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

Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 660 posts

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#461

Post by pard68 »

jen20 wrote: post #336
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my choice not to learn how to use a metal lathe and a welder, or find someone with those skills to do it for me? How is that supposed to scale to millions of people who want the same privacy?

Not to mention the fact that most such cars are already gone - so if more people adopt the GPs position, the prices will go through the roof for him too.

That's true, but this isn't a solution, it's my hobby. No one has suggested that people should buy only antique vehicles.

But to clear up this, it's a relatively inexpensive hobby if you are discerning and can wait. Only my wife's 03 Suburban cost more than $3000. Most of my antiques I have bought for far less. I bought the CJ5 this summer and it cost me $500 plus a new starter ($40). I also bought the '54 Chevy 2-ton this year, that cost $1000 and a new pair of contacts ($7) to get running and passing inspection.

My coworkers all play video games. They spend more on computer parts than I spend on most entire vehicles.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#462

Post by LeifCarrotson »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #183
aftbit wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your climate, you should probably have the right front frame member inspected for rust. My father had an '09 4Runner & got into a front-end crash. In the process that member was exposed, and while it looked fine on the outside, it was full of rust from the inside and quite thin. Don't get me wrong, I drive an '01 Ranger that is more rust than steel at this point, but it is still good to know what you hav…

>I drive an '01 Ranger that is more rust than steel at this point You poor man. I had a 3.slow 6 cyl. 0-60 in 16s was almost an accomplishment. I guess that's what you get when you have a 155hp motor trying to pull a 3800 lb vehicle.

Poor man? Sounds like a happy man to me!

I drove a '93 Ranger with the 98 horsepower 2.3L 4-cylinder and the 5-speed manual in the late 2000s from 130,000 miles to 280,000 miles; it carried the supplies to paint dozens of houses and got me through college without any debt on car payments or tuition. My wife still mocks me for the purple pinstripes and the fact it was shorter than her, but I was driving it when she was just an acquaintance and I was still driving it home from our wedding, so clearly she actually liked it and just won't admit it.

It could eventually achieve 70 mph on the downhills with a slight tailwind, but it's not a vehicle for people who are in a hurry. I never entered it into any kind of drag race, so I didn't worry about the 0-60 time. Sadly, it died when a neophyte mechanic tried to lift it by the body instead of the ladder frame; the body mounts were able to keep the sheet metal from sliding around but the rust gave way when they tried to put them in tension. No, it would not have been safe in a rollover...

I like to imagine there's one still dry and rust-free in a barn somewhere in the Southwest that just needs some hoses, fluids, and a clean paint job (with purple pinstripes, that's important!) I would pick that over a new Maverick any day, never worry for a moment about it selling my data, and I'd have a stupid grin on my face every time I saw it. The only thing that could make it better would be if I could bolt an EV motor to the flywheel, elevate the bed by 6", and sandwich a battery pack under it.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#463

Post by lotsofpulp »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #457
lotsofpulp wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they triple your rates? Insurance regulators do not let insurers increase premiums unless they have evidence showing the new data indicates a higher risk factor. So if you are getting your rates tripled, then you were being subsidized by safer drivers before, which seems like something that should be fixed. Dash cams have already probably given insurers a better idea on who is a riskier driver and who is no…

They'll probably increase my rates because if I refuse the telemetry, they have to assume I'm a terrible driver. The fact that I am the most tight-assed speed-limit-obeyer I've ever known, with a dashcam, means nothing to them since it's my hardware and not theirs.

Oops, I misread the comment I replied to as tripling rates because they had access to real time driving data.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#464

Post by ReactiveJelly »

bick_nyers wrote: post #414
EricE wrote: post #407

Just wait until insurance companies demand access to your cars telemetry for either a "discount" or even to insure you at all. I'm seriously thinking of stockpiling a few extra used "dumb" cars. This is beyond nuts.

