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

561–570 of 660 posts

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

#561

Post by dekhn »

stork19 wrote: post #443
SoftTalker wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatics are more fuel efficient, and govenment keeps raising the efficiency requirements. Automatics do this by having a lot of gears and changing up very aggressively. It would suck to drive a 7 or 9 speed manual (maybe truck drivers feel differently; I think 5 is optimal for a car) but automatics can manage it and squeeeze out another tenth of an MPG. I love manual transmissions and will never buy an automatic u…

Noooo. Manuals are on average much more efficient. I drive a 1st generation Honda Insight, and the manual version gets ~10 mpg more than the automatic.

Automatics have been more efficient (given their additional mass) than manuals, for all but the most skilled drivers (top 1% of manual drivers) for several decades already.

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

#562

Post by tredre3 »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #531

I honestly don't get the hate for modern cars that some people have. I recently got a 2023 Corolla, and it's fantastic: * Android Auto gives me a great GPS to navigate anywhere, anytime. It watches out for traffic, accidents, speed traps, etc. and keeps me informed and on the fastest route * I can have my phone's whole music library to listen to instead of fiddling with another copy on a USB stick that I'd have to ke…

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, but this is an article about how cars collect telemetry. This is what everybody is talking about in the comments.

I'm sure everybody here enjoys most modern car features you've listed. They just don't like being spied on.

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

#563

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #551
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that it won't be disabled by crooks and used for crimes like kidnapping people.

I am not worried about crooks disabling my car. I’m worried about the government doing it. We need to stop being fearful of each other and start becoming fearful of our overlords.

Government is not going to kidnap me with such underhanded action. They will just arrest me for some made up crime and erase me from history.

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

#564

Post by barrysteve »

globular-toast wrote: post #361
tristor wrote: post #147

Earlier 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.

I think a lot of people miss the obvious reason: it's cheaper. People seem to think it's some misguided attempt to make things better but really it's just that they've identified a way to cut costs.

They are humorously cheaper.

A friend's kia ev6 parked up, I had an instant flashback to the electric taxi car Johnny Cab from Shwarznegger's Total Recall.

The movie car has this really weak sounding electric motor whirr/whine, just like the EVs.

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

#565

Post by kuboble »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #196
stanski wrote: post #168

Earlier 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.

I don't have the source but I read that in the process of designing a car there are different teams that design outer look, inner look, the actual functionality and at the time of designing interiors it isn't known where or how many buttons you need.

By having a huge touch-screen instead of knobs there is much less need to synchronize between the teams because the inheritor design team just needs to place the screen somewhere. And it's easy to imagine that it can significantly shorten the time to delivery and the costs.

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

#566

Post by araes »

charles_f wrote: post #214

This is very much in line with the industry trying desperately to get into the tech recurring revenue model. > the manufacturer collects information including sexual activity, health diagnosis data, and genetic data, though there’s no details about how exactly that data is gathered How is that even possible? Without more details about what this means and how it's done, this sounds a bit fishy to me. > Mozilla said it…

From: https://www.nissanusa.com/privacy.html

"How is this possible" re:

> collects information including sexual activity, health diagnosis data, and genetic data

> Sources for collection: Direct contact with users and Nissan employees.

Also:

> by occupying a vehicle that is utilizing such services you agree to Nissan collecting and using the information

> You promise to educate and inform all users and occupants of your Vehicle

Interesting Note: I think this implies if you are a Uber / Lyft / ect... customer you consent to Nissan collecting your sex activity and genetic information and all related secondary analyses by occupying the vehicle.

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

#568

Post by userbinator »

bob1029 wrote: post #534
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Always” is a long time. Cars from the 1920s are on the road today, but do you want that to be your daily driver? Do you care about safety or the safety of your passengers? This kind of backwards thinking does not scale to everyone who wants privacy in their car. And it does not scale into the long-term future of driving.

> Do you care about safety or the safety of your passengers? One could make an argument that modern vehicles have gone way too far in the "protect occupants at all costs" direction at the expense of safety for literally everyone else. E.g. Very thick A-pillars are a major cause of pedestrians and cyclist getting hit. "I literally didn't see them :(" So many cases. All of this nonsense so that the passengers can have…

I was in a newish car (~2019 as opposed to my 51-year-old one) recently and those THICC pillars really stood out as being detrimental to visibility, not to mention the claustrophobic overall feeling of the interior.

I'm fine with seatbelts, and even a few airbags, as long as they're safety devices that stay out of the way when they're not in operation.

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

#569

Post by TeMPOraL »

gottorf wrote: post #422
abecedarius wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it illegal in many/most states for a manufacturer to sell direct, not through a dealership? I read something like that when Tesla was starting to sell cars. It didn't sound like a "true" free market.

> It didn't sound like a "true" free market. Very few things are in a "true" free market. But considering cars are (or should be, at any rate) substitutable goods, for most people, it should be pretty close to a free market. I live in a small city (population under 200k), and there's five Ford dealerships, five Chevy, four Toyota, etc. So it's certainly not a free market by any definition if you want a very specific…

I'm by no means an expert on cars, but my impression is that they're one of the worst cases of a class of product that should be substitutable, but isn't, because there probably is only one or two makes & models that are close to fulfilling one's list of requirements, and if those are not available, it becomes a painful exercise of letting go.

Unless we consider begrudgingly buying an option because you need something to be buying a substitutable good. Which I guess is fair in some sense, but makes it feel like buying things is a loser's game.

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

#570

Post by VTimofeenko »

ravenstine wrote: post #502
cpursley wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't knock those who love driving manual. Part of why I like riding my motorcycle is that it's a manual. But in LA traffic, I'd rather drive an automatic so I can put my brain into "autopilot" while playing an audiobook rather than have to constantly be shifting by hand. It irks me how so many manual-lovers have this superiority complex over people who just want a car that will get them from A t…

I had been riding in SoCal for a few years and I'd say doing the autopilot thing when split laning is not very safe. Too many folks trying to suddenly merge into HOV lane solid lines be damned
Post reply on HN