Wall Street Can Now Disable Your Car When You're Driving on the Freeway

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/subprime-lending-car-buyers-fueling-bubble



Imagine this scenario: You’re on an important trip miles from home and stopped in traffic, but before you can continue on your way, your car shuts down. You’ve got enough gas in the tank and no mechanical problems. But you’re stranded far from home because you’re a few days late on your car payment and the lender won’t let you drive until the debt is paid.

If this sounds like part of a dystopian future in which repo men are now cyborgs, it’s not. It’s happening today and becoming a big part of the new automotive landscape. Car dealers and automotive lenders are targeting those with poor credit by installing GPS-based kill switches, or starter-interrupt devices, on the cars that they sell.

The New York Times recently reported that about 2 million cars are now outfitted with such kill switches in the U.S., which is about one-quarter of subprime car loans, and creditors are not shy when it comes to remotely disabling cars whose owners are behind on their payments:

"Some borrowers say their cars were disabled when they were only a few days behind on their payments, leaving them stranded in dangerous neighborhoods. Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights. Some described how they could not take their children to school or to doctor’s appointments. One woman in Nevada said her car was shut down while she was driving on the freeway.

"Beyond the ability to disable a vehicle, the devices have tracking capabilities that allow lenders and others to know the movements of borrowers, a major concern for privacy advocates. And the warnings the devices emit — beeps that become more persistent as the due date for the loan payment approaches — are seen by some borrowers as more degrading than helpful."

[Ilsa]

1. So, after buying a car, we need to go to mechanics to

Get the kill switches removed?

[snooper2]

38. only if you don't plan on paying the payments you agreed to

[Orsino]

41. Or if you don't trust a bank not to make a mistake. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

136. Of if you have a shred of dignity

[Vattel]

172. OMG best post of the day!!!!!!!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

173. Thanks. I appreciate that. nt

[Odin2005]

200. THANK YOU!!!

This shit is all about shaming people in debt as being a stigmatized class.

[Live and Learn]

145. I can't believe anyone agrees with this dangerous ploy.

Hopefully, you won't be the car behind the car stopped suddenly on the highway because they are late in paying.

[snooper2]

149. I can't believe people really think that the engineers behind the technology are idiots

it is a STARTER DISABLE---

The little electiric motor thing on the side of your engine block. Has a gear that aligns with your flywheel...apply a couple amps and spinny spinny the engine to start. That is what gets disabled-

[Live and Learn]

150. Per the article, they are:

"Some borrowers say their cars were disabled when they were only a few days behind on their payments, leaving them stranded in dangerous neighborhoods. Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights. Some described how they could not take their children to school or to doctor’s appointments. One woman in Nevada said her car was shut down while she was driving on the freeway.

And what about the privacy issues with the tracking. Or do you believe the poor have no rights to privacy too?

[snooper2]

154. well off people get their shit repoed as well...(They are usually most pissed off actually LOL)

I've been following Reponut for years and years-

Never heard about anybody complaining about privacy. He slapps GPS trackers on cars all the time. Guess the courts can take up the privacy issue. At some point all cars will be able to be tracked from the factory-

He was featured on local 20/20 last year-

Listen to it straight from the Reponut

[NutmegYankee]

187. Some of the devices disable the ignition.

Which is very dangerous as many people are not used to controlling a vehicle that has stalled. Much was made in the news about GM's ignition switch problem, but the actually cause of death in nearly every case was the driver didn't have the strength to move the wheel without power steering, or once they encountered the extreme stiffness, they panicked.

With the small diameter wheel and no gearbox for mechanical advantage, it's quite a challenge to drive. When I lived down in Groton I had an electrician neighbor who was a big drinker and one day he needed someone to drive him up to the rental store to return a piece of rented equipment. He was too drunk to drive and I was one of the few people he knew that drove stick and could steer his old Ranger truck without Power Steering. And damn, it was pretty difficult though doable.

[Warpy]

153. Yes, it's completely insane

I can see disabling the starter when someone is a month late on the payment but stopping a car in the middle of an Interstate highway because the payment is a week or even less overdue is stupid and extremely dangerous.

