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

581–590 of 660 posts

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

#581

Post by kulahan »

stanski wrote: post #168
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 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.

In every single car I've been in, the touchscreens are optional and you have some sort of knob you can use. This requires memorizing where things are in the software, however.

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

#582

Post by kulahan »

thfuran wrote: post #578
Night_Thastus wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to go this route already. As a new driver, my rates were quite high - and the best option for lowering that was letting them track my driving through an app on my phone. I don't particularly like it, but it's something I'll just have to live with.

What if you buy a second phone that you always leave at home?

It... would have no driving data on it in that case.

The actual solution is to tape it to an Amazon truck. I hear they've got some pretty serious monitoring tech in there to keep their drivers on the up-and-up.

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

#583

Post by Night_Thastus »

thfuran wrote: post #578
Night_Thastus wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to go this route already. As a new driver, my rates were quite high - and the best option for lowering that was letting them track my driving through an app on my phone. I don't particularly like it, but it's something I'll just have to live with.

What if you buy a second phone that you always leave at home?

I think the insurance company would get very suspicious if you never used your car. Also with no data, you'd get no benefit for showing you're a safe driver.

In theory, you could maybe reduce your rate by only taking this second phone with you only sometimes on a regular, but lesser schedule than you actually drive.

(So they see regular, consistent usage, but not nothing, and not as much as you actually drive)

And avoid taking that second phone when you're doing more risky driving, like night driving.

But that's honestly a major pain for likely very little monetary gain. And if you screw up, they could just straight up blacklist you, or skyrocket your rates. It's just not worth it.

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

#584

Post by flir »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #402
flir wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frayed seatbelts won't pass an MOT in the UK. (Don't know about any other country).

What’s an MOT? :)

Yearly inspection to prove the roadworthiness of the vehicle. Brakes, tyres, lights, exhaust, seat belts, etc etc. Full list of checks: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-inspection-ch...

Cars younger than 3 years or older than 40 years ("historic vehicles") are generally exempt. If your MOT isn't up to date, your insurance is invalid.

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

#585

Post by thfuran »

kulahan wrote: post #582
thfuran wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you buy a second phone that you always leave at home?

It... would have no driving data on it in that case. The actual solution is to tape it to an Amazon truck. I hear they've got some pretty serious monitoring tech in there to keep their drivers on the up-and-up.

>It... would have no driving data on it in that case

Well, yes. But whether that matters depends on how the program works. Do they discount you as long as they have a location history that doesn't seem to show unsafe driving patterns or only if you have one that sends to show same driving? Do they attempt to tie it to your car at all (it'd suck if being a passenger in a poorly driven car could increase your own rates)? Do they jack up your rates and/or drop you if your tracking is suspicious?

>The actual solution is to tape it to an Amazon truck.

Or root it and simulate taping it to an especially well-behaved Amazon truck.

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

#586

Post by TeMPOraL »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #577
TeMPOraL wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would be like McDonalds charging for extra salt on their fries. Aren't they? I had a vague impression it happened. And of course, some McDonalds' locations charge you something absurd for an extra ketchup packet.

Pretty much any McDonalds I’ve been to in Central Europe has a charge on each condiment pack.

In Poland I've experienced both ones that charge you per packet, and ones where asking for a packet will have the cashier grab a bunch of them without even counting, give them to you for free, and move on to handle another customer.

That applies only to ketchup packs, though - they always charge for sauces. The only place I ever got sauce containers by handful for free was in a KFC in Shenzhen, China.

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

#587

Post by thfuran »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #583
thfuran wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you buy a second phone that you always leave at home?

I think the insurance company would get very suspicious if you never used your car. Also with no data, you'd get no benefit for showing you're a safe driver. In theory, you could maybe reduce your rate by only taking this second phone with you only sometimes on a regular, but lesser schedule than you actually drive. (So they see regular, consistent usage, but not nothing, and not as much as you actually drive) And av…

>you'd get no benefit for showing you're a safe driver.

But is that actually how it works or are they discounting for the absence of evidence of being an unsafe driver?

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

#588

Post by brian-armstrong »

joezydeco wrote: post #109
b112 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just make sure you do something, like use a resistor to ground the antenna lead, because I did that, and would still get connectivity at times. EG if the cell tower was very close. Was fine after I used a resistor to turn that power into mild heat.

I wonder if one could build a metal cap, shape and color matched to the sharkfin, that goes over the antenna and couples to the roof of the car. Would that be enough to make a small Faraday cage over the antenna? Would leakage though the mounting hole still be enough to let a signal through?

I don't think you really need to get that sophisticated. If you unplug the antenna and send too much current down that antenna line, whatever's on the other side is not going to like it.

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

#589

Post by saltcured »

Kirby64 wrote: post #382
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was riding in a friend’s Tesla where the screen crashed while we were on the road. Just a black screen for some amount of time and had zero insight into the state of the car. That just does not happen with physical controls.

Sure it does. Gauges are almost all driven electrically these days and not directly connected to a speed readout mechanically. If you have a problem with the gauge cluster, it's very common to have gauges malfunction. Sometimes they read incorrectly. Sometimes they read 0. If it's one of those multifunction displays, you could just have that display "crash" too.

Reminds me of when my then-new '98 (or was it '99?) Audi A4 cluster partially crapped out on the highway. The needles dropped to zero and several warning lights came on, but the car still drove normally.

I pulled over and called the dealer service department for advice, and we decided it was safe (for the car) to continue my journey. But with the partial instrumentation failure, the air-conditioning also refused to operate, so I had a sweaty summertime trip.

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

#590

Post by pard68 »

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…

Visibility is so bad in some new vehicles.

The windshield on my old Chevy truck is greater than 180°, it's fantastic, especially since it's such a large vehicle, you really want to see as much as possible

Post reply on HN