 90s-era American cars, like some Chryslers with them inside the front wheelwell, and some horrible Oldsmobile with the battery under the rear seat.

Re:It is inevitable

[bill_mcgonigle]

To discharge even a half-dead car battery in 2 weeks means drawing a constant 60mA.

And how else is OnStar supposed to always know where you? Have you looked at the problem through that PRISM?

Re:It is inevitable

[MightyYar]

Nice. Maybe the people with these 2-weeks-until-dead cars have done something naughty :)

Re:It is inevitable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Obviously...

Re:It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything that is not a shitty american car. BMW's are all in back, AUDI, Mercedes, any cars that are interested in weight balance. etc...

Also: FYI your tiny experience with maybe 4 cars in your life does not mean others need to cite anything. Get off your lazy ass and use google.

Re:It is inevitable

[LinuxIsGarbage]

If the battery is dead enough that remote entry doesn't work, it's unlikely to have enough power for the fuel pump, ECU, and injectors for a bump start.

Re:It is inevitable

[LinuxIsGarbage]

More likely he forgot to turn off the car when he parked.

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

Nah, you pull the handle - not the lock mechanism. I've owned, and own, a lot of cars. Every single one of them opens the door when you pull the interior latch. There are a couple without an interior latch but they're extreme edge cases and I can assure you that you do not own one. Also, doors may be welded shut. The doors *always* open up when you pull the interior handle - no matter how electronic they are - with only two exceptions that I can think of an you don't own any of those, you don't have the money to own any of those. Those too probably have a latch somewhere - I do not know where it is.

As an aside; I do carry a window breaker.

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

So long as there's a mechanical indoor handle, you should be all set.

Re:It is inevitable

[coinreturn]

Everything that is overpriced.

FTFY. Not the case in VW, Subaru, Honda, or KIA. Those I know about personally. I'm betting not the case in many others.

Re:It is inevitable

[coinreturn]

Most modern cars, if parked for 2 weeks will have a dead battery.

Are you out of your mind? I've left cars with old batteries in them for months without this problem.

Re: It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yes we are! There's this term called precedent and if Volvo sets one then all manufacturers will follow eventually whether through profit or coercion.

Re: It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

None of my Toyotas will open the door if the lock is engaged by pulling the door opening lever. I just checked. They're all eighties and nineties models. I tell you multiple times a week that you just don't know as much as you think you do.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

I have seen many that do not unlock from the inside when you pull the door handle. On the others, it will be "interesting" to reach the door handle from the upper back corner with a rod and overcome the mechanical disadvantage to operate it..

In any event, it would remain ever so much more likely to get to the battery and jump the car if there is a mechanical key based lock available on the outside.

Re: It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

This fifteen foot long battery under the seat of my Touareg says you don't know as much as you think you do!

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

I can't say that I've actually seen any that can lock that way. I'm pretty sure it's illegal, or so I thought.

Can you name a couple of makes and models? I've got a decent collection of automobiles but I don't have any like that in my car. I think all car doors must open from the inside, without any mechanism required, an every vehicle since 1978 - with regards to the US.

An example is the default escape button in the trunk. There's a glow-in the dark ring, knob, or hoop that you can pull to manually unlock the trunk.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

On some BMWs in the '90s it was impossible to open the car by any means from the inside if it was locked from the outside. Here are more reports. I believe most of those are due to worn mechanisms, but that's hardly uncommon.

My car isn't supposed to be that way, but the mechanism has stiffened up enough that it would be a real problem if you are mechanically disadvantaged by a rod.

Interesting;y, before the mandated change, the door NOT opening if you pulled the inside handle while it was locked was seen as a safety feature to avoid people (especially children) falling out while in motion.

Re:It is inevitable

[KGIII]

I've owned a couple of 90s BMWs - and I have the habit of locking the doors while inside and then just pulling the handle to get unlocked but it does appear that one model did do that. Thanks. That's fucking stupid of them. Fortunately, it looks like they learned their lesson - and broken/worn doesn't really count, though we can agree they should be designed better.

Strange too, I own a few BMWs still - one is out in my garage down here, I drove it from Maine. They all unlock when I pull the handle. Every time. :/

Thanks.

Re:It is inevitable

[sjames]

Yes. Let's just hope that Volvo has learned something from other company's failures.

Re:It is inevitable

[thewolfkin]

Could the car act as the active device and the Smartphone as a passive device (when not powered)?

ohhh now that is interesting. giving my limited understanding I don't see why not. I'm not sure if that' sthe best solution though. We'd have to assess which is worse having a dead battery or a dead phone. Even if you put a battery backup in the door lock I think making the door the active device might drain it faster.

I'm sure...

[caladine]

... that this will be secured in a fashion consistent with the auto industry's stellar record on vehicle security.

Re:I'm sure...

[known_coward_69]

ha ha in the 80's when the remote unlock systems first came out someone made a box that listened to the easy to crack code and then sent his own unlock code. he sold them via mail order before the internet to car thieves

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays there are amplifiers for using hands-free fobs inside the house from the driveway while the owner is asleep, unless the system has interferometry to prevent that. I wonder if it's technically possible to do actual interferometry on a BT signal from a 3rd party device, or whether Volvo is just throwing their users to the wolves.

Re:I'm sure...

[msauve]

So, to Bluetooth pair the phone so you can open and start the car, they'll just use high security. i.e. a code other than 0000 or 1234.

Re:I'm sure...

[hawguy]

Nowadays there are amplifiers for using hands-free fobs inside the house from the driveway while the owner is asleep, unless the system has interferometry to prevent that. I wonder if it's technically possible to do actual interferometry on a BT signal from a 3rd party device, or whether Volvo is just throwing their users to the wolves.

They don't have to make it a hands-free system -- it could require that users press a button on the device to do anything with the car, and it can use public key cryptography to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.

Re:I'm sure...

[Locke2005]

Simple logic: when car's get stolen, the car manufacturer gets to sell a replacement car, covered by insurance. What incentive does the car manufacturer have to build a theft-proof car? That would decrease their revenue and increase their support costs for dealing with people that locked themselves out of their car! Repeat the mantra: all corporate behavior can be explained through simple profit motive!

Re:I'm sure...

[Joe_Dragon]

the car better have a pad or touch screen to set that pin as with voice it will be set to something easy to for it read from voice.

Re:I'm sure...

[TsuruchiBrian]

You don't need to do interferometry. You can simply use a challenge/response system along with some strong encryption (e.g. RSA). You can do this over any system where digital data can be transmitted (Bluetooth included), and you don't need to worry about any 3rd party devices monitoring the data being transmitted.

Re:I'm sure...

[sjames]

I'm thinking selling diet pills to fat wolves may be a newly viable business...

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't help in this case. The signal isn't being intercepted or replayed, it's just being amplified. The car thinks the keyfob is right there next to the vehicle so it assumes the owner is present, and it unlocks and cranks up. In reality the keyfob (and the owner) are somewhere inside the house, with no clue their car is being stolen out of their driveway.

All of this hands-free convenience stuff is just stupid. In the old days someone actually had to break in, and get a screwdriver into the column. It took some effort and looked suspicious to anyone observing. Nowadays they just push a button and drive off with your car...

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

My car uses key-less entry (not with a phone, but a "key"). The door can be opened without touching the key. If someone managed to get near my key, and near my car, they could relay the communication between car and key, and open and start it. Maybe, hopefully, the key has a defined response time, so the car could detect any additional signal latency. Doubtful, that this could be guaranteed with any arbitrary choice of phone.

Re:I'm sure...

[tepples]

when car's get stolen, the car manufacturer gets to sell a replacement car, covered by insurance. What incentive does the car manufacturer have to build a theft-proof car?

Lower insurance premiums decrease the vehicle's TCO.

Re:I'm sure...

[Grishnakh]

In the old days someone actually had to break in, and get a screwdriver into the column. It took some effort and looked suspicious to anyone observing.

And how exactly is this a deterrent? Has there ever been a single incident of some bystander coming to the rescue of someone's car? Of course not.

Re:I'm sure...

[bill_mcgonigle]

... that this will be secured in a fashion consistent with the auto industry's stellar record on vehicle security.

Don't even need to blame them - your car is one Stagefright away from being stolen. Thanks for the locked bootloader, Verizon.

Re:I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously suggest nobody ever called the cops because they saw someone breaking into a car?

Re:I'm sure...

[Grishnakh]

How long do you think it'll take the cops to get there? You think the car thief will still be there?

Face it, with bystanders unwilling to personally intervene (for good reason) and cops a half-hour away, car thieves don't have much to worry about.

So, like Tesla?

[green1]

Sounds exactly like what Tesla has had for several years now.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[NotDrWho]

Not exactly. It lacks the smug sense of superiority that Tesla owners crave.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[green1]

So more like the existing Onstart one from GM then?

Re:So, like Tesla?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's really not like what Tesla has had...which is the same as what Volvo had before this, cellular/wifi connectivity to the car through an app. This is something Tesla users have been requesting, bluetooth connectivity to unlock/start the car.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[swb]

Volvos, at least in Minnesota, used to carry a kind of progressive smugness about them. We used to call them the official car of the socialist state because it was hard to spot a 240 without a Carter/Mondale/anti-Nuke sticker on the back.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[hawguy]

Not exactly. It lacks the smug sense of superiority that Tesla owners crave.

