| ▲ | jmward01 18 hours ago |
| I like the idea, and we need variety in the market to keep things evolving, but I like the bells and whistles. I just don't want it to phone home. Honestly, I want the title to be 'we don't have a network connection and we can still be a car'. Privacy is my #1 feature. |
|
| ▲ | iwanttocomment 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I own 3 EVs. Two of those, from 2012 and 2014, were built with 3G modems, and fully lost connectivity in 2022 when the 3G networks were turned down. Nothing changed, not even an error message inside the car, except that trying to connect to them with their apps now fails. They're still totally functional cars. The failure mode on both appears to have been "guess I don't have service, I'll sleep the modem." Bluetooth still works, but even if that failed one of them has a functional CD player! My newer EV that came with LTE connectivity will also fully work without network connectivity, except for the apps and remote updates. You can turn off the built-in cell connectivity via the head unit menus, and if you're especially paranoid, you can pull the fuse on the modem (and I've done it!). When it doesn't have a network connection it too operates just like a normal car. There's a lot of fear around EVs being "software on wheels" based on a few manufacturers making non-remote features that depend on remote connectivity and botching updates or requiring subscriptions, and I agree that all is super problematic both from a privacy perspective and point-of-failure reason. But there's absolutely nothing intrinsic to the core design of EVs that demands that they're connected to the network. |
|
| ▲ | stavros 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have a BYD Seal and this was as simple as removing the SIM (it's in the armrest compartment and just pops out). |
| |
| ▲ | roarcher 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On some cars you can also unplug whatever radio/modem doodad is responsible for phoning home. I have a Ford Maverick and disconnected the "telemetry module" which resides under the transmission hump by the front passenger seat. I no longer receive updates to the infotainment system and I can't unlock the doors with my phone, but I also don't have the dealer emailing me service ads with my exact current mileage and tire pressure. | |
| ▲ | srameshc 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is how it should be if the user prefers not to be connected. | |
| ▲ | abakker 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, even back in the OnStar days, you could "opt out" and cancel the service and it would track you anyway. With BYD or any other car maker, I'd be worried the SIM was a placebo. | | |
| ▲ | observationist 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is where things like a HackRF or flipper zero are useful - leave a scan running over 24 hours from multiple fixed locations within the vehicle and you can detect if there are any wireless transmissions, and then triangulate on exactly where they come from using several pieces of yarn cut to the length of estimated distance from the source. Cars should be independent, local only devices. Having cloud dependencies is just reckless and stupid. | | |
| ▲ | jmward01 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Anyone know of reviewers that do this for cars? I just don't see privacy focused reviews on basically anything. We have reviews about how reparable things are and how good/bad the features are but rarely do I see privacy mentioned or in-depth analysis of TOS and the like to give buyers a sense of how good/bad cars and other devices are. Does everyone just assume it is terrible and go on or is there some reason this isn't a top level item for journalists to evaluate? | |
| ▲ | ASalazarMX 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can this be done without picking up the myriad of SIMs that pass near your car? How would you know which of them is your ghost SIM? | | |
| ▲ | observationist 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | You'd need to differentiate between sources - you'd want to capture every signal, then sort into buckets by frequency, by regular timing, and so forth - if a device is sending a burst every 5 seconds, then you can grab every 5 second occurrence of a signal at that frequency and make a reasonable assumption that all that data is from the same radio. You can filter for all the frequencies that show up regularly, then you differentiate by signal strength - group occurrences of the same frequency into similar dB buckets, then correlate the changes based on new fixed positions within the car, and run some calculations on changes in signal strength to obtain a dB to distance calculation. The strength to distance calculation can be estimated by making some assumptions about the type of radio you're looking for - a simple cellular module is going to be different than a WiFi repeater, or a wireless fob, or a bluetooth tracker. From the fixed points within your car, you can tie one end of a piece of yarn to where the sensor was affixed, and the length of the yarn should correlate to your dB to distance estimate for that position, and with 2-3 or even 4-5 threads you'd be able to group their loose ends together to get a rough physical indication of exactly where the radio transmission is coming from. The grouping won't be exact, but it'll literally point in the right direction, and if the threads are too long, or pointing to something buried in the chassis or whatnot, then you can reduce the lengths of your yarns by the same percentage of reduction and they'll be "pointing" at wherever the radio source is. You're going to get a general location, like "under the dashboard" or "in the glovebox" or "somewhere under the spare in the trunk", not a millimeter precise location. You could probably vibecode a way of processing the data in a browser, and use a bunch of splats and AI modeling of your car and so forth to get a very precise and useful pinpoint of a device with a fancy UI, but you can just use a spreadsheet and text files of logged signal records, the process isn't super difficult. |
| |
| ▲ | 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | hrimfaxi 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What would the car maker gain from adding a decoy sim? | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | analytics. same thing anyone that collects data gets. how they use it might be different. most use it to monetize the data. some might actually use it to improve things. because some do use for making money, those that do for actual improving will always be deemed suspect | | |
| ▲ | hrimfaxi 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are seriously positing that car manufacturers would install decoy sims in their vehicles to discourage people from finding the true sim, all so they might collect data without potential user disruption? | | |
