That's why engine shut-off devices, or car disablers, are a hot new trend in car accessories. Less useful than a GPS and way less fun than a DVD player, the devices allow lenders to disable a car's engine remotely when payments are overdue. Yes, it's legal.
]]> According to an article about the devices in the Kansas City Star, drivers have a few days' warning before the ignition is disabled.With brand names On Time, PassTime and PayTeck, car disablers are wired to the ignition and typically provide motorists three or four days' warning, with flashing lights (green to amber to red) and quickening chirps as drop-dead payment dates near.
They will not shut down a moving car, manufacturers note, but will render starters silent the morning after the warning light turns red.
For now, disablers are limited to the subprime auto market—mainly dealerships that handle their own financing and court customers with bad or no credit. One small dealer notes in the Star article that since most of his customers are credit risks, "[f]or 90 percent of the cars [he] sell[s], [he] wouldn't without these."
AOL Autos reports that bigger lenders are looking into car disablers as the U.S. credit situation worsens, so the devices could become more common very soon. Provided that consumer protection laws don't catch up first.
No remittance, no ignition: Auto 'electronic repo' in action [Kansas City Star]
Car Payment Or Else: Engine Shut Off Systems [AOL Autos] Thanks, Roy!
(Photo: BunnyStudios)
]]>A little of both columns.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to correlate the "uninsured accident rate," since the number of insured drivers is far more accurate than the number of uninsured drivers.
There's also the question of whether or not "uninsured motorist" statistics include unlicensed drivers and/or drivers whose licenses have been revoked.
That said, the Insurance Research Council uses uninsured accident claims vs. insured accident claims to determine the number of uninsured drivers. For 2004, they determined that 15% of US drivers were uninsured given that 15% of accident claims were "uninsured driver" claims.
Thus, the (very tentative) numbers indicate that 15% of accident claims are related to uninsured motorists, while 85% of accident claims are related to insured motorists.
I've already said that there are fairly grave issues with this type of statistical research, and poking holes in it is fish/barrel. But that's really the best that I can dig up.
]]>If it weren't me alone (turns out there three more cars that week--you bet I'm careful near that curve, now!), there would have been a lot more than that, and I would be praying that a higher premium would be all I'd have to deal with.
]]>As to the problem of these devices...seems to me you could just get the right connectors for your vehicle (junkyard run, anybody?), maybe some crimp rings, and bypass the gadget. If the gadget can detect this, have a switch in the middle.
Or...you could buy from a person, and not worry about it.
]]>I'm pretty sure there's NO WAY the FAA would issue a STC for that kind of thing. If they're on light aircraft, they're completely illegal.
]]>However, the only people cited in that article for rolling this out in every car were unnamed and unquoted "law enforcement experts." Until an actual congressman or official of the NHTSA starts making rumblings about it, I worry not.
]]>If you were really planing on stealling the car I'm sure getting rid of the device would be a no brainer. It will only affect the honest folks who had to wait just three more days til payday they will be the victims.
]]>Perhaps phase two car starter kill kits will come in a size as large as a luggage carrier and be mounted proudly on the cars roof. What is this world coming too. If they are that much of a risk then dont give the loan isnt that the lesson of the 2000's.
]]>This is absolutely disgusting. I would never purchase a vehicle with this type of stipulation. EVER.
I would probably ride a bicycle first, than have one of these things in my car.
]]>To the banks and other companies offering car loans: why don't you try communicating?
For example, a friend's father became suddenly ill. My friend and his wife quit their jobs and moved back home to a very depressed area to help take care of his father. They searched for jobs while there, but only the wife found a management job at McDonalds, and that wasn't enough to pay all the bills, including dad's medical bills. These two lowlife slouches... (*gasp*)... MISSED A TRUCK PAYMENT. And they were (o, the horror) late on another payment.
They got a phone call: why have you missed a payment? He explained, and the terms were renegotiated and the missed payment was added to the end of the loan. Dad recovered, son and wife moved back here, old jobs were picked up again (which tells me that they were good employees,) and the truck payments have resumed.
