Comment by jmward01
7 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.
I have a BYD Seal and this was as simple as removing the SIM (it's in the armrest compartment and just pops out).
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.
This is how it should be if the user prefers not to be connected.
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.
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.
4 replies →
What would the car maker gain from adding a decoy sim?
3 replies →
[dead]
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.
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
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.
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/