I would love it if it was economical/possible for repair shops to do "dumb swaps" where they cut out all the "smart" bullshit and give you physical buttons and knobs on your dash.

In my moments of programmer hubris I often think, "It can't be _that_ hard to make an open-source controller for a Hybrid Synergy Drive. It's only two motors and a small engine. Come on!"

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#465

Post by dylan604 »

ghaff wrote: post #456
dylan604 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

interesting. maybe i blocked the FM part out, but i was distinctly remember AM. removing radio entirely makes sense, as i didn't really think that an FM only radio would be any cheaper than AM/FM would be. >but I'm sure very few people use it. The conservative side of the spectrum loves the AM band

I guess Ford at least is going to keep AM radio after all https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177847361/ford-changes-direc... with the justification being it's an emergency alert system. I assume AM and FM antenna requirements are different and that's probably where the cost is.

I remember as a kid being fascinated with the first car that I saw that had the radio antenna embedded into the windscreen glass. All antennas I had seen were on top of houses, rabbit ears, or the long annoying things attached to cars/trucks. This tiny thin line that wasn't even exposed to air was the antenna? That opened up a rabbit hole.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#466

Post by dataminded »

tristor wrote: post #132

Of all the horrible things go on with privacy these days, this is the one I hate the most. I’m a “car guy”, but not the sort that obsesses over old cars (although I do love 60s and 80s cars). I like new tech, I like the advances in engineering we’ve made in new vehicles, I like EVs even. Nonetheless I’ve been in the market for a new car for months and haven’t bought because it’s hard to find any cars that meet my req…

This is me. I bought two new cars every 2 years like clockwork. We replaced one car because we NEEDED a larger family car and have gone without the 2nd for over a year.

It feels impossibly hard to buy a great car today.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#468

Post by foxyv »

cpursley wrote: post #322
sergiosgc wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an European, where we drive mostly stick, it's funny to observe the newfound US love for stick shifts. It's funny because it happened almost exactly when automatics became good! Good dual clutch gearboxes are amazing, but even "classic" ones like BMW's ZF6 or ZF8 are really close. ZF8 is so good BMW uses it in the M3, instead of a dual clutch. With these options, I'd never go back to stick shift. This after having…

Manuals suck in traffic. Americans sit in a lot of traffic. And I say this as somebody who loves manuals (I’m an amateur race car driver).

This is the exact reason I bought an automatic. I had a 1994 BMW 318is that I loved, but I spent probably a couple thousand hours on the 91 freeway in southern California pushing the clutch in and out. The BMW "sporty" clutch was a leg workout and a half. The return spring was super stiff. Sometimes I would play a game to see if I could stay in first and just let my lead distance increase enough to not have to stop at all, but it pissed people off so bad.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#469

Post by phpisthebest »

InitialLastName wrote: post #295
phpisthebest wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no required inspections here in the US... No Emissions, no Safety, no inspections at all

For anyone from outside the US concerned about this: car inspection standards are state-specific. Many states have far more stringent standards.

Only 12 states require routine safety inspections.

Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla

#470

Post by gonehome »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #440
gonehome wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is imo. Good touchscreen UI is superior in many ways (though not all) to fixed control buttons. It’s why it dominates phones and why it’s winning in the market for cars as well (Model Y was top selling car on earth for Q1 2023). Bad touchscreen UIs suck, but that’s also true of phones. Good tactile controls have some advantages, but ultimately they’re minor and worse on net than a good touchscreen interface…

>It really is imo. It really is not IMO. A touchscreen UI is a visual medium. That is not what you want/need while operating a vehicle. You should be able to change the AC by feeling for the button and not taking your eyes off the road. This isn't just HN being HN again. Driving enthusiasts are pushing back on touchscreens.

I'd bet most people look at the tactile buttons when adjusting them, to see the temperature, fanspeed, etc. and that the difference between this and swiping on the tesla display isn't an important difference.
Post reply on HN