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

Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

image-ppubs.uspto.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#81

Post by gnicholas »

bumby wrote: post #75
gnicholas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn’t this exactly how we deal with stuff from homes to furniture? Repossession is how we deal with these situations. We don't have recliners that lose the ability to recline if a bank payment doesn't go through on time. Or smart homes that lock you out if your mortgage payment is late.

Is there a functional difference? Or put differently, why would someone prefer to have a repo person come and take away the asset, putting themselves and other people at risk of a physical encounter?

The remote locking requires remote connectivity, which means risk of errors or hacking. Also, once the ability to remote lock is built-in, it makes it easy to say "oh sure you paid for XYZ features, but once you sell the vehicle it is reset to factory defaults" — meaning the new owner has to pay for whatever you paid for already.

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#82

Post by jcadam »

dmitrygr wrote: post #31
selcuka wrote: post #22

From Ubik [1], by Philip K. Dick: The door refused to open. It said, "Five cents, please." He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. "I'll pay you tomorrow," he told the door. Again it remained locked tight. "What I pay you," he informed it, "is in the nature of a gratuity; I don't have to pay you." "I think otherwise," the door said. "Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt." ...h…

I read the book because I saw this quote. This quote is at best tangential to the story in the book. The book is much better than this quote would let on.

Ubik is my favorite Philip K. Dick novel. Yes, better than the one about the electric sheep.

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#84

Post by Nextgrid »

bumby wrote: post #77
Nextgrid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human getting hurt or injured is a necessary evil against abuse and puts a limit on how unreasonable or petty the lender can be (as the risk of repos is ultimately baked into the commission charged by the goons, thus not making it profitable to repo for minor things). Same reason why people are generally much more civil in real life than online - the risk of being punched in the face keeps everyone in check and a…

Ehhhh...really? Physical injury is a necessary risk for enforcement of a legal contract? Where else does this extend? Does a marriage contract bear the risk of injury? How about a business merger? This is weird logic that belies a desire for vengeance, not justice.

A fundamental physical limit on corporate greed sounds like a very good thing to me.

Keep in mind that the potential for violence doesn't mean violence has to occur - every party in the contract is still free to not force the other side to resort to violence (which usually happens out of desperation).

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#85

Post by bumby »

Nextgrid wrote: post #84
bumby wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhhh...really? Physical injury is a necessary risk for enforcement of a legal contract? Where else does this extend? Does a marriage contract bear the risk of injury? How about a business merger? This is weird logic that belies a desire for vengeance, not justice.

A fundamental physical limit on corporate greed sounds like a very good thing to me. Keep in mind that the potential for violence doesn't mean violence has to occur - every party in the contract is still free to not force the other side to resort to violence (which usually happens out of desperation).

I would rather rely on well-structured legal limits rather than brutish physical ones. People who advocate for physical violence as an arbiter of disagreements tend to either be the types who prefer to get their way by strong arming others or have not experienced the devolving of the rule of law for extended periods of time.

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#86

Post by Nextgrid »

bumby wrote: post #85
Nextgrid wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fundamental physical limit on corporate greed sounds like a very good thing to me. Keep in mind that the potential for violence doesn't mean violence has to occur - every party in the contract is still free to not force the other side to resort to violence (which usually happens out of desperation).

I would rather rely on well-structured legal limits rather than brutish physical ones. People who advocate for physical violence as an arbiter of disagreements tend to either be the types who prefer to get their way by strong arming others or have not experienced the devolving of the rule of law for extended periods of time.

Keep in mind that I have never advocated for violence being the primary arbiter of disagreements. In fact, resorting to violence pretty much always turns out poorly for the attacker and is thus not a winning strategy - it is usually done out of desperation more than anything else.

The possibility of someone reacting unreasonably however keeps everyone more honest and assigns an actual cost to pushing people to a situation where they will resort to violence out of desperation.

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#87

Post by bumby »

gnicholas wrote: post #81
bumby wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a functional difference? Or put differently, why would someone prefer to have a repo person come and take away the asset, putting themselves and other people at risk of a physical encounter?

