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."

Comments

Um, no

[arth1]

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

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

Re:Um, no

[JaredOfEuropa]

Would be a good feature if it is under the owner's control. For example: the car comes with a PIN code in a sealed envelope (or the owner sets a PIN); the PIN is unknown to the manufacturer or the dealer. The police can take over the car remotely, but only after supplying the correct PIN, given to them by the owner.

Of course thieves will try and thwart this: they can already jam GPS trackers so presumably they can jam or shield against remote control. Or they send a number of incorrect PINs to the car to lock out the feature. So it would need to be pretty resilient against DOS attacks as well.

Re:Um, no

[Pentium100]

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.

Re:Um, no

[arth1]

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.

Re:Um, no

[Freischutz]

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.

Yes, but it would be kind of fun to be able to remotely lock the doors and windows and have the thing drive the thief straight to jail.

Re:Um, no

[ShanghaiBill]

Of course thieves will try and thwart this: they can already jam GPS trackers so presumably they can jam or shield against remote control.

A GPS or cell jammer is like a giant homing beacon. A police drone could easily detect and follow the emitter. Also, with GPS and cell signals blocked, the car will likely refuse to move. The thief could still use a tow truck or flatbed to steal the car, but that is a significant barrier for a meth-head teenager.

You don't have to make a car impossible to steal. You just need to make stealing it difficult enough that the thief steals your neighbor's car instead.

Re: Um, no

[edris90]

This is a horrible idea. Loss of a car is just loss of property kind of sucks, maybe screws up your employment, but your still safe. This is essentially laying down the basic infrastructure that will eventually be hacked into automated kidnapping app. Creating not kind of safety risk just to solve property is retarded. All security get circumvented and compromised. And only the sloppiest of people leave any evidence.

Re: Um, no

[edris90]

A hack of the DMV, cross reference that with stolen database of access tokens, or explot that makes them pointless, so creeps can go shopping for sex trafficking, they just tell your daughter's vehicle to bring her right to her new job as a sex slave.

Re: Um, no

[gweihir]

That, and the problems it causes in case of ire and accidents will prevent the whole thing. A basic safety principle is "you must always be able to get out". Also, there is a lot of glass in a car. Ever thought abut thieves bringing a hammer?

This is a typical facts-ignorant hyper-theoretical fantasy scenario, like the ones with "who does the car chose to run over?". (The car does not. It goes for the maximum braking that will not destabilize the vehicle. Another general safety principle is "when in doubt, reduce system energy". And it will be driving slowly enough that this braking will make the real difference. It is, after all, not a reckless human driver that vastly overestimates his skills.)

Re:Um, no

[AmiMoJo]

GPS jammers are quite common and only need to be very low power as the signal is so weak, so are rarely detected. People use them to block trackers in rentals and commercial vehicles.

Re:Um, no

[AmiMoJo]

Oh, and if the vehicle won't move without a GPS signal you are going to have a problem the first time you park underground.

Re:Um, no

[EvilSS]

The police can take over the car remotely, but only after supplying the correct PIN, given to them by the owner.

Which, 99% of the time, will be stored, by the owner, in the glove box. Because it's car and car stuff goes in the glove box.

Re: Um, no

[JaredOfEuropa]

That basic infrastructure will already be in place. For instance: an autopark feature, where you get out and the car goes off to find an empty spot to park itself, after which you can summon it using an app. Or your wife needs the car so you send it to her location and take the train home. If these features exist, why would you want to be able to transfer control to the police? Because if the car gets stolen, they will have to decide what to do based on its location, available units etc. If they have access, they can decide to send officers to wherever it is parked, or have a unit intercept it then simply order it to pull over, etc. Works a lot better than having to have you on the phone the whole time.

Any sort of remote access on these cars is a potential avenue of attack, but you will have to features in future self driving cars. Perhaps the paranoid will be able to opt out. And in any case, one safety feature that I certainly would expect in any car is an emergency brake", a button that makes the car pull over and unlock the doors. No more remote kidnapping even if they still can steal your car remotely, even if it means the police can no longer kidnap your car thieves to jail.

Re: Um, no

[JaredOfEuropa]

The whole point of having a locally set PIN / password is that there is no database of access tokens.

Re:Um, no

[93 Escort Wagon]

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

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

Re:Um, no

[michelcolman]

I wonder what's best for the owner, though. Getting your car back in one piece without the thief, or getting it back with a thief inside who smashed the interior and windows trying to get out.