Because Volvo owners have no smug sense of superiority?

Re:So, like Tesla?

[hawguy]

So more like the existing Onstart one from GM then?

Not sure if you're talking about Onstar owners smug sense of superiority (is there such a thing?) or the fact Onstar already has remote access, but I believe that all of the Onstar functionality happens over the cellular network, even the phone app uses the cellular network to send a signal to your car. So if you're out of cell phone range, you're out of luck.

The Volvo system uses bluetooth, no cellular network required.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the app conveniently lets Volvo and all its "sales partners" know when you use your car - and also disable it if they feel like it.

You lucky serf

Re:So, like Tesla?

[somenickname]

I know this was meant to be funny but, I think it's pretty much dead on. I think a huge amount of technology these days is not designed to provide appreciable benefits to the user, it's designed to give the user a smug sense of superiority over those that don't have the technology. It's become an ingrained part of our society at this point: Fuck functional, reliable and convenient, people just want shiny.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[Anonymous Coward]

But when TESLA does it, it'll be a revolutionary breakthrough in freedom and control of your vehicle.

When VOLVO does it, it's just a nightmarish boondoggle of deadly risk that guarantees you will die, locked out of your vehicle.

Do try to keep up, friend. It's Slashdot - the only thing that could be worse than a non-Tesla company doing this would be if Microsoft were involved somehow.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[mlw4428]

> Onstar owners smug sense of superiority (is there such a thing?)

Nah, most of us Onstars don't even think about the plebeian poser fucks who don't have it.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[hawguy]

> Onstar owners smug sense of superiority (is there such a thing?)

Nah, most of us Onstars don't even think about the plebeian poser fucks who don't have it.

That's just a surprising attitude from someone that drives a GM car -- "elitist" doesn't come to mind.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's become an ingrained part of our society at this point: Fuck functional, reliable and convenient, people just want shiny.

That's always been the case, as soon as basic need were satisfied.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[arth1]

Because Volvo owners have no smug sense of superiority?

Back when Volvo was a Swedish company and the cars were famous for safety and long life, things were different.
Then they got sold to Ford, who changed over Volvo to compete in the cheap luxury segment, and then Ford sold them and they're now Chinese Geely cars. It shows.

No, Volvo drivers have little pride anymore, unless they drive an old 3-digit numbered model.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[KGIII]

*cough* Like a fully restored and marginally modified 1982 245? *cough*

Actually, it's a blast in the snow. That's about the only time it gets driven.

Re:So, like Tesla?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty much the same over here in non-Scandinavian Europe. Especially the bigger Volvos are mostly driven by Socialists. Let me correct that. Of all people i know, who are in the socialist party, most of the higher ups drive big Volvos.

Great News

[frovingslosh]

This is great news, particularly since Bluetooth is so secure. And nothing could ever go wrong here.

Re:Great News

[hawguy]

This is great news, particularly since Bluetooth is so secure. And nothing could ever go wrong here.

it's a well published and examined protocol, and there's nothing keeping Volvo from putting their own security layer on top of it.

Do you think the proprietary opaque keyfob implementations are safer than bluetooth?

Re:Great News

[frovingslosh]

Do you think the proprietary opaque keyfob implementations are safer than bluetooth?

A hardware based fob with rolling codes synced between the car and the fob? Sure I think that is more secure than a software based Bluetooth approach. Also, my fob battery has lasted over two years, my phone frequently runs out of power before the end of the day. My fob has a backup hardware key "just in case". My phone does not.

How is this more convenient?

[Geeky]

I'm not sure how this is more convenient for the main user... compare "get keys out of pocket, click button, put keys in ignition" to "get phone out of pocket, unlock phone, open app, press button on app"... OK, it's one less thing to carry, but then you'd probably end up carrying the keys anyway as backup in case your phone died or the app crashed.

I've been experimenting with home automation. While having lights come on automatically via various rules is nice, it's a pain to go into the app to turn them on and off manually when you need to - easier to get up, walk across the room and flick a switch. This feels similar - a solution in search of a problem

Re:How is this more convenient?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm not giving the Valet my smartphone.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[twotacocombo]

I'm not sure how this is more convenient for the main user... compare "get keys out of pocket, click button, put keys in ignition"

Not even that. I have keyless entry/start on my car. My key fob always stays in my pocket, I just push a button on the handle to open, and another on the dash to start. The battery runs out maybe once every 2 years. I've never once wished it could be "easier" by bringing a phone into the mix.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Moof123]

Precisely. Just because there's an App for that, doesn't mean that it is easier, or better. Just make the key fob small and inexpensive to replace (and give me more than 2 when I buy the car!). I want less electronics in my future cars. The engine and frame vastly outlive infotainment system and other connected crap they are shoveling into these cars.

Please get rid of:
XM radio that I have to cycle through 3 selections of to get back to FM.
Climate settings that are only displayed on the LCD, and often not displayed unless I am in the right mode.
2G, 3G, or 4G anything. I want to drive. I can login when I get there.
Anything with sub-menus. I'm trying to drive, KISS.
Ability to order a pizza. Recently saw this touted as a feature, WTF?

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

My 2004 Prius, 2012 Leaf and 2105 BMW i3 all have keyless entry and ignition, as long as the key is in my pocket or my wife's purse the doors unlock when touched and the engine starts when the button is pressed. I don't need to touch a key other than move it when I move my wallet from pants to pants. I would expect the Bluetooth app to work the same way, no need to get the phone out and press a button.

Touchless keys (BMW calls it Comfort,not sure what Toyota or Nissan called it) is a requirement on any car I buy now that I've had it for over a decade.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Geeky]

Yeah, I hadn't thought about keyless entry (don't have that on my car!), even less need for this.

The only case I can think of is if you want to leave your car somewhere for someone else to pick up later, or to borrow it from your drive when you're not home. You could grant access without having to leave the keys hidden somewhere. It's such an edge case, though, that I can't see it'd be a big selling point.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

And importantly, when the battery does run out, there is a regular key inside the FOB. At least in my car.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Geeky]

OK, point taken on the practicality - it could be equal to existing keyless entry systems - but you'd still want to take your key fob as backup in case your phone died.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not giving the Valet my smartphone.

"Valet"? Is that what you're calling him now?

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Toronto, there are many rent-a-car locations, like Zipcar, AutoShare, etc. Sounds like this digital key entry will be excellent for these companies.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[SuricouRaven]

I went the simpler route on home automation: Got a cheap RF keyfob-remote and receiver and installed it in the loft. Now I can turn the bedroom light on and off without getting out of bed. I even did some stuff with relay logic so the light switch still works too.

The thing looks like a fire hazard still, I really need to get a proper enclosure for it.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[reboot246]

I'm not trusting the garage, either. We have garages around here where you can drop your car off after hours and put the keys in a locked box. How you gonna do that with a phone app?

Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we HAVE to do it.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, think outside the box.
You send code to valet's smartphone allowing him to drive the car.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Notorious G]

I've never once wished it could be "easier" by bringing a phone into the mix.

Try a remote start on a cold winter day from the comfort of your bed or as you prepare to leave the office. Car is warm and ready to go. It's pretty nice.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Joe_Dragon]

and the valet's fee will go up as in some places like CA the work place will have to pay the valet's phone plan.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Locke2005]

Yeah there is just one problem with your current keyless entry system: Mazda charges over $400 for each replacement key! I'm pretty sure I can buy a cell phone for less than that!

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Locke2005]

You forgot: Touchscreens in automobiles in general. Why doesn't the department of transportation ban control devices that by definition you have to look away from the road in front of you to use? With mechanical buttons, you could usually tell which button you were pressing by sense of touch without looking. With a touchscreen, you almost always have to look. They do have touchscreens now that can provide braille-like 3D markings on the screen, but I haven't seen any car company adopt those touchscreens yet, probably due to the high price.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[hawguy]

My 2004 Prius, 2012 Leaf and 2105 BMW i3 all have keyless entry and ignition, as long as the key is in my pocket or my wife's purse the doors unlock when touched and the engine starts when the button is pressed. I don't need to touch a key other than move it when I move my wallet from pants to pants. I would expect the Bluetooth app to work the same way, no need to get the phone out and press a button.

Touchless keys (BMW calls it Comfort,not sure what Toyota or Nissan called it) is a requirement on any car I buy now that I've had it for over a decade.

Convinient, sure, but this convenience comes at a security cost since it's proven to be vulnerable to RF amplification attacks - You park your car in the parking lot and walk into walmart, not realizing that the mom behind you with the box in a shopping cart is sending your keyfob's signal back to your car where her accomplice is waiting next to the car to hop in and drive away.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[TsuruchiBrian]

The idea is that you already have a phone. So you are not adding a phone. You are using a phone you already have and *not* adding a key fob to the mix. If you lose or break your phone you need to shell out $400 but at least you end up with a new phone. If you lose or break your keyfob, you need to spend roughly the same amount or more, and all you end up with is a new key fob.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

With LEDs, I'd go for simple motion detection and timer... but the way my outside motion detectors die (even "commercial grade") I don't think I'd trust it.