Not everyone who misses a payment is a lazy bum who just wants to freeload off the rest of us. Call your customers after they miss a payment or two and work with them to help them get the loan paid.
And for the chronic non-payers who really are trying to freeload, repo the damn car. Why would you want to leave it in their possession so they can trash the thing anyway?
It's a crazy idea, I know. It's time consuming and it means actually dealing with people instead of just hitting a button. It'll never catch on. But what the hell, I had to try.
Oh, and the friend who missed one payment? If the truck had been disabled or repo'd, he and his wife would have been unable to move back and pick up their old jobs. Doing that was key to getting back on their feet.
]]>Add a GPS unit and you could even track down the car when it's time to have it reposessed.
]]>@sirwired:
Right now, SirWired, the program is (supposedly) only aimed at a test market of around 1.9 Million new 2009 model year cars (Onstar Equipped).
I read another link recently though (and dang if I can find it again!) which indicated that there are talks of this (test) rolling out to ALL vehicles, Onstar Equipped or not. And yes, that's a bit scary to me. *Shrug*
Maybe it IS an urban legend (at least I hope so), but after testing it on almost 2 million cars, that in itself is a bad precedent, and I wouldn't put it past 'em. :)
]]>Its too Orwellian. I'd demand it removed from any car I'd paid for in full, or have it removed elsewhere, legal or not, they've no right.
]]>In that case, I'm sure a clever person could jam the relay so it won't open (thus preventing the device from interruption function of the car) and then claim that they knew nothing.
]]>Yes, people are going to make stupid choices and end up paying too much for a car. Live and learn. I understand the desire to keep people from doing stupid things to themselves (having done plenty to myself) but if someone wants a car and understands the cost involved, even if it is not a cost you would pay or that you think he should pay, I don't think you do them a benefit by outlawing a device or interest rate that makes it possible for him to do so.
I don't mean this to compare these buyers to children, but one of the hardest things I've had to do as a parent is let my daughters spend their saved money on something that I know is a poor choice. In that one instance, they'd be better off with my interference but I'm not always going to be there to make those decisions about toy prices, payday loans (God forbid), rent, or car payments for them. They have to learn to evaluate those things on their own, beyond just talking about it.
Maybe that super high interest car loan is a mistake. Maybe it's the thing that makes it possible for him to commute to a better job, work out of debt, get his credit better, and move on with his life. More likely it is a mistake, but that should be his decision to make, not the legislature's. IMO.
]]>I wouldn't be terribly surprised if all of the "let the feds have the power at the expense of the states and the people, because 'states' rights' people are just closet Klan members and all that federal power will surely be benevolent, right" stuff turns out really, really badly for having rights, but I don't think being able to disable the car of a bank robber, or someone fleeing at high speed, or other criminal is going to be the tipping point toward that long night of fascism.
Maybe the downsides outweigh the good, but conjectures about a possible dystopian abuse don't seem persuasive to me.
]]>Good lord this is so 2005.
]]>Give me one now(time stamp of posting) and before the weekend is here I will make it for you. Does not matter you block the the calls coming in an going out. That is the fastest way. Then they will come up with it must call home in so many days, again easy fix.
I wonder how much someone would pay for this?
]]>@Coach Cal Is My Dream Weaver:
Its not a matter of people chosing to want this, its the finance company that wont give a loan without it, its only for REALLY deadbeat payers right now.
As an insurance agent I get a call from the finance company every month to make sure the person made thier insurance payment as well. it can be a real pain in the butt, let me tell you!
]]>As an embedded software developer (I build the OS layers, not the application layers) I know all too well the bad software that gets put on so many of these devices, from cars to cable boxes. I would not trust them. One glitch in the memory and the device probably could shut down an engine in operation, or worse. The more technology that gets put into things, the more exposed they are to the fact that nothing is unbreakable. That might not matter so much for your computer or home media system. But I get very concerned with the rise in technology for cars, airplanes, trains, hospital equipment, military equipment, etc. We need "total liability" laws where the makers of the technology have to cover all losses when failures are traced back to their technology.