Re:Um, no

[Pentium100]

Maybe the car should have a built-in taser. During the recovery, the thief has to keep both hands on the wheel or he gets zapped repeatedly until he puts his hands on the wheel.

Re:Um, no

[eliphalet]

But unless you favor capital punishment for thieves, an accident on the way to jail could be a problem.

Re:Um, no

[The Grim Reefer]

Maybe the car should have a built-in taser.Â

People have been known to lose bowel and/or bladder control after being tased. Do you really want to sit in the drivers seat after that?

Re:Um, no

[Attila Dimedici]

The key part of that phrase was "When you call the police..." The problem would be al the times they would take over your car when you had not called them first. Of course, when they were called on it, they would say, "Well, wasn't it VIN XXXXXXXX that we took over?" And it would turn out that VIN XXXXXX was just a couple of digits off from your car and just a couple of digits further off from a car which had actually been stolen. Or, perhaps they would have "credible reports" that your car had been involved in some crime. With a "credible report" being something like the Steele Dossier.

Re:Um, no

[CaptainDork]

Who the simple fuck needs a backdoor when:

1.) You agree by contract to reveal your personal information and use habits to the vendor.

2.) Those vendors are, by way of the same contract, sharing with third parties.

3.) Those third parties are all the people you list and all the people you didn't list, except the people who are categorized as, "you?"

Re: Um, no

[arth1]

They do ask for permission all the time for various things. I have been stopped more than once in my life for speeding and such and police is nothing but courteous.

Until you say "actually, I do mind" and refuse to let them do what they want to.

Re:Um, no

[spire3661]

The parable of *RoboCop* exposes this well. Rococop had 4 directives.

"Serve the public trust"
"Protect the innocent"
"Uphold the law"
"Any attempt to arrest a senior OCP employee results in shutdown"

Re:Um, no

[rtb61]

Time for a reality check. The car stops at the lights, the person leans back and kicks out the window. Reality is for safety, the person in the vehicle must be able to over ride any other controls, bring the car to a stop and get out, otherwise kidnap mobile for whom ever takes over. Only the owner will ever be trapped because they of course will hold off kicking out the window.

Re:Um, no

[slickwillie]

Of course if you finance the car you would need to make the PIN available to the repo man. In fact, repo men would become obsolete, they would just call the car in fro the office.

Re:Um, no

[Askmum]

Why would you have to ask the police to do that? It's my car, why can't I direct the car to go where I want it?
Even more: why can it be stolen in the first place? Why can't I put a software immobiliser on it saying it should remain in place during specified hours? Why would car theft still be an issue with these kinds of connected cars?

Re:Um, no

[Okind]

Who the simple fuck needs a backdoor when:

1.) You agree by contract to reveal your personal information and use habits to the vendor.

2.) Those vendors are, by way of the same contract, sharing with third parties.

3.) Those third parties are all the people you list and all the people you didn't list, except the people who are categorized as, "you?"

Anyone in Europe, as:
1. the data sale you mentioned is not reasonable for making the car work, it's just to get more money, and
2. even the car manufacturer itself doesn't need (and thus doesn't want) to use you personal information; anonymized driving habits are sufficient

As a consumer, I really love the GDPR. It's just a shame that enforcement is probably understaffed, like the police is as well.

Re:Um, no

[Anne Thwacks]

it would be kind of fun to be able to remotely lock the doors and windows and have the thing drive the thief straight to jail.

But marginally less fun to find gangsters have used the feature to abduct your daughter.

Re:Um, no

[sycodon]

MagnaVolt!

Re:Um, no

[CaptainDork]

Look at 2.). The UK is a buyer and it's legal because the US is doing the selling.

Re: Um, no

[edris90]

That's the thing about exploits and independent thinking there always potentially infinite undiscovered ways to bypass any security and all anyone need to discover or create is one to make the pins irrelevant.. and seen as the people who hacked these things are children who don't think about the future who are doing it just for fun and their free time or instead of doing their homework. These kids got offered things in order to share their work or to focus on something in particular. kids they impulsively go sweet and don't even realize that they are working for criminals, until they try to quit. That's funny thing about security. the Younger You Are the easier it is to bypass security because security is based on blocking likely or known Avenues. And the Younger You Are the better, the less predictable you're thinking tends to be, and as a result the easier it is to intuitively notice how to bypass something without even trying.