I don't want to share the road with such vehicles. It's bad enough sharing it with drunks and cell phone addicts and drunk cell phone addicts. Sharing it with cars that suddenly become non functional will cause a lot of carnage, especially in this town.

[jberryhill]

190. google thr topic...

Name a person who had it shut down while moving.

[bobGandolf]

220. That's what I'd do. n/t

[Atman]

227. That is probably the worst thing you could do.

When the lender realizes it is no longer able to receive info about your car, the repo man will there almost immediately. At least you have the option of making the payment without repo fees and impound fees if your car is disabled by the kill switch. I'm not saying I agree with the GPS kill switch in the slightest, just that I am sure the engineers were well aware that people would try to remove them. I'd bet you anything the second that thing is disconnected the lender gets a signal saying so.

[aikoaiko]

2. A wireless, virtual boot.

[ck4829]

3. It shut down while she was driving on the freeway.

If you hear this and you are not instantly opposed to this, then there is something very wrong with you.

It shut down while she was driving on the freeway - It bears repeating.

[Dorian Gray]

4. you are right

that's dangerous and we should not stand for it.

[yeoman6987]

52. Ok. I don't like this at all

But if they have to be nasty, and supposedly can monitor your whereabouts, why not wait until the driver is safe at their home to shut it down? This makes no sense to shut it down anywhere but home. They can't wait a few hours? I don't like the program at all. I would rather the banks not give the loan in the first place then Have a fatality which is coming due to their procedure.

[Agschmid]

54. A starter kill switch would have no affect on the highway...

So if that is the method then the car could not possibly be disabled at speed on the highway.

There are other methods which could stop the car on the highway but I find it highly unlikely that they would be used when the car is on. I get that the article says it happened I just don't believe someone would open themselves to that type of liability.

But sometimes they do...

[jberryhill]

178. that does not sound plausible

It is difficult to believe that the ability to shut the engine off while the car is in motion would be designed into the device by any engineer or manufacturer who did not wake up one morning and say, "I'd like to spend the rest of my existence dealing with lawsuits and dodging charges of a criminal level of negligence."

[Agschmid]

183. Yup.

I doubt the veracity of this article.

[NutmegYankee]

188. That's not difficult to design or build.

It's even possible this was made for another purpose and adapted to do an ignition or battery ground kill remotely. And while there are many engineers who live the Code of Ethics like myself, there are those who only see $$$$ as their code of ethics. Sickening, but true.

[jberryhill]

189. I didn't say it was not possible to build

I do doubt it is configured to turn the car off.

It appears to be bullshit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/17/aa.bills.shut.engine.down/index.html?_s=PM:LIVING

There have been a few lawsuits and scattered complaints about devices shutting down the engine while the owner is driving. Manufacturers attribute the incidents to mechanical problems unrelated to the devices.

Numerous safeguards are built-in, the manufacturers say. The devices won't shut down the engine while the vehicle is moving, and consumers can extend the car's operation in an emergency.

[NutmegYankee]

193. I'm not willing to take industry's word on that.

After all, Phillip Morris told us cigarettes are safe... If people report that their car shut down on the highway - and take action to actually sue, I'll trust them.

[jberryhill]

195. ah, so plaintiff's lawyer's word wins?

It would be per se gross negligence to design it that way.

Everyone who files a lawsuit is correct, is that it?

[NutmegYankee]

196. As an engineer I know the technology exists.

It's used in police bait cars. With such a large unregulated industry, it doesn't surprise me in the least that this was installed and used. Even in the engineering community, there are despicable people with no ethics.

Why are you so resistant to realizing that? Nevermind that this entire "solution" is a disgusting disgrace meant only to keep the serfs/peons in their place. Honestly if I had my way, any engineer involved in designing these things should be blacklisted from any STEM position and forced to work scrubbing the streets of the New Orlean's French Quarter each day for the rest of their lives.

