On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:42 AM, Collin Kidder via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote:
> Heh, you realize who deactivated it in the first place, right? I mean, you > wouldn't have to "activate it" were it not for the fact that they turned it > off in the first place. Exactly. "Nice car you've got there that we've just sold you. Be a shame if you wanted to do anything to it we don't approve of and we had to press a button and remotely turn it into scrap. Be even more of a shame if you had to meet our demands to get us to un-press the button." And, of course, it's not just Tesla, though their cars, whether intentionally or incidentally, seem to be built with more potential for this type of ransom than other manufacturers. That's why I have no interest in pretending to own a car with a computer I can't completely control myself, and why I'm leery of cars that rely on computers in general. Not because they've got computers in them, but because the history of the implementation of these computers has been, from the very beginning, to lock out "unauthorized" access -- with the putative "owners" themselves generally being considered the most unauthorized ones of all. b& -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20141002/cba05728/attachment.pgp> _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