Re:Um, no

[q4Fry]

Phooey. A voice of reason to spoil our dreamy utopia.

Re:Um, no

[Toshito]

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

Easy, just get everyone a hatchback

Dumb thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the thieves will not disable the communications antennae on the car :P

Re:Dumb thieves

[Riceballsan]

well no one is imagining this as a fool proof your car can never be stolen idea. The lock on your front door can also be picked in under a minute by a half trained etc...

however a very large percentage of thieves are just opportunistic junkies or just desperate people etc... with little in the way of skills just stumbling into a good opportunity at a moments notice. Now I'm not saying giving law enforcement access to remote takeover your car, or the security implications when this is inevitably compromised by malicious hackers and used to steal cars or worse kidnap/rob/kill people etc... but in terms of being able to stop a good percentage of car thieves, I would say yes the potential is absolutely there.

Re:Dumb thieves

[Cmdln Daco]

The title you picked is 'Dumb thieves.'

The thieves electrocute themselves trying to disconnect the battery.

Problem Resolved.

And of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I know what

[AndyKron]

Make sure you steal an older car, or wrap the new one in foil

Make sure make timely car payments

[Anonymous Coward]

No more Repo guy taking your car/truck -- the bank just connects to your car/truck and drives it to the local impound. Easy Peasy.

Re:Make sure make timely car payments

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the banks are already drooling at the prospect of eliminating the repo man.

And repo men everywhere are already in line behind the buggy whip makers whining about needing to save their jobs.

Re:Make sure make timely car payments

[Predius]

There are bank/dealers who sell cars with remote immobilizers they control already.

Re:Make sure make timely car payments

[ctilsie242]

And this technology has been misused. An Austin used car dealership had remote immobilization tech in their cars to ensure people paid their bill. A disgruntled ex-employee used another person's account, logged in, and disabled every single car in their system, where the engine stalled, and the horn would honk until the battery died.

With the prevalence of espionage, combined with the lackadaisical attitude of the private sector where "security has no ROI", there is no such thing as a back door. In the real world it is called a show-stopping vulnerability.

Re: Make sure make timely car payments

[Aristos Mazer]

Have a citation for that story? Iâ(TM)d like to be able to reference it in the future.

Re: Make sure make timely car payments

[ctilsie242]

Here is the Wired article. Yes, it is relatively old, but it does show that this technology can be misused.

Re: Make sure make timely car payments

[Aristos Mazer]

Thanks.

Remote theft.

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:Remote theft.

[Pentium100]

It would be even more interesting if the terrorists hacked the cars and told them to drive into a tree at full speed. That would cause much more terror than flying airplanes into buildings or planting bombs.

Re:Remote theft.

[arth1]

It would be even more interesting if the terrorists hacked the cars and told them to drive into a tree at full speed.

s/tree/crowd/

Re:Remote theft.

[Riceballsan]

quite true there, at least once those cars become common, Much lower death count, but much higher psychological effect, 4 or 5 cars take suicide dives and hit a couple pedestrians on the way, everyone second guesses every car they get in and every approaching car they see. Most of the theft methods could have counters (extra hidden gps trackers, say placed in unexpected places that don't start transmitting until an hour after the main gps turns off.

Re:Remote theft.

[apoc.famine]

That's what I was thinking. They can drive themselves right into a metal shipping container. Shut the doors, and that car isn't going to talk to anyone. Pop it onto a truck, and you're going to be able to ship it wherever you need it to go.

However, unless you can remotely turn off it's GPS reporting, it's not likely that thousands could be stolen in a single day. The cops would probably be able to figure out what was going on when the manufacturers tell them that even ten cars all showed up at your warehouse 5 min ago. What sounds far more useful would be to steal a couple dozen cars, have them drive to one location, put a couple hundred pounds of cocaine in the trunk of one of them, and then send them off in all different directions. Let the cops try to chase them all down, and hope your automated drug mule gets to its destination in the confusion.

Terrorism and general shenanigans are also possibilities. Send 10 cars to a roundabout, and just have them endlessly circle. Or 50 empty cars to choke up a drive-through line. Or a toolbooth. Or a major evacuation route during a natural disaster.

If you can automate cars driving around, and someone can remote control them, they absolutely are going to be used for evil.

