Hacker News Reader

Comment by filoleg | Hacker News Reader

> If you think Teslas driven [...] can't be remotely commandeered or disabled, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I wonder how this is even remotely possible, given that Teslas can easily operate fully offline (which they frequently do in areas with poor cell reception). You can just build a small faraday cage encasing the modem so that it cannot receive signal, and you are good to go.

Also, I don't think that the drivetrain subsystem and the subsystem that is connected to the internet can even interop. I know for a fact that even if the main computer (the one that is connected to the big screen) on a tesla is rebooting or shutting off, you can still operate the car like usual.

View on HN

> I wonder how this is even remotely possible, given that Teslas can easily operate fully offline

It's been possible for over a decade with regular cars. OnStar can remotely disable cars. Many cars have devices that remotely disable the engine if the driver fails to make a payment.

The point they're making is that this is coming and the groundwork is already being laid, both legally and technologically.

Wondering how would they prevent the faraday cage solution? I guess the OEM could disable the car if it cant phone home but surely that would lead to accidents e.g. blocking the modem while driving.

Probably just say the car won't start if it hasn't phoned home in a certain amount of time. Attempt to phone on start-up, shutdown if it can't. You don't have to rug-pull while the car is active.

I could see this being a "feature" of leased vehicles for example since you don't own it.

Tesla's should be fully functional currently, it's the self-driving that's a subscription.

> I could see this being a "feature" of leased vehicles for example since you don't own it.

that feature has existed for over a decade. Miss a payment and your engine can be remotely disabled.

> The point they're making is that this is coming and the groundwork is already being laid, both legally and technologically.

So they are basically claiming that something is a problem, even though it is something that's straight up currently physically possible (but someone who reads that statement without knowing the actual details wouldn't know that it isn't currently possible)?

Disingenuous at best. Especially given that the parent comment said none of that. They essentially mocked people who believe that it isn't possible, and when they got pointed out that it isn't actually physically possible right now, the response is "well, not right now, but look at future possibilities!".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com