]]>The people buying cars from dealers that use these are a long long long way from being able to pay cash for a car.
]]>i don't support cops carrying weapons that your average citizen is not allowed to carry (auto-shottys, smgs, tasers). i don't support "whren stops". & i don't support a measure like this that would give them the potential to abuse power.
the potential for abuse exists & that should be enough of a reason, shouldn't it?
]]>@Gorphlog: These things are very easy to remove and you don't have to be a ASE mechanic to do it. Just simple mechanical knowledge will allow you to bypass it.
]]>How is having the car repossessed any different? If you haven't made the payment then the car is taken away and you're in the same situation in an emergency. Crappy things happen and crappy emergencies happen. It's called LIFE and we all have to deal with it. To say to these companies that they can't disable a car when the payment hasn't been made is wrong. The point you made in another post about the cars being turned off while in motion is much better, though. That is absolutely wrong. Personally, I solve this by saving up cash for a car and owning it outright. Even if it's a crappy car. Even if it's not so reliable. I own it an no one can take it away from me.
]]>I remember in high school people paying to hacking a pager hooked up to the ignition as a way to disable the car by sending a page.
Then if the car is stolen, you can disable it remotely James Bond-ish...
Of course this is pretty much illegal since it's insanely dangerous to disable a car potentially while it's on the highway.... but there must be tens of thousands on the road like this.
]]>2. Having insurance doesn't cap your liability, so you can lose far more than money spent on higher premiums.
3. Would I be safer if I could lose a lot of money or if I had no money to lose?
]]>EXACTLY. Although I have decent credit now and am very responsible, I do blame a complete lack of financial education from both my parents and high school for my younger years of bad debt, horrible credit and a car repossession.
]]>I've had a car repo'd before. I called the bank when I knew I just couldn't pay for it anymore, even offered to take it to them. I KNEW the car was theirs and I knew they were gonna repo it anyway, so I just gave it back. I've also had to repo cars before (parents deal cars on the side).
I've been on both sides of the game and I think this system is really fair, so long as there is warning and it doesn't happen while the car is being driven.
]]>@discordance: Either way, it can be removed.
]]>They don't really have that control - it's not like they send a "kill" signal, it's just a code that you have to type into a keypad in the car.
And yes, these things probably can be hacked, but no system is perfectly secure, and no lock is unpickable. If they sharply increase the difficulty of defaulting and still driving the car, they serve their purpose.
]]>@nataku83:
Well, if the choice is between having a heavily computerized car that's more reliable, performs better, and gets better mileage, vs. one which, in theory, I could repair myself if I wanted to take the trouble, I choose A.
]]>It is not much of a push to go that little bit further and see where it could analyze your driving and shut down for... speeding... drifting... alcohol registering in the sweat on your palms... etc.
Special interest groups, towns, local cops will get their fingers in this pie too... you may find yourself getting billed for rolling through a stop sign in Buttblister Corners a month after you were there... Defense? You don't get no stink'n defense! Your car ratted you out. Or how about paying for every bit of road you drive over? Toll roads piss you off yet?
This sort of crap is why I love my 24 year old diesel Landcruiser. None of this electronic crap and I can run it on the rendered fat of roadkill when the apocalypse comes. I will not chip my truck! Never! Not even after you pry my cold stiff fingers off the steering wheel! (Yeah the heater needs some help at the moment.)
Our world is changing folks... yes we are losing some freedoms we assumed were rights... but we are getting... what the F are we getting?
]]>Well, that is a given. I'm just seeing it from the point of view that such things would eventually expand to all other vehicles, under the guise of security or safety or some such nonsense. An example is electronic stability control for cars. It started out as a novelty for sport cars, and now it is getting to be standard on all cars.
]]>Really? I'd love to see the actual stats on that.
