
Miss a Payment? Good Luck Moving That Car - spking
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/miss-a-payment-good-luck-moving-that-car
======
maratd
If we skip the moral indignation and look at the situation plainly, this sort
of technology enables a whole subset of people to actually own cars that were
considered too risky before. That's a good thing. Given the choice between no
car and a car that won't start if I don't pay, I'll go with a gimped car.

~~~
shkkmo
There are upsides, but it sounds like we need some good old-fashioned consumer
protection legislation to protect consumers here.

Mandate no location tracking or car shutoff for owners who aren't 30 days past
due.

Mandate that there be a 24/7 line for emergency car re-activation that is
clearly posted in the car.

Mandate the provision for 1 non-emergency temporary reactivation to avoid
stranding people.

The three of those seem like they would go a long way to to assuage people's
concerns.

EDIT: changed 'two' to 'three' since I apparently can't count...

~~~
acgourley
The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take
whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for
the government to step in. Is that right?

I strongly disagree, because there are options to: * Own a less expensive car
* Take transit * Ride a bike * Find a closer job * Find a closer house * Ride
share

Now, you can probably craft a specific story where none of those are an
option. Let's say a single mother living in section-8 housing with limited job
prospects who is already driving a really old car and who found one job 20
miles away in an area with no transit. That's pretty bad, and it represents
failures of our system at multiple levels. First I would propose spending
government time to address those core issues before burning time on this
symptom. Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a
slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments. Third,
this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected
consequence of regulation.

~~~
shkkmo
> The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to
> take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important
> enough for the government to step in. Is that right?

No, that's completely wrong. "Lack of choice" is not the only or main argument
for consumer protection. We don't regulate the arsenic content of toys because
parents have no choice but to buy commercially made toys.

The argument is "consumers are being treated by some bad actors in a manner by
that interferes with their safety, privacy and dignity". The solution is to
look at what the good actors are doing, and mandate that behavior to protect
consumers.

> First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues
> before burning time on this symptom.

Why? Those core issues are incredibly controversial. We shouldn't avoid
regulating a new means of loan efforcement because we can't solve fundamental
social issues.

> Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax
> on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments.

What are you talking about? This technology (as discussed in the article) only
applies to people who's are being offered subprime car loans and are a high
risk on not paying. Additionaly, the technology in question should REDUCE the
loan costs of subprime auto loans.

> Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected
> consequence of regulation.

What are you talking about? The article doesn't give clear numbers for the US
market for this technology, but it doesn't seem to be particularly small.
"Corinne Kirkendall, vice president for compliance and public relations for
PassTime, which has sold 1.5 million devices worldwide," "Roughly 25 percent
of all new auto loans made last year were subprime, and the volume of subprime
auto loans reached more than $145 billion in the first three months of this
year."

------
rurounijones
Ok, ignoring the moral repugnancy of the whole thing for a moment.

> T. Candice Smith, who testified before the Nevada Legislature that her car,
> which had a starter interrupt device installed, was shut down while she was
> driving on a Las Vegas freeway, nearly causing her to crash

> Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights.

How the hell is that legal?! Surely you should only be able to disable a car
when the engine is not running just on safety principles.

~~~
Lazare
Of course it's not legal. However, the article also quotes the "other side"
claiming that it's impossible for the device to do that, and the manufacturer
claiming that the device has is not designed to do that, and that they have no
record of it doing such a thing. And on their website they say the device "can
never shut down a running vehicle."

So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is
defective. It's possible that her car broke down on the freeway, and she
assumed it was the starter interrupt when in fact it was not. But it's
exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to
design.

(Or Passtime is about to get one _humongous_ fine and/or judgement...)

~~~
dogecoinbase
_So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and /or lying, or the device is
defective._

But the manufacturer, of course, could neither be lying nor could have
produced a device that didn't perfectly represent this notional design.

This entire thread is full of people who have no idea how the device actually
works or what actually happened jumping to the conclusion that the female poor
person is lying or doesn't understand what happened with her own car that she
was driving at the time. It is, of course, possible. But it's also classic
Hacker News.

~~~
ruloo
The company can not lie in this case because it would be trivial to expose the
lie by studying any device in the field. I think its more reasonable that she
is blaming the device because she was in a scary situation and the device is
the best cause given her information. I think it's safer to assume no one has
hidden motives here.

------
sk5t
On a technical note, a "starter interrupt" could not reasonably affect a
running vehicle (the starter motor only runs when turning over a stopped
engine). However, if these devices actually operate inline with the ignition
system--delivering or interrupting spark to the fuel-air mixture during
operation--that's an entirely different matter and cause for safety concerns.

------
hackuser
It shines light on a troubling broader issue: As information and communication
technologies (in which many of us are involved) spread, they put power in the
hands of those who control them, from Google to Verizon to your electric
company (via your smart meter) to car loan agencies. It gives them power over
other people, including whether they can drive their own car.

Not everyone wants to give others this power, but do we and will we have a
choice? Perhaps legislators will pass laws protecting the interests of people
like those reading HN, or vendors will appease us because of our economic and
political power.

It is the poor, powerless, and disenfranchised who will be abused, with little
recourse (other than not owning a car, a phone, etc.). If something like what
the article described happened to HN readers, there would be an uproar. But
these things will and probably already do happen off our radar to marginalized
groups.

