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

A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 253 posts

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#171

Post by _wp3r »

indymike wrote: post #49
IshKebab wrote: post #4

Is there any surprising data? I'm not surprised it records destinations entered into satnav for example. I mean that's a fairly common trick in TV shows. > MSAB claims that this data can include “Recent destinations, favorite locations, call logs, contact lists, SMS messages, emails, pictures, videos, social media feeds, and the navigation history of everywhere the vehicle has been.” MSAB even touts the ability to re…

> I seriously doubt my car has records of my emails, pictures, videos, and social media feeds even though it has Android Auto. Even if you car does not, your phone does. So the phone being connected to the car during the time when the accident occurred, could lead to checking that you were in fact, watching unboxing videos on Netflix at the moment the wreck occurred while you were in the driver's seat.

I still hope for a blackbox law, but all the privacy police will just scream that they will get caught going to see their mistress, I mean about their privacy.

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#172

Post by pa7ch »

wyager wrote: post #155
paaakthecaaa wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, modern regulations forbid manufacturers from easily making a "dumb car". For example, backup cameras are required in new cars. It's the same deal with avoiding wire insulation that rodents enjoy eating. Your only option is to buy a car from before 2000-ish. I'd actually like to find a DIY subculture of taking old car frames and swapping in newer features a bit at a time. People do it with electric moto…

Absolutely insane. I wonder how much cheaper and better a modern car could be if I didn't have to pay for legally-mandated safety features that A) are probably not utilitarian B) I don't even use. For example, I am 100% certain that the benefit of having an airbag between my legs does not outweigh the monetary cost plus the comfort cost of not having an AC vent under the steering wheel.

I understand the sentiment. However, are you saying that you think AC between your legs is a worthwhile feature but airbags are not?

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#173

Post by garaetjjte »

mywittyname wrote: post #42
wolverine876 wrote: post #24

Is there a reliable list of cars that do not surveil me, or that can be modified to not surveil me? I read a Bruce Schneier article a little while ago (maybe the article was much older) where he said that he looked, but didn't find one that met his other needs.

Unlikely. Based on the article, it sounds like the data they are "vacuuming" up is telemetry data captured and stored by the car itself. Every manufacture is different, but they all are storing at least some information. I suspect there are regulatory requirements to keep such information for the purposes of public safety (see: analysis of Toyota unintended acceleration situations) This information has been captured,…

>to my 03 VW, it has data from so many sensors available for the tech to look up

There's a lot of sensors and flags, but it isn't really logged anywhere in significant amounts. It just stores log of occurred errors, and dump of selected module parameters at the moment of error entry.

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#174

Post by pa7ch »

Taek wrote: post #84
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always shocked when people make these sorts of pairings with devices they don't even own. I often see employees pairing person phones with corporate fleet vehicles too. It's unfortunately an example of where people rank convenience over privacy almost every single time.

People aren't at fault here. These systems are deliberately designed to put the user in a compromised position. Designed by behavioral experts using techniques the business world has been building up for decades.

Agreed, the expected outcome of pairing your phone is that it just streams music to the stereo like an aux jack. Its extremely unexpected that it will steal your contact and private messages.

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#175

Post by toss1 »

rsync wrote: post #129
toss1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably true, but good luck with that. As my grandfather said: "You might be right, but you don't want to be dead right." CBP already have extra authorities due to border control because crossing the border is not a constitutional right. The most egregious expansion was the declaration that all territory within 100 miles of the border is 'authorized' for all CBP's nonsense. That happens to cover about 90% of the US…

" ... because crossing the border is not a constitutional right." Yes, it is. "In Nguyen v. INS (2001), on a separate matter of citizenship, the Supreme Court put down, in writing, that citizens of the US have the absolute right to enter its borders. It was in recent times more or less presumed to be the case, though historically there have been a wide range of decisions that did deny entry by citizens, mainly by den…

Good point

I should have said 'crossing the border without being searched is not a constitutional right'

I can't cite chapter and verse, but I'm pretty sure that you do effectively consent to search in the act of crossing the border -- if you don't want to be searched for controlled or taxed items, you can choose to not cross the border, so...

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#176

Post by kroltan »

silicon2401 wrote: post #140
second--shift wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So do I have to ride horses to get my privacy back now? You say this in jest, but depending on your locale and transport needs, you could consider a motorcycle or bicycle. The interface is a bit like riding a horse, just more 21st century (obviously). Modern bikes come with ABS and fuel injection, and tires these days are great. Motorcycles don't come with any of the annoying road-car nanny-state stuff. Riding a bi…

If I lived in the countryside (which I wouldn't mind) I would consider this, but otherwise I personally couldn't justify the risk. I forget where I read it, but the phrase "right of weight, not right of way" comes to mind. It's also why I love that my hometown allows riding bikes on sidewalks.

> It's also why I love that my hometown allows riding bikes on sidewalks.