On the flip side of the coin, went into old house with 100 year old wiring and the original switches still work. Yay simplicity!

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because existing fobs don't have the ability to trigger a car from 100 meters... Right?

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the car companies can biometric my penis, then I could just fuck my car in the tailpipe to get it going, nothing extra to carry unless you're John Bobbitt.

(Heh, "turgid" came up as reddit's captcha....)

Re:How is this more convenient?

[dAzED1]

why would you get keys out of your pocket? Fobs for years have not needed that. Hell, even my harley doesn't need it. Just be near the car, you can unlock the door. Be in the car, you can start the car with a button push. Fob stays in your pocket/purse/backpack/whatnot.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Livius]

For some reason they don't like "serf".

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Moof123]

Same with Nissan, about $300 for a new fob and required programming. They have it locked out so that you have to do it at a dealer. It is on my list of things to avoid for the next car we buy.

List:
Comfy back seats that fit a 6' passenger (3 year old is rather tall for his age, and the next car will likely be in use through high school)
Real knobs with proper detents for the climate control
Properly padded driver's arm rest so my elbow doesn't get sore sitting on hard plastic
No 2G/3G/4G anything, or at least easy to disable.
Air filter that can be replaced without dismantling half the dashboard
TPMS that is user clearable. I hate that the tire order gets out of whack after a tire rotation and there is nothing I can do.
Either 3 key fobs, or easy replacement for $100 or less a pop. Plain old key operation would be a big bonus.
Ability to shut off the door is open but key is in alarm so I can listen to music in the garage would be great!

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you should probably take your spare keyfob, in case you lose your backup keyfob. And maybe purchase a third keyfob in case you lose both your fobs.

And you should probably put a locksmith on retainer and have him follow you around anywhere you go, you know - just in case all those backup keyfobs fail you, too.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Blaskowicz]

I will tell the valet to remember that the unlock code is y04WhDlHff6A49yarVdYjVxhwlu5X9WEOw5MZBu2Flj9srrbbB2
8ZDAr1IN4lm7fvoe4Y9n

Re:How is this more convenient?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

That's easy to crack if you speak ancient Decepticon.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try that in the UK and you're breaking the law. I've never heard of a case where it's actually been successfully prosecuted, but apparently the police don't look too kindly on unattended vehicles left with the engine running. If you want to read more it's called "quitting" the vehicle and there is a (minor) fine.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[AthanasiusKircher]

If you lose or break your phone you need to shell out $400 but at least you end up with a new phone. If you lose or break your keyfob, you need to spend roughly the same amount or more, and all you end up with is a new key fob.

Two problems with this argument:

(1) The fob should NEVER cost $400 to replace. The fact that dealers have created a racket by locking out the ability to allow cheaper replacements is ridiculous. It's not anywhere near an actual reasonable cost for the kind of equipment involved (which would be much cheaper than the average smartphone).

(2) For that theoretical cost savings and minor inconvenience of carrying a fob in your pocket, you have introduced several layers of additional failure points and places for security flaws.

I found this out when I got my most recent car, which has a "keyless" system. Is it convenient to leave it in my pocket when unlocking or starting the car? Sure. But I'd pay a premium for a car with a physical key again.

Why? Because I found out what happens when the system failed on my car within the first few months of ownership. I had to have the car towed back to the dealership, and the replacement was free, but I was stuck without a car for two days. (It shouldn't have taken two days, but it took the better part of a day to actually get the dealer and manufacturer to coordinate with a towing service to actually get the car.)

And even when the fob battery isn't dead but clearly has significant life left, the system is completely unreliable. Supposedly, there is some sort of sensor that should detect a dead battery fob when held up to the ignition button (I would imagine an RFID chip), but it doesn't work consistently. It's also insecure.

In many years of using traditional keys, I've never had a problem starting a car due to issues with the key. With keyless, there are too many new failure points, and it can create significant inconvenience. Add a phone into the mix, and you have even more possible security and failure points.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how this is more convenient for the main user... compare "get keys out of pocket, click button, put keys in ignition"

Not even that. I have keyless entry/start on my car. My key fob always stays in my pocket, I just push a button on the handle to open, and another on the dash to start.

And the nice thing is since the key doesn't leave my pocket never again have I come close to locking my keys inside the car.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[ihtoit]

some handsets (like the ZTE F930) don't even need a SIM for Bluetooth to work.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[rastos1]

Amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage!

Re:How is this more convenient?

[paazin]

Keyless entry is ridiculously insecure - many systems out there can be easily broken into if there is a key somewhere in the vicinity: http://www.engadget.com/2016/0...

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

> easier to get up, walk across the room and flick a switch

Ugh. Exercise? The whole purpose of technology is to PREVENT exercise. And then sell it back to us as another app.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[sociocapitalist]

I'm not sure how this is more convenient for the main user... compare "get keys out of pocket, click button, put keys in ignition" to "get phone out of pocket, unlock phone, open app, press button on app"... OK, it's one less thing to carry, but then you'd probably end up carrying the keys anyway as backup in case your phone died or the app crashed.

I've been experimenting with home automation. While having lights come on automatically via various rules is nice, it's a pain to go into the app to turn them on and off manually when you need to - easier to get up, walk across the room and flick a switch. This feels similar - a solution in search of a problem

That being said it would be nice not to have to pay 200+ euros for a new key/remote when one is lost.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[sociocapitalist]

I will tell the valet to remember that the unlock code is y04WhDlHff6A49yarVdYjVxhwlu5X9WEOw5MZBu2Flj9srrbbB2
8ZDAr1IN4lm7fvoe4Y9n

I can just about get that to fit that on a post-it to stick on the dashboard....

Re:How is this more convenient?

[sociocapitalist]

Please get rid of:
XM radio that I have to cycle through 3 selections of to get back to FM.
Climate settings that are only displayed on the LCD, and often not displayed unless I am in the right mode.
2G, 3G, or 4G anything. I want to drive. I can login when I get there.
Anything with sub-menus. I'm trying to drive, KISS.
Ability to order a pizza. Recently saw this touted as a feature, WTF?

Let's add any stereo that can't be replaced by generic after market and/or requires BUS connection or the whole fucking car stops working.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[AmiMoJo]

Touchscreen is pretty much essential for sat nav. It's okay for setting up stuff that doesn't change much, e.g. the AC and charge timers in my Leaf. It's only stuff you operate while driving that you want tactile buttons for.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Bengie]

Maybe $400 with insurance. S7 Edge is about $750.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

No imagination! In some ways this app could be better than leaving your keys. The garage could easily have a compatible parking attendant app to receive a valet "key" from your phone. This key can be coded to only permit the car to be driven a certain number of miles, or a radius around the drop-off location, then expire when the owners phone is within range.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want a Lada Priora? Cause you're sure not gonna find a car made in Japan, Korea, the U.S. of Europe that meets those requirements.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try "car is warm and already gone". There's a big enough business in teams of car theives driving around on cold winter mornings looking for "puffers" (cars with the engine running to warm up) that it's actually illegal to do that (leave engine running unattended) in some places.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Grishnakh]

My new Mazda3 satisfies most of those, and it isn't even a large car.

It does have the $300 key though, but you're not going to avoid that without getting a 10+ year old used car. All cars are like this now. You can't avoid it.

For the rest:

It's a smaller car, but I'm 6'1" and I fit in the back decently well (I have longer legs though, not a tall torso), as long as the person in front doesn't have their seat all the way back.

The automatic climate control has real knobs for temperature setting with detents, and buttons for some functions. The cheaper models have manual climate control with 3 knobs.

The driver's arm rest is padded.

No cellular modem in this car, only Bluetooth for pairing with your phone.

Haven't tried replacing the cabin air filter yet, but it looks fairly simple. It's behind the glove box and it doesn't look like it's that hard to get to, unlike my wife's 2005 Volvo (holy shit what a PITA that was!),

TPMS doesn't use sensors in the tires; it's the cheaper (but easier to deal with) system which uses the ABS wheelspeed sensors to detect an underinflated tire. Not as accurate as the sensor-type systems, but you don't have the annoyances you mention. When you inflate the tires or need to clear a TPMS warning, you just hold down the TPMS button for a few seconds to reset it.

You get 2 fobs with the car, so a 3rd will cost extra (and more than $100 I'm sure). I do believe some people have figured out how to download the Mazda software online (Bittorrent?) and do their own key programming, so you might be able to do that with a used fob from Ebay. I've gotta look into this more.

You can turn the stereo/infotainment on without starting the engine and leave it on for a while in the garage.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[TsuruchiBrian]

My last 4 phones have been $200, $300, $350, $500. Sure there are more expensive phones, but there are also more expensive key fobs.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Toshito]

Not even that. I have keyless entry/start on my car. My key fob always stays in my pocket, I just push a button on the handle to open, and another on the dash to start. The battery runs out maybe once every 2 years. I've never once wished it could be "easier" by bringing a phone into the mix.

You have to push a button on the handle? How quaint! I just have to grab the handle and as soon as my fingers touches the inside of the handle the door unlocks.

