
EU has secret plan for police to 'remote stop' cars - angersock
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html
======
john_b
In order for this to work, there must be some means of communicating with the
car at distance. The nature of this (radio, etc) doesn't really matter. There
will be a receiver on the car that can and will be identified and removed by
criminals, rendering the stated purpose moot. Of course removing the receiver
will be made illegal, as if this will accomplish anything.

That leaves two classes of people who will be affected by this. One is people
who commit unplanned crimes (e.g. hit a pedestrian, panic and run). The
technology will probably help here, but unplanned violent crimes committed in
public places almost always end with the suspect in custody, so the marginal
benefit is close to zero.

The second class is ordinary people who are not committing any crimes, but who
the police may want to stop for other reasons. The police won't even need to
be in the area, they can show up later (at their leisure) after your vehicle
has been turned off. Ever parked illegally for a few minutes so you could run
inside and deliver something? Your car might be off when you come back. Going
a little faster than the speed limit? Enjoy your unplanned stop on the side of
the road and wait for a policeman to show up with your ticket.

This is yet another reason ubiquitous cameras and universal location awareness
on the part of law enforcement is dangerous. Even if you accept that nothing
is wrong with the police watching you 24/7, the mere fact that they are
enables virtually any abuse they would want to commit.

~~~
jdietrich
>The nature of this (radio, etc) doesn't really matter. There will be a
receiver on the car that can and will be identified and removed by criminals,
rendering the stated purpose moot. Of course removing the receiver will be
made illegal, as if this will accomplish anything.

It has been effectively impossible to hotwire a new car for over a decade,
because modern cars simply will not start without the say-so of the ECU, which
is a highly secure black box. Stealing a modern car means stealing the keys,
because highly sophisticated organised criminals have failed totally in
developing practical attacks to circumvent immobilisers. Build the remote
shutdown facility into the ECU and it will be essentially impossible to
disable. Send the remote shutdown instruction over a suitably designed radio
link and jamming becomes utterly impractical. I have very little doubt that
the motor industry is capable of designing a very effective remote shutdown
systems; Relatively crude aftermarket solutions are already being used very
effectively by fleet operators.

There are perfectly legitimate civil liberties objections to such a scheme,
but the usual hacker trope of "technologies that I don't like can always be
circumvented" is just plain wrong. Crime can be prevented or substantially
curtailed through the effective use of technology, as we have seen in Europe
with IMEI-based blocking of stolen mobile phones. Cash-in-transit robberies
are now quite rare, due to design improvements in CiT boxes. Security
technology isn't perfect, but that doesn't make it useless.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Send the remote shutdown instruction over a suitably designed radio link and
> jamming becomes utterly impractical.

Unless the radio link must be always-on for the vehicle to move, I think
you've underestimated what is required to construct an RF link that is
impervious to interference.

We still have problems with shmucks using GPS jammers to prevent employers
from tracking them halting traffic at major airports:
[http://www.insidegnss.com/node/3676](http://www.insidegnss.com/node/3676)

"It took the FAA and FCC from March 2009 until April 2011 to locate a GPS
jammer operated by another trucker on the New Jersey Turnpike, according to a
presentation by John Merrill, Department of Homeland Security program manager
for position, timing, and navigation, at the 2012 Telcordia-NIST-ATIS Workshop
on Synchronization in Telecommunication Systems."

------
yk
Since cars get at least as often updated as routers, what could possibly go
wrong? Seriously, with Android entertainment systems, GSM and Bluetooth for
convenient wireless attacks and a government mandated connection between these
and safety systems, like breaks, we just let fifteen year old script kiddies
not only play with web servers but also with heavy, fast moving blocks of
steel, that have people inside.

~~~
ihsw
Yep.

> A disgruntled former employee of Texas Auto Center chose a creative way to
> get back at the Austin-based dealership: He hacked into the company's
> computers and remotely activated the vehicle-immobilization system, which
> triggered the horn and disabled the ignition system in more than 100 of the
> vehicles. The dealership had installed the system in its cars as a way to
> deal with customers who fell behind on their payments.

I'm not going to get into the benefits of open source for consumer appliances,
just that there is quite a bit of research into internal communication within
the vehicle's operational systems and it's quite poor.

Giving all cars a 3G connection to the world and having shitty security means
we're going to have a bad time. I had hopes with Google showing interest in
getting Android into cars, but it's just for "infotainment" which in all
likelihood means offloading the development of those shitty DVD players.