This would be a dream.

I live in a reasonably deserted/seasonal neighbourhood, so it has a neat 2-lane divided avenue down the middle, but it is usually very empty (a car maybe every minute).

This doesn't mean I can ride anywhere but the very edge of the asphalt, almost tripping my pedals on the sidewalk rise (I forget the word in English), since drivers love to pick up some speed in the avenue and drive at frankly disrespectfully close distances, even though they could have almost entire lane of distance to a cyclist.

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#177

Post by cnasc »

sokoloff wrote: post #159
epanchin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or cheap, vs the cost of running someone down.

ABS does not significantly shorten stopping distances. It does provide improved steering control during brake applications that would otherwise exceed available traction, but I think it's extremely rare that ABS would be the difference between a pedestrian collision vs not. (They could just as easily choose a car that didn't have ABS as originally equipped and no one would say anything about the omission.)

> They could just as easily choose a car that didn't have ABS as originally equipped and no one would say anything about the omission.

That’s the kind of failure case I wish fancy electronics had. Component breaks = now you’re driving a lower trim-level. As opposed to $5000 touchscreen module dies and now you can’t use the car.

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#178

Post by zie »

a_e_k wrote: post #8

I live in Washington State, where the state legislature recently voted to ban sales of gasoline powered cars after 2030. Aside from the fact that I enjoy drives through some pretty empty parts of the country, especially in the Southwest, where range is a concern (e.g., I drove the Great Basin Highway a few years ago), what bothers me about that measure is this sort of data collection thing. I wouldn't mind a move to…

I was surprised that WA did this, so I went to check if what you said was true, turns out, they actually didn't ban non-electric vehicle sales in 2030.

The actual bill: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Amendmen...

On page 12:

line 36 & 37: Nothing in this section: a) Authorizes any state agency to restrict the purchase, sale, or registration of vehicles that are not electric vehicles;

and the actual quote around 2030(starting @ line 16):

"... then a goal is established for the state that all publicly owned and privately owned passenger and light duty vehicles of model year 2030 or later that are sold, purchased, or registered in Washington state be electric vehicles."

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#179

Post by Silhouette »

Loughla wrote: post #89
jmnicolas wrote: post #54

So do I have to ride horses to get my privacy back now? I would totally buy a brand new car without all the "visible" electronics (by visible I mean all the screens and doodads. I don't mind ABS and other "invisible" electronics as long as they are reliable which is not a given nowadays). I don't get the point of turning the interior of a car into a smartphone experience. I watched a YT video of a Mercedess class S r…

Honestly, non-tactile buttons on a car seems ridiculous. You HAVE to look away from the road to do anything. Tactile buttons let you feel around to do things if you need to. That change has made zero sense to me.

It's also scary just how many controls there are now, tactile or otherwise, that have little to do with safely driving the car and navigating efficiently to your destination. Until we have truly autonomous vehicles, all those distractions are accidents waiting to happen (or sometimes, sadly, not waiting).

Touch controls for anything a driver needs to manipulate while driving are obviously ridiculous, so there's not much else to say there. But given how dangerous using a phone while driving is under most circumstances, what on earth are phone-related controls doing taking up prime real estate on a steering wheel in so many modern vehicles, even if they're tactile? Either way, it's like the car makers said "OK, we get that using these features while driving is about as dangerous as driving while you're drunk, but the kind of person who will buy our premium vehicles is going to be grossly irresponsible anyway, so they might as well have an easy time doing it."

And then after distracting the driver's attention and giving them lots to look at other than what they actually need for driving, they act all surprised that the driver who was "required to be fully aware and able to take over control of the vehicle immediately at any time" was messing around with the infotainment system with lane keeping, cruise control and automatic distance keeping turned on instead of watching the road, and point to the legal small print when the inevitable tragedy happens because of course the driver was not actually able to take over immediately when something unexpected happened.

This whole issue makes my blood boil. It's like the worst example of prioritising flash and gimmicks at the expense of making something that actually works properly, and in a context where safety is a huge factor and people are literally dying unnecessarily every day. These kinds of idiocy should have been regulated out of existence the day after they were announced.

Re: A CBP contract shows the risks in connecting your vehicle and your smartphone

#180

Post by bashinator »

Loughla wrote: post #89
jmnicolas wrote: post #54

So do I have to ride horses to get my privacy back now? I would totally buy a brand new car without all the "visible" electronics (by visible I mean all the screens and doodads. I don't mind ABS and other "invisible" electronics as long as they are reliable which is not a given nowadays). I don't get the point of turning the interior of a car into a smartphone experience. I watched a YT video of a Mercedess class S r…

Honestly, non-tactile buttons on a car seems ridiculous. You HAVE to look away from the road to do anything. Tactile buttons let you feel around to do things if you need to. That change has made zero sense to me.

Isn’t Mazda discontinuing use of touch screens?
Post reply on HN