'Kill Switch' Mandate That Could Shut Down Your Car

Vouched.

Ignoring the political football present in the article - the concern is valid but limited. The idea of a kill switch / immobiliser is both interesting with many advantages, but a huge concern how such a thing might be abused outside of the US - and if those counties US exports cars to, for it not be so popular and thus not as saleable.

The usefulness hinges on it being very hard to modify, and not within the scope of an industry that would emerge so the car can start and run regardless - if it's easy to beat, the purpose is nonsense and only passes on additional costs to car owners - if it was actually locked in requiring new harness and engine modules, not a mere singular module, the additional cost is worth it in that not only would it thwart drunks, the impaired, erratic driving (say during crime) but for non violent theft reasons where the car is simply stolen from the street or home - the whole policing, insurance, lost time landscape would change dramatically, with the car engine / ignition wiring becoming non functional to any third party and thus little value apart from some parts for wreckers - still money but not anything like that generated by the sale of stolen cars in a different location with low inputs to do so.

I am having trouble evaluating the merits of this claim. It seems to be primarily one sided reporting right now.

Anyone have a good idea if this will actually provide government actors the ability to shut off your car remotely?

Because that seems bad in a very nonpartisan way.