Re:Remote theft.

[UncleTogie]

That's what I was thinking. They can drive themselves right into a metal shipping container. Shut the doors, and that car isn't going to talk to anyone. Pop it onto a truck, and you're going to be able to ship it wherever you need it to go.

The wealthy would stop buying them in a heartbeat after the first remote kidnapping.

Re:Remote theft.

[Pentium100]

Well, the current terrorists, maybe, but you never know what the future terrorists will think.

I mean somebody figured out that you can hijack and airplane and, instead of asking for ransom, use it as a missile to knock down buildings.
Also, hacking a lot of cars (if there is a vulnerability, then it probably affects all the cars of the same model) and making them kill the people would be a large scale attack, possibly spanning multiple countries.

Assumes car ownership

[brunes69]

None of this is relevant because very shortly after autonomous cars become mainstream, personal car ownership is going to fall off a cliff faster than you can say "autonomous". I fully expect that my child will never personally own a vehicle.

https://www.bbc.com/news/busin...

Re:Assumes car ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

..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.

Driving is safety-critical

[Anonymous Coward]

While the police are remotely driving your car, with the thief inside, they get it in an accident. The thief dies of his wounds, as do 3 of the children in the minivan they hit, and the blind dude they ran over as he was crossing at a crosswalk. While the police be charged for negligent homicide?

Or will YOU be charged, because that was in the fine print when you authorized the takeover?
What do the insurance companies say in THEIR fine print? Is it legal for you to authorize the takeover without the insurance company's consent?

Does no one give a fuck about safety? Not the Dutch Police, I tell you what.

Re: Driving is safety-critical

[Lanthanide]

Aside from harm to the thief, isn't this simply just abduction?

Re:Driving is safety-critical

[Koby77]

I suppose that if a self-driving car will hit a minivan because the car has a thief in it, then you have no reason to trust the self-driving car when YOU are inside.

Re:Driving is safety-critical

[qeveren]

If the thief lived he'd get a convenient set of felony murder charges. If he's dead then it's a "training issue".

Re:Driving is safety-critical

[currently_awake]

The police would blame the crook for causing the accident. Blaming the owner would discouage cooperation from other owners and lead to a lawsuit from the owner where blaming the (dead) crook lets them be tough on crime.

Silly article

[Kohath]

No one will steal any of these cars. There's nothing worthwhile to do with them after they are stolen, and the thieves would get caught right away.

friendly howto for new car owners

[nimbius]

Hey slashdot. Full time engine mechanic here (learning python/pi.) For those of you who would like to exit the museum of 1984, disabling anti-features like remote control and data collection is relatively easy in US vehicles.

The OnStar device resides usually behind the stereo, so youll need to have a set of wrenches and a bit of elbow grease. The unit is stainless steel in most cases and about the size of an encyclopedia volume. It will have a MAC Address label as well as some cellular identification on it.

unplug the GPS, the header cable, and the wifi cable. Open the box and remove a small daughter board male/male jumper to disconnect the cellular modem. reassemble the box, and reconnect it. Your vehicle wont be able to make onstar calls anymore, but in turn, it also cant be remotely snooped by whomever decided the constitution wasnt important that day.

Re:friendly howto for new car owners

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:friendly howto for new car owners

[Cbs228]

This may well work for OnStar devices. For Fiat Chrysler vehicles which use the "UConnect" system, the process is much more difficult. Old forum threads suggest that the radio's "head unit" itself is a self-contained spy device.

The head unit has a cellular modem which is physically soldered to the rest of the system. This makes it difficult to remove non-destructively. One can't simply remove the SIM—there is none—and the modem has an on-chip antenna which similarly cannot be unplugged. It might be possible to replace the "radio" with an aftermarket part, but said part would also need to manage the climate control and other passenger comfort systems.

I can understand how having fewer boxes and plugs can streamline the assembly process and improve reliability. In this case, however, I can't help but wonder this is a deliberate, anti-consumer design choice. At the very least, these systems ought to include some type of "RFKILL" switch or functionality.

If this sort of thing is important to you, research carefully before you buy.

LOL I have Model A Roadster

[Crashmarik]

Let them try and hack it.

Re:LOL I have Model A Roadster

[Megane]

I know you're joking, but cars that old don't have the modern pedal arrangement. Unless the thief has experience with driving that model of antique car, it's an even better anti-theft system than having a manual transmission.

