Slashdot Mirror


Can The Police Remotely Drive Your Stolen Car Into Custody? (thenextweb.com)

In 2009 GM equipped 17,000 of its units with "remote ignition block," a kill switch that can turn off the engine if the car is stolen. But that was just the beginning, according to a story shared by long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo: Imagine this: You're leaving work, walking to your car, and you find an empty parking spot -- someone stole your brand new Tesla (or whatever fancy autonomous car you're driving). When you call the police, they ask your permission for a "takeover," which you promptly give them. Next thing you know, your car is driving itself to the nearest police station. And here's the kicker -- if the thief is inside he will remain locked inside until police can arrest them.

This futuristic and almost slapstick scenario is closer than we think, says Chief Innovation Officer Hans Schönfeld who works for the Dutch police. Currently, his team has already done several experiments to test the crime-halting possibilities of autonomous cars. "We wanted to know if we can make them stop or drive them to certain locations," Schönfeld tells me. "And the result is: yes, we probably can."

The Dutch police tested Tesla, Audi, Mercedes, and Toyota vehicles, he reports, adding "We do this in collaboration with these car companies because this information is valuable to them, too.

"If we can hack into their cars, others can as well."

10 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Um, no by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you call the police, they ask your permission for a "takeover,"

    They would ask your permission? In what universe do you live?

    1. Re:Um, no by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And there would be a second PIN (unknown to you) in case you insulted Dear Leader and needed to be transported to a gulag. Or Dear Leader wanted you to accidentally, due to inattentiveness, drive full speed into a tree.

    2. Re:Um, no by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that law enforcement and politicians would demand a backdoor.
      That opens up for abuse both by the government, corporations (in the countries where the two are separate) and by other criminals who manage to hack/steal/cajole access from the key holders.

    3. Re:Um, no by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that law enforcement and politicians would demand a backdoor.

      The system, as described, is already a back door.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  2. And of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This means any regime in the world can kidnap anybody in its own car, anytime.

  3. Remote theft. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the cars can be remotely controlled then they can be remotely stolen. This means that there will be cars that drive themselves to a destination where they will be stripped of the remote capability by non-thieves (via firmware update) before driving off, never to be seen again.

    This may all but halt low-tech theft but it will dramatically increase the potential for high-tech. I expect to hear about thousands of cars being stolen in a single day due to a zeroday exploit.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Sweeet by llamalad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A feature I've really been missing in automobiles is a mechanism whereby the ignition, steering, gas, and brake can be remotely disabled. Especially when that same mechanism can ensure that I'm hopelessly trapped inside the car the whole time.

    Nope, can't possibly see how that could ever go wrong.

  5. Re:friendly howto for new car owners by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A less complicated way to accomplish this (especially if they change the way the system is designed) would be to identify the antenna cable, disconnect it, and install a 50-ohm dummy load onto the transceiver end of the cable. This will prevent any wireless communication between the vehicle and the outside world, without causing any collateral dysfunction of the vehicle or damage to the transceiver; reception will be impossible, and any transmissions the transceiver attempts will just be dumped harmlessly into the dummy load without causing any standing-wave damage to the RF power amplifier in the transceiver. The system would just interpret the loss of wireless connectivity as not being in range of any towers it could connect to.

    Disabling GPS is similar, although since GPS is receive-only, disconnecting the GPS patch antenna should be sufficient.

  6. Wait'll the idiots behind swatting find out by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then the story will be about how you're driving your family for a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon at the park, when suddenly the car goes crazy. All the doors lock and windows close, and the car refuses all driver input, insisting on going to its own destination. Eventually you find yourself parked in front of a police station, where you and your wife are handcuffed and booked, your kids taken from you by CPS and placed into foster homes, your dog is put in a shelter (where its euthanized after 3 days), until you eventually manage to convince a judge that it was in fact your own car. You do a little research after being released, and figure out that some bozo you accidentally fragged a couple times in Fortnite precipitated the entire mess.

  7. Re:Assumes car ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..and why do you consider this a good thing? It's not like it'll be cheaper.. It'll most likely be more expensive, especially once the transportation service providers have us over a barrel.