
Renault will remotely lock down electric cars - rttlesnke
https://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2013/10/31/renault-will-remotely-lock-down-electric-cars/
======
ColinWright
Lengthy discussion here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6731894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6731894)
:

    
    
        Renault ships a brickable car
        with battery DRM that you're not
        allowed to own
        (boingboing.net)
    

That's old enough that it's no longer possible to contribute, but there are
some interesting comments there.

Other contributions of the same story:

====

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6718341](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6718341)
:

    
    
        Renault introduces DRM for cars
        (techdirt.com)
    

====

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6723522](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6723522)
:

    
    
        Renault introduces DRM for cars
        (techdirt.com)
    

====

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6729800](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6729800)
:

    
    
        DRM in Cars Will Drive Consumers Crazy
        (eff.org)

------
doe88
This whole battery renting scheme is bad, that's pure greed.

<rambling> I know it's more difficult (orders of magnitude harder) than in sw
but we need new startups to emerge in the automobile industry, just like
Tesla. I'm french and this is one of the things I worry the most because I
think we're not a country where this is possible anymore, this is a shame.

~~~
michaelt
The remote disabling sounds bad, but from an economic perspective renting
batteries could be good for consumers and manufacturers at the same time.

A lot of this battery stuff is very new at the moment. You look at, say, a
Panasonic NCR18650 [1] and it's very affordable, but it loses 20% of its
capacity after just 300 charge cycles. It depends on temprature, charge rate,
depth of discharge and so on, so designers can trade off longevity for upfront
cost. There are alternative battery chemistries that last longer - some
manufacturers claim more than 10,000 charge cycles [2] but how do you test a
manufacturer's claims that a battery will last 30 years without waiting until
the technology is 30 years old? Or maybe the future is batteries getting
swapped at change stations, Tesla style, so you'll end up with a different
battery every day.

We consumers aren't equipped to evaluate the longevity claims of the
manufacturers, so why should we take on the risk when that 30-year battery
might break after 3 years? On the other hand if we pay by the month or by the
mile, if it needs replacement after 3 years that's the manufacturer's problem.

In other words, renting gives the manufacturer an incentive not to cut
corners, and to make sure their products are long-lasting and low maintenance,
because the longer the product lasts the better the profit. Sure beats the
printer ink economic model, where the manufacturers have an incentive to make
cheap products that don't last long because selling more replacements means
more profit.

[1] [http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-
data/pdf2/ACA4000/ACA400...](http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-
data/pdf2/ACA4000/ACA4000CE240.pdf) [2] [http://www.altairnano.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/60Ah-Da...](http://www.altairnano.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/60Ah-DataSheet.pdf)

~~~
bausson
But what if said manufacturer decide your car is not 'supported' anymore?

You may not even be allowed to turn to alternative battery suppliers, because
it might be forbidden by contract. Their are some user protection laws in some
countries (say, France), but it won't be the case everywhere.

~~~
chris_wot
In Australia, that's called "third line forcing" and is forbidden by law.
Surely the U.S. has the same sort of laws?

~~~
girvo
From my experience, we get looked after well as consumers in Aus, and the US
doesn't have near the protection we enjoy. Not sure if that's the case here,
but I know it's true on the whole.

------
downer95
How do they know they aren't stranding you and your 90 year-old grandma in the
middle of the desert with no water?

How do they know they are _SAFELY_ bricking your car?

How do they know you're legally parked? That the car won't be destroyed? If
the car is destroyed, will anyone continue their payments?

Is that not their problem? Do they not care? Is that what you get for being a
deadbeat?

------
raws
>We already knew that Tesla was doing this with its cars since the company’s
very public spat with a journalist who reviewed one of their cars for the New
York Times. Seeing the same thing in a mass market manufacturer like Renault
makes clear just how dangerous this trend is.

Didn't know Tesla had a remote command to kill your car. This guy doesn't
really know what he's talking about; Tesla has some kind of OnStar service
going on but they have no way to physically turn your car off or have not been
proven to be able to.

~~~
raws
>bribing a Renault employee...

If that's not harder than just hacking it plain an simple...

------
mosselman
Sadly this is a general trend though. In the past we used to buy things, like
software. Now everything is subscription based and that sucks for consumers.
Look at Billings (invoicing app) for example. It used to be reasonably priced
as a download, now you have to buy a monthly subscription which ends up being
much more expensive than before AND they can cut you off from your own data.

This SaaS trend is good for businesses and bad for consumers (there are
advantages). It is even more evil in 'real life' as Renault is doing.

~~~
mtrimpe
For SaaS laws that force vendors to offer the ability to export (and delete) a
user's data seem inevitable in the long run though.

Given that the EU has already started on the 'right to be forgotten' issue I'd
be surprised if they don't start making an issue out of this in the next
couple of years.