The first couple of times it's not natural (you grab an pull too fast and it's still locked) but now I'm used to the quarter second wait before pulling it and it's great.

When I grab the driver side's handle it only unlocks this door, when my girlfriend grabs the handle on the passenger's side (she also has a keyfob in her purse) it unlocks all doors. So I don't even have to unlock the door for her...

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got a bluetooth activated deadbolt for my house that works with my smartphone.. My car has key fob that does exactly what volvo is doing here with the smartphone. The one on my deadbolt uses my phone. It automatically unlocks when I am near and locks when I leave. I can also unlock by pulling out my smartphone and using app too both near by or over the internet. I can also send someone else a virtual key. Really the reason I got it for my house is that I am lazy. Being that I don't have take out a key to open or start my car, having to take the key out anyway to unlock or lock my front door seemed like unnecessary work. It is definitely more convenient.

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh these things are EASY to remember!
Just see this fine example from "The IT Crowd: Episode 0118 999 881 999 119 7253 "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8GtuPdrUQ

Re:How is this more convenient?

[Locke2005]

Fair enough... and I suspect we will get a Siri/Cortana/Alexa like system to just use voice commands in cars soon enough. Although, as a caution, I'd point out that one you tell Alexa "Volume 10", she CANNOT HEAR you scream, "Volume 5! Volume 5!"

Volvo wants app appers to get apped!

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern app appers know that ONLY apps can app apps, so when app appers app their car using apps, their car will get apped by an app apping app who apps apps!

Apps!

Re:Volvo wants app appers to get apped!

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern app appers know that ONLY apps can app apps, so when app appers app their car using apps, their car will get apped by an app apping app who apps apps!

Apps!

Offtopic? This time it's spot on!

So... What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything. So much easier now to hotwire a care.

My jeep already has this

[Notorious G]

2016 Jeep, the app on my phone will start the car and unlock the doors - all via wifi connection. Bluetooth unlocks the doors as I approach and touch the door handle (driver or passenger side).

Re:My jeep already has this

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but with a Jeep you already know there is a 50-50 chance of not being able to use the car because of some failure as such the risk is small.

Re:My jeep already has this

[Anonymous Coward]

2016 Jeep, the app on my phone will start the car and unlock the doors - all via wifi connection. Bluetooth unlocks the doors as I approach and touch the door handle (driver or passenger side).

Where do you live? I like new challenges.

Longevity

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep cars through multiple tech cycles. Any car I buy this year, I expect to still be driving as my primary car when only the greybeards remember what Bluetooth was. Stick with dedicated hardware for my car, please.

Re: Longevity

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the vampire

Re:Longevity

[TsuruchiBrian]

Just because you have remote keyless entry and engine start doesn't mean you have to use it. I had remote keyless entry and engine start for 11 years on my 2005 prius. Eventually the main key fob I was using died, and the other (that was kept in pristine condition) also died. I then had to shell out $400 on a new one. If their system was based on a smartphone app, I wouldn't have had to buy anything new. Sure I buy a new phone every couple years, but that's not an additional cost.

Re:Longevity

[Moof123]

If it is smart phone based you now have to be sure that your phones will run the app for the next 15-20 years. What if your Prius app was on Blackberry and they saw no need to port it to iOS, or Android, let alone support it for whatever god awful carrier locked Android mashup your phone is stuck on?

Phones are the least stable technology platform at the moment (except maybe smart watches).

Re:Longevity

[TsuruchiBrian]

If it is smart phone based you now have to be sure that your phones will run the app for the next 15-20 years.

This is not much harder than making sure that Toyota will be able to offer replacement key fobs for 15-20 years. Both require some trust in Toyota to keep the the infrastructure going that is needed. Better yet, if Toyota were to open source the software, then the chances of losing this technology would be very small.

It's arguably easier to port some software to a new OS than it is to make millions of new key fobs. The expense of the keyfobs is probably the part of reason they are so expensive to replace. Software is cheap to make (when the cost is divided over all the users).

Well, I'll be!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds exactly like what Tesla has had for several years now.

And now this article .... so, that guy wasn't a smart-ass when I joked that I was going to become a car thief and he said, "There's an app for that."

Having spent some time working for a carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

I know just how often phones get lost or are stolen.

It's way more often than car keys are lost.

At a restaurant, you don't set you car keys on the table while eating. You don't generally set your keys on the counter while paying. You don't have your keys in your hand while walking around not paying attention to your surroundings.

And if all I have to do is push a button to start your car once I have your phone...

Re:Having spent some time working for a carrier

[Grishnakh]

Actually, since I got a car with "advanced keyless entry" (where you can just walk up to the car and press a button), I never lose my keys because they never leave my pocket. With older cars, I'd occasionally lock myself out of my car, so I always kept a spare door key in my wallet to let myself back in, but with this car I don't need it because I never have to take the keys out of my pocket until I get home. (Also, with this system, the car won't lock the car if it detects a keyfob inside the car, so it's almost impossible to lock yourself out.)

combination lock

[holophrastic]

We had keys specifically so that a physical device is required. That's a security feature. Otherwise, a combination lock would let anyone with knowledge of the combination to enter -- which could easily be sent by text message.

I don't lend my car to random people, on a whim, without them having a key already. Sorry, that's not a thing.

And, again, I don't need remote access to my car, any more than I needed remote access to my VCR's eject button.

Re:combination lock

[tomkost]

maybe you do not lend your car, but A - others might, and B - you currently can't which isn't a good predictor of what you may want or others may want to do in the future. as i said in my other post, it's terrible as a replacement for key or fob, but an interesting companion feature.

Re:combination lock

[spire3661]

Ah yes, the infamous VCR eject button on the remote, such a curious thing.

Re:combination lock

[holophrastic]

Actually, I think not being capable of lending my car to someone without meeting them is a great and wonderful thing. I also think not being able to open my car from more than three feet away is a wonderful thing. I'm also certain that, like with most new technologies, marketing will make people want something that they never wanted before.

Right now, I don't have a problem, and I don't have a complaint. That means there's nothing to solve and nothing to address. We're not talking about a core-feature of a car, where you could say that it's missing. We're talking about an accessorial feature.

Now, perhaps if we were to add access control to this thing, such that I can authorize my child to access the car only during certain hours, or my neighbour access only when I'm not home (and the car is), then you could argue that granting access around security is a core-feature of secure-access.

But then I'm going to say that if my neighbour can't follow my rules, then I don't want them to have access to my car at all. And if my child can't follow my rules, then being able to break them is a vital part of maturing.

This is like opening my garage door from the office so the courier can deliver a package to a securable area. Instead of trusting my neighbours to not steal a package from my front door, I'm trusting the courier to not steal anything from my garage.

Re:combination lock

[holophrastic]

See, that's a feature that we never had -- the actualy EJECT. I always wanted the tape to eject across the room -- propelling the tape at least 15 feet. That would have been awesome!

Especially in the DVD days, (or CD even) where it could have frisbee'd the disc across the room to the couch, and where we could have horse-shoe'd it from the couch into the tray!

Re: combination lock

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because the physical keys to cars have been so secure that most thieves can open your car door in a few seconds? While bluetooth have their own list of insecurities it's probably more secure than the current fobs you get with keyless cars.

Re:combination lock

[tomkost]

totally agree it's not a core feature, just an accessory. it's certainly not a replacement for a key or fob as I said. but I see you're thinking now about how it might be used. cool. My main way of thinking is that locks and keys and so forth are there to keep honest people honest. They don't really stop the determined criminal so that's not what they are really for in the end.

Re:combination lock

[Anonymous Coward]

Wife's purse was stolen, she no longer has her keys or her phone.

In this instance, being able to unlock the car remotely would be useful.

But as I understood it, unless I missed something, this was a solution similar to Bluetooth or NFC, where you had to be close to the car for it to work.

Re: combination lock

[holophrastic]

Physical keys require the thief to be right there picking the lock. That means anyone watching can see that it's a thief. It also means that in order to steal my car, you need to find my car, specifically. It's a surface-area-of-attack thing. With this new device, a thief can sit in the coffee shop, and spend hours hacking into any car in the parking lot, completely and totally undetected. Infinite time, infinite cars, infinite opportunity, zero chance to get caught.

Re:combination lock

[holophrastic]

Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation. Like with any radio transmission, it's only about power and size. Your phone might only have a short range, but the $300 device that I buy at the radio store has a three mile range.

When your wife's purse was stolen, she had to call five credit card companies, two banks, four government agencies, and at least three lock-smiths. She can also call her husband to bring her the spare car-key.

Re:combination lock

[holophrastic]

True. I've always said that we aren't going to be able to stop Ethan Hunt.

However, along the way, we've shifted from "honest persons" to "honest publics". I think that's the new problem. One honest person standing in-front of me won't stab me in my pace-maker (if I were to have one). But in a stadium of 75'000 screaming fans, will one 14 year-old hack into my pace-maker from 100 yards away and turn it off?

Imagine being able to assassinate the president by turning off his pace maker. Without a trace. Without physical access. Without physical proximity! Trump would be dead a hundred times over already. Lincoln would have been dead for just suggesting freedom.

