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

Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#81

Post by eclipxe »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #46
user5994461 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure to understand, is there a thing to have your car drives itself home on the press of a button, from the internet?

It lets you go forward and back. Only works if you are within Bluetooth range and keep your finger on the button in the app. If you let go the car stops. It will actually make minor turns to avoid hitting stuff. Though apparently not going off cliffs. Good for a party trick but in general I have yet to find a good real use case for it. Using it without being able to see your car is pure idiocy.

I have a gym in my garage that folds up into the wall. I use summon to pull the car out of garage before a workout and pull it back in when done. It’s a small thing but something I do every night. The convenience is just a really great nice to have.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#82

Post by hbarka »

nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

Sounds like a tall tale.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#83

Post by olex »

lohszvu wrote: post #78
yub wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a tough time believing this. 1. You're telling me you had a vehicle up on a lift, by its wheels, and there was no chuck or gates to stop the vehicle from rolling? 2. I'm assuming you're saying the customer used "Summon" to remotely move the car. a. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects even the slightest bump. b. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects the wheels are off the ground, whi…

Chucks are there to stop a vehicle from accidentally rolling or pushed away. They aren't designed to stop an electric vehicle (that has tons of low rpm torque) from being purposefully driven off.

Tesla's Summon mode has very low torque limits, it will barely make it up a slightly slanted driveway.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#84

Post by sotall »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #68
coredumperror wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feature (Advanced Summon) isn't even out yet. Only a tiny fraction of beta testers have it, so it's unlikely that this idiot has the feature. Secondly, Tesla specifically states that you must have the car in line of sight before you enable Summon (which only goes straight forward and backward by 25 feet), so this guy is absolutely a complete moron for doing that.

> Secondly, Tesla specifically states that you must have the car in line of sight before you enable Summon Just how explicitly is this instruction presented? For better or worse, I don't think you can expect users to read everything presented to them. (Partly because we bombard them with cookie notices, ads, and other crap)

Its not an instruction, its a software limitation. If you aren't close enough to the car, summon doesn't work. I think its basically bluetooth range.

Enhanced summon is a different story, though that feature basically no one has yet.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#85

Post by JoshMcC »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #60
w8vY7ER wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

auto-pilot requires the driver to be in the vehicle, i'm guessing this was the summon feature activated from their app? what a complete waste

If this is what happened, it's not that stupid on the part of the customer. Or perhaps better phrased, it's within the realm of what I would expect some users to do given this feature. Tesla should have accounted for this.

It's still _extremely stupid_ on the part of the customer (if it really happened). No smart person would begin Summon if they can't even see the car. And if they _could_ see the car _on the lift_ and still began Summon, then they're they dumbest person in the world.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#86

Post by JoshMcC »

nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

We need to see pics.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#87

Post by JoshMcC »

yub wrote: post #73
nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

I have a tough time believing this. 1. You're telling me you had a vehicle up on a lift, by its wheels, and there was no chuck or gates to stop the vehicle from rolling? 2. I'm assuming you're saying the customer used "Summon" to remotely move the car. a. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects even the slightest bump. b. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects the wheels are off the ground, whi…

Me too. Doesn't make any sense.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#88

Post by JoshMcC »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #68
coredumperror wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feature (Advanced Summon) isn't even out yet. Only a tiny fraction of beta testers have it, so it's unlikely that this idiot has the feature. Secondly, Tesla specifically states that you must have the car in line of sight before you enable Summon (which only goes straight forward and backward by 25 feet), so this guy is absolutely a complete moron for doing that.

> Secondly, Tesla specifically states that you must have the car in line of sight before you enable Summon Just how explicitly is this instruction presented? For better or worse, I don't think you can expect users to read everything presented to them. (Partly because we bombard them with cookie notices, ads, and other crap)

You don't need to read anything to know you don't tell your car to move by itself if you can't see it, with current Summon. With the new Advanced Summon, you would not need to see the vehicle because it would have move protections in place. But you still wouldn't Advanced Summon the car if you don't even know where it is (e.g. still on the lift or not)...unless you're a moron.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#89

Post by JoshMcC »

nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

Suspension, so you'd be lifting from the body of the car instead of the tires in order to access the components (and surely remove the wheels), right? Then how in the world would something like this happen? Need more details.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#90

Post by dontbenebby »

wefarrell wrote: post #27
dontbenebby wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do audits show compliance with basic security practices, or compliance with PCI DSS and other standards which may be orthogonal to security?

In this case it would be the insurance company who requests the audit, so there would be incentives to ensure that the audits are meaningfully preventative.

Good point!
Post reply on HN