One woman's Tesla was remotely controlled by an abusive ex-partner(theguardian.com) |
One woman's Tesla was remotely controlled by an abusive ex-partner(theguardian.com) |
Take that, paywalled subscriptions.
Three days later, Pucci, now 50, followed her in a car and started to yell at her about a man she was dating.
“You thought you’d get away with this. I am in your car. I am in your maps,” he shouted at her, according to the police records.
[...]
“The victim has not been able to drive certain speeds and on most recent occasions throughout this period, [the accused] has turned on ‘Valet Mode’ which immediately reduces the speed to 40km per hour causing significant safety issues for the victim on the road”, the police documents stated.
That's the worst villain monologue I've ever heard, but unintentionally funny. Somehow appropriate for someone sharing his name with a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure villain.
This reminds me of the "I am in your walls" meme, just so much more creepy.
I really hate vehicles. But I especially hate those that aren't able to be change to an entirely local mode, with no non-GPS radio further than like 10 meters. But then again, that wouldn't make line go up since we can't charge for/control basic features, so it is becoming more and more a rarity.
[0]: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-am-living-in-your-walls
I certainly understand why people don't want connected cars but I can also understand the convenience factor. Yes, this amount of control over a car could potentially be used to put someone in danger (40kph on the highway isn't safe). But other than ensuring reasonable safeguards against speed controls on a highway, how would Tesla or any other manufacturer ensure convenient access to these remote features for the legitimate owner of the car? I guess one way would be to verify account information against an email or phone number that were used at purchase, only allow transfer of the remote control access by written authorization, and enable 2FA so only someone with access to the owner's email or phone can log in. I guess this still doesn't limit an abusive partner that simply just takes the victims phone or forces them to sign up using the abuser's information. And even so, is it Tesla's duty to ensure abusive partners don't abuse remote control? At best, they have a duty to ensure remote control cannot put the driver into a dangerous situation. Maybe they could have a local-only override code that allows an authenticated driver to temporarily cancel any remote control. Maybe all a remote user could do is reset the code but not be able to set a new one.
IMO cars shouldn't have parental controls. If you had your kid the keys, you're giving them control. It's one of the first seriously adult things kids are trusted to do, and that trust should not be partial.
Whoever holds the keys owns the car. If it's stolen, that can go through a court. Otherwise, remote control should be subservient to whoever is actually in the driver's seat.
So the danger started when she let him register as the car owner.
hopefully it's small. realistically... i'm scared.
Yeah, if victims can't keep a cool head and properly do all their admin just because they are in a very stressful, perhaps even dangerous, situation, they should just accept the responsibility for being so lax instead of expecting any sort of empathy.
[just in case this is needed, because distressingly it sometimes is: that sound you may hear isn't tinnitus, it is sarcasm detectors going off]
Can't be too safe if it could be a short, right?
"Tinkerer mode" only £14.75 per month*
*additional checks during the annual service apply.