Bullet-proof cars aren't so bullet-proof when the sniper can roll down the windows from a mile away. That's what this technology is.

The convenience to lock my doors from the office, in-case I forgot, is very assuring. The ability to unlock those same doors is very stupid.

Re:combination lock

[TsuruchiBrian]

If anything, physical keys are less secure than electronic keys. Physical keys can be copied. Electronic security, if done properly is, is much more work to replicate using a machine at home depot.

Look at the fight between Apple and the FBI. The iphone arguably doesn't even have good security, and look at how hard it is for the FBI to unlock the San Bernadino shooter's phone. If the information was in a physical safe, the FBI would have gotten into the safe within hours.

Re:combination lock

[holophrastic]

I'll use your example against you, if you don't mind.

If the information were in a physical safe, the FBI would have gotten into the safe within hours. Let's say within three hours. Then, when they want my phone, that's another three hours. Then, when they want your phone, that's another three hours. That's three hours for each and every phone. That's a few million hours for all iphones.

But it's not in a physical safe. It's in the iphone. Now, eventually, the FBI will get into the iphone, and get everything they want. It's been a few months. Let's say it takes six months. Then, how long does the second iphone take? Right, one second. And it can be done remotely. Suddenly, every phone everywhere is instantly accessible to the FBI.

Oh wait, like the whole surveillance state that already exists. Couldn't have existed with physical safes, and message couriers. Was totally and directly illegal with snail mail too.

Electronic keys are better than security keys, I agree, entirely -- until the electronic keys can be used from a distance. Then it's all over. The entire parking lot is at risk. Every car within three miles of a computer is at risk.

That's why, right now, when you use the remote to unlock your car doors, they re-lock on their own after thirty seconds. So if they get an errant signal, or somone hacks it from fifty feet away, they won't get there in-time. They also need to find the car, which ain't easy in a big parking lot. But turn on the car, or roll down the windows, or turn on the lights such that they stay on, and then just walk up and down the parking lot aisles and look for open cars with a glance.

Security isn't about making something difficult. It's easy to break a window to bypass a locked door. It's very easy to print money. Stupid easy to print money. The mint does it all the time. Buy the equipment, buy the supplies, hit print. What makes printing money difficult is that those supplies are easily tracked -- it's that plastic and that colour ink that's only available from three places in the world. So you'll be caught instantly.

That's security: being able to catch the culprit easier than they could pull off the heist. When police have the upper-hand over the criminal, that's security.

This technology turns that backwards.

Re:combination lock

[Moof123]

"Electronic security, if done properly"

It is safer to bet it will be badly implemented and unsupported after the fact. So far that is the track record for most electronic devices.

Re:combination lock

[Anonymous Coward]

It was useful as hell! The damn eject function took more than 10 seconds on my fancy VCR. More than enough time to hit the button, walk to the tape library and back with time to unbox and put in the next tape with minimal downtime. It's about efficiency.

Re:combination lock

[TsuruchiBrian]

1. The security on an iphone is *not* good. Yes the FBI will eventually get in. Will the second device take 1 second? It depends how they get into the first one. There is a lot of speculation that the FBI is trying to physically hack the iphone (i.e. disassembling chips to extract information, etc), which is not a process that is going to be easy even after your know how to do it. Just because iphones are not secure now, doesn't mean they can't be secure.

2. Why is the remote use of electronic keys a problem?

That's why, right now, when you use the remote to unlock your car doors, they re-lock on their own after thirty seconds. So if they get an errant signal, or somone hacks it from fifty feet away, they won't get there in-time.

There are no "errant" signals that are going to accidentally correctly digitally sign a message. If a hacker hacks the security system, they system is broken. Having some feature that relocks the car after 30 seconds to prevent the hacker from reaching the car in time to steal it is not going to do any good. Good security does not rely on obscurity like the difficulty a thief has in trying to find the car he successfully hacked in a crowded parking lot. This examples assume weak security to begin with. It's like saying that a castle's security is weak because once the attackers break the walls, the blankets in the kings bed are not strong enough to deflect swords and arrows. Once the walls are breached it's game over. There is no point in trying to make blankets that can be used as shields.

There are encryption algorithms that have not (to the best of anyone's knowledge) ever been cracked (e.g. RSA, AES, etc). If a hacker manages to hack a properly implemented security system, stolen cars are the least of our problems.

Re:combination lock

[TsuruchiBrian]

It turns out lots of people do security properly. We just don't hear about those instances because there aren't any incidents to report on. Even when electronic security is not done well (e.g. like on the iphone), it is often still much more secure than a metal key.

I did not claim that electronic security is perfect. I am saying it can easily be done more securely than physical keys.

Re:combination lock

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that I don't loan my car to ANYONE AT ALL is besides the point! I will never buy a car that can be unlocked by anything but a physical key!

Re:combination lock

[arth1]

Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation. Like with any radio transmission, it's only about power and size. Your phone might only have a short range, but the $300 device that I buy at the radio store has a three mile range.

An NFC initiator capable of creating magnetic induction in the antenna pair in the car at a distance of three miles? Max practical range for NFC is around 20 cm with a beefed up initiator. The power requirements grow exponentially with distance. You might as well try to pull the car keys out of someone's pocket with an electromagnet at that 3 miles distance.

Re:combination lock

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation. Like with any radio transmission, it's only about power and size. Your phone might only have a short range, but the $300 device that I buy at the radio store has a three mile range.

An NFC initiator capable of creating magnetic induction in the antenna pair in the car at a distance of three miles? Max practical range for NFC is around 20 cm with a beefed up initiator. The power requirements grow exponentially with distance. You might as well try to pull the car keys out of someone's pocket with an electromagnet at that 3 miles distance.

Only if you insist on trying to do it the stupid way. You can easily get infinite range if you use a NFC initiator with a radio transmitter (or cellular modem) that connects to another device that functions as a NFC tag emulator.

Believe it or not, I have successfully used an Amiibo that was on a different continent using that method. The person who had it scanned it with their smartphone, sent me the .bin file, which I then loaded onto an Amiibo emulation device called an Amiiqo.

Re:combination lock

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe you weren't around in the 70s, but back then tape decks really spat the tapes out at you, sometimes with enough force to send them flying. I have a Nakamichi tape deck that opens so that the tape slides out horizontally towards you, and you have to put your hand in front of it to catch the tape or it ends up on the floor.

Re:combination lock

[Grishnakh]

Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation.

That's easily fixed in software. Just measure the response time. You can amplify the signal if you want, but you can't make the signal travel faster than light.

Re:combination lock

[Grishnakh]

Otherwise, a combination lock would let anyone with knowledge of the combination to enter

How about all those Fords with 5-button keypads on the doors?

Re: combination lock

[Grishnakh]

That means anyone watching can see that it's a thief.

So what? What are they going to do about it?

Re:combination lock

[Grishnakh]

Instead of trusting my neighbours to not steal a package from my front door, I'm trusting the courier to not steal anything from my garage.

You could put a security camera in your garage to deal with this problem.

Re:combination lock

[CCarrot]

And if my child can't follow my rules, then being able to break them is a vital part of maturing.

Whoa, don't break them! Just...bend them a little, they'll come back into line.

You can always break them later, if they jus won't larn ;)

When I left my phone to get fixed...

[swb]

....two weeks ago at the Apple store (iSight camera replacement).

It was like 2-3 hour turnaround, and I left my phone at the store and drove home and then drove back later when it was finished.

I think this is a pretty stupid concept unless it's totally supplementary/optional to having a fob of some sort. My existing Volvo keyless drive fob has an actual key that can be pulled out. I only ever use it to activate the valet lock (locks the glove box and trunk), but if I recall what they told me when I picked it up it can also unlock the driver's door and somehow allow you to start the car, too.

I like the keyless drive setup and can't begin to see how a smartphone app would be more convenient than either a pushbutton fob or even analog keys. The last thing I want to do in -20F is fuck around with my phone and ungloved hand to unlock the damn car.

Yikes!

[evolutionary]

This goes right up there dangerous ideas like Amazon using a Selfie as a password. Just steal your phone, and bonus...in addition to getting all the data from that phone (who encrypts there phone properly, I ask you...), you'll get their car as well. (Besides doesn't the government claim to having a potential way of bypassing the encryption they were trying to force Apple to break?).

Re:Yikes!

[TsuruchiBrian]

Hacking even poorly done security systems is a lot more effort than stealing physical keys. That said, well done electronic security is *way* more secure than having a specifically shaped piece of metal be an authentication system.

Re:Yikes!

[gnupun]

Hacking even poorly done security systems is a lot more effort than stealing physical keys.

Yes, but you have to be close to the physical keys to steal them and that's difficult depending on where the owner of the keys is. By comparison, millions of hackers around the world can hack into your smartphone car keys. You make it sound difficult, when any smartphone has tens of thousands of bugs hackers can exploit.

Re:Yikes!

[Anonymous Coward]

(who encrypts there phone properly, I ask you...)

I would but, my device doesn't support the encryption option correctly. (I.e. the button is there, but the support is not present.)