]]>And as for your tea party slur, the protests are against out of control government spending leading to ever-increasing taxes and deficits.
OT, but... no. If that's what they were about, they would have been held every year since about 2003.
]]>Excepting that, statistically, those without insurance are safer drivers.
I mean, wouldn't *you* be safer if wrecking cost you everything you own, instead of simply raising your premium slightly?
]]>Either way, is this common? I wonder if there's stuff like this hidden in mine?
]]>@Yossarian: In the circumstances I imagine you are talking about, where the "full risk," if reflected in the interest rate, would raise it to levels that would challenge legislation, odds are that the customers would not be able to afford the financing anyway. You'd think that they'd realize this and stay away from that sort of deal for their own benefit, but unfortunately that doesn't take into account the perceived need for the vehicle, blind optimism and naivety which lead people to get into predatory loans. Perhaps it is paternalistic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in all circumstances.
]]>unless you're imagining a bunch of cops on sugar highs from all the donuts just randomly disabling cars, in which case there's probably no way to continue a civil discussion with you.
Well played, sir, well played. :)
]]>@Wit:
I don't think you understand the subprime car business. You buy a car at a dealer auction for next to nothing and then demand the purchases price of the car as a down payment. Since you already covered your costs with the down payment all of the extra payments are profits and you hope they don't pay so you can repeat the process. The key is they don't pay the car off so you can repossess the car and resale it.
There is actually two types. One will require you to enter a code that you get when you make your payment every month. The other one has a tiny GPS receiver located on the dash above the steering wheel. They are able to track your location and de-activate your car at anytime.
Both units will have a jingle upon inserting your keys into the ignition.
I don't think mandatory insurance is so much about what insurance companies say about premiums, it's about making sure that people have some way to pay for at least some of the damage they cause to others.
]]>I agree with the Consumerist. This is a great idea that expands the ability for some less financially able to get a car loan. It is a great equalizer that allows those currently on hard times to get the loan and encourages them to pay.
]]>@sirwired: said-
Unless you can come up with some source, this "police disablement device" sounds like an urban legend
@Wit:
What these things do is make it possible to profitably lend to people at lower interest rates. Basically, because they reduce defaults, people can get loans they otherwise couldn't.
]]>It's not a signal, it's a code. The unit has a keypad. You make this month's payment, and the lender/dealership tells you "type in 4456345," and the car will run for another month.
]]>"If you're still paying for the car, you don't own it."
Not quite true. I believe that you own the car, and the car is used to secure the loan. That's why your name is on the title and the entity that loaned you the money is a lien holder.
]]>Even better, the companies took our mandated premiums then blew it on CDOs, so all that $$$ evaporated, forcing us to pay twice.
So... Yeah. That sure worked out to consumers' benefit.
]]>People are allowed to live in houses they aren't paying for.... with the blessing of the government
]]>No it affects people with bad money management skills, poor or not many people are capable of over extending themselves and getting to this point.
]]>If I recall there were issues with stranded motorists and incorrect shut-offs that snowballed the issue.
]]>1. Read Consumerist
2. Profit!
As for your cellphone and 911 analogy...
- You should not drive yourself to a hospital if you are the person with the person with an emergency
- If you ask for an ambulance or the police, someone will be sent
- If someone is dying and they need medical assistance, ask for an ambulance - the people who drive those vehicles provide medical care and have the equipment to ensure that further harm does not come to the person
- If you are in need of a 'quick escape' and your car doesn't start because you didn't pay your bill, use your legs or plan ahead: keep a 'getaway' car (maybe your previous one?)
It's not in the Bill of Rights to own a car or unit of transportation. Choosing to live in the country rather than the city does not give you an exemption to make your loan payments. If that was the case, I am sure there are plenty of city folks who would like to live in the country (and a lot of country folks who would like to know more about that 'program').
If a person can't afford to live in the country, move to a location that you can afford.