[Fred Sanders]

5. America, you voluntarily surrendered your privacy years ago when you signed up for social media,

years ago when you were younger and the bright future promised everyone peace and jet packs, but delivered war and Facebook.

Bummer.

Now stop whining, you did build that.

[marions ghost]

6. Stop the blame game

not everyone can see the future as well as us.

Blaming and trying to make people feel they did something wrong doesn't help.

The point is that they should begin to see it with tactics like this. And so what do we do now?

[Fred Sanders]

7. Blame game? Fucking rights. You have to admit you have a problem first...and few are.

[marions ghost]

11. Yes of course it's a big problem

in this case of the driver having no protections-- and in many other ways that technology is being used to control and fetter us. We have no real consumer protection in this country. Only a pretense to it. And now we have gadgets that can monitor us anywhere. A serious loss of basic freedoms.

So if you want to get people on your side about that, is it really a good idea to heap guilt on them about signing up for facebook? and other stuff, all the useful tools for keeping connected, which are also easily used to provide a profile of us to those who collect it. When you tell someone they were naughty not to innocently follow a popular trend--you won't get many to listen to you. Finger wagging is not the way to go.

It's important that people understand how their freedom is being eroded insidiously.

[ryan_cats]

61. Say what?

***in this case of the driver having no protections--***
Protections against what? Not paying their bills?

[marions ghost]

82. OK

let me TRY to explain.

PROTECTIONS AGAINST HAVING SOMEONE HAVING THE POWER TO STOP YOUR CAR WHEREVER YOU ARE. (Not to mention that the driver needs to know about this in the first place. Not to mention predatory lending).

It's called consumer protection. There should be a law against this. But with the "buyer beware" mentality that we all have been trained to--we agree to just suck it up.

Do you not see this is wrong? Probably not, if you have never been poor or financially strapped in a nation which has no decent public transportation.

[ryan_cats]

170. So, it should be OK to not pay your car loan?

So, it should be OK to not pay your car loan? How about home mortgages, how about that?

These people know the device is in the car because they can't get a decent loan even though you said in your post that they didn't know. Even if the car engine stopped on the freeway which I doubt, you can still coast to the side.

Do companies want people injured, no, they use GPS and usually shut it off at their home but now you'll come up with a pregnant woman needs to get to the hospital and the mean old finance company disabled their car.

Pay your bills, don't buy a car you can't afford. Your next argument will be the guy who was doing OK and now he's laid off and can't make his payments. Boo Hoo, life is hard, it sucks that it is but it is.

Thanks for the condescending, "let me TRY to explain"; you know it all, at least you think you do.

[SomethingFishy]

179. Yes that is exactly what everyone is saying.. free cars for everyone..

What Republican crap.

Yeah life is easy when you are a well off conformist..

[marions ghost]

181. Be poor sometime

Those who have never been poor always have a lofty, condescending attitude to those who are struggling. So it's not surprising to see it even here at DU. "Boo hoo" is a really good expression of that nasty "I got mine" attitude.

You choose to miss the bigger picture, which is the monitoring of every aspect of our lives. One day maybe you'll get the injustice of this.

We have no reliable public transportation in most places in this country. We are stuck with cars.
Nothing I say negates the fact that people should pay their bills if they can (duh) or their car is taken back. But many are very hard up for cash these days and don't deserve to have the car stopped without due process. "Stopped on the freeway off to the side" is an extreme injustice.

Hey it's a message board. I say my thing, you say yours. Different opinions y'know. Snark is not cute.

[ryan_cats]

182. You don't know me

I know poor and it I didn't really like it but this gives you a chance to show how compassionate your are without having to lift a finger.

[marions ghost]

202. Whatever

--compassion of any kind is a rare thing in America these days. so if it bothers you, sorry.

I know a lot about being poor too. Both my parents worked at jobs and they only had one car which was breaking down all the time. My Dad often walked through the city to get home--didn't even have bus fare. Many times they had to decide between gas for the car or food. There was no help from any direction. One relative who had money helped them out of a hole one time but it was a rare thing. Dentistry and eyecare were luxuries for the rich. New clothes were not possible--our socks and shoes were full of holes in a not fashionable way.

