Hacker News Reader

Comment by rurounijones | Hacker News Reader

Ok, ignoring the moral repugnancy of the whole thing for a moment.

> T. Candice Smith, who testified before the Nevada Legislature that her car, which had a starter interrupt device installed, was shut down while she was driving on a Las Vegas freeway, nearly causing her to crash

> Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights.

How the hell is that legal?! Surely you should only be able to disable a car when the engine is not running just on safety principles.

View on HN

Of course it's not legal. However, the article also quotes the "other side" claiming that it's impossible for the device to do that, and the manufacturer claiming that the device has is not designed to do that, and that they have no record of it doing such a thing. And on their website they say the device "can never shut down a running vehicle."

So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective. It's possible that her car broke down on the freeway, and she assumed it was the starter interrupt when in fact it was not. But it's exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to design.

(Or Passtime is about to get one humongous fine and/or judgement...)

Any company that did this would be risking crippling judgements. And it doesn't look like the technology (starter disabling) permits it.

Cars die. I once had an old car, a Saab 900 SPG (160 hp!), which completely died when I was going at speed on I-78 in the left lane. Turns out it was the ECU. I managed to coast to the side of the highway without incident.

Most of the cars mentioned in this article are older ones, which would have more mechanical difficulties. Put another way, if you can buy a nice reliable 911 Turbo S to cart your groceries around in, you're probably not doing that with a subprime car loan.

I used to work at a company that sold devices for exactly what this article is about. One of the biggest selling features of the device was the fact that they could remotely stop a car from starting. I can't speak for any of the companies competitors but I know the devices we sold were not possible to shut the vehicle off, only disable the starter after it's already been turned off.

So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective.

But the manufacturer, of course, could neither be lying nor could have produced a device that didn't perfectly represent this notional design.

This entire thread is full of people who have no idea how the device actually works or what actually happened jumping to the conclusion that the female poor person is lying or doesn't understand what happened with her own car that she was driving at the time. It is, of course, possible. But it's also classic Hacker News.

The company can not lie in this case because it would be trivial to expose the lie by studying any device in the field. I think its more reasonable that she is blaming the device because she was in a scary situation and the device is the best cause given her information. I think it's safer to assume no one has hidden motives here.

The article doesn't provide enough information to know specifically how the devices really work, but people blaming mechanical systems for driver error is nothing new (see Audi and Toyota unintended acceleration cases).

So I say:

> ...it's exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to design. (Or Passtime is about to get one humongous fine and/or judgement...)

In other words, I'm saying that it might be defective, but it's unlikely (albeit possible) that the company is lying, due to the massive liability this would incur. And your response is to suggest that I'm saying it's literally impossible for it to be defective or for the company to be lying?

In short: You replied to someone suggesting that the device might not be operating according to design by complaining that nobody is suggesting this. I don't believe you are discussing this in good faith.

Passtime really should embrace the full Micheal Barr treatment toothsweet.

My hypothesis is that the device cuts out the starter motor. So if this sequence of events occurs, you can be stranded at a stop light:

1. Start the car.

2. Once the car is started, the order to cut off the starter comes in.

3. You drive.

4. The car stalls for whatever reason.

5. You can no longer start it.

It might be even easier than that. A lot of newer cars have a gas-saving feature where they automatically stop the engine when the car's stopped at a red light, and automatically start it again when you take your foot off the gas pedal. If you've got a car like that, then every traffic signal could be an opportunity for your car to be disabled.

It should give a warning before shutting down, and then only shut down overnight, when nobody is driving it, to ensure people are at least back at home or at a reasonable place. There's no reason why it needs to be able to shut down at a moment's notice.

Highly doubtful the car just shut down (unless she perhaps stalled the car). Article mentions the device is tied to the ignition.

Can't onstar shut down/disable cars that are reported as stolen, even when they are on and in gear and moving?

It can, but it's a very different device. Rather than preventing the vehicle from starting, OnStar talks to the engine computer and can slowly reduce power, or, yes, cause it to come completely to a halt. But OnStar is also careful about when and how they do it.

See, for example, this story where OnStar waited for confirmation that the cops were directly behind the car: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/18/cant-just-shut-it...

Or this story about the slow down feature: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/09/onstar-debuts-stolen-vehi...

So basically, OnStar can shut down moving vehicles, but they only do it with the involvment of police (as far as is known). Whereas the auto loan ignition interrupts cannot shut down moving vehicles, but can be triggered with no oversight. Apparently.

I don't think this is onstar. It's a third party device attached to the ignition. Ignition interlocks have been around for a long time -- though not tied to gps device as they are now.

It is likely untrue, but anecdotal. That said, how are subprime loans still legal??

I assume you're talking about the subprime home mortgage debacle? Because the issue wasn't that the loans were subprime, so much as it was the massive amounts of institutional fraud across many layers of the mortgage business that enabled unqualified people to get loans (or loans larger than they qualified for). IOW, subprime loans were the murder weapon, not the murderer.

EDIT: BTW, a subprime loan is just a loan that comes with terms that aren't as good as they could be due to the applicant having some sort of issue in their application (eg, no credit history, a bankruptcy, lots of missed payments, no collateral, lots of other debt, etc.).

You are right, of course, but (IMHO) it sure would be nice to have consumer protections against such weapons.

Why would a subprime loan be illegal? The price meets the risk of the loan. It's a wholly logical agreement that provides potential benefit for both parties.

They'll remain legal as long as they're at all profitable and that profit exceeds any fines or losses in lawsuits.

It is likely untrue...

Why do you believe this?

Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses.

More likely is someone who has had a remote start block activated in the past (keeps you from starting the car) likely experienced engine failure while the car was running and associates it with past experiences.

This has no bearing on any argument for or against this practice, in any way. If it was found to be true that the engine could be remotely stalled while moving, it would be horrifying.

Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses.

No, it only requires them to fail to test that their device cannot be used to shut off an operating car. Stop and think -- what criteria define an "operating car"? It's not "the car is on" since it's entirely possible to stall out while moving. It's not "the car isn't moving" since that doesn't cover the stoplight situation. It would be trivially easy to code a device that would not permit the car to be restarted even if the car stopped in a dangerous situation.

> Because for someone to believe the ability to stall a moving car is ok is for them to believe the passengers are potential acceptable losses.

This isn't as outlandish a thought as you imply, especially when it comes to vehicles and the sales practices around them. Also, someone could believe it's okay to stall a car at any time without even considering the ramifications in the case that it's moving. All they need to be thinking is "deadbeat owes me money, brick his car." Any questions of timing, context, ethics or other considerations needn't enter into the picture.

Yes, it _is_ an outlandish thought. The folks who design and manufacture auto parts of this type have to think about this stuff, or else they'd be quickly sued into oblivion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com