Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

mrooding.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 325 posts

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#281

Post by jacquesm »

jiveturkey wrote: post #172
drglitch wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are three components to my knowledge. below is my anecdotal knowledge so pls verify if needed :) - remote car monitoring/bmw connected app. this can be tweaked (its off by default) via idrive. I believe there is also some anonymized sharing with "parknow" and real time traffic apps. - maintenance notifications. this is on by default and can be disabled in bmw's new "my car" website. They also send you a postcar…

> If BMW ever shares the location data with third parties other than police, I would have major issues with all of this. By that time it would be too late. And the problem with privacy-related info (like location history) is that once revealed, it can’t be re-secured. So the only proper fix is to not collect it in the first place. Also BMW is a car company. Consumer data protection is not their core competency. Then…

Under the GDPR you could force BMW to hand over what data they have on your car. That way you would at least have some idea of what gets stored and for how long.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#282

Post by unaaaa »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #186
bawana wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not just Amsterdam. I had a car accident on Route 128 in Massachusetts during rush hour. I called the state police - they asked if anyone was hurt and when I told them no they said 'just exchange information with the other driver'. The opportunity here is for fraud prevention. Maybe that's what will eventually drive our desire for ubiquitous surveillance.

Why would you need police for an accident? Your insurance companies negotiate liability based on your statements. It's a civil matter, unless want to request criminal charges for reckless driving?

Depends if there's damage to the road and/or disruption of traffic I would imagine.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#283

Post by [deleted] »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #186
bawana wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not just Amsterdam. I had a car accident on Route 128 in Massachusetts during rush hour. I called the state police - they asked if anyone was hurt and when I told them no they said 'just exchange information with the other driver'. The opportunity here is for fraud prevention. Maybe that's what will eventually drive our desire for ubiquitous surveillance.

Why would you need police for an accident? Your insurance companies negotiate liability based on your statements. It's a civil matter, unless want to request criminal charges for reckless driving?

[deleted]

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#284

Post by [deleted] »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #186
bawana wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not just Amsterdam. I had a car accident on Route 128 in Massachusetts during rush hour. I called the state police - they asked if anyone was hurt and when I told them no they said 'just exchange information with the other driver'. The opportunity here is for fraud prevention. Maybe that's what will eventually drive our desire for ubiquitous surveillance.

Why would you need police for an accident? Your insurance companies negotiate liability based on your statements. It's a civil matter, unless want to request criminal charges for reckless driving?

[deleted]

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#285

Post by stealthmodeclan »

Theives are usually lazy and they don't make more efforts then required.

My friend has holes in the front of the car to make it easier for theives to attach a hook and then tow the car into a truck.

But if you put pressure above a threshold on any of the holes, car keeps sending one SMS to his number every 5 minutes.

This is in Romania.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#286

Post by foobarian »

blensor wrote: post #52
giobox wrote: post #16

I've anecdotally heard a lot of stories about the relay/replay attacks on keyless ignition systems used in many BMW models and other cars as well. No need to smash the window at all in some cases. Remarkably simple attack in principle, and probably a nightmare to explain to your insurer given there will be no evidence of a break in. Makes you wonder if you should start storing the key in a metal/RF shielded box at ho…

That's actually not hard to explain to your insurance or the police at all. This happened to me 5 weeks ago. The car was parked directly in front of my entrance door and the key was basically on the other side of that door. The scene of my car not being where it was supposed to be was so surreal that I did not even realize it was missing the first time when I walked out the trash. I basically walked around an invisib…

> The scene of my car not being where it was supposed to be was so surreal that I did not even realize it was missing the first time when I walked out the trash. I basically walked around an invisible car.

This reminds me of the street cleaning hazing ritual most newcomers to Cambridge, MA go through. I was about to call the police and report a stolen car when I saw the street cleaning sign and realized the day it specifies was the present. Either way not a happy feeling.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#287

Post by lucb1e »

Freak_NL wrote: post #203
lucb1e wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not normal, it's just a problem in Amsterdam. Right, the two times we needed police in Limburg (Echt and Maastricht, few years apart) it didn't happen either. It had to be life-threatening and the people didn't literally shout "we'll kill you" so the police wasn't gonna bother. Meanwhile on TV they're cycling through parks to fine people some 99 euros for not having a well-behaved dog on a leash (could have us…

Poor dude? You don't park in a disabled spot unless you have a right to be there. That should be common sense.

It was wrong and s/he was caught, but that fine is just ridiculous. Sure, someone who stood there for 2 hours in a busy spot where disabled people were indeed turned away, then they definitely chose to risk that fine. But when someone was standing with the car (not even parked) for 2 minutes, I might (as police(wo)man) decide to give a warning instead. That fine is disproportionate. Most people on HN probably earn enough to sustain it easily, but for many people, that's an entire month's worth of food that just went down the drain. Sure, it's a good deterrent, but is it fair and just? Should we just give exorbitant fines on every petty crime just as a deterrent? That's not the kind of country I want to live in.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#288

Post by rtkwe »

londons_explore wrote: post #88
rtkwe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they just always on? Also the modem would have to be on the other end of that cable loom for that to work when it's much more likely to be down in the glove box with the rest of the control modules and you don't need an antenna that long for a WAN modem.

You probably want the antenna away from all the metal body panels of the car. Hence normally running a cable up the A pillar. The modem itself probably isn't booted up to reduce vampire power drain. If it was always on, it would drain the battery after a few weeks. More likley, when the alarm goes off it starts booting up.

My cell phone still gets decent signal sitting down in the center console in the cubby below the entertainment system, enough to stream music at least which is more than it'd need for an SOS function. If your phone can send a text it's got more than enough signal to do the SOS functions.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#289

Post by jplayer01 »

outworlder wrote: post #147
Rjevski wrote: post #101

I used to fix cars for a living. Sometimes it involved “cracking” alarm & immobiliser systems. My clients all claimed they broke/lost their keys to their car - most of the time they were believable (car stuck in front of their driveway, etc). Sometimes less so, but I’d do it anyway because I needed the money and I had no proof of the contrary (innocent until proven guilty right?), although given the sad conditions of…

> program new keys Yeah. We bought an old Elantra which only came with a single key and no FOB. I bought a cheap gizmo on Amazon that you plug to the OBD port and allows you to program other FOBs. Modern-ish cars are computers. Once you have physical access, all bets are off.

All bets are off because that's how they were designed. Just look at a modern iPhone, which is designed with security in mind. It's far harder to get the same kind of access.

Re: A Dutch first: Ingenious BMW theft attempt

#290

Post by jplayer01 »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #186
bawana wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not just Amsterdam. I had a car accident on Route 128 in Massachusetts during rush hour. I called the state police - they asked if anyone was hurt and when I told them no they said 'just exchange information with the other driver'. The opportunity here is for fraud prevention. Maybe that's what will eventually drive our desire for ubiquitous surveillance.

Why would you need police for an accident? Your insurance companies negotiate liability based on your statements. It's a civil matter, unless want to request criminal charges for reckless driving?

In Germany, a police report is generally recommended in case somebody decides to change their statement. I don't know why you wouldn't call the police. They're also there to settle disputes, or at least establish a protocol for a potential court process.

And if you drive for a company, protocol dictates that you call the police even in the most minor accidents for insurance reasons.

Post reply on HN