Year 2022: 'Degoogling' your car.
PC/laptops were first, smartphones were done next and now car are too be 'degoogled'.
Edit:- 'Smart' TV's were between smartphones and cars.
PC/laptops were first, smartphones were done next and now car are too be 'degoogled'.
Edit:- 'Smart' TV's were between smartphones and cars.
You do not open to security risks when advantages are negligible or even negative (privacy issues make them negative).
Notorious among them are electric cars like Tesla. Even petrol/diesel car manufactures have started doing same stuff.
It is a disaster that cars are now part of it, but - the most extensive research to identify a decent product will be necessary.
Edit: what I fear most (second to a market that allows perversions - i.e. buyers of unacceptable products), is cretinous legislation what may remove options.
I have a hard time buying this (no pun intended). Your greatest fear is other people being able to buy things? I fear very much my not being able to buy what I want, and I can see knock-on effects from other people being OK with (or not understanding) the violation of their privacy and so indirectly violating my privacy, but it's hard for me to see that raising to the level of my greatest fear. So I wonder if I'm misunderstanding you, or we're frightened by different things.
Yes, you misunderstood. I stated that the fearsome weakness in the system is a market which is mostly made by careless buyers who will disregard low quality, absurd specifications and dystopian features in the products.
A product would not circulate in the market if people did not buy it, and people in general most unfortunately tend to buy what is available, without assessing it, without considering the effect of their purchases on the market.
You would not struggle to find e.g. telephones with replaceable batteries in the market if people generally refused to purchase otherwise. The same is valid for bluetooth-operated only washing machines (and other appliances), etc.
Bad products are around because people buy them.
> I fear very much my not being able to buy what I want
Exactly: that is already largely the situation, and it comes from a polluted market, spoiled by purchasers accepting bad products.
Which 'this' do you mean? There is the 'this' where other people buy stupid things (meaning 'smart' things, in the marketing terminology we've had foisted upon us), and there is the 'this' where I can't buy what I want. Phones and TVs are examples of both, to be sure; but, as I mentioned in the comment to which you are responding, these two phenomena seem different, though linked, and it's not clear to me that the former is inherently bad.
What exactly are you saying here? Is this a "telemetry is necessary for effective product design" argument?
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but if so: I personally don't buy that it is except in very specific circumstances. Gathering data through telemetry to make product decisions, when it's not just about data sales for extra revenue, doesn't always make a lot of sense, particularly when that data gathering capability directly compromises the product quality. I would argue that often it's done because of people trying to cargo cult competence at product design by doing what seems cutting edge, analogous to "architecture astronauts" designing overcomplicated & inelegant software systems with too many bells and whistles.
No, I wrote that nowadays, before buying, as you will need to «identify a decent product», you will have to research a lot, and discard the largest number of - useless - options. If nowadays you are in need of buying an item you will have to do extensive research of what is available in the market, because most of the products around are unacceptable.
These are already attack objectives - thermostat ransoms.
but here is a generic article on The Atlantic from 2016 - year relevant, because there had been cases of actual ransomware for some thermostat models then:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-e...
Which also contains the line:
> When it comes to connected vehicles, the possibilities are even more frightening. And thanks to an experiment where white-hat hackers remotely hijacked a Jeep as it hurtled down a St. Louis highway, they’re not that far-fetched
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-high...
Which raises another point: security faults in cars have been used to stop them, to take control of them etc. Among the malicious purposes, one can emerge of ransom: "We now control your car. If you want to drive it again...". Nothing new in the crime scene ("We just stole your car. If you want to drive it again...") - only, now through fully avoidable technical holes which should not be there in the first place.
--
About the thermostats:
Hackers demonstrated first ransomware for IoT thermostats at DEF CON // Ransomware-infected smart thermostats, it's no longer hypothetical. An attacker could crank up the heat and lock the IoT device until sweltering occupants paid a ransom to unlock it (Aug 2016)
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3105001/hackers-demons...