Re:LOL I have Model A Roadster

[Crashmarik]

Well not about having the Model A. It only goes to car shows though.

And about the controls there were lots of Model A's that were made into hot rods back when I was a kid. Heavily modified and souped up. In my case it's what I first drove and learned Auto Mechanics on. It's the perfect thing to teach the basics because it's so much simpler than one of todays cars and everything is out in the open.

How many stolen cars are actually driven?

[mykepredko]

I was always under the impression that most professional car thieves (not the ones in the movies, obviously) take the cars using a tow truck. This can be done with the excuse that the car doesn't start or its being repossessed. Once they have the cars, they're either chopped for parts or sent overseas with new locking mechanisms.

Re:How many stolen cars are actually driven?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. You would have to be stupid to think the police are researching this to address auto theft. Any thief who learns to overcome locking systems will also learn to disable the remote control ability.

This is to bring YOU to the station or other secure place for the police. So if YOU are a suspect, witness, dissenter, reporter, gypsy, Jew, Communist etc the police can reduce the trouble to bring you in.

Dumb thief leaves stolen car parked outside

[marcle]

Smart thief leaves stolen car parked inside sturdy garage.

Re:unintended consequences:

[arth1]

The thief is a criminal sure, but they don't deserve to die just because they took your property.

You must not live in the US. Even a threat to property can be met with deadly force in some states.

Sweeet

[llamalad]

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.

Whose vehicle is it, if other can control it?

[mtrachtenberg]

I'm not sure I want Donald Trump to be able to drive my vehicle remotely, even if Jeff Sessions has signed off.

Just think how useful it would be for all people to have to wear TMS helmets that would intervene if we had bad thoughts. Why, Bob Mueller would have cleared Trump long ago, homosexual thoughts would be eliminated in Mississippi, and we would never again have to endure all this bureaucratic bullshit about, you know, rights and freedoms. Yay, technology.

Re:Whose vehicle is it, if other can control it?

[mtrachtenberg]

People understand risks better when they are reminded of who gets to control technology. It's not necessarily Officer Friendly. Sometimes, it's someone like Mohammed bin Salman's bitch.

Re:Whose vehicle is it, if other can control it?

[mark_reh]

You used to have "freedom of", now you have something better: "freedom from".

Re:Whose vehicle is it, if other can control it?

[tsqr]

You forgot the "Handmaid's Tale" attribution. Expect an instructive visit from Aunt Lydia.

Wait'll the idiots behind swatting find out

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Wait'll the idiots behind swatting find out

[currently_awake]

If your car attempts to abduct you, pull out the fuses from the fuse box. No power to computer means car stops.

Re:Wait'll the idiots behind swatting find out

[dargaud]

In my car you have to unscrew the driver seat first (with a custom tool) before you can access the fuse box...

Wow, you're all just starting to think about this?

[Rick Schumann]

If your vehicle is entirely 'fly by wire' (i.e. steering, accelerator, and braking are all just 'video game controls' and the on-board systems actually control everything based on their input), and you have cellular wireless connectivity built in to the vehicle, then it's highly likely that the vehicle can be controlled remotely without permission of the owner. With the advent of so-called 'driver assist', 'self-driving', and advanced 'cruise control' systems that rely on cameras and other sensors installed on the vehicle, suddenly not being in control of the vehicle at all while driving and having the vehicle directed somewhere other than where you want to go becomes a reality. The only way to prevent this from happening is to disable any and all transceivers within the vehicle's systems by disconnecting their antennas and terminating the antenna cable(s) with dummy loads. Of course by doing this there will be a loss of some of the vehicles' accessory features, but since there's no other way I'm aware of to disable outside tampering with your vehicles' systems, that's the price you'll have to pay.

What's really needed is a hardware switch that disables transceivers that can be used for remote access to the vehicle, but I'm sure that governments, and law enforcement in particular, would fight tooth and nail against such a thing. They'd rather have the ability to control any vehicle at any time without any need to get 'permission' from the owner or occupants, regardless of what their reason for it is, and regardless of your rights as a citizen. The fact that criminals can (and WILL) be able to also hack into vehicles for purposes of theft, kidnapping, or terrorism, is irrelevant to them, so long as they have this power over your vehicle and, ultimately, you.

dealer uses it to lock in dealer only service your

[Joe_Dragon]

dealer uses it to lock in dealer only service your car auto drove to the dealer for service and you will get back after paying the bill.

fine print / EULA do not work in criminal court &a

[Joe_Dragon]

fine print / EULA do not work in criminal court and the Blue wall of silence will keep the cops out of jail as well.