So I learned about compassion early. I care a lot about people who are struggling financially, especially in this brutal society. And I'll keep on caring, sending money, supporting the food bank, advocating politically, doing what I can til my dying day.

But even if you don't care about the poor you also don't seem to care about the injustice of being physically tracked when you buy the car on the installment plan. It's really un-American if anything is. Mean, controlling, just plain nasty.

[ryan_cats]

215. Ignition interlock

***--compassion of any kind is a rare thing in America these days. so if it bothers you, sorry. ***

I agree.

***I know a lot about being poor too. Both my parents worked at jobs and they only had one car which was breaking down all the time. My Dad often walked through the city to get home--didn't even have bus fare. Many times they had to decide between gas for the car or food. There was no help from any direction. One relative who had money helped them out of a hole one time but it was a rare thing. Dentistry and eyecare were luxuries for the rich. New clothes were not possible--our socks and shoes were full of holes in a not fashionable way. ***

Sounds like how I grew up, we never starved but I never ate what the other kids ate.

***So I learned about compassion early. I care a lot about people who are struggling financially, especially in this brutal society. And I'll keep on caring, sending money, supporting the food bank, advocating politically, doing what I can til my dying day. ***

I fully support charity As long as it's not under compulsion.

***But even if you don't care about the poor you also don't seem to care about the injustice of being physically tracked when you buy the car on the installment plan. It's really un-American if anything is. Mean, controlling, just plain nasty.***

I missed the part where these people were physically dragged to the dealership and forced to buy a car. If your credit is so bad that you need one of these disable devices than so be it, at least you get a car so you can get to work; they don't surreptitiously install these devices on cars although I think OnStar can disable your GM car. The point is, they knew there were getting this device; this is why you should read every page of the dealer's contract, I've had dealers try to rush me along; once I stood up to leave, then they stopped b***ing. Read the contract! Legally, I believe, the stealer is supposed to tell you all the terms but there's a reason car salesmen rate low on the credibility scale.

If I had to have one of these devices, if it was OnStar, I'd just disconnect the antenna, I've gotten around the world for 50 years without GPS so I sure as hell don't need it now. If it's an ignition interlock, those are easy to bypass. They also use a dongle on the OBDII port that you could just unplug.

Does anyone on this board have one of these devices??? I'd like to see how it's hooked up so it can be thwarted.

[Orrex]

218. A word of caution

If I had to have one of these devices, if it was OnStar, I'd just disconnect the antenna, I've gotten around the world for 50 years without GPS so I sure as hell don't need it now. If it's an ignition interlock, those are easy to bypass. They also use a dongle on the OBDII port that you could just unplug.

Does anyone on this board have one of these devices??? I'd like to see how it's hooked up so it can be thwarted.

It's highly likely that this kind of contract already has (or will soon start to include) language specifically forbidding efforts to defeat the kill switch.

For instance, the contract could stipulate that such efforts will void a service contract, will cause the full balance of the loan to come due immedately, will raise the interest rate to 29.99%, will impose a substantial fee for each day that the device is offline, or will result in the immediate repossession or outright forfeiture of the vehicle, with the entirety of the loan still due.

Personally I don't favor any of these punitive measures, but it seems unrealistic to expect that lenders won't take such steps to ensure that the borrower fulfills his or her contractual obligation.

As you very correctly note, it is essential to read and understand the entire contract before signing.

[ryan_cats]

221. You are 100% correct

You are 100% correct.

While GM touts the 'safety' advantages of OnStar, what they don't advertize is that they gather data on your vehicle (no big problem there) but they also monitor your driving habits and this is no slippery slope, we've already hit the bottom.

If you have an ignition interlock that won't turn the starter motor over, that's probably one wire to bypass and if you want it to look like it's still working, just bypass the interlock but leave it connected. The one's that disable your engine management computer are a bit different but I think they use the OBDII port for the device, you could unplug it and it might work but it's also possible that they've flashed the computer's non volatile memory so if it doesn't see the device, it acts like it would if it was shut down.

