Comment by emidln

Not sure what you mean, the antennas are on the sharkfin board and you get to it from under the headliner not from the top of the car. It's much easier just to disconnect the cable that goes to the sharkfin than actually removing the entire module in the sharkfin.

If you can be prosecuted for guessing urls you can be prosecuted for sending garbage data in a way you know will be uploaded to a remote system.

It might be interesting for an enterprising lawyer to try to flip this around. Suppose you send a letter to your car manufacturer saying that, as the owner of the car, you are prohibiting them from accessing the location of the car or performing unauthorized software updates and that any attempt to circumvent this will result in criminal prosecution for unauthorized access to your computer.

Prosecuting someone for deliberately injecting garbage data into another persons system hardly seems totalitarian.

> You own the device, so anything you do within that device is authorized

You're very clearly describing a situation where at least some of the things you're doing aren't happening on your own device.

>I do know that the CFAA essentially gets interpreted to mean whatever the corpos want it to mean - it's basically an anti-witch law

FWIW this is simply not true. The essence of the CFAA is "do not deliberately do anything bad to computers that belong to other people".

The supreme court even recently tightened the definition of "unauthorized access" to ensure that you can't play silly games with terms of service and the CFAA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf

If you were to purposefully try to poison/damage their dataset and admitted as such you probably wouldn't win without spending an unreasonable amount of money on lawyer fees. Without admitting anything though and claiming ignorance it would probably be pretty easy to get dismissed, provided you are able to spend atleast some money on a lawyer.

they use the data mostly to charge you more, you can't really get the price all that lower

I've had a clean driving record for 30 years and I'm still paying the junk rates most other people get

That’s why you make this as popular as possible

you give a lot of credit to an industry poisoned by the profit motive

So much this. We had a rental BYD in Greece this summer, and while it was actually great car in general the mandated “assistance” was awful.

It constantly got the speed limits wrong, constantly tried to tug me out of the correct lane, and was generally awful. It could be disabled but was re-enabled on each restart of the ignition because it’s mandated by EU regulation.

I appreciate a Greek island perimeter road may be a worst case scenario, but it did the same with roadworks on the freeway and many other situations.

Actively dangerous in my experience…

“Lane keep” yanks the wheel dangerously because it incorrectly detects the lane, or because you don’t indicate to pass a pothole on an empty road (which itself would be confusing to other road users)

Forward collision warning has misfired on 2 occasions on me in the last 3 years

The main issue is that so many cars have broken “auto dipping” headlights which don’t dip, or matrix headlights which don’t pick out other cars.

This automation shit should stop, but it won’t.

parking beepers are reasonable, they simply come on occasionally and don’t actually interfere when they go wrong. The rest of it just makes things far worse at scale.

> SecOC, which is cryptographic authentication but the message is still plaintext

I understand notionally where they were going, but it all sort of went off the deep end somewhere along the line. A concern that someone buying some "mileage blocker" or whatever other shady device off of AliExpress might be vulnerable to the device steering their car into a wall is actually quite a valid one, but of course the solution is some overcomplicated AUTOSAR nightmare that doesn't solve for key provisioning in a way to make modules replaceable.