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."
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."
When you call the police, they ask your permission for a "takeover,"
They would ask your permission? In what universe do you live?
This means any regime in the world can kidnap anybody in its own car, anytime.
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.
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...
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
fine print / EULA do not work in criminal court and the Blue wall of silence will keep the cops out of jail as well.
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.
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
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
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!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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
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.
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.