testtest

Is this for real?

Funwithfuel said:
Well it was a long time ago, but you definitely got the story I read.
Click to expand...
Yea, the big thing to point out, it was a massive oversight by Fiat/Chrysler that basically went from bankrupt to Fiat taking over to make them more bankrupt and screwing up everything. They fixed it right away, and its not like it is that easy to hack into a vehicle and take control of it, it was rushed and shoddy work by Fiat/Chrysler combined with adding the new Internet Wi-Fi feature to the car, that they debut stuffed without any security testing because Fiat was convinced buyer are wow'ed by electronic features more than the quality or features of the vehicle (and sadly, the younger generation car buyer proved them right), like a lot of things in that Platform, and were red faced at obvious their shoddy work was.....
 
No need to overthink a workaround. Just cut the antenna cable. Make sure you short the center conductor to the shield braid as an open cable may still be able to receive a strong signal. You may lose your GPS but that is why God invented Garmin.
 
We drifted way off point. The government mandated ability to remote shut down your vehicle. Now I'm treading a slippery slope here. My comments in another thread were deleted. So be warned, portions of this thread, or the whole thing, may disappear.
In another thread, we discussed credit card access. So, let's say you make disagreeable comments on a social media platform. That would invite unwanted scrutiny. Financial institutions (like PayPal) could stop your financial transactions. The banks are following the direction of governmental entities.
So, strapping my tinfoil cap on, the government could, in theory, stop your money , stop your car and seize your assets. What are you gonna do about it? Yeah, it's unconstitutional, so what? Can you afford to fight them in the courts? Can you support your family with less than 0? No, so when they're in their desired position, rest assured, the boot will be squarely on our throats.
 
Old_Me said:
well first, nearly all new cars since the late 1990's have been installing "On Star". i have a Toyota, they got thier own, and so on, and so forth.

so it's already installed in cars, pick up trucks, SUV's, etc.

won't take much to enable it to disable the car, from this point.

it would however be a major safety concern as to when the vehicle gets turned off, like for instance, at a red light, or in a parking spot.

hacking can be an issue as well. as it is now, if you have a car with a remote start, someone can walk near you or behind you, scan you, and download your car's code.

then get into your locked car, start it up and drive away.

best to keep your keys in a type of RFID pocket case.

if guns of the future are to have this, then Christ Almighty, i hope that what we have now is grandfathered-in, rather than we have to turn them in.

but at my age, and the age of many others here, we very well may not have any guns in the nursing homes anyway's
Click to expand...
I have two cars with OnStar which was disabled when the 2G network that powered it went away at the first of this year. Their replacement is an app that really has none of the capabilities of OnStar but instead relies on your phone for some of the things that OnStar was capable of. Still bad but at least you have control of how the app works, or doesn't.

As for "smart guns" count me out, and as for turning in my dumb firearms, not happening.

Good idea about keeping keys in an RFID case, as well as your credit cards.
 
jumpinjoe said:
It's amazing the different mind sets included here, most based on age I presume. Some few mention the infringement on our freedoms, some mention similar items already available, some mention LE capabilities, some even mention just how simple and easy it will be to 'over ride/write' it, and some even talked about it would be a simple chip change out (???). I'm not saying any of these opinions are wrong, only how they differ and how the ultimate outcome and results might differ.

Most of this thread folks like me at our age don't even understand the conversation, much less the validity of such a system. To me, I would oppose it in every legal way. No need to even argue/debate any value to society in it as far as I'm concerned ..... it's a restriction on the rights of free and freedom loving Americans. I'll even agree there might be some relative societal value, but the cost to our freedom is simply too great.

Over the years I've been on this dirt ball I've seen probably more advances in technology than the vast majority on the forum ..... most for the better, but some for the worst. Two very well noted instances known to most of the firearm owners of the country are the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 just to name a couple. These were both argued in "The name of public safety". I'm not sure public safety has been increased at all since either of them were passed, are you? And these two are concerning just our love and enjoyment of firearms. Be very concerned about any loss or restrictions to the freedoms we love. What might begin as a simple, seemingly meaningless restriction at some point may become another complete loss of some personal and/or societal freedom.

