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

Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

techno-fandom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 272 posts

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#251

Post by kube-system »

msgodel wrote: post #237
kube-system wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be a very solid argument. Telematics are universally disclaimed in owners manuals. A good chunk of modern owners manuals are legally-required disclaimers of various sorts which are all deemed valid for those reasons. And a ruling that it doesn't matter because "nobody reads that" wouldn't be a good thing either -- basically that would make most SaaS engineer into criminals.

So I can put a disclaimer in remote shell malware I distribute on the internet and get out of a CFAA violation? I don't think that's quite right. A lot of this software is very clearly malware, that it's shipped by the manufacturer and includes documentation doesn't change that IMO.

Yes, a lot of software has remote access capability and it is legal when intended. The CFAA doesn’t care about how it works or why. It entirely hinges on whether the access was authorized. Your opinion about whether the software is good or bad is legally irrelevant.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#252

Post by ethagnawl »

integralid wrote: post #247
ethagnawl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no alternative but to comply. Maybe not within the confines of the head unit but you can still stick your phone onto the dash like I do in my (dumb) cars.

The story is still infuriating. You can't use what you paid for, unless you comply with what the manufacturer wants.

Oh, I agree that it's infuriating, frustrating and disappointing. My US-based stance is that, while there have been some encouraging developments on the right-to-repair front, more generally the rollback/demonization of regulations, de-fanging of CFPB et al all project a future where this sort of behavior is the norm for an ever increasing number of "critical" devices and we have no recourse. So, I think we have to be ready to vote with our dollars and reject these options, bend these devices to our will when it's possible and work around them when it's not.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#253

Post by account42 »

ryandrake wrote: post #163
bradley13 wrote: post #91

I would like to see some legal and regulatory steps. When we purchased our Ioniq, there was no agreement for data sharing, etc. - we have basically a cash register receipt, nothing more. Whenever there is a major update, an insanely long T&A appears on the screen. No one is going to read it. The only options are "accept" or clicking it away. If you click it away, it comes back the next day. It cannot possibly be lega…

We need judges to start growing a backbone and declaring these one-sided "agreements" unconscionable. The company has outsized power over the purchaser, the terms tend to be one-sided, and there is no meaningful choice to the purchaser. These things should be clear cut cases of unconscionability, and judges should be throwing them out left and right and penalizing the companies who try to push them.

Nullifying the agreement isn't enough because companies will still try to trick people into believing they are bound to it. There need to be actual consequences for even trying such bs - essentially this needs to be recognized as a type of fraud.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#254

Post by devilbunny »

kube-system wrote: post #220
MobileVet wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t something I have actively thought about… but now that you bring it up, I am definitely concerned. If the APIs were deprecated, CarPlay would be useless as the auto manufacturers would not update their head unit. The thread about an F150 with a known Bluetooth issue is a great example. Number one vehicle sold in the US for a LONG time, and yet no incentive to keep it working apparently

Automakers didn't update the cassette decks in their cars when CDs came out. You could expect cassettes to be around in cars for a good solid ~20 years, but that was about it. At some point technology moves on. > Number one vehicle sold in the US for a LONG time, and yet no incentive to keep it working apparently Yeah, there's no incentive to fix problems when people buy the product anyway.

> Automakers didn't update the cassette decks in their cars when CDs came out.

And reasonably enough: few people even in the early 90s had CD changers in cars, and people didn't want to scratch their discs, and in any case everyone pretty much still had a tape deck at home - it wasn't too hard to copy your CD to tape, which was cheap, small, rerecordable, and more durable, and sound quality in cars wasn't great anyway.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#255

Post by account42 »

ryandrake wrote: post #228
mox1 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer to take it broader and codify it in law that: 1. The terms and conditions of a product, service, etc. "primarily" aimed at a consumer have simple, human readable terms. Like a food label or similar to the broadband label. 2. The terms are presented and acknowledged PRIOR to purchasing (not after opening the package, driving off the lot, putting the DVD into the player). The company needs to find a way…

This still puts the company too much in the driver's seat. An actual "contract" or "agreement" is supposed to be a meeting of the minds between two parties. It's not simply one-sided terms dictated by one party without opportunity for the other party to negotiate. And each party should have negotiating power and choice beyond "take it or leave it". And, before you dismiss this idea with "Ha ha imagine if every cell p…

> And, before you dismiss this idea with "Ha ha imagine if every cell phone provider had a custom, bespoke, negotiated contract with each customer! It can't be done!"