| ▲ | hobobaggins 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are a lot of smart TV's (name-brand ones!) that will try to connect to any open wifi. Monetizing from analytics and telemetry are literally priced into the cost of the gadget. A lot of smart TV's will even ship with their cameras turned on. And Hyundai/Kia and Subaru literally disabled certain in-car features for people in Massachusetts after the repair bill passed (https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/) Given that, I hardly think that 'decoy sims' are much of a stretch. | |
| ▲ | jsight 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is crazy how paranoid people can be, IMO. They don't seem to understand that these companies don't really value one person's information highly enough to do stuff like that. It is everyone's information that they value, not that one guy who goes to the trouble of killing the radio. | |
| ▲ | netsharc 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This boring paranoia always comes up in discussions about "smart" devices. In theory possible, in practice too many legal issues, so in reality it's never happened. I find it rather dull when someone brings it up. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's some paranoia here but there's also some truth. Okay, nobody is putting in a placebo sim, but in software, we DO have placebo controls. If you flip a switch saying "don't track me", that usually means "track me slightly less". If you delete something, that doesn't mean delete it - that means keep it, but say it's deleted. If you go through the Windows install, for instance, even if you flip off all the stuff it will tell you "we're still going to do this, just in less circumstances". What are those circumstances? I don't know. I'm not even sure Microsoft knows. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes | | |
| ▲ | hrimfaxi 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | What do you imagine their profit per analytics profile to be? I'm genuinely curious. I would think any random individual's data would not be all that valuable. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway290 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't have to be directly about money. Remember EV manufacturing and export is subsidized by CCP and they really like "national security". |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What did GM gain from lying about turning off On-Star? The only reason a decoy sim is going a bit far to believe, is because it wouldn't actually work. It wouldn't actually fool anyone and would just look bad when the first reviewer pointed it out a year before the car is even available for sale. If it weren't for that, we already have countless example proofs that a company will do literally anything if it will work merely 1% more than whatever it costs. Including car makers obfuscating and even flat out lying about their various connections. What do they get out of it? data & control, same as ever. |
| |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | tzuij 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | bjackman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Speaking of variety in the market: does anyone know how the capital barrier for developing an EV compares to a combustion drivetrain? I wonder if, now that China has a developed supply ecosystem, it's becoming possible to build a car with lots of commodity/white-label parts. And I wonder if, as the quality of this supply chain improves, that means we'll start to see more small players emerge? (Pure speculation) |
|
| ▲ | uyzstvqs 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Privacy, and I don't need my car to be a driving collection of CVEs 10-20 years from now, because of some built-in modem that's ancient by then. |
|
| ▲ | 01100011 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a good thing cars aren't required to have a visible, unique identifier or government and corporations might be able to track your movements. |
| |
| ▲ | _carbyau_ 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | As with everything to do with society and computerised features, it is a matter of scale. Cameras reading numbers plates at multiple locations -including speed! - is one thing. Noting your : location, speed, direction in subsecond increments, your climate control preferences, what songs/eBook you are listening to, your face imagery (thanks sleep alert camera) and listening to your conversations... this is a whole other level of possible privacy invasion. Is all of the above being tracked? I could imagine much of that is unwieldy, or not that useful, data. But how can you know whether a company is taking this data or not without first being suspicious? And if you are suspicious at this level, then what could a company say to convince you they are above board, and only using your data to your benefit. |
|
|
| ▲ | formerly_proven 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A data connection still has tangible benefits e.g. remotely starting the AC/heating, live status of chargers / route planning, online map updates, eCall etc |
| |
| ▲ | jmward01 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If only I could trust that is all it did. I want 'airplane mode' for my vehicle. I turn my phone to 'airplane' mode all the time specifically because I don't want to give them access to where I am and all the other telemetry. I want incredibly strong protections that their network access isn't abused. Tools like logging all connections by application and the ability to block anything. Blocking when these tools can use the network (only when I have actively let them because I am actively using it for example) and opt-out by default with independent third party auditing of everything they release so I can build trust. I want real guarantees with real consequences when they are broken. I want devices to be mine, not theirs. Right now it is like someone has keys to my house and regularly comes in and installs hidden cameras without my permission. It is evil and people should go to jail for it. Unfortunately though, right now I have 100% trust that they will abuse their position which means I see every 'feature' that connects in any way as a major negative and not a positive. It is deeply unfortunate because I want to enjoy the things I pay for instead of treating them like the enemy that they currently are. | |
| ▲ | pnw 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. If the last decade has shown us anything, consumers will always opt for the convenience features and cost far ahead of privacy concerns. I can't think of many successful consumer products with privacy as their key selling point, despite how many times it shows up here. Apple products maybe, but privacy is listed as feature #6 of the 7 features highlighted halfway down the page on https://www.apple.com/iphone/ |
|