A person should pride in themselves and make sure the bills are paid. If a situation comes up where you can't make the payment, talk to your lender. If the situation is permanent and you will no longer be able to make payments on the car then make arrangements where you can live without the car. Regardless of where you live, make sound economic decisions!
]]>I agree with this, as long as its not abused by the lender.In the situation of being behind on your payments from job loss or emergency, this is better than a tow truck coming in the middle of the night.
Regrettably for every consumer who does right, there are sadly many jackheads who sign the loan/lease and dissapear without making one payment.
While I imagine this sort of thing is easily disabled by locating and bypassing the 12V supply this device runs on, keep in mind the lender can still call the good ol' repo men to get the car if the box is bypassed.And any mod 'chip' will probably cost more than the payment to turn the dang box back on .
]]>This is a good thing. Why should some deadbeat be able to drive around without paying when the rest of us all make payments?
]]>@Jim Topoleski: How is your 'quick escape' scenario any different if these devices are rendered illegal and therefore said poor person doesn't get a car at all? Or gets an even cheaper car that, as you note, isn't reliable?
As for somebody dying, it's often faster to just call the ambulance; they can provide emergency life support while on the way to the hospital.
]]>Yeah, you can cherry pick examples of bad actors. Cops have shot people they shouldn't have, does that mean all cops do or that all cops should be disarmed? Might as well take away their clubs, too, on the same basis.
If a cop "feels" like screwing with you, he doesn't need to disable your car he just needs to pull you over. This wouldn't give them any real new ability they don't already have, unless you're imagining a bunch of cops on sugar highs from all the donuts just randomly disabling cars, in which case there's probably no way to continue a civil discussion with you.
]]>The tech is already pretty much there, we just need the infrastructure for it. Oh yeah, and absolutely flawless security to back it up. How hard could that be~?
(~ = sarcasm. Example usage: "thanks for pointing that out Headcase, I would have never figured it out~.")
]]>If you want to fix "punishing the poor for being poor", that's a bigger problem unrelated to this new system IMO.
Now false positives, those are another story. But these companies can be sued for the inconvenience they cause. and again, if you think it's too hard to the little guy to sue a big corporation, then again, that's a different, bigger problem.
]]>Free market, for the win.
]]>2) Unless you can come up with some source, this "police disablement device" sounds like an urban legend.
]]>Its just another method of punishing the poor for being poor. And as evidence of the last few months tells this county LOVES to punish the poor for being poor, regardless of how they became poor (which usually is through no fault of their own) and regardless of their status (ie the teabaggers, all of whom got a tax BREAK yet where ranting like they are paying MORE taxes the stupid idiots.)
And as for your tea party slur, the protests are against out of control government spending leading to ever-increasing taxes and deficits. Please get your news from somewhere other than the liberal-biased CNN, who is just becoming more liberal in an attempt to hold off Fox News.
]]>Could you imagine how cool that would be if the White House could turn off everyone's car and the internet all at once? Screw this, I'm moving to Eurasia.
]]>@Southern: Translation: I like this because it currently only affects poor people, of which I am not one. As soon as it affects me, I will change my position.
]]>green light// Hmm, do I give my car dealer a payment or pay the cable bill? Can't miss Lost...
amber light// Hey, that thing chirped when I ordered my Big Mac. Ah, the drive-thru chick will just think it's my cell phone.
red light// Right. They'll never turn it off on me. They've probably forgotten about it.
comes the dawn// Hey, PencilSharp? Can you give me a lift down to Shady Shawn's? I gotta make a payment...
]]>This was a real bitch for those of us who'd get a call and have to go pick him up. Especially the time he was out of town 2 hours away and someone had to go pick him up, take him to make the payment because they wouldn't take one over the phone, then drive him back to get the car.
]]>I've seen these things. They usually mount at the bottom of the dash. They really arent hidden. They are an aftermarket product. They are not installed at the factory.
I would think that if you knew you were going to be late on the payments & couldnt pay... you could just manually disable it.
