This is why I ride a motorcycle.
Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
541–550 of 660 posts
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, these are trackers from the web page , not trackers called by your car, correct? I'm never surprised by the web trackers (which my ad blocker generally filters too), but 3rd-party trackers called from devices/vehicles seems more insidious. Although the car / IoT companies can just as easily outsource the data once they have it anyway.
Yes, this is from the web page. Where I can manage my vehicle (see VIN, etc) and has my home address, dealer information, etc. I would be interested to hear of a way to intercept internet traffic between the vehicle and the internet.
If you're being extra paranoid, you'd need to spoof a cell tower. Spoofing a Wifi AP and monitoring traffic with Wireshark gets you network traffic, but you can't know if the vehicle sends certain information exclusively over the cell network, short of on-vehicle firmware and software analysis. Also, if you wanted to go with the Wifi approach, you need to force Wifi connectivity, which would probably mean going outside of cell tower coverage or unplugging the vehicle's cellular antenna, both of which may affect what the car transmits.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fair point though. The markups are a function of demand and are totally normal and expected market behavior. People who complain about it are almost exclusively people who don't understand how markets work. It's tiring listening to uneducated people constantly coming through and complaining. If dealers weren't marking up the price, there would be no car at all available for sale. People mistakenly think that i…
> The markups are a function of demand and are totally normal and expected market behavior. People who complain about it are almost exclusively people who don't understand how markets work. It's tiring listening to uneducated people constantly coming through and complaining. 1. I'm not uneducated or economically illiterate. 2. A 50% markup on an economy car, even in an upgraded trim, is absurd. This is not even remot…
But the rub is that people are actually paying these marked up prices...
Complain all you want about how obscene, unethical, malevolent, greedy, gouged, or deranged these sellers are, but the fact of that matter is that they are making sales at those prices. The market is indeed supporting them.
I'm sorry, but if cannot grasp that something is worth what someone will pay, you do not in fact have a good economic grasp. If nothing else, at least be pissed at the buyers who are willing to pay those prices.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a close in-law that had a total braking failure with their ~2017 Mazda Cx-9, which was one thing, but then the dealer was pretty horrible about acknowledging or even diagnosing it. In the end, they sold it off early instead of continuing to own it with the unknowns on the brakes. So it's an anecdote, but one that makes me look pretty seriously against Mazda - though maybe it was more the dealer than the company…
It's hard to say. Of course the OEM should care what their dealers do and how they treat customers, but ultimately the dealers decide how they are going to handle things. I haven't had any failures on any of our Mazdas so far (2013 CX-5, though only had it for 2 years. I change cars like clothes, 2014 CX-5 - spouse had for ~70k / 6 years, 2015 Mazda 3 - had for 27k / 6 years). Only issue I had was a battery that died…
Honestly it could have been something as simple as a a missed bleed of an air bubble in the brake lines. But this was on a less than 3 yr old car, and its been a while since we last discussed it, & I don't recall if they had any sort of brake service where that would be a possibility - either way after a scare like that, one expects your car maintainer (in this case the dealer) to be open to a bit of diagnostic work - even if only to maintain good relations for future purchases.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It reminds me of the complaining in the early iPhone days about lack of a physical keyboard. I totally get that. People will always complain about some new design fad, whether it's actually good or not. However... we're talking about heavy vehicles traveling at high speed with humans inside. You simply don't have to takes your eyes off the road as long with tactile controls as you do with touch screens.
My only experience with touchscreen cars is with the Model 3. You don't need the screen for operational stuff needed for driving. Off the top of my head, these are all on the steering wheel/stalks: - Blinkers - High beams - Gearbox - Climate control temperature up/down - Cruise control enable/disable, speed change - Media volume, media next/previous - Phone call answer/hangup/volume - Windshield wipers On the next Mo…
That's great that Tesla puts those (physical) controls on the steering wheel.
But, think about this comment in context.
As a reminder: I was replying to someone who was arguing that the anti-touch-screen crowd is not justified in their hatred of touch screens in cars. My position is to agree with that crowd that touch screens in cars are bad UX.