LMAO! Dutch!!!

[ckonestroh]

Hey they tested it , because there getting high on Mary Jay. Can't be bothered with chasing you down. :D

The best current theft deterrent

[bobstreo]

is a cheap standard transmission.

Most impulsive car thieves can't drive stick, even better, if your car has some autonomous capability, leaving it in neutral with the parking brake on would create little or no opportunity for remote driving exploits.

If the car is all fly-by-wire and there are no actual physical controls, good luck.

Re:The best current theft deterrent

[bruce_the_loon]

This'll only work for North American car thieves, out here in Africa and likely Europe and Asia as well, everyone drives stick except for the larny folks with road tanks.

One of our radio DJ's did a classic phone prank on the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYsTw3PQKYA

Re:The best current theft deterrent

[fahrbot-bot]

Most impulsive car thieves can't drive stick, ...

Neither can my 17-year-old nephew, who asked, "why do they even make cars with manual transmission?" (sigh) I hope correlation doesn't equal causation, 'cause he would make a horrible car thief - impulsive or otherwise. :-)

All my cars have been manual, including my current 2001 Honda Civic EX and 2002 Honda CR-V EX -- as will be any new cars I eventually buy.

Re:The best current theft deterrent

[ahodgson]

Probably not "any" car. Pure electrics aren't made with manual transmissions. Sucks, too, cause I'm like you, I only drive manuals.

Re:The best current theft deterrent

[fahrbot-bot]

Probably not "any" car. Pure electrics aren't made with manual transmissions.

Hadn't thought of that; thanks!

Probably not.

[fahrbot-bot]

And here's the kicker -- if the thief is inside he will remain locked inside until police can arrest them.

More likely, you'll find one of your windows or the sunroof broken or kicked out and the car empty.

Re:Probably not.

[b0s0z0ku]

What self-respecting car thief doesn't carry "Ninja Rocks" -- aka pieces of spark plugs hard/sharp enough to break a tempered glass window?

Re: Probably not.

[Nidi62]

Hell, I keep a knife in my car with builtin seatbelt cutter and window breaker. You never know when you will be in/witness a wreck and need to get yourself/someone out of a car quick and the doors/seatbelt are jamned

Why drive to police station?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Pull over to the shoulder safely and lock the car and wait for the cops to arrive at the scene. Can be done much sooner. Elon, are you listening? Expect a tweet "Already done, next software update will have this feature" soon

Chop shops might find this useful

[Streetlight]

I had also thought that this invention for self driving cars would put the repo man out of business, but what about chop shops? Stolen cars could be broken up for parts sold to repair shops or car owners. It'll take some years for new cars to need worn out parts but if chop shops can find cars with parts that have been replaced with fairly new ones there's a business opportunity. Need a several thousand dollar replacement battery for your Tesla, it may be readily available for much less than at a dealer.

Re:Wow, you're all just starting to think about th

[Rick Schumann]

So if you stop in the middle of nowhere and there's no cell service, your car won't start and you can't call anyone to 'authenticate' it?
Are you trying to bait me? Because that's the only reason I can think of you'd post something so stupid.

Except for one issue

[DrXym]

The car kills a mother and child because signal was lost or because of latency issues. Or any other fatal or embarrassing fuck up that is a completely predictable outcome from this. Good luck with the fallout from that.

Netflix...you can reach me here at Slashdot

[hyades1]

The kidnapped wife and kiddy script pretty much writes itself.

Re:unintended consequences: Uninfromed Statement

[I75BJC]

That isn't quite accurate. Maybe you read an article about this legal principle but you apparently haven't read the applicable laws. The threats have to be a specific kind of threat at specific places and in specific situations. Just saying, "I'm gonna break you phone!" isn't covered by the law as your assumptive statement could mean.

How about police-controlled guns?

[mi]

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

Suppose, a similar technology existed to remotely disable your gun. Suddenly, the same people denouncing such control over cars have second thoughts.

And then conclude, that, not only would they welcome such feature's availability, they'd like it to become mandatory!

