Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Thursday March 02, @01:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the owner-optional dept.

Interesting Engineering reports, Ford's latest patent enables vehicles to repossess themselves and drive away.

Ford's new patent enables banks to confiscate future Ford vehicles if the owner repeatedly skips payments, thanks to new technologies. The American automaker allegedly submitted a patent for "System & Methods to Repossess a Vehicle" in media reports.

According to previously released patent filings, the new system, which can disable one or more vehicle functions, could be installed in any Ford vehicle. It claims that everything on the car, including the air conditioning and engine, can be turned off. It continued by stating that with the new system in place, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles might be transferred from their initial location to a secondary location, making it easier for them to be towed.

Either to the agency or to the scrap yard
According to reports, the vehicle may be ordered to drive either to the agency handling the repossession or directly to the scrap yard, depending on the financial sustainability of the process.

Although the specifics are unknown, the sources indicate that a "repossession computer" might be installed in all upcoming cars to enable the system to work properly. Furthermore, it specifies that no additional hardware is required for the new technology to function. The article also states that the system will issue several warnings before starting a repossession.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday March 02, @01:37AM (4 children)

    by looorg (578) on Thursday March 02, @01:37AM (#1293994)

    So will having this installed making the car cheaper since there is less risk for the dealer/lender? otherwise the incentive to buy a car with a built in kill-switch seems low.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Thursday March 02, @02:12AM (2 children)

      by stormreaver (5101) on Thursday March 02, @02:12AM (#1293999)

      It doesn't matter. Ford has given me yet another reason to never buy one.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by EJ on Thursday March 02, @02:46AM

        by EJ (2452) on Thursday March 02, @02:46AM (#1294000)

        I wish I could boycott them for this, but I had already resolved to never buy a Ford.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02, @09:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02, @09:07AM (#1294030)

        Why would anyone want a car this hackable? Not only can it be disabled, but it can be driven away from you as well.

        The time will come where you have to install your own mobiliser ... e.g. .. wheel clamp.. for peace of mind.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday March 02, @01:15PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 02, @01:15PM (#1294061)

      Hello Dave.
      I see you're currently 800 miles from home, Dave.
      Would you now like to purchase a subscription to our premium "Road Trip Deluxe" package? Or would you prefer to walk home?

      Gives "Found On Road Dead" a whole new level of relevancy.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by gznork26 on Thursday March 02, @03:32AM (5 children)

    by gznork26 (1159) on Thursday March 02, @03:32AM (#1294003) Homepage Journal

    How long would it take for their security to hacked? I can picture it now... a car theft operation sets up a location in your city, triggers the self-repo feature is a hoard of fords, but alters the location they drive themselves to. Just load them up and haul them off. Quite an efficient car theft operation.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Frosty Piss on Thursday March 02, @05:45AM (4 children)

      by Frosty Piss (4971) on Thursday March 02, @05:45AM (#1294016)

      These cars will not be driving themselves anywhere; this is a "kill switch". But that brings up the question, how is this any different than, say, "One Star" deactivating a vehicle for the police (or whoever) because it is stolen (or whatever)? How can this be patentable, there seems like a lot of "prior art"...

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by EJ on Thursday March 02, @06:58AM (2 children)

        by EJ (2452) on Thursday March 02, @06:58AM (#1294019)

        You didn't read the part that mentioned self-driving cars.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Saturday March 04, @09:46AM (1 child)

          by Nuke (3162) on Saturday March 04, @09:46AM (#1294439)

          Who the heck is modding as "Offtopic" these replies to Frosty Piss's post that "These cars will not be driving themselves anywhere; this is a "kill switch".. The replies are pointing out that it is not only a kill switch, but also to enable the car to drive itself from the defaulting owner. FTFA :

          According to reports, the vehicle may be ordered to drive either to the agency handling the repossession or directly to the scrap yard,

      • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Nuke on Thursday March 02, @01:10PM

        by Nuke (3162) on Thursday March 02, @01:10PM (#1294060)

        These cars will not be driving themselves anywhere; this is a "kill switch."

        Someone didn't RTFA (yet got modded "Interesting"!). Unless they know better, but TFA says:

        According to reports, the vehicle may be ordered to drive either to the agency handling the repossession or directly to the scrap yard

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Opportunist on Thursday March 02, @10:09AM

    by Opportunist (5545) on Thursday March 02, @10:09AM (#1294040)

    To self-repo itself, it would have to start reliably.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by DadaDoofy on Thursday March 02, @11:38AM (3 children)

    by DadaDoofy (23827) on Thursday March 02, @11:38AM (#1294052)

    I buy cars with cash. If this "option" can't be deleted, Ford gets scratched off my list.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Booga1 on Thursday March 02, @06:15PM (2 children)

      by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday March 02, @06:15PM (#1294100)

      This makes three layers of bureaucracy between the car and the owner. I can see the ring of finger pointing now:

      Ford: "You didn't make your payment, your car was repossessed."
      Owner: "There weren't any payments to make. I bought it outright, paid in full."
      Ford: "Oh, well you should talk to the dealer, they have your car now."

      Dealer: "Yeah, we have your car. The car logs say you didn't make payments."
      Owner: "There weren't any payments to make. I bought it outright, paid in full."
      Dealer: "Oh, so you did. Well that's on the bank then. You should talk to the bank."

      Bank: "We have the paperwork. It's marked as paid in full. We don't know why the repo system didn't record that. You should talk to Ford."

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 02, @09:50PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 02, @09:50PM (#1294145) Journal

        If you paid in full, why would there even be a bank involved? At least in a 'loan' sense rather than a payment sense. All the bank would have a a copy of a paid check.

        The bank shouldn't say "talk to Ford".

        The bank should say "talk to your lawyer, I think you've got a good case."

        --
        How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
        • (Score: 2) by Booga1 on Thursday March 02, @11:43PM

          by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday March 02, @11:43PM (#1294161)

          If you paid in full, why would there even be a bank involved?

          That was part of my point, though I could have made it clearer. I expect that there will be further complications when someone tries to sell a car and it's not really paid off, or when a bank sells the loan to another bank, etc...
          I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface of the possibilities in how things could get fouled up.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday March 02, @06:09PM (4 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Thursday March 02, @06:09PM (#1294098)

    This patent should not have been issued. Comedians have been joking about Teslas driving themselves back to the dealership for years, and that should count as prior art.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday March 02, @09:51PM (3 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 02, @09:51PM (#1294146) Journal

      The United States patent examination process is not well understood by most people.

      Once a patent is received, the patent examiner carefully places the application into a room full of other patent applications.

      Then kittens are released into the room with PATENT GRANTED stamps affixed to their feet.

      The kittens are then returned to their holding area to await the next round of patent examination.

      The patent examiners collect the applications from the floor and look to see which patent applications were granted.

      --
      How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Friday March 03, @06:21AM (2 children)

        by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 03, @06:21AM (#1294226)

        Who came up with that technique?

        And can I patent it?

        • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday March 03, @03:31PM

          by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Friday March 03, @03:31PM (#1294279)

          I will submit my next patent on catnip-laced stationary on the off chance that this is actually the case. :)

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 03, @03:34PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 03, @03:34PM (#1294280) Journal

          Probably lawyers.

          --
          How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(1)