With that in mind, your comment actually vindicates my position. Touch screens are dangerously stupid UX in a car. So much so that Tesla--which has an image of being futuristic, sleek, and minimal (aesthetically)--not only has the necessary-for-driving controls on the steering wheel, but also non-essentials like media controls. If touch screens weren't objectively worse than physical controls, is it too far of a stretch to think that Mr. Musk would've wanted them in the touch screen for even more sleekness and minimalism?
In any case, I think we're all agreeing in this thread that touch controls for these things would be unsafe and worse than physical controls.
The case now needs to be argued that touch screens are at least equally good as physical controls for those other operations in cars. But, I don't see how that line of argumentation can possibly go well after we've established that the important controls don't belong as touch buttons.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume it's a cost thing. Slapping a tablet everywhere and letting the code monkeys figure it out is probably cheaper than making various knobs and buttons. I dread the day I have to get a new car. Even Subaru, who are usually behind the curve, have gone all touch screen.
> I assume it's a cost thing. Is it though? It's not like they have to reinvent the button each time. Buttons that last a decade or three have already been designed.
Absolutely.
Automotive grade controls are pretty expensive (it's not unreasonable to expect them to be operative from -40 to 140f, UV resistant, dust and vibration resistant, etc.), and as with all hardware, BOM cost is king. Even if the button can be stolen from an existing design, it still costs real money, and adds manufacturing labor costs.
The button then has to be tested, and kept in stock for service purposes. What if the button has silkscreen printing on it? It might be the same hardware button for the traction control and the trunk open button, but now they are different SKUs because the label is different.
So let's say I can eliminate 10 $1 buttons (that is an extraordinarily cheap button) by moving functionality to a touchscreen that is going to be in the car no matter what. I reduce the BOM cost by $10 per unit. That's a bunch of buttons that also aren't going to have warranty issues either. The wiring can all go straight to the head unit in a single bundle as well, and there are ten less connections for the assembly line to make. If I do that on a popular platform like the Corolla selling 750k units per year, I have just reduced expenses directly by 7.5 million, plus the cost of install, and simplified the supply chain.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fwiw, teslas support pretty much everything via voice. You just press the right button on the wheel and say what you want it to do. I’m not disagreeing with your dislike for touch screens, but Tesla can do literally almost everything hands free using voice if that’s an option.
I'm mostly fine with the Tesla approach. The few tactile controls are basically enough for me, especially with the last few updates effectively adding more. However, the voice controls have been basically useless for me. I wouldn't want to depend on them.
Fair. I’ve had a really good experience with the voice controls since I read a “cheat sheet” someone posted with common control commands.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 2022 Honda Passport has physical buttons for pretty much everything. The only thing I use the touchscreen for is as a display for maps from CarPlay (and the backup camera). So reliance on the touchscreen for things like environmental controls isn't universal even in new cars.
I love Honda interiors. The base models are almost always the best with big unique knobs and buttons. However, I'm really disappointed on their electrification. I would speculate that their misguided attempt to push Hydrogen is going to kill the Japanese companies if they don't invest in BEVs soon. I would seriously consider a 300 mile range, electrified Honda Fit using Chevy's Ultium platform. But it seems car compa…
I had a very efficient, fun, and great at squeezing into city parking spots stickshift Honda del Sol as a second car for about 20 years. Alas, as it got old and I stopped commuting, it was silly to pay for keeping a second car around for the <2,000 miles per year I was putting on it. But Fits are cute little cars. An EV version of something like that would make me as least think of using something like that for most of my local driving.
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-to…
To be clear, I agree with you (and drive a car from the 80s when I need to drive) - but am also in favour of legislation absolutely banning this kind of collection for when I ever do need a new vehicle. If you want your hobby to remain affordable it's probably a good idea to push for new cars to be at least as good as old ones!
Re: Internet-connected cars fail privacy and security tests conducted by Mozilla
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate them so much. Otherwise great cars are completely ruined by touchscreens. What was wrong with tactile knobs you could operate one handed without looking? You’re driving for fuck’s sake. It’s why things like the GR Corolla are nearly miraculous in 2023, it even comes stick shift only.
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…
> newfound US love for stick shifts
That is something that exists entirely in the minds of auto journalists. The number of manually-shifted cars has been in steady decline for decades. These last several years, it went from something like 3.7 % of new cars to 2.4% to 0.7% to 1.9%. You can see how a deceptive headline could be manufactured around the last two years of data.