Well…wait, how is that different than having a non-botnet car with a serious defect?
Say, all those cars with defective Takata airbags. I guess you’re arguing that you feel safer that the manufacturer can’t remotely disable the car, but I don’t see how how a cell connection has much to do with a car having a deadly issue or not. It has to get fixed no matter what.
(Also, given how many cars are leased, and the increasingly long time of those leases…lots of people, in fact, do not own their cars.)
Non botnet cars have a limited amount of slack in the rope left. Fact is most cars now require propriety expensive systems just to "repair" More so it is about how software in cars is pushed out to remedy bad design and engineering in the first place.
Idealistic I suppose, but what power exist on the consumers side? How much of a reach is to say modern design and engineering has turned into a cat a mouse game. One in which we should seriously consider how deeply cancerous the lack of ownership on vehicles is. Before accepting it for common place we should look at the way our incentives have been shaped by the manufacturer.
Now, a vehicle could start on fire somewhere parked without access to the update for N reasons and they just need to prove the update was prevented by the owner and the result is also therefore attributable.
We can't get cell phone companies to update alot of phones past a year or so. How is GM going todo?
Say, all those cars with defective Takata airbags. I guess you’re arguing that you feel safer that the manufacturer can’t remotely disable the car, but I don’t see how how a cell connection has much to do with a car having a deadly issue or not. It has to get fixed no matter what.
(Also, given how many cars are leased, and the increasingly long time of those leases…lots of people, in fact, do not own their cars.)