]]>Yes. "feel like it" is pretty much where it's at right now. As in, if you "feel" like a criminal to the cop, they have the right to search you ("feel like it" can, for instance in computer crimes means running DOS, a command prompt in windows, or linux without X) . Since disabling a car is far less intrusive than a search, why *wouldn't* it be allowed?
]]>They will not shut down a moving car]]>
I don't have a problem with it, provided that it gets removed after the final payment is made. If it's now MY car, I don't want anyone to have the ability to shut it off. What if there was a hacker, or a glitch that caused EVERYONE'S car to stop? :(
]]>@Jim Topoleski: "Punishing the poor for being poor"??? I worked in a credit union where I supplied a lot of car loans. 9 out of 10 times if a car had to be repo'd it was because the member was behind on their loan and were DUCKING the financial instituion. If they would have spoken with us about their situation and were sincere we would have worked with them. From my experience lenders are likely to work with someone who is having payment problems.
This is of course if the customer recognizes that they signed a detailed note (which everyone should read, but few ever do) that they are legally obligated to pay on.
Now I am sure that there are lenders in which their first option is to snatch and grab, but this is not beneficial as it takes time and money to go through the process of repo'ing a car that in the end might not pay off the loan that is out there.
"Its just another method of punishing the poor for being poor. And as evidence of the last few months tells this county LOVES to punish the poor for being poor" Please supply evidence.
America's out to get the poor, MAN!!!
]]>This is what I don't get--
Think about this: when I buy ANYTHING via a loan, it is MINE, I simply owe money to the bank. The bank has that item (car, house) as collateral. However... there is due process involved. Since its my PRIVATE PROPERTY and I in fact do OWN IT, to deprive me of this property requires you to prove, in court, that I in fact must default this to you. After all, you're the one that gave me the loan in the first place.
My mortgage company paid escrow to the wrong address for a couple months, my taxes were late. Had this not been caught, should the bank or county have the ability to lock me out of my house without investigation into who is at fault? If the device is faulty or bad info is entered into a computer (that NEVER happens...) should I still be locked out without compensation?
It seems to me this is why we got into this economic mess in the first place: the lenders are essentially not taking any risk in making a bad loan. It SHOULD be hard to reposses a car. There should be expense. That's a deterrent to making bad loans, and a protection to consumers that if a bank is investing in loaning me money, their downside risk is not unprofitable.
I'd love someone to challenge this constitutionally in court.
]]>$_$
]]>Do you also believe that repos shouldn't be allowed because some people in the country would lose the ability to use a car for which they are no longer paying in an emergency?
]]>I grew up low income but whenever my parents needed a vehicle they secured a small personal loan from their bank and started scouring the classifieds for a decent, older model vehicle. If you're not picky about the model you can find some good cars for under $5000.
Being poor doesn't exclude someone from having good credit. My dad first got a pre-approved credit card when he was 23 and charged items that he KNEW 100% he could pay off in a few months or so. He did the same thing for a few years until he needed a few grand to buy a truck; the bank he went to gave him a good interest rate on a loan and it just went on from there. My parents refinanced their fixer upper house a few years ago and the loan officer looked at their credit report and told them that their credit was so good they could borrow anything they wanted to.
They never made more than 40K between them when I was growing up and did fine. We didn't have much as kids; all of our stuff was used and money was always really tight but I don't feel deprived because of the values I learned.
Maybe we wouldn't need "buy here, pay here" places and this monitoring system if we made responsible use of credit and financial literacy 101 MANDATORY classes for all high school students. It should be a graduation/GED requirement, in fact.
]]>Also, I'm still not entirely sure why people who lend to those with bad credit act so shocked and appalled when they default. Seriously, you analyze the risk and reflect it in the interest rates, and if you don't, you're not doing your job properly.
]]>The Superstar! Is that guy still flying around with that red cape, or has he passed/faded away?