Updating the firmware of the various ECUs within your car involves bringing it
to a dealership/repair shop, which probably means they're _never_ going to get
updated. Let that sink in for a moment -- imagine a plethora of Windows XP
boxes having 3G connections and rarely getting updated _even by the end-user_.

[1]
[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_R...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_Remote_access_and_other_security_issues)

~~~
revelation
Windows XP isn't a realtime operating system. You're not going to find it
anything motor control related, and the infotainment system and control stuff
are usually on physically seperate buses.

Of course the old adage applies, if you have access to the hardware, all
security bets are off.

~~~
blueskin_
He meant Windows XP as an analogy, because it's the most widely deployed
vulnerable OS right now.

------
markvdb
UK tabloid? Check! Anti-EU sentiment? Check! Vague accusations? Check! UK
conservative MEP's heroicly fighting wind mills? Check!

A conversation about the (vague) subject area might interesting. The article
most certainly isn't...

~~~
vixen99
The Telegraph is not a tabloid and this alleged leak from documents prepared
by the European Network of Law Enforcement Technology Services (Enlets) has
been very widely reported. The report was released by Statewatch - a non-
profit organization founded in 1991 that monitors the state and civil
liberties in the European Union.

Questioning the inclusion of this piece in HN is fair comment though do HN
readers need your guidance as in your revealing "check!"s. Would pro-EU
sentiment have been acceptable "a brilliant idea to stop criminals in their
track"?

------
marvin
This is a bad idea even if the technology could be implemented perfectly. The
advantage of violence in the context of law enforcement is that it is
_violent_ , and hence something which is (in a functioning state) used only as
a last-resort measure. This is important since it helps maintain the balance
of power.

Remote-shutdown is nonviolent and there is hence a very good opportunity for a
slippery-slope situation where this power will be abused. Who would possibly
believe that a capability like this will only be used in the situations where
spikes would be used to stop a lethal car chase?

Implementing systems like this is yet another step on the road towards the
capability to implement the most oppressive police state in world history. Not
a good route to take.

~~~
Peroni
>Remote-shutdown is nonviolent and there is hence a very good opportunity for
a slippery-slope situation where this power will be abused.

The article mentioned the ability to shut a car down from a remote control
room. If they have the ability to shut a specific vehicle down from a remote
location then they categorically will have the ability to track the location
of any car at any time so long as it contains this technology.

To me at least, that's terrifying.

~~~
nnnnni
GPS receivers will allow the same thing...

~~~
Zigurd
Receiving GPS is potentially entirely self-contained and requires no upstream
interaction. Navigation systems with on-board databases need no external data
for geocoding, maps, etc.

------
sdfjkl
"You have one point left on your license. Have a good day."
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/)

------
ARothfusz
Since anyone planning to use their car to get away from the police would
disable this device/software, only honest folks would have it enabled. So the
only sure way for law enforcement to use it would be to disable the cars of
innocent people to act as roadblocks in front of the pursued. And, of course,
there would be an incentive for the pursued to figure out how to disable cars
behind them. Doesn't seem like a game we should play. I mean, at least in my
dystopian imagination.

~~~
hahainternet
> Since anyone planning to use their car to get away from the police would
> disable this device/software, only honest folks would have it enabled

Since anyone planning to use their car to get away from the police would
install run-flat tyres, spike strips would only be used against the innocent.

Your logic doesn't seem to work.

------
jellicle
This is what you get with self-driving cars; someone else is doing the
driving, and that means someone else gets to decide when you stop.

You may also get it with regular cars; but you definitely get it with self-
driving cars. So all you self-driving advocates keep that in mind...

~~~
wizawuza
If it means I don't have to deal with accidents on the road or the subsequent
rubber-necking assholes, I'm fine with that tradeoff.

~~~
joering2
... and would you be fine if cops were unable to stop thief disabled car and
decided to stop yours that was in front of his and therefore using it as a
stopping wall "for greater good of pedestrians and drivers around you". Good
luck then. Make sure you have a damn good chiropractor and well-written last
will.

------
ceejayoz
OnStar already does this, I believe. I recall seeing an article about
disabling cars using microwaves, as well.

I'm not sure how much I care considering the cops already have the power to
make me stop, with force if desired.

~~~
runjake

      > I'm not sure how much I care considering the cops 
      > already have the power to make me stop, with force 
      > if desired.
    

You should probably care quite a bit. Sure, cops can already make you stop
with force, but this requires effort and coordination on their part. A remote
disabling system is virtually-effortless.

History has shown that these "conveniences" are abused. Wiretaps were
originally pitched as "extreme cases" techniques. Stun guns were pitched as a
_non_ err _less than_ lethal weapon for use in cases where deadly force would
be required. Now stun guns are routinely used on non-violent people.