And in actual reality

[gweihir]

Car thieves will just adapt and find a way around this. Police powers have never done anything to reduce crime. The primary purpose of the police is to keep the population under control, in the west mostly by occasionally demonstrating that those on power have the big stick ready when needed. Also nicely explains why they are so ineffective against crime.

Re:And in actual reality

[gweihir]

That as well.

Kind of what I was thinking...

[SuperKendall]

Probably the guy broke the window getting in, so they could just get out that way...

Also if a thief found himself trapped inside a car, very likely he would totally trash the interior - at least.

Now if you want to start building binding systems into the seats to keep thieves strapped in an immobile, you might have something. Could also be used for kids that will not settle down so it's not like it will never be used.

Re:unintended consequences:

[arth1]

I don't think so. Which states allow the use of deadly force to protect property?

Colorado, at least.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/0...

Different states interpret the castle doctrine differently.

Twilight Zone episode 'You Drive'

[magusxxx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No tow excuse needed and this is why.

[couchslug]

When I learned to do repos my trainer proved alarms are nearly useless. If you drive into most parking lots with a tow truck the first thing you'll see is nervous looks from bystanders, but once they see it's not THEIR vehicle on the stinger they ignore you.
Alarms were ignored and when we dragged 'em off private property (to release the e-brake and secure the wheels to the stinger) the cloud of tire smoke didn't matter either.
Fun fact:
Many repo drivers don't know what Claim of Delivery paperwork is or which counties require it for a repossession. In those counties mo driver is allowed on private property without Claim of Delivery paperwork which means even if they see a vehicle they are authorized to tow, it can't legally be moved without property owner or vehicle owner permission to access the vehicle. My repo bro knew this and when a driver parked on his lot without permission he called the cops. Next day he let another driver who didn't cop an attitude have the vehicle. :

this will go well

[iggymanz]

Mother will safely buckle her child into rear baby seat, then car takes off and drives miles away, in 100 deg heat with no air conditioning. Child dies of heat stroke on way to the police station 25 miles away.

hilarity ensues

This is potentially fatal arrogance

[Kjella]

There's two things that you don't ever take away:
1. Emergency stop
2. Emergency exit

What do you do if the car has some kind of hazardous short circuit, sensor damage, loss of control, driving right into a tornado or some other oddball emergency? There should always be a big red button to make it stop dead. There should always be a safety hammer to get out. What do you do if the captive thief sets the seat on fire? We don't allow death traps, even when they can only be triggered by someone breaking and entering. I'm kinda torn on remote kill capability, that could save lives by stopping high speed car chases easier. I guess you could use remote control as a gentler and more controlled kill, but if the people in the car wants it to stop it should stop. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If the thief can steal the car,

[mark_reh]

they can get in and out of it. Even if there's some software that allows takeover from whatever takeover the thief used, they can always kick out a window and exit the car before it gets anywhere near a police station.

The software backdoor that allows police remote control is probably the backdoor that thieves will use to steal the cars. Imagine, they don't have to go anywhere near the car to steal it, just drive it to a remote location and onto a ship for overseas transport.

Nothing good will come of this.

nonsense

[TRRosen]

This is just a silly what if that won't ever happen. We already have laws that make sure you can get out of a trunk, the manufacturers would never make any design that would at anytime prevent someone from getting out of the car. The liability would be way too high.
Note police don't disable cars (or actually tell On-Star to) unless they are behind the car and know its safe. Again the liability of disabling a car on a freeway and causing an accident is way to high.
Then there is the problem that you could never convict the person. Much better to go to the car and catch them in control of the car.

Re: unintended consequences: Uninfromed Statement

[nehumanuscrede]

Texas Specifics:

  Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A
person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force
is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the otherâ(TM)s imminent commission of arson,
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered
by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or
recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

And what if you're falsely accused of a crime?

[Uberbah]

It's not like police would limit this ability to just car thefts, they'd use it for active warrants on car owners as well. And police fuck up and kill innocent people all. the. time. Hell, just within the last week, cops have gunned down two "good guys with a gun" - a security guard and a man fleeing a shooting at a mall without warning.

So lets say the case of Brandon Mayfield happened today instead of 2004. Mayfield was falsely identified by the FBI as being a suspect in the Madrid train bombings via supposedly infallible fingerprint matching. The FBI takes remote control of Mayfield's Tesla, drives it a certain location where he is promptly shot and killed by federal agents. And the public goes on thinking that an innocent man was guilty, as he's no longer around to challenge the evidence against him.