This actually already happens to some extend. Nor a different contract for every individual user but my mobile phone plan is not one you can currently purchase from the provider but just available to existing customers who have been upgraded (more data for the same price as the original contract).

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#256

Post by account42 »

netsharc wrote: post #195
ethagnawl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no alternative but to comply. Maybe not within the confines of the head unit but you can still stick your phone onto the dash like I do in my (dumb) cars.

I bought a 2020 car recently. It comes with Android Auto, whereas previously I'd just mount my phone to the dashboard. But with Android Auto, every time the voice gives out a navigation instruction, music playing from the infotainment is paused; in my previous car the voice would play from my phone, on top of the music coming out of the car's sound system. So I've ordered a mount so I can mount my phone to the car ag…

Android auto also prevents you from typing in a new destination while driving. Because no one ever has a passenger that can do that for you, right?

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#257

Post by account42 »

bgnn wrote: post #233
foobarian wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't figure out why car manufacturers insist on building whole parallel universes of UIs, media apps, nav apps et cetera. Doesn't it cost a ton? Do people actually use/want this stuff?

Same with TV manufacturers, or early phones (Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, LG, Samsung.. had all different OSes and UIs.)

Except most phone manufacturers jumped onto Android when that became an option.

Android TV is also pretty widespread these days although some big players still have their own firmware.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#258

Post by account42 »

MobileVet wrote: post #179
zevon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a two-edged sword. I kind of doubt that Carplay and Android Auto will keep working with new phones as long as a car can. At which point you will end up with an old smartphone in your car or some workaround like that.

This isn’t something I have actively thought about… but now that you bring it up, I am definitely concerned. If the APIs were deprecated, CarPlay would be useless as the auto manufacturers would not update their head unit. The thread about an F150 with a known Bluetooth issue is a great example. Number one vehicle sold in the US for a LONG time, and yet no incentive to keep it working apparently

It's not like car manufacturers have any more incentive to update the built in navigation and multimedia applications either.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#259

Post by account42 »

kube-system wrote: post #221
bluGill wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you really need? Is the car moving forward or backward is the only one you can't figure out from GPS on the phone (this is possibly what they are getting from wheel speed - GPS speed is more accurate if you have a signal). There are a lot of nice to haves of course. GPS does eat phone battery so better if the car can give you that. There is a lot of other car data that is interesting, why force plugging a OBD…

Nav apps on phones will use dead-reckoning if they don't have a GPS signal, so they don't really even need the wheel-speed sensor, but I'd guess they use it just to increase accuracy.. e.g. in a long tunnel.

Increasing accuracy is a wild understatement. Dead reckoning with mobile phone hardware won't give you a usable result for long. Maybe your experiences are from tunnels with dedicated beacons to tell the phone where you are.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#260

Post by singleshot_ »

franga2000 wrote: post #249
singleshot_ wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further: Safer roads and more convenient travel comport with public policy; and, No one in 2025 has a reasonable expectation they are not being surveilled by their new car. (FWIW, I’m against surveillance transport but there is no reasonable way to say these contracts of adhesion are unconscionable under US law).

> No one in 2025 has a reasonable expectation they are not being surveilled by their new car. This is not even slightly true. People are barely aware of the fact their car has any connectivity in the first place, let alone that it tracks everything you do in a way that's tied to your real life identity. You're probably, talking mostly to us "techies". Anyone else probably wouldn't be too surprised if you told them, b…

They don’t have a reasonable expectation of buying a surveillance-safe new car because one does not exist.

Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that makes sense (or that ut doesn’t).

I guess you’re saying “they do have that expectation” while I’m saying “regardless of anyone’s expectation, car manufacturers have all addressed the market in a way that makes the expectation false and therefore unreasonable.”

Post reply on HN