]]>@nataku83: I will agree that carbs can't match the performance of fuel injection. However, a car (or bike) with a carb is able to operate without a computer of any form. Not to sound like a conspriacy theory nutjob, but I prefer to know all the intimate workings of the vehicle I drive and not have something that requires a computer, GPS lockout, or anything that sends out a signal I don't specifically tell it to.
]]>*Bam* I KNOW!
]]>"There were legal problems surrounding Farr's controversial On-Time Device[2], which prevented drivers of leased vehicles from starting the car if they missed payments. In June 2000, Farr settled a suit with customers who complained that the device turned off their cars when they were in motion. Many claimed they had not been late with their payments. Each of the 1,500 customers received $200 worth of coupons for their troubles."
Yep I am SURE they fixed that problem, just like electronic voting machines are unhackable!
]]>No problem with this practice whatsoever. If you're still paying for the car, you don't own it. In fact if I were in the borrowers shoes, I'd rather have them disable the car (if I'm late for a payment) rather than repo it. I pay cash for my cars tho, so this really doesn't affect me.
What DOES bother me is that the government is mandating that this type of technology be built into EVERY car by some point in the future (like 2015 or something) so that POLICE have a way to disable your car whenever they feel like it.
]]>In cities this isnt a issue at all, mass transit and all, but in the country? What if someone in your house is dying and there is NO way you can wait for medical help to get to you, you need to get to them.
Its just another method of punishing the poor for being poor. And as evidence of the last few months tells this county LOVES to punish the poor for being poor, regardless of how they became poor (which usually is through no fault of their own) and regardless of their status (ie the teabaggers, all of whom got a tax BREAK yet where ranting like they are paying MORE taxes the stupid idiots.)
Sure they can get a crappy car, but again your thinking city thinking where your not talking about hours between populated areas or supermarkets, or even your local walmart, like a lot of this country still contends with in middle america. Its very hard to reliably drive around these places with a car hitting 100,000-300,000 miles. Hell I know NEW CARS in middle america who through normal commute hit 20,000 miles their first year.
]]>Who's going to propose a law that allows people who don't pay their bills to continue driving cars they're not paying for?
Or do you think a legislator would object on technophobic grounds? I guess, as Juan Camargo mentions above, that this could somehow be abused by someone down the road. What technology couldn't?
]]>@Bearded Rapper: Now thats a good idea. Especially in south texas...
]]>What's next? Inserting your license into the car like in The Fifth Element? :) Multipass!
]]>@nataku83: But they do not use a computer in that electric starter. It's more like a light switch than a computer.
]]>Alternatively, how long until the algorithm behind the codes is made apparent and someone makes a "car keygen," as it were? As Bruce Schneier (www.schneier.com/blog/) always points out, it's alarming how often non-cryptographers are the ones designing things that are supposed to be cryptographically secure.
]]>hey, some people need to have their hands held & if this works to keep them paying, isn't it better than them chasing after a wrecker in their underoos at 4am?
]]>@Juan Camargo: Probably the same reason people don't boot cars just for the hell of it.
]]>@mdmadph: I would like to know what happens to the device after you make the final payment- can you get it removed? Or do you wait for some computer glitch to accidentally shut off a car you fully own.
]]>@Joewithay: they most definitely know about it - the device requires that the driver input a valid code into the device when their payment is made & it beeps at them to let them know when a payment is due.
]]>It wouldn't likely be a case where there's simply a box that either allows or prevents the ignition from working, but a box that receives the 'I'm paid for' signal that then works in concert with another device that interprets that signal and then allows the car to start.
I foresee a potentially large market for PayTeck emulation devices that always return a 'Yes, I'm paid for' signal to the starter.
[*]: Of course, knowing how braindead many companies are, this may be a bad assumption.
]]>I just don't like the idea of what essentially passes for trained monkeys having that kinda of control over your car.
]]>Although I lurve that show Operation Repo. lol
]]>Carbureted, cash cars are the wave of the past/future. That is, until they figure out a way to stop the ignition coils from firing.
/A bicycle also works to circumvent this measure.
]]>