No.

[CaptainDork]

My car doesn't have that capability.

I only use it to get updates to my fax machine.

Let's make this easier ...

[CaptainDork]

... by outfitting all cars, boats, motorcycles, trailers and shit like that with embedded GPS.

Car chase? Easy peasy. When the perp is in a location of opportunity, kill a nearby security guard who's trying to help.

Stolen car? No problem. We know right where it is. Drive right to it and kill a nearby security guard who's trying to help.

Not a perfect solution for a nearby security guard who's trying to help, but that's why God made the phrase, "collateral damage."

Re:Better Idea

[DigressivePoser]

A long time ago in high school, I mounted razor blades to the chassis of my car stereo. And one day it happened. From the skin left behind, I could tell you the race of the person who tried to steal it. Cleaning up the blood was a pain but I didn't care, I was too busy patting myself on my back. Then the cops told me I could be the one in trouble. That was the end of my vigilante streak.

Potential for abuse: unlimited

[HuguesT]

Your own car can now serve:

1- As an automated kidnapping device
2- As a weapon in any violent crime
3- As a bargaining chip against you in any negotiation

It can also handily be repossessed easily, all of the above at a small cost in hacking. Basically a terrible idea.

Great idea, until...

[jcr]

Someone hacks your car and uses it to kidnap you.

-jcr

Obvious problem.

[SuricouRaven]

Can an occupant of the car force open a door or window in the event the car is suffering severe electronics failure?

If yes: Any halfway-competent thief will realise what is going on and be out the car when it arrives. Car reclaimed with some damage, thief gone. Better than no car, at least.
If no: Then there is the risk that an occupant may be trapped in the event the car is involved in an accident, is on fire or drives into water - all circumstances in which the electronics may fail in a manner that prevents doors unlocking. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Gonna put the repo man out of business

[p51d007]

Banks, finance companies, auto companies can just tell the vehicle to come home LOL. Here's an easy way to stop that...park your car INSIDE your garage LOL. Oh, I could see this pan out to the ultimate...Smart house, smart car. The bank etc...wants the car back, it tells the smart car to return, and has the smart house open the garage for you. Park your car inside a faraday cage LOL.

moving responsibility.

[gl4ss]

so that you, not them, are responsible when it goes up in flames after it can't manouver automatically some place and can't fallback to user control either and can't let the passenger out.

look this idea is SIMPLE AF, but the FUCKING PRACTICALITIES ARE IN IT'S WAY. this is whats wrong with modern inventions mostly. that they are neither modern nor practical.

anyhow. the whole asking for permission, calling the police etc - that's a distraction to sell this idea as something new. here is what the idea is, in practicality: to have all cars on remote control from the state on demand.

what you do with that then is an extension of that idea. but that autonomous cars can technically be remotely controlled then is not really any sort of an idea worth publicizing even as an idea.

Glad they have solved the securiity problme

[joe_frisch]

Clearly this is an utterly insane idea if there is any chance of unauthorized parties taking over cars and say driving them into rivers, or each other by the tens of thousands or millions. Talk about a terrorists dream.

So I assume the there is some perfect security solution that makes this all work. Tesla and the like must be much better at security than say the NSA - which got itself badly hacked a while ago.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Wizardess]

Well lotsa things. Many of them elucidated here. (Snooping, theft, big brother) But there is a gem perhaps overlooked. Suppose Burly Joe steals your car. You lock it. It starts off to the police. Burly want's nothing to do with that. So he starts trashing the interior and bashes out one or more windows in his effort to get out. Car arrives without Joe. Owner is a bit put out. (Although there is probably a lot of DNA evidence around. So maybe the case will be solved if the police figure it's worth it - when they stop laughing at the trashed car.)

{^_-}

TV tropes strike again

[hackertourist]

TV: Bad buy hijacks car remotely, locks doors, passengers helplessly ride to their doom.

Reality: when I pull the interior door handle, the doors (which were locked automatically when I started driving) unlock and open. There's a mechanical connection between handle and door lock.

sure

[sad_]

the criminal will stay in the car and waits until he gets driven to the nearest police station and arrested.
he can't escape because the car is locked...

and those windows are unbreakable.

Re:unintended consequences:

[Mikkeles]

Good for them!