| > I think these should be installed in cars in such a way that they can be removed by owners. And then make removing it a crime. no. they should not be installed at all. while were on this topic vehicles have WAY too much insecure crapware in them already, to the point where they can already be remotely controlled by hackers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler > In July 2015, IT security researchers announced a severe security flaw assumed to affect every Chrysler vehicle with Uconnect produced from late 2013 to early 2015.[112] It allows hackers to gain access to the car over the Internet, and in the case of a Jeep Cherokee was demonstrated to enable an attacker to take control not just of the radio, A/C, and windshield wipers, but also of the car's steering, brakes and transmission.[112] Chrysler published a patch that car owners can download and install via a USB stick, or have a car dealer install for them.[112] i don't know what people don't get, no matter how many times it happens it will not change: some company making a thing that communicates will always fuck it up beyond belief. they simply do not give a fuck about implementing it securely. a vehicle having software automatically means it will have severe vulnerabilities implemented in some stupid web scripting language by a kid who just arrived out of a shoddy college. did you miss the news or are you just coping by thinking "surely the 738th company to do IoT crap will do it right this time" > Since driving is, and has always been a privilege and not a right, I don't see a problem with having a remote kill switch that cops can use in specific cases. because you're just applying robotic reasoning to try and sound logically consistent while only knowing and focusing one one small part of law |