I'd love to get my hands on one of these to see what they've done since I see this device will probably be installed in all vehicles in the near future for the children you know along with child safety seats for children under 25.

[marions ghost]

219. I agree with Orrex #218

--they know people will try to thwart the device and I'm sure they will come up with deterrents.

[ryan_cats]

223. As do I

As do I.
This is like the 90s where you could get DirectTv for free with the stock box but you had a computer that had an interface that would slide into where the activation card usually goes. The reason they used a computer instead of reprogramming the card is that DTV got wise and would send down bullets to disable your hacked card. Hence the computer emulated the card and if they sent a kill bullet, it didn't affect the card.
The DTV cat and mouse game is probably what will happen with these interlocks and hell, while we're at it, add a breathalyzer too, it's for the children, honest.

[Doremus]

168. Protections against lying, thieving Wall St. bankers, that's what

Protections against overworked, underpaid drones who err, that's what.

And how about just plain old consumer protections in general, like this country USED to have before its citizens became so complacent that they let plutocrats make their decisions for them and blame everyone else EXCEPT themselves and plutocrats?

[ryan_cats]

171. Those damn bakners forcing people to use them...

***blame everyone else EXCEPT themselves and plutocrats? *** I would say this with a different emphasis.

[belzabubba333]

18. "Blaming and trying to make people feel they did something wrong" is exactly what should b done

otherwise you invite more of the same

[marions ghost]

22. How does that work?

When you shame people for their innocent past actions--ie. being infatuated with a hugely hyped very popular networking phenomenon sweeping the world. Why should they feel guilty about that?
We all follow trends in some way.

It's just the style of how you make your case. People who lack perspective don't need to feel responsible for where we are with this. It smacks of blaming the victim, and all that "buyer beware" heavy duty responsibility to know everything about everything--when what we need are advocates for consumers and LAWS to protect us from this type of invasion.

There are better ways to argue without resorting to finger wagging.

[belzabubba333]

36. people need to relaize nothing is free - the "free" software you just downloaded probably

full of spyware - "cheap and easy " loans are cheap and easy for a reason - most people dont read fine print, dont pay attention and therefore become self made victims. you try talking to them and they dont want to hear it. they want their cell phone and the facebook and instagram.even now people know their private info is being taken and sold by these services yet they still use them. youre correct when you say There are better ways to argue without resorting to finger wagging. but that only works if people are willing to listen

[marions ghost]

37. You are still requiring the victim

to take full responsibility. And that changes nothing.

Everybody knows you are not protected by any fine print anywhere. But still of course people want cell phones and FB and instagram. It's how you stay connected and bonded these days. They take the risk because everybody else is doing it.

The target of our anger should be the corporates and politicians that are allowing these invasions to happen. The author of this book makes a good case for new laws:

http://www.amazon.com/Dragnet-Nation-Security-Relentless-Surveillance/dp/0805098070

[belzabubba333]

91. respectfully i disagree

It's how you stay connected and bonded these days. They take the risk because everybody else is doing it.

this is a big part of the problem we stayed connected long before these bugging/tracking vehicles were installed nothing changes because people wont take responsibility for it at least they wont acknowledge it . they'll bitch and yell and throw things around but in the end the use it why? it's because like u said everybody else is doing it and by using it you tell companies that what theyre doing isnt bad enough.

the only way to stop it is to stop using these products otherwise their making money so to hell with the bitching and moaning of the peasants.

it'll take an enromous sacrifice on people but it's up to the people to change it. just my humble opinion

[marions ghost]

92. It would be more effective

if people kept their devices but worked to get more consumer protection and laws with teeth that limit the use of collected data and other forms of tracking.

So people should just give up on these things and stop using them? Not realistic. The horse is out of the barn.

You saw it coming. I saw it coming. But just asking people to go backwards (to what? rotary phones and handwritten letters?) is just laughable. Technology created the situation and technology has to be forced to address it.

"Stop using these products." Sure..........