Not to mention it's pointless anyway. What's the point of 4gajillion-bit RSA / DSA / whatever-you-prefer if the key is protected only by an at most 4 digit pin, or some really short screen lock password? Yeah whoohoo, there's some form of HW security chip holding the key. It's still only protecting it by an easily guessable pin or password. Give it the right combo and the key (and access / data) is yours. (Why do you think the FBI wanted Apple to disable the wiping mechanism on the phone? Because it's trivial and feasible to get to the correct combo if there's unlimited retries without penalty.)

That needs to be fixed first, get better authentication methods implemented. After all, full device encryption only works if the device is OFFLINE at the time of it's capture. So having stronger auth mechanisms is possible without the device needing to be immediately accessible (under normal conditions).

As for the access gained through mobile device theft, there's even the chance now to get direct access to your victim's bank account too.

Re:Yikes!

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes, but you have to be close to the physical keys to steal them and that's difficult depending on where the owner of the keys is.

The same could be said for on chip encryption in a phone. Sure you could have a shitty encryption system that stores the keys somewhere in the flash chip where they can be hacked, but you could also leave your keys in the ignition ignition.

You make it sound difficult, when any smartphone has tens of thousands of bugs hackers can exploit.

Your smartphone OS no doubt has thousands of bugs that can be exploited for various things. This is why the OS would be allowed access to the private key.

"and anyone with permission to enter"

[Anonymous Coward]

what they aren't telling you is who else they have given 'permission' to enter** to

** and start or stop the engine.. or degrade performance of the engine.. or fake running out of fuel... or track your location.. or view 'black box data'... see how fast you're going... or listen in on built-in speakerphone... or look at feeds from car mounted cameras..........

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[erp_consultant]

What's wrong with carrying a key fob? So if someone steals my phone they also, by extension, steal my car? Sorry...I'm not willing to put that on a device (phone) that is often stolen and frequently hacked.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the solution to government seizure of vehicles. No need to ask the owner if the army or an agency wants your car!

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't download a car would you?..

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[TsuruchiBrian]

So what security precautions do you take to ensure no one can steal your car keys? Sure some phones can be hacked. Keys don't even need to be hacked in order to use them.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[erp_consultant]

About the same I do with my wallet and phone. The point is, if someone gets my keys then the worst they can do is steal my car and I have insurance for that. If someone steals my phone they have access to my email, twitter feed, LinkedIn account and whatever else I decide to put on there. Potentially a lot more damage.

Getting a stolen car replaced, no problem. Having your identify stolen...not so much.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[TsuruchiBrian]

I still don't see what the problem is with putting your cars keys in your phone. First of all, you can encrypt your phone. Secondly, even if your phone gets stolen (and consequently your car), as you said, the car is less important than your data.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[KGIII]

Like hell I wouldn't - and I've got enough money to buy a car or ten - in fact, I own multiple cars.

If I could download a car, I'd be clogging up the internet right now - downloading *all* of them.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[KGIII]

Do you know how many times my ID has been stolen? I was doxxed back before it was a thing (about 2008) and I've had my data leaked more times than I can count. I've got years and years of credit monitoring gifted to me but can't use it (I don't bother - it doesn't do a damned thing). Instead, I have the "do not issue credit" flag set at the major lending institutions and credit rating companies.

I suspect there's at least a dozen people running around claiming to be me, right this very minute.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[thegarbz]

So if someone steals my phone they also, by extension, steal my car?

Why not? It's a logical extension to them stealing banking payment systems, social media accounts, and anything else that people put into one easy to access basket.

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[erp_consultant]

Yes, if your phone is encrypted then I could probably do it. I'd kind of like to see it in the wild, so to speak, before I actually tried it. Kind of old school I guess :-)

Re:Sounds like a solution looking for a problem...

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is definitely possible to do encryption in a way where it is "safe". And by "safe" I mean it's going to be a hell of a lot safer than a metal key. It may not stop the FBI or the NSA or the Chinese government, or some other entity with unlimited resources from getting in your car if they *really* want to, but it still might.

There is a lot of press surrounding the instances of when electronic security systems are broken. If a thief breaks into a car by somehow forging a metal key, I don't think anyone would lose any sleep over how the thief did it. We could probably think of half a dozen ways it could be done, and I don't even think it would be that important to know how the thief did it.

When an electronic security system is hacked, it's a big deal. It is important to figure out how it happened. Often times it is a failure to implement the security system properly (e.g. short/common passwords, non-randomly generated numbers, passwords stored in the clear, etc). When it turns out to be a problem in the actual crypto algorithm, that algorithm is abandoned by the security community in favor of one that is still considered secure.

If someone in the world managed to pick a schlage padlock, there wouldn't be a massive effort to recall all the schlage padlocks, because it's accepted that metal locks are just not that secure. The standard of security is much higher for electronic security and for good reason.

Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volvo!

[LostMyBeaver]

I give it about 2.5 hours before it's cracked the first time.

Tesla, a company with roots in technology and computers sucks at security. Microsoft, Google, Apple and slews of others (including the overwhelming Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc... community) could not on the best day make Bluetooth secure. I'm buying a BMW i3 right now which is extremely smart phone friendly and already know that simply because it's made by BMW it's an open hack fest since BMW is great at making things like drive trains and leather seats, when it comes to anything electronic, they're idiots.

So, here comes the infamous Volvo... a company who specializes in making automotive dinosaurs and they're going to make technology like this?

I believe Amy (Big Bang Theory) explained Volvo best when she made the statement "She was the only girl who would pass out drunk at wild college parties and wake up with more clothes on". That's Volvo in a nut shell... they could sell cars without any locks or security and people still wouldn't steal them.

Be prepaired to walk

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost your phone? Phone got stolen? Phone ran out of battery? App suddenly won't open? Phone suddenly died? Phone dropped and smashed?
Guess you're walking home then.

That's assuming the car will even be there when you get back to it. Chances are within a month of release an exploit will be found enabling anyone to open and start your car.

This sounds like a GREAT idea...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, the concept is kind of cool but the immediate question has to be 'What could POSSIBLY go wrong with THIS?'...

Seriously, until these companies coming out with fancy networked tricks can demonstrate they know once ONE about security in their existing vehicles or with respect to the privacy of our data I'll stay away from this like the plague.

Not a good replacement, but a good companion

[tomkost]

For reasons others mentioned (dead battery, etc) it's likely not a total replacement for a key or fob. However, it could be a great extension or companion to a key or fob. E.G. if you lost your fob, or you want to grant access to a friend, to either drive the car, or retrieve items from the car, that part is cool. Even if the bluetooth raises a security concern (and I doubt current key fobs are much if any better), at least with a smart phone app there is the possibility to update the app and fix security issues unlike key fobs.

lol, no

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just see this for my sister who loses her phone once a month...

Re:lol, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, people don't mind placing their $500 smartphone on the table at a coffee place or restaurant. Are they going to be comfortable placing the access to their $30,000 car on a table? I don't think so, physical keys usually stay in the pocket/purse.

Insurance will kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, insurance won't kill you, you might do it to yourself. NEVER EVER lend your car to someone. EVER. In most jurisdictions, if you have an accident, it goes on your personal insurance record, and the insurance record of the car owner. If you own your own car, that means no double dipping. If you lend your car an accident ruins not only your buddy's insurance, but yours too.

You would have to be close family for me to not be pissed off over that. Like a spouse (usually an exception in most laws for that) or my kids (no exception, but they have to learn somehow and most people don't buy their kids their own cars). Everyone else can go to Hertz.

Re:Insurance will kill you

[Joe_Dragon]

what about valet's so if they go on joy ride and hit someone can that person sue you and the valet's get off 100% due to there EULA.

Re:Insurance will kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

No difference. If the valet hits someone, the individual he hit can only sue the valet driver (generally, I suppose if he didn't have a license and you knew that things could be different). But your insurance record and his will show the accident, so your insurance will increase, along with his (Though I suppose a valet doesn't need insurance, does he?). Generally, it's just insurance records that transfer, not civil/criminal liability, though parking tickets/camera based tickets will be payable by the owner of the vehicle.

The only exception I know of is if the car is stolen. Then, obviously, you're not responsible, as it was involuntary.

no, just no

[Anonymous Coward]

so late one rainy night my husband was leaving a gig (database monkey by day, sax player in a wedding band by night) and dropped his phone in a puddle while juggling his phone into his pocket while carrying all his gear after texting me he was on his way home once he got his money. He fished it out and the screen died out right then, he was 2 hours away. It was 1 AM, if I had to drive out there it would be 3AM before I got there and 5AM when I got back home. Granting access to other devices would be all well and good, but he wasn't carpooling with anyone and if he had to stop on his way home (gas???), he'd be stuck, so even if I had a key on my phone that I could issue to someone else who wasn't physically present, he could still wind up stuck somewhere. There's also the time someone stole his phone out of the *locked* greenroom everyone left their equipment in.

Re:no, just no

[Grishnakh]

dropped his phone in a puddle

That's a good reason to buy a waterproof phone like a Galaxy S5 or S7 (not S6 though).