Always remember these words of wisdom which have been proven time after time by gov't after gov't:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt the Younger
Click to expand...
The loss of freedom usually doesn't happen all at once, it happens with one seemingly innocuous step at a time, and in the name of public safety. The Second has been in the government crosshairs for a long time and everyone would do well to pay attention to the rhetoric even if it seems to have no direct impact on you.
 
Recusant said:
My son was involved in a case where his department was searching for a rapist. It came to their attention that perhaps this guy had also kidnapped a young woman off of a street in Philadelphia in the middle of the night. From a security camera picture it was determined that the car that the kidnapper used in Philly had a Va state inspection sticker on the windshield. It soon became apparent that same man was probably responsible for both crimes. Soon it was determined that the car he was driving had a tracker placed on it by the car lot that had sold it to a family member. The car lot folks activated the tracker and within an hour LE in Maryland had arrested the kidnapper/serial rapist and had freed the young woman who had been grabbed off the street in Philadelphia. True story.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of anecdotal "evidence" that big government advocates use in an attempt to justify further governmental intervention in our lives.

It's a great thing that in this case the system allowed law enforcement to capture a criminal. That DOES NOT mean that every other non-criminal should surrender their rights to increase the chances of apprehending a single law breaker. Why can't people see that the intrusive nature of this activity is a pathway to tyranny?
 
Not sure if this was already said, but I just read on thegatewaypundit.com that the August infrastructure bill (already passed into legislation) had written in to the law that government-controlled kill switches will be installed in ALL new vehicles in the US...I did not get the start date on this...

And I cannot comment on the GatewayPundit...don't normally read it, but followed a link from another site I do follow...
 
Funwithfuel said:
No, not at all. That's what I am trying to convey. The "abilities " have been in place for a long time. With mobile hotspots pretending to be transportation, it's now easily achieved.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I'm sure I'm not going to say this right but I don't think there's too big of a gap between the government finding out that they have the capability to do something and them doing it
 
I'm going to go way out on a limb here from memory and without going back through all the posts in this thread. And there's no malice intended, just a simple observation. Take from it what you will ........

I'm thinking that everyone who replied and is over 60 yrs old, said something to the effect of them recognizing the potential loss of freedom in this thing..............

Those under 30 years old who replied seemed to have little concern about any loss of freedoms, but saw it merely as a slight inconvenience that could be easily overcome in one way or another .... paying some mechanic to fix it, swapping out a chip, finding some reverse engineering group who will overwrite it, etc ...............

Those few somewhere in between who really didn't have much of a hard core opinion either way......

And one last smaller group I noticed was those who saw this impact on their cars and trucks as not much more than a slight inconvenience but a very similar technology totally out of the question on their guns ......

If my assertions are correct, it kind of shows the different mind sets of those of us who grew up in a non-computerized world as opposed to those who grew up in a computerized world, and those who grew up during the major part of the transition all being basically different age groups.

I'll be one of the first to say that modern high technology has brought many benefits to our way of life. I'll also say modern high technology has been a gigantic bane on a still large part of our society, me included. I hate when needing customer service, making a phone call and being told by a robot to simply "log on to WWW.xxxxxx.com" for help. If I knew how to log on to WWW.anything I wouldn't have called for a live body to talk with to begin with. The older of us sometimes see high tech as a pain in the azz, but at the same time a somewhat necessary evil.

Those in the second group are ofttimes caught up in the Dunning-Kruger effect and since technology (I-net, computerization, etc) seems perfectly normal/easy to them, they tend to think it should be that normal/easy to everyone and seldom think of any alternative to the technology or how any given technology might negatively impact them or society as a whole.

I think this thread is a perfect example of that. Maybe just me, but I can see, and fear a lot more potential negative impact to the freedoms we enjoy than positive impact to the auto driving public. Very similar in result to the FCA of 1934 and/or the GCA of 1968. Just something for us all to ponder! jj
 
Jfal said:
Not sure if this was already said, but I just read on thegatewaypundit.com that the August infrastructure bill (already passed into legislation) had written in to the law that government-controlled kill switches will be installed in ALL new vehicles in the US...I did not get the start date on this...