It'll be very interesting to see what kind of effects this will have on
companies like Facebook in the long term.

~~~
mosselman
You are right. But even when you can export, the issue remains that a
mentality is developing in which consumers have to pay a lot of money to get
something that you could just purchase once in the past.

If we continue along this route we'll slowly but surely have more and more
barebone devices that can't do anything on their own, but require expensive
subscriptions to do, what used to be, basic things. This also takes away our
rights; the Renault example is very strong, you can't drive unless you pay.
I'd maybe rather pay the price for the battery and replace it when it breaks,
then having to continue to pay and then be stranded 2000km from home when I
forgot/couldn't pay.

------
RyanMcGreal
Automakers are trying hard to seize back the entitlements and perquisites they
reluctantly gave up when the laws around mechanical ICE automobiles were
standardized: the right to look under the hood, to maintain, to tinker, to
repair, to modify, and so on. What automakers in these newer markets seem to
want is something equivalent to what software corporations have: the ability
not to _sell_ cars but to issue a _licence to use_ cars under strictly
determined and enforced conditions.

Renault's remote lock is basically the same as Microsoft's Product Activation
DRM, and even more nefarious because it applies to a physical manufactured
product.

------
Yetanfou

        For a long time, cars were a symbol of freedom and independence

I actually never saw cars as a symbol of freedom and independence, rather of
the opposite. Both the ownership as well as the use of those vehicles is spun
in so many laws that any semblance of 'freedom' and 'independence' they give
is no more than imagination.

------
salient
It seems that with everything new technologies is going to allow in the
future, we'll need a whole slew of new laws meant to stop abuses from both
corporations and the government.

~~~
gress
Why do we need new laws? Surely if people don't want this, they won't buy the
cars.

~~~
jw_
* Car manufacturers: "hey saying your car is no longer supported and locking out 3rd party batteries is a great way to drive new sales."

* All car manufacturers decide to do so

* Consumer: I would like to buy a non-DRM'ed car!

* Manufacturer: If you don't like DRM cars, don't buy one with DRM! BTW, they all have DRM!

* Consumer: :(

~~~
gress
That just means there aren't enough consumers who care about not having drm
for it to be worth serving them.

------
casca
TL;DR: Renault has a clause in the contract that allows them to remotely stop
their EV from charging

This is an interesting issue but the article overstates the case. "...
[electric cars] collect reams of data on how you use them, and send this data
off to the manufacturer without your knowledge". Without your knowledge?
Really?

EVs are very new technology and none of them have shown to be profitable
without government support. Buyers have choices and making the trade-offs
between vendors clear is always worthwhile, but this piece is not helping the
debate.

~~~
alan_cx
" Without your knowledge? Really?"

Dunno many people who buy cars having any idea of the privacy issues of
driving the nice new shiny car. Most normal people are only just realising
that their entire online activity is recorded in one way or another. Cars?
People don't have a clue. And why would they? Are we given data collection
statements before we decide which car to buy?

I really get tired of people knowledgeable in a certain area assuming that the
general population know, or should know, what they know.

No, the average punter has no idea what data their new car is sending back to
base. And frankly, even as both a techie and petrol head, I don't either. I
know it can happen, I know it does happen, but I have zero idea what, when or
where. Sorry and all that.

(Um, seems I went off on a tangent below. Im leaving it in 'cos of the sheer
effort involved.....But, you know, do stop at this point if you have a life)

What distorts public thinking even more is that a while ago politicians (UK)
floated the idea that all cars should have some sort of computer fitted that
can track and some how govern car use. (Safety and insurance, you understand.
No, nothing to do with tracking the plebs, no, not at all. How dare the dear
reader be so cynical. Shame on you!!!) On the political side, that has gone
quiet. But the on the business side, its all the rage. People in general can
be forgiven for thinking that because the political debate went away, so did
the issue. So, no creepy tracking by government. But, the corporations are
quietly implementing the strategy instead. And if government agencies want
that date, one twist of the law and its all theirs.

And now as I think about it, what a clever strategy to reduce freedoms by the
back door. Commerce seems to be able to do what governments could never do. In
fact the genius of it is that we are happy to pay for it as a feature.

And that just cars. Look at what smartphones actually do. Not only do they
track and catalog us, but we actually spend hours every single day literally
filling out time sheets in the form of twitter and facebook. Imagine of a
government told us to carry personal trackers and to spend a mere half hour
filling out a form that told them what we did every day in even minimal
detail.

All very odd to me.

Yes, I exaggerate, but hopefully to make a point.

------
MichaelMoser123
Renault to customers: All your cars are belong to us!

I wonder what the customers will tell them in turn...

~~~
cormullion
Renault cars have always suffered from poor quality electrics (source: my
grateful local garage :-), so this will be unreliable as well. Another good
reason to not buy another.

------
buren
Anything a company _can_ control they _will_ control.

~~~
alan_cx
Surely we all do, unless we have specific reason for not doing so? Control the
controlables, isn't that the phrase?