Physical key use case

[Anonymous Coward]

Even fobs usually contain a physical key inside, so if the battery's dead, the driver can still unlock the door. How would one do that if they just have the smartphone app?

And the benefit is...

[saigon_from_europe]

What's the point of remote access to any device that is useful only if you are physically present near it?

Re:And the benefit is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your car is now remotely controlled.

Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Want to get away from thought police? I'm sorry saigon, I'm afraid your Volvo can't do that.

I'm not afraid of our current government. However, no one knows exactly what the future will bring.

I don't have a phone

[Anonymous Coward]

...you insensitive clod.

No, seriously. I don't have a phone. If I did have a phone, I wouldn't carry it everywhere. This is the opposite of useful.

not responsible for theft from hacking

[Joe_Dragon]

and if a rent a car place does this you may be on the hook for buying them a new car if it is stolen.

Ditch the Volvo Keys? Really?

[damn_registrars]

Motor Trend would be disappointed. They dedicated 3 paragraphs of SUV of the year to the Volvo key fob...

Ripe for abuse

[Jimbob The Mighty]

So, if you want to really screw over your work colleague, swiping his phone and entering his password wrong now won't only wipe his phone (assuming IT have that feature implemented), it will also maroon him.

Good job, Volvo.

You still need to get in..

[thesupraman]

Sigh..

It is if you need to get in to the car to pop the hood (or trunk depending on model) to charge the battery!!

Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?

Re:You still need to get in..

[The-Ixian]

Volvo would love that!

Re:You still need to get in..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?

Not anymore than I presume you plan on magically transporting a new battery to the remote place where your car has broken down.

Re:You still need to get in..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never heard of jumper cables?

Re:You still need to get in..

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Is there an app for that?

Re:You still need to get in..

[Ol Olsoc]

Sigh..

It is if you need to get in to the car to pop the hood (or trunk depending on model) to charge the battery!!

Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?

Probably will have to buy a new car after the inevitable patent infringement cases get settled.

Wondering what will happen if the phone is turned off or the batteries die while driving? Not every new idea is a good one.

Re:You still need to get in..

[Ol Olsoc]

Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?

Not anymore than I presume you plan on magically transporting a new battery to the remote place where your car has broken down.

I carry a starter pak in the back of my car. A pity if I can't get into it to attach the starter pack to the battery and give it a jump.

Re:You still need to get in..

[michelcolman]

Yes, but you also need an adapter cable from Lightning port to 12V car battery. It does drain your iPhone battery very quickly and the phone gets really hot.

Re:You still need to get in..

[dkman]

If your friend/spouse/tow truck brings a new battery but you can't open the hood to install it because the release is inside the car. Yet you can't get inside the car because you need power to open the door. What do you do hotshot? Do you say F this and break the glass? It's a lot better option the have a mechanical key and put 1 key hole on the driver's door. If you never use it that's fine.

Re:You still need to get in..

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's a lot better option the have a mechanical key and put 1 key hole on the driver's door. If you never use it that's fine.

If you look closely you will see that I never said having a mechanical lock was a bad idea. I also think it's a good idea. What I said was that it does not solve the problem of having a dead battery. What I mean by "not solving the problem" is that it *still* requires a lot of effort to fix the situation (e.g. someone driving out to wherever you are to bring you a battery). That's not to say other things can't make your situation even worse (e.g. not having a way to get in the car without breaking the glass).

Re:You still need to get in..

[Agripa]

This is hardly a new problem. Some cars and naturally lots of old GMCs have an electronic parking brake so if the battery goes dead and the hood is obstructed, you cannot push the car back to gain access.

Current GMCs which have security hardware whether you have that option or not cannot be pushed started.

Re:You still need to get in..

[TsuruchiBrian]

So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.

Also notice that what I did not say is "mechanical locks are bad and we shouldn't have them". What I said was that they don't help you start your engine if your battery is dead. Can you imagine a scenario where having mechanical locks helps you start your engine? Ok so I guess the *can* help. But so can just about everything else.

But cool, now I know. I shouldn't say things like "Having working spark plugs won't help help you start your car if your battery is dead", because slashdot nitpickers will point out that yes in fact having working spark plugs will technically *help* you start your car if you have some way of overcoming your dead battery problem.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:You still need to get in..

[Ol Olsoc]

So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.

Also notice that what I did not say is "mechanical locks are bad and we shouldn't have them". What I said was that they don't help you start your engine if your battery is dead. Can you imagine a scenario where having mechanical locks helps you start your engine? Ok so I guess the *can* help. But so can just about everything else.

But cool, now I know. I shouldn't say things like "Having working spark plugs won't help help you start your car if your battery is dead", because slashdot nitpickers will point out that yes in fact having working spark plugs will technically *help* you start your car if you have some way of overcoming your dead battery problem.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Thou needest a chill pill, muchacho! And don't act like everyone is picking on you after your snarky comment:

Not anymore than I presume you plan on magically transporting a new battery to the remote place where your car has broken down.

No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.

Now you know what I want? I ant something like a fob that I wear around my neck, that when I walk up to the car, it opens. I hit a switch. and it starts. I'll assume it will work as well as my rf fob on my present keys.

There is so much wrong with the idea of a smartphone app to open and start your car that when somoene makes a pure snark comment like your apparent need for "magic," you are going to have to take the responses you get.

I wasn't being snarky, you were. Calm down.

Re:You still need to get in..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Thou needest a chill pill, muchacho! And don't act like everyone is picking on you after your snarky comment:

My snarky comment was in response to another snarky comment.

Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?

No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.

It was also not a response to you.

Calm down.

I know it is easy to incorrectly infer tone from text, so I will just tell you that I am calm. If you choose to read my comments as something other than calm, I can't stop you. But I assure you, I'm just bored at work, looking to kill some time.

Re:You still need to get in..

[Ol Olsoc]

Thou needest a chill pill, muchacho! And don't act like everyone is picking on you after your snarky comment:

My snarky comment was in response to another snarky comment.

Or are you just planning to walk away and buy a new car?

Except your reply (presumably not to me) included:

So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.

Nothing about a starter pack was in the post you said you were replying to, so you got that from my post.

Just sayin', since you had had a reply that included specifi stuff from my post and not the other, you can understand why I might have thought you were replying to me?

Re:You still need to get in..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Except your reply (presumably not to me) included:

So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.

Nothing about a starter pack was in the post you said you were replying to, so you got that from my post.

Obviously we eventually started talking to each other. But this conversation between you and I started with you inserting yourself and responding to a reply to a different person.

No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.

Specifically this one.

Feel free to weigh in, but if your going to jump into the middle of a conversation, it helps if you have some context.

Re: You still need to get in..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I can smartass. All five if the vehicles I own are manual transmission. I do not need electrical power nor a functional starter to get these cars running. I don't even need a battery physically inside the car. All I need is a hill or a strapping young lad to push. So now go ahead and tell me how you can't hardly get manuals anymore, that I'm an anomaly, yada yada yada.

Re:You still need to get in..

[Ol Olsoc]

Except your reply (presumably not to me) included:

So you have a mechanical locks and a starter pack. Your battery dies, and you say to yourself "Thank god I had mechanical locks or I'd be stranded"?.

Nothing about a starter pack was in the post you said you were replying to, so you got that from my post.

Obviously we eventually started talking to each other. But this conversation between you and I started with you inserting yourself and responding to a reply to a different person.

No need for me to transport anything magically, friend, because I have a starter pack in the car.

Specifically this one.

Feel free to weigh in, but if your going to jump into the middle of a conversation, it helps if you have some context.

Context? You mean like you presumably making an attribution mistake, then blaming it on me? As well as going netcop and demanding no one trespass on tour private conversations here on Slashdot?

I'm going to just write this off to you having a bad day, because I don't want to think I'm carrying on a conversation with an insane person.

Re:You still need to get in..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Context? You mean like you presumably making an attribution mistake, then blaming it on me?

I am not making an attribution mistake. You can see the names of the author for every comment. It's pretty easy to know who said what.

As well as going netcop and demanding no one trespass on tour private conversations here on Slashdot?

Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. If you go back and read what I said you will see that I said "Feel free to weigh in" (i.e. the opposite of demanding that no one trespass on my conversations). I also did not demand that you have context. I said it helps if you do, because a conversation requires mutual comprehension, otherwise it's just people talking.

NO.

[kuzb]

Seriously, why does every damn thing now need to be controlled by a cellphone? It makes zero sense to network the security of your car.

Re:NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same reason that all cell phones now have remote kill switches -- I mean, "anti-theft features". It's to silence the dissent of whomever might steal the car/phone/Intel CPU, etc...

As easy as sending a text?

[jargonburn]

I've got that already:
"Nope."

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[TsuruchiBrian]

Bluetooth is just a way of transmitting data. It doesn't need to be secure. You can send encrypted data over any channel securely. Furthermore, with existing public key cryptography, the private key never leaves the device anyway.

Thousands Stranded

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine a bad iOS patch or similar bricking thousands of... Volvo keys? Hilarious!

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[lgw]

Why on earth would you use public key crypto in an embedded device? The cert alone is many KB - what a waste. Program the remote initially with the same symmetric key the car has, then use zero-information proof of identity (challenge-response) to authenticate - lightweight and more secure than anything with public/private keypairs.

Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Those key fobs are dang expensive. I also would have more control (given a key-revocation scheme) over who has my keys.

Can't wait to bum-dial my car

[Anonymous Coward]

And unlock it for the first random who walks past.

Dumb idea

[kheldan]

Just another dumb idea in what seems lately like a long string of dumb ideas.

I'm starting to see a trend.

[Charcharodon]

How much more fucktarded can get with our phones?

So now when you lose your phone, you will have no money, no way to get into your car, have no idea where you are (GPS/map) and no ability to contact someone you can help because you have no clue what anyone's phone numbers are any more, and then on top of that just hand Volvo the key to everything about you since it's a godamn app on your phone and of course would need access to everything, just because.

How about not only no, but go fuck a goat Volvo no.

I for one do not buy into this whole my car is a smart phone bullshit. My car is a car. With a very strong emphasis on the world "MY". If it get's to the point where that is not that case anymore then I'll just drive my old beast until it rusts out from underneath me and give a double middle finger to the car companies on ever buying another.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[TsuruchiBrian]

Key exchange is a security issue. If you get a new phone with a new key, having public key crypto means you don't need to do private key exchange. I don't see how symmetric keys are more secure than asymmetric keys. If anything I would say the opposite is true because of the reason I already stated. Please enlighten me.

Not all phones are compatible

[tepples]

Even if I already have a phone, that doesn't necessarily make it a compatible phone. It could be an older Android phone. Or it could be a Windows Phone. Or it could even be a flip phone that just makes and receives calls and receives texts, which the carrier is willing to activate without a data plan.

more like a oil change lock out that makes the

[Joe_Dragon]

more like a oil change lock out that makes the check engine light come / and fail smog tests and it's a easy code to reset but they sue jiffy lube for doing it / telling the car owners how to reset it.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[lgw]

I was talking about a keyfob (very limited embedded device), not Volvo's goofy app.

Out-of-band key exchange (e.g., you stick the blank keyfob into a special device) is as secure as your out-of-band process, which can be made more secure than anything done wirelessly.

A phone is different, as it's possible to steal the key stored on a phone without stealing the phone, given an exploit or two. A phone can also easily manage the size of certs and the required processing power. Much different trade-off there.

There are plenty of embedded devices than simply don't have the power to do asymmetric crypto - a problem we struggled with when working on the standard for tape drive hardware encryption.

I don't see how symmetric keys are more secure than asymmetric keys.

Just the theory behind the two. The security for all asymmetric crypto is based on unproven assumptions about the difficulty of some class of problems. A math breakthrough could render any given asymmetric algorithm trivial. Symmetric cyphers (at least the good ones) aren't. E.g., quantum computers don't help at all with AES.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... just when we were starting to think about a Volvo. The "convenience" of this is of little to concern to me. The potential for hacking- much, much more so.
I'm kind of amazed ANYONE thinks this is something people even need- much less a good idea if you think of the potential problems.

Once again- too many people sitting around in offices trying to convince themselves that their idea is brilliant, while *solving* problems that don't really exist in the real world.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo isn't the pre-1999 version of Volvo you're thinking of.. that would actually be *much better*... as of 2010, it's Chinese-owned.. so therefore, today's Volvo will include innovative security technology from prominent Chinese companies, including easy-to-diagnose wireless data transmissions (read: unencrypted), and convenience passwords for maintenance and repair shops (read: fleet-wide default).

whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[ihtoit]

of course, we all know how secure Bluetooth is...

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[TsuruchiBrian]

Just the theory behind the two. The security for all asymmetric crypto is based on unproven assumptions about the difficulty of some class of problems. A math breakthrough could render any given asymmetric algorithm trivial. Symmetric cyphers (at least the good ones) aren't. E.g., quantum computers don't help at all with AES.

And if there is ever a solution to the discrete logarithm problem, stolen cars will be the least of our problems, not to mention that a software solution lends itself to updates than a hardware solution.

No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. What could possibly go wrong, eh.

This will mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that there are some people who's cars really deserved to be keyed.
Without car keys handy, there will be a little less justice in the world.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[LostMyBeaver]

I live in Norway... Volvo here is as classy as a Ford Fiesta or an AMC Gremlin. As far as I know, even Swedes wouldn't want to be seen in one.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[LostMyBeaver]

We're talking about an app that will likely weigh in at 195megs to download and a car that probably has 60 microcontrollers with a protocol that transfers up to 24mbit/sec. Public key is ok.... in fact, public key can be used for the whole exchange, it can't be more than a few bytes.

That said, hacking into public key encryption is not realistic.

Hacking the Linux Bluetooth stack and writing to /dev/gpio is child's play. Bluetooth is such a massive cludge that just the radio code is practically a premade rootkit.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[Plammox]

I know what you mean. I live in Luxembourg and the whole Petite Bourgeoisie drives Audis or beamers. (said the Volvo owner) PS: Honestly, what's (really) wrong with Volvos?

Very nice

[nospam007]

So when I get mugged and releaved of my cash and phone, I can't use Uber nor use Apple pay to take the subway nor open my car to drive home where I can't get in because my front door is opened by my phone as well.

SEE FBI crack of phones why this IS BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

SEE FBI crack of phones why this IS BAD

Monthly data plan !!!

[ripvlan]

My brother recently bought a Volvo that has an app - he can start the car, set the temp, find the car etc. Volvo provided 90 days free access but in order to keep using the app he needs to purchase a monthly data plan.

Can you imagine having to pay a monthly access fee for your Car Keys? Is it worth: $10, $20, $30 to you?

Re:Monthly data plan !!!

[Grishnakh]

Yep, my new Mazda is similar, except that to use this app you have to pay $1000 to have some extra box installed in your car. Obviously, the box has a cellular modem in it, and unlike the Volvo, Mazda doesn't spend money installing it at the factory, which is probably smart because not many Mazda owners are going to bother with this option. Volvos occupy a rather different position in the car market so they probably have a lot more takers.

Honestly, I can't imagine paying a monthly fee for my car at all; I think it's ridiculous. Whether it's for remote-start, or for some crappy overly-compressed satellite radio, I'm simply not willing to spend $10/month or more. But I guess I'm getting to be a dinosaur these days; it seems like most Americans love the idea of renting everything and paying monthly fees for everything.

about-face

[DriveDog]

It's taken a number of decades, but wow, talk about a car company losing its way. So... do you have to use your phone to lock the doors once you're inside the car? Turn on the headlights? Apply the parking brake? Blow the horn? Can we think of any better way to make a single point of failure than to tie everything to a cell phone? I expect to see some event related to this appearing in the Weird News.

Re:about-face

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed one: no more steering column. You maneuver the vehicle by tilting your phone.

Not viable

[tompaulco]

Smartphones are not reliable enough to be used as the only source of entry to a vehicle and not secure enough to be an alternate source of entry to a vehicle. Nor is the user interface efficient enough that you would want to use them for controlling vehicle functions rather than using a knob or button on the car itself. Nor do you want people with their head buried in their smartphone while trying to drive the vehicle. Nor does everyone have nor want a smartphone. A many times better solution which already works is a keyless entry fob with a physical key inside in case the battery dies. Stop trying to make smartphones do tasks which are better done with tools specific to the task. Yes, a smartphone can drive a nail, but you will go through a lot of screens before the nail is completely pounded in.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[lgw]

Yes - I'm not so worried about the any specific form of crypto behind SSH/SSL going away - there have been enough exploits now that we've gotten good at wholesale replacement/upgrades. Would suck if it "broke" keyless entry on cars though.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[Whorhay]

I don't think you could be anymore spot on about BMW and electronics. A friend of mine had a BMW which would short out and stop working in any significant rain storm. Some critical electrical bit was placed in a metal tray which was positioned perfectly to catch runoff from somewhere. So whenever it was raining more than a drizzle you just couldn't take it as transportation because it would likely short out and refuse to start again until it dried out.

Re:Works fine because no one wants to steal a Volv

[TsuruchiBrian]

Well, if it were software based, there is a good chance the software could be updated (cheap) rather than hardware replaced (expensive).

and in 50 years....

[datadefender]

Cars last much longer than smartphones.
50 years old Volvos are not uncommon in Europe.
iOS and Android will be gone by then - how will I open that car ?
I own a 66 Mustang - the keys still work just fine

FUD, or not

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously realize this shit is all in place and you're a bunch of asinine idiots coming up with retarded what-if scenarios.

No?

Oh, well, now you do.

Oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Vegeta, what's the phone say about the car's power level?

It's dead Jim.

Old timer alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day they had this thing called a manual transmission. They had this other thing called an ignition coil which used it's own power lead(s) from the alternator. These two things together allowed starting a car using nothing more than gravity or a good push. (Yes, ECU & fuel pump power, etc. etc.)

Interestingly, this is still the case on many motorcycles sold in the US. They are also easier to push, cost less, get 40+MPG, and have no ODB 2 electronics. They can also be parked in places where a car won't fit, and (trump mode engage!) have absolutely no other downside what so ever!

But seriously, if you want an electronics free vehicle, there are options...