Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Gping.io – Like TinyURL for your car

gping.io

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Show HN: Gping.io – Like TinyURL for your car

#41
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't get it. TinyURL gets a url and makes it smaller, how is this TinyURL for your car?

I agree the connection is weak. The similarity is that both services provide a short URL for a resource. In the case of TinURL, it is a longer URL. In the case of gping.io, it is your vehicle. Gimme a mulligan on the tagline and I promise to come up with something better :)

"Dude, where is my car?"

Re: Show HN: Gping.io – Like TinyURL for your car

#45
No TLS anywhere on the site, manually forcing it returns a cert for sni.dreamhost.com.... have you considered (1) ditching dreamhost and (2) getting basic security? This looks really cool but lack of security in handling my location data makes me really nervous to send it all off to you. If this could be self hosted, on the other hand...

Re: Show HN: Gping.io – Like TinyURL for your car

#47
Interesting but there might be a major gotcha. I see on the demo page that they are using Google Maps, however the free version of Google Maps cannot be used for assets tracking as per their terms of service.

You'd need a Premier subscription starting at 10,000 per year to track 100 vehicles. Then it's around 24 USD per extra vehicle.

You can use Open Street Map to avoid that (but then forget about Street View and the like)

Re: Show HN: Gping.io – Like TinyURL for your car

#48
Great idea. One thing to note is that some cars don't like OBD dongles which continually draw power after the vehicle shuts down.

My BMW i3 sounds its alarm because it assumes that an OBD connected when the car is locked belongs to a thief.

So, worth finding someone with the same model car as you to ensure compatibility.

Re: Show HN: Gping.io – Like TinyURL for your car

#49
post #9
post #2

There seem like so many ways to make this more secure than a public-but-hard-to-guess URL. Am I missing them? Does anyone have ideas on why it's a bad idea to for example require a login? Edit: just want to append that this is really neat! I don't think it's dumb at all but my knee-jerk reaction was "aaah somehow this will turn into someone hacking cars that aren't theirs"

I agree users will want something better. I want to learn a little more about who the potential users are before implementing an authentication system for them. For example, if this were to be strictly a consumer app, then Google or Facebook auth would make sense. If this ends up being used by businesses, that speaks to another solution perhaps. Thanks for the feedback!

Could just start basic - set a passcode on the phone; require it to be entered in the browser.
Post reply on HN