Hacker News Reader

Comment by airhangerf15 | Hacker News Reader

Doug DeMuro covered this recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iqz-mlYwRo

Tesla doesn't have a legal ground to stand on here and would lose in courts, but it would also cost way more to the person trying to sell his or her own property. The litigation itself would be more than the profit margin unless you do this as a trial/civil lawyer and can litigate it yourself.

Ferrari has banned sales to people and this seems within the rights of a company to do (so long as it's not based on specific discrimination like race or sex).

I personally would never buy an Internet connected vehicle, and I'll never buy a car with access to cell networks. Cars made before this decade are going to become insanely valuable as time goes on.

View on HN

Regarding your last point:

I used to also have this view, I changed my mind after realizing that driving a vehicle is one of the more dangerous things you do regularly. In fact, it is a leading cause of mortality for my demographic. Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years. In many newer automobiles, there are DIY ways to remove the 'phone home' capability if you so desire.

> Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years.

That's a valid point. Personally, I'd prefer to take the increased chance of being seriously injured or killed in an accident over being under constant surveillance. But this is a thing reasonable people can and do have different perspectives on.

I went off the edge of a forest road and head on into a tree in my 2022 Tacoma. Passenger and I both walked away with no injuries.

I have completely reevaluated my stance (was yours) after this experiment. I'll take the plastic car that explodes on contact if it saves my life.

> I'll take the plastic car that explodes on contact if it saves my life.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm completely on board with this sentiment. I think where you & I diverge in our viewpoints is when it comes to the surveillance.

> being under constant surveillance

Don your tinfoil hat sir. SAR sats can track cars already.

Sure, but so? Even if it can't be eliminated completely, it's worth eliminating what you can. Especially corporate surveillance.

I don't particularly care. I'd rather be at more risk and actually own the vehicle than subject myself to all of this silicon valley nanny-mode nonsense.

> Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years.

I think we need to define "safety". Leaking all my private information is a major safety threat. Only cars from the last 8-9 years have this risk (with some exception). So depending on what you think safety is, the most recent cars can be the least safe of them all.

In terms of mechanical safety, I wouldn't want to drive a car from the 50s. But a car from, say, 2005, is perfectly safe mechanically while also having zero data flow risks.

> Cars made before this decade are going to become insanely valuable as time goes on.

Why? What value does it add?

Software that doesn’t change, heated seats that don’t require a subscription, not selling your location data, able to repair yourself

FWIW none of this applies to Tesla, so maybe you should support them.

When I was considering Model 3 for my parents in eastern europe I’ve looked up tons of VINs. Pretty much all of them were totalled write-offs, rebuilt with FSD, supercharging, etc. You can still get free lifetime supercharging for Model S…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com