The remote locking requires remote connectivity, which means risk of errors or hacking. Also, once the ability to remote lock is built-in, it makes it easy to say "oh sure you paid for XYZ features, but once you sell the vehicle it is reset to factory defaults" — meaning the new owner has to pay for whatever you paid for already.

I'm not making the case that it's zero risk. But I think the risk is preferable to the alternative of a physical encounter. Maybe I'm old, but paying for software features seems a bit more of an edge case (I know HN skews towards SV, with a higher prevalence of Teslas. I don't know how prevalent paying for additional software-enabled features is with other car companies). I think the feature piece can easily be handled through other mechanisms, like regulations.

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#88

Post by bumby »

Nextgrid wrote: post #86
bumby wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather rely on well-structured legal limits rather than brutish physical ones. People who advocate for physical violence as an arbiter of disagreements tend to either be the types who prefer to get their way by strong arming others or have not experienced the devolving of the rule of law for extended periods of time.

Keep in mind that I have never advocated for violence being the primary arbiter of disagreements. In fact, resorting to violence pretty much always turns out poorly for the attacker and is thus not a winning strategy - it is usually done out of desperation more than anything else. The possibility of someone reacting unreasonably however keeps everyone more honest and assigns an actual cost to pushing people to a situ…

That possibility exists regardless; someone can always create a "Falling Down" scenario when they're fed up. But I don't see any real advantage to a civilized society in increasing the possibility of the equivalent of vigilante justice.

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#89

Post by Nextgrid »

bumby wrote: post #88
Nextgrid wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that I have never advocated for violence being the primary arbiter of disagreements. In fact, resorting to violence pretty much always turns out poorly for the attacker and is thus not a winning strategy - it is usually done out of desperation more than anything else. The possibility of someone reacting unreasonably however keeps everyone more honest and assigns an actual cost to pushing people to a situ…

That possibility exists regardless; someone can always create a "Falling Down" scenario when they're fed up. But I don't see any real advantage to a civilized society in increasing the possibility of the equivalent of vigilante justice.

I'm not talking about some kind of organized, premeditated, high-cost vigilante operation like making people fall out of windows (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "falling down" scenario?).

I'm talking about the repo goon having to risk that the car leasee he's repossessing from being at their breaking point (because that car is the only way they can keep their job and avoid losing everything) and/or mentally unstable and pulling out a gun or a crowbar and thus pricing this risk into their services (or outright declining the job if it feels too sketchy) which ultimately trickles back up to the lender and encourage them to let go or be more lenient with this particular case (something they'd have no reason to do if they could turn the car off remotely).

Re: Ford's new patent proposes a way for banks to disable features on leased cars

#90

Post by flangola7 »

bumby wrote: post #76
flangola7 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an inherent fundamental creepy grossness to punishing someone for misbehavior by pushing a button from afar. If we had an all pervasive surveillance system that instantly reported any crime it would be bad for the same reason. A world where power is wielded opaquely by distant controllers in a unilateral and instantaneous manner is not a world we want to live in, and it cultivates an even worse world the long…

I largely agree with the point about opaque use of power. However, the current situation isn't much different. It's not the bank manager coming down to evict you or repossess your car. They distance themselves by outsourcing the enforcement through third parties like repo companies and sheriffs. This doesn't create the type of accountability you seem to want and makes it easier for banks to wield their power.

>It's not the bank manager coming down to evict you or repossess your car. They distance themselves by outsourcing the enforcement through third parties like repo companies and sheriffs.

I don't think the current status quo is good either. The distance between the one with power and the one who is effected has been very far for a very long time, but pushing it even more distant and cemented is worse.

The consequence of using power unjustly is decreasing. If a dictator wanted to prevent a protest by arresting all attendees before they arrived, it would require enormous resources and be extremely visible and unpopular, and inspire future resistance. If he can instead push a button and drive all the attendees cars to an out of the way lot (or simply immobilize them), the overhead is much lower.

Post reply on HN