Perhaps that's why the Internet protocols put control in the hands of the end
users.

------
thenmar
It's hard to break this down because there are so many different problems
going on here, but let's pretend for a minute that the moral issues related to
privacy and dignity are irrelevant, and that the arbitrary credit score
threshold of 640 that necessitates this system is reasonable and determined by
transparent and fair processes (it's not, but stay with me).

Does this _actually_ solve a problem? Are cars that difficult to repossess? Is
it possible this is a marketing gimmick and the securities backed by it are
sold to investors who just really like the idea of being able to f*ck over a
poor person the second he or she misses a payment? Is this really an economic
innovation that lets riskier borrowers have cars, or is it a sales tactic
appealing to veiled social darwinist sympathies?

------
pacaro
The woman who needed a pickup to deliver pizza is symptomatic of a different
problem too. In many places it would always be the responsibility of the pizza
joint to provide the vehicle because typical consumer auto insurance expressly
forbids commercial use. The pizza chains not only pay minimum wage, they also
expect their employees to provide the business equipment...

~~~
ilaksh
The thing many people aren't getting is that this type of thing isn't limited
to one instance and isn't just that business owners are greedy.

Its because the entire economy is being squeezed, turning a profit is
extremely difficult, and there are many unemployed people who have to put up
with those types of situations because they need money.

------
jakebrake
Does anyone know how widespread and available the ability is to disable
vehicles via OnStar? I heard today that a woman in Missouri had her 2005 Dodge
disabled (by a lending institution) for allegedly being 1 day overdue on a car
payment. Like, does it go on in all parts of north America, and would it be
available for just charter banks, or any joe schmoe money lender? Would anyone
also know if there are systems other than OnStar, that will allow
tracking/disabling of a given vehicle?

------
furyg3
This is very shortsighted. Most people in the US use their car to get to work.
Lenders have a vested interest in their borrower's current and future ability
to earn money.

~~~
slouch
The car dealers that regularly repossess customer vehicles print money. I've
seen data come across were the dealer's cost of a vehicle was -2,000 because
it had been sold and came back a few times.

------
dblotsky
For those more familiar with cars, a question: when the article mentions
disabling the ignition, does that mean that only the starter is disabled, or
that the actual spark plugs / fuel delivery are disabled (and there is some
check for whether the engine is running)? The former sounds reasonable, but
the latter sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

~~~
jccooper
I doubt the article is being precise, first, and might use one for the other.
That said: ignition means the electrical system that fires the spark plugs.
Starter is the motor that starts the mechanical bits moving, so the ignition
can do its job and keep the mechanical bits moving. Any car with the
traditional keyed start even shows these circuits as separate positions on the
cylinder. Most motorcycles have separate controls for those two circuits: a
toggle switch for ignition, and a momentary switch for starter--you must set
ignition to "on" before the starter will do any good.

Disable the ignition system, and nothing's going anywhere. Disable the starter
motor, and it's just not going to start--unless you push it down a hill or,
say, short the relay with a screwdriver (as mentioned in the article).

While technically you could put a remote controlled relay anywhere (the dome
light won't light up if you're late on payments--take that!) it sounds from
the description of the device ("starter interrupt") and other clues that it's
the starter system that's being killed. And that makes a lot of sense: that
way if the device fails it at least won't bother you while you're in motion.

------
jedanbik
I wish it wouldn't sound out of touch and pretentious to suggest bicycle use
as a form of resistance, I really do.

------
jc123
A rough idea of a possibility in the future, the car owner can scan a QR code
in the car, confirms the transaction, which is recorded on a blockchain,
monitored by a smart contract, which activates the car's engine.

------
rootlocus
I do believe they signed a contract before getting the lend saying: "It's OK
to block my car if I miss a payment by X days."

Why should they complain? If you don't agree with the terms, don't sign.

~~~
_cipher_
It would be interesting to see what would you do if your child need immediate
medical attention and your car won't start because, apparently, "you signed".
;)

Legal != Ethical

~~~
rootlocus
I would call a cab. It's what people who don't own cars do every day. Ethics
has no meaning in this context.

------
discardorama
Meta: Why is this not on the front page? It has 53 points and was submitted 4
hours ago (and is a technology story to boot). The #5 link on the FP is a
story with 26 points and submitted 5 hours ago.

------
lutorm
Maybe people should buy cheaper cars if they can't get a reasonable loan? I
guess it wasn't clear from the article if these were loans for new or used
cars, though.

~~~
jimmaswell
Yeah, you shouldn't need a loan for a decent used one.

~~~
ilaksh
A "decent" used car will cost several thousand dollars. The number of people
who can easily part with $5,000 is much smaller than you think it is.

~~~
danielweber
"Decent" depends entirely on the SES of the speaker.

Click and Clack have said for 20 years that if you just need to get from point
A to point B you can do that with a $500 car, and once a year or so you will
need to get a new-to-you $500 car. With inflation that might be $1000 these
days.

~~~
bunderbunder
That car will be one that could break down at any moment. Most people in the
income bracket where this might be an attractive option are unfortunately also
working for employers who won't graciously accept "my car broke down" as a
reason for showing up late to work.

