• bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      1 year ago

      Might be more difficult than that. I’m in the hunt for a new work truck, a ram 2500. I’m specifically targeting a 2019-2020, because the 4G cellular module is easily removed, whereas in newer models it is soldered directly to a main telematics board and is pretty tricky to remove.

      These companies don’t want you removing these systems in their current state, as they’re harvesting your data and selling it off as another revenue stream. I suspect these future monitoring systems, if removed, will brick the vehicle in one way or another.

      • oatscoop
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Just disconnect the antenna and/or cover the module with something that will block any wireless signals. It’s easier upfront and simple to undo when you want to sell the vehicle.

        It was my go-to solution whenever I bought a vehicle with OnStar.

      • teamevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I suspect that like John Deere there will be a Ukrainian style hack that undermines this bullshit.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A vehicle that doesn’t work without internet? That should turn out well.

      • EmoBean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Look at fleet trucks. Usually you can get them without any bs. Like even no ac, just a frame, body, and powertrain.

        Also fancy electronics like that are pretty easy to disable hardware wise. Break a cap in the voltage regulation, break a few pins of a IC, anything really that functional kills it but still let’s everything else think it’s there or there a problem it has to ignore. Like microphone modules, I shove a pin it and scramble it then fill it with CA glue. Hardware thinks it’s there but it ain’t doing anything.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Someone linked a nice explainer on the topic in this thread, but my takeaway was that this is unlikely to ever exist

      TLDR of the TLDR (which I recommend reading)

      • the regulatory body is super slow, and won’t approve a change unless all the ducks are in a row

      • there’s no safe way to stop or disable a car while it’s moving, so the regulatory body won’t approve it anytime soon

      • CompostMaterial@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        That second part isn’t really true. Many cars now have cellular modems in them to provide WiFi and infotainment features. That means there is already a remote access capability in those vehicles. Disabling a modern vehicle with software is easy enough as the spark is controlled by the cars computer. So having a built-in feature to allow a remote actor to limit or disable the vehicle’s spark isn’t a big leap.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not really how it works even when a new car goes into limp mode. Usually what happens isn’t that they limit the spark. It’s that the PCM (Power train Control Module) provides a ground to various systems (which are always powered via the battery/alternator charging system). When the PCM or ECM (Electronics Control Module that monitors network traffic in the vehicle) detects missing voltage from a monitored network sensor, or too much voltage from a monitored network sensor) it will put your vehicle into limp mode to prevent more damage that would occur if you keep driving. For instance if your camshaft sensor is providing a reading that would suggest it’s not spinning or is “stuck”. That could do internal damage to the engine if the vehicle continues to be driven.

          But even so what they meant was that disabling a vehicle in motion is actually dangerous to the driver, any passengers and any other people driving or riding on the road.

          Additionally, if the government can do it, that tech could be used by a bad actor for the same purpose and that’s just not going to fly.

          • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            If I’m trying to pass on a dotted yellow (legal) and my car thinks I’m drunk and kills the engine or governs me to 10 mph, I’m fucked. Remotely stopping a car without situational review is super dangerous (for humans in them).

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Safely stopping a car. Safely. Unless you’re already stopped at an intersection or something you’ve got a really big chance of getting hit.

          • scottywh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even just remaining stopped significantly longer than expected at an intersection can easily get you into an accident in lots of places.

      • hltdev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        …but wait you don’t love accidently talking to someone in Texas every time you go to turn your dome light off/on ?