And I cannot comment on the GatewayPundit...don't normally read it, but followed a link from another site I do follow...
Click to expand...
Supposedly by 2026.
 
Funwithfuel said:
We drifted way off point. The government mandated ability to remote shut down your vehicle. Now I'm treading a slippery slope here. My comments in another thread were deleted. So be warned, portions of this thread, or the whole thing, may disappear.
In another thread, we discussed credit card access. So, let's say you make disagreeable comments on a social media platform. That would invite unwanted scrutiny. Financial institutions (like PayPal) could stop your financial transactions. The banks are following the direction of governmental entities.
So, strapping my tinfoil cap on, the government could, in theory, stop your money , stop your car and seize your assets. What are you gonna do about it? Yeah, it's unconstitutional, so what? Can you afford to fight them in the courts? Can you support your family with less than 0? No, so when they're in their desired position, rest assured, the boot will be squarely on our throats.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking this is no longer a tinfoil hat issue, more like get ready. It could be reality because we're in uncharted territory here.
 
BobT said:
No need to overthink a workaround. Just cut the antenna cable. Make sure you short the center conductor to the shield braid as an open cable may still be able to receive a strong signal. You may lose your GPS but that is why God invented Garmin.
Click to expand...
You're jumping way ahead, Satellite Communication to control the Kill Switch is far from what they are proposing. Sure, maybe it would take that form, and this may be the solution, but we have no idea what form it will take.

I still suspect they are poorly communicating an idea of just requiring the Manufacturers to have provisions for a plug and play install of the devices being used currently, breathalyzers and trackers/disablers for those with bad credit. And if I'm right on that, no one is getting a kill switch, but if you want to or have to have one installed to keep your ability to drive, it will be 10 times easier, faster and cheaper because the car has provisions for a quick plug and play install.

Funwithfuel said:
We drifted way off point. The government mandated ability to remote shut down your vehicle. Now I'm treading a slippery slope here. My comments in another thread were deleted. So be warned, portions of this thread, or the whole thing, may disappear.
In another thread, we discussed credit card access. So, let's say you make disagreeable comments on a social media platform. That would invite unwanted scrutiny. Financial institutions (like PayPal) could stop your financial transactions. The banks are following the direction of governmental entities.
So, strapping my tinfoil cap on, the government could, in theory, stop your money , stop your car and seize your assets. What are you gonna do about it? Yeah, it's unconstitutional, so what? Can you afford to fight them in the courts? Can you support your family with less than 0? No, so when they're in their desired position, rest assured, the boot will be squarely on our throats.
Click to expand...
The article says....
a “vehicle kill switch” requirement for automobile manufacturers. The proposal is being marketed to legislators as a safety measure that would cut down on drunk-driving incidents. The bill would require automobile manufacturers to build such capabilities in all new cars, starting in five years.
Click to expand...
There is some talk about monitoring and sending data to third parties, but nothing about doing it remotely. This is what a lot of the Breathalyzer, Drunk Drivers Last Chance type devices do to prevent those with a record of habitual drunk driving, being able to still drive but prevent them from drunk driving.

Don't get me wrong, we should be watching this very closely. But lets not run off inventing new details of the worst government over reach we can imagine.

The Judge nor the Cops are going to analyze OBDII data collected from your vehicle to see if their is any indication you were driving drunk. They are going contract a company to process the data for them and provide them a report, that is the third party, they don't have to have satellite communications, they can simply require the driver to turn in a SD card every week to continue to drive.

The Breathalyzer devices installed, are the kill switch, you fail the breathalyzer it kills the vehicle automatically, no satellite or 4G/5G communication. It records the driver as well, to catch if a habitual drunk is getting his sober kid to breath into the tube instead of their drunk selves. As well as collect OBDII data and record video to collect evidence in case they figure out how to trick the breath test and are driving drunk, which would be used to take away their final chance to keep driving.

I read the article and I find it worrisome, but I do NOT see these details we seem to be inventing from our imaginations being posted. It may just be, a couple dozen lines of code and an extra connector they are mandating the manufacturers add to the vehicles. The third party's will come up with the devices that plug into the connector and interface with the vehicle, only being utilized by court order under conviction or prior arrangement for a high risk auto loan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top