This _will be_ misused by law enforcement. This will not be solely used to
catch criminals. It will be used against dissidents and activists. It's
illogical to think any other way.

~~~
sliverstorm
On the other hand, high speed chases are expensive, risky, and very dangerous
to everyone (not just the suspect, and not just the cops).

~~~
runjake
That's why cops typically don't engage in high speed chases (at least in the
US, unsure about the UK) and instead rely on aerial surveillance (eg. police
helicopters) to track the criminal.

~~~
Silhouette
It's similar in the UK. Rules change from time to time and sometimes policies
have varied between the different regional police forces, but the last time I
talked to police friends it seemed like everything was going the same way:
only specialist officers would be permitted to engage in high speed pursuit,
and even then they would be subject to direction from a control room where
someone not tied up in the situation around them could order everyone to
abandon the pursuit on safety grounds. Basically, the risk of not bringing the
vehicle being chased to a halt as fast as possible would have to outweigh the
risk of the pursuit, which it almost never does once you get to crazy speeds.

------
pessimizer
Tangentially: What's the least digital, most user-serviceable car on the
market right now? As a non-driver, I haven't been able to make any headway
into figuring this out.

~~~
baseten
New car? nothing. forget about it. they all have 12 tons of extra gizmos built
in. Maybe your basic commercial panel van wouldn't have all that stuff built
in. You could drive a white panel van. Start a catering business.

Go back about 12 years and prior and you still have an ECU, but it doesn't
have a bunch of information logging stuff built in, yet you have the benefits
of a modern computer controlled ECU to control fuel injection and ignition
timing. It's going to control those things based on some pre-defined maps and
the input of several sensors. One to sense airflow at the intake, a sensor for
throttle position, a sensor for cam or crank position, and an O2 sensor in the
exhaust to tell the computer how complete the combustion is, and to adjust the
mix accordingly. Closed loop system. There is probably also a knock sensor in
there. maybe a few other failsafes to turn on an idiot light on the dashboard.
coolant temperature, oil pressure, fan control, Maybe also a basic anti-lock
brake system.

Most basic cars don't have any fancy traction control stuff at that point.
After that? They get more complex ever year. steering angle sensors, yaw
sensors, traction control, selective braking drive-by-wire throttle instead of
a cable connected between your foot and the throttle plate, electric power
steering, sensors that apply the brakes so you don't rear-end the guy in front
of you, backup cameras, parking assist systems, more stuff offloaded to more
powerful car control systems.

------
qwerta
EU police is in some ways similar to American. They have no problem to stop
the traffic and use civilians in their cars as a live shield.

I wonder how this is going to be implemented. I almost died on my honeymoon
because engine, power steering and !breaks! suddenly died on my rented car. We
were going downhill from mountains, 1000 foot drop on one side, stone wall on
other side.

I would love to see some real statistics how many criminals this will help to
catch. GSM jammer is trivial.

------
skywhopper
Is this really a problem so dire that it needs to be addressed in such a
dramatic manner? How often do the authorities know for sure which car it is
they need to stop in an emergency situation? And if it's not an emergency
situation, this seems like an overkill solution. Also a dangerous one (how do
you disable a car safely travelling in traffic?), open to abuse by
authorities, not to mention a huge and juicy target for criminal hackers.

------
Oletros
It is not secret and it is not even a plan

------
superbaconman
I don't understand the desire to wire core functionality to any network. As
long as police stations are getting their hands on drones, just forget this.
It's easier (and more secure) to just follow via drone. It's not like he's
going to disappear. Kill switches are security risks.

~~~
hahainternet
It's more that fleeing suspects are often involved in crashes, those crashes
are occasionally fatal.

------
mistakoala
This is already being worked on by car manufacturers, as part of the EU's
eCall agenda, which will be a requirement for future vehicles. Remote control
of vehicles is simply an extension of the telematics system used to introduce
and implement this.

------
pskocik
Made me think pretty much every government on Earth has fucked up in some
ways, maybe things will be better on Mars when we colonize it. Then I
remembered Mars vehicles have this feature installed already as well ...

------
hipaulshi
Wait till someone hacked it.

------
return0
I don't get why it has to be a policeman, an automated system would be better.

Otherwise, bitcoin just found a great new application: sending bribes to
policemen.

------
lotsofmangos
So does this mean that the original version of The Italian Job is actually the
future of getaway vehicles?

------
shmerl
Another nasty DRM in the works. What else do they want to remote stop?
Surgical implants may be?

