Comment by jacquesm
6 hours ago
This goes beyond the 'right to repair' to simply the right of ownership. These remote updates prove again and again that even though you paid for something you don't actually own it.
6 hours ago
This goes beyond the 'right to repair' to simply the right of ownership. These remote updates prove again and again that even though you paid for something you don't actually own it.
It's basically the same for our automobiles, just try to disable the "phone home" parts connected to the fin on the roof. Do we really own out cars if we can't stop the manufacturer from telling us we need to change our oil through email?
Buy a Volvo. Then you can pop out the SIM card to disable the car's cellular communication. (On mine, located behind the mirror.)
When you really need it, like to download maps into the satnav, you can connect it to your home WiFi, or tether via Bluetooth.
Hahah, I just traded in 2023 (unrelated brand) for 2012 model since it was less of a computer. Computer systems in the newer car kept having faults that caused sporadic electrical issues workshops couldn’t fix. I just want my car to be a car and nothing else.
2 replies →
Until they switch to eSIM...
4 replies →
Chinese-owned Volvo?
OnePlus and other Chinese brands were modders-friendly until they suddenly weren't, I wouldn't rely on your car not getting more hostile at a certain point
2 replies →
A phone without SIM can still be used to call emergency services (911/999/0118999 8819991197253). The situation we're discussing though is an attack by an extremely-APT. You really think not having the SIM card is going to do anything? If the cell phone hardware is powered up, it's available. All the APT has to do is have put their code into the baseband at some point, maybe at the Volvo factory when the car was programmed, and get the cooperation of a cell-phone tower, or use a Stingray to report where the car is when in range.
Indeed.
My ownership is proved by my receipt from the store I bought it from.
This vandalization at scale is a CFAA violation. I'd also argue it is a fraudulent sale since not all rights were transferred at sale, and misrepresented a sale instead of an indefinite rental.
And its likely a RICO act, since the C levels and BOD likely knew and/or ordered it.
And damn near everything's wire fraud.
But if anybody does manage to take them to court and win, what would we see? A $10 voucher for the next Oneplus phone? Like we'd buy another.
As far as legal arguments go, I imagine their first counter would be that you agreed to the update, so it's on you.
A forced update or continual loop of "yes" or "later" is not consent. The fact that there is no "No" option shows that.
Fabricated or fake consent, or worse, forced automated updates, indicates that the company is the owner and exerting ownership-level control. Thus the sale was fraudulently conducted as a sale but is really an indefinite rental.
2 replies →
Their defense would probably be like: "you clicked Yes on the EULA form."