[belzabubba333]

94. like i said it'll take an enromous sacrifice on people

if people kept their devices but worked to get more consumer protection and laws with teeth that limit the use of collected data and other forms of tracking. do you think you'll get that from congress?

[marions ghost]

102. Not immediately, no

But the pressure can start building.

If you are trying to get consumers to "sacrifice"--maybe a few will, but not many. Won't work. That's the reality of consumers who don't care (or don't have the skills) to do all this research and come to an understanding of the dangers. There has to be advocacy that doesn't depend on the average consumer buying into it necessarily. Tho good if they will. Eventually they will appreciate the effort.

Consumer protection is very weak in America. And laws to protect us from invasions of privacy are in need of serious reform. Demand it. We deserve it. Problem is, we are so untrusting of govt now we think we should be doing everything for ourselves. There are groups working on these issues of invasive tracking and data collection--that needs to grow and become a movement.

Just simply advocating giving up smart devices is asking the consumer to abstain from what has become a new way of living to the point of addiction to many. "Just say no"--how well does that work? We need new tools to fight back on this.

[hunter]

74. That's not exactly true. Free, Open Source Software is not the same...

... as some "free" crap proprietary application you download on your Microsoft, Apple, or Android device.

I run Debian on my machines and avoid any devices I can't easily tweak to work exactly as I want them to.

[kcr]

26. Blaming victims takes the heat off the wrongdoers

It will only embolden them and make them even more entitled to exploit victims that our society already views in a negative light. I think directly targeting predatory lenders will be far more effective than navel gazing about our internet habits.

[Fred Sanders]

84. Embolden them more? They can already fucking shut off your car, how more "more emboldened" do

you think they will be?

[kcr]

88. Yes, it's nuts. How do you think it got that way?

Tellling people not to sign up for Facebook isn't the answer.

[Fred Sanders]

89. You miss the point, it was a created mindset of not placing value on privacy, FB was the pioneer.

[kcr]

90. I'm not the one missing the point.

Okay, let's say you're right. It's the stupid people, with their Facebook! That still doesn't make it right. The smart people who know better should be focusing their ire on the ones exploiting the stupid people. Otherwise they aren't as smart as they think they are and and are in fact pretty useful to the exploiters. Because the stupid victims won't learn. They're stupid and the "smart" people won't do anything about the problem.

[belzabubba333]

95. Tellling people not to sign up for Facebook isn't the answer. i believe it is

[kcr]

104. And banks are glad you do n/t

[belzabubba333]

107. not the bank where the facebook revenue goes to

[kcr]

110. Huh? nt

[Live and Learn]

146. Oh sure, shaming the poor is always the best solution.

[belzabubba333]

147. the stuff to which i was refering isnt exclusive to the poor

[Live and Learn]

148. But it sure is the majority of it, isn't it?

Shaming is always bad policy. Do you really think the majority of people simply don't pay their bills because they don't feel like it?

[Jamastiene]

123. Exactly.

Belitting and blaming people doesn't solve any problems. It just makes things worse.

[AverageJoe90]

162. Fred, the blame doesn't lie with social media.....

It lies with years of largely unchecked corporate corruption, and that in government as well.

[Logical]

166. LOL, not a well thought out post! nt

[Odin2005]

201. Then why are you posting here if you hate social media?

[Fred Sanders]

205. How social is an anonymous comments thread, I reject your definition and your logic.

[Odin2005]

206. Message boards are a type of social media.

[Fred Sanders]

207. Sure, just like FB...your definition, you can believe it if you like.

[B Calm]

8. This could prove to be fatal. How is this legal?

[baldguy]

10. Because money.

This is the logical result of having Republicans in charge.

[AverageJoe90]

163. And corruption. Lots of it. nt

[Takket]

9. This is CRAZY

people are going to get killed! Not to mention other consequences like being fired for missing work... Kids missing school... Why can't they mail you a warning like they used to?

[hifiguy]

134. So what?? Everyone knows that money is worth more

than the lives of the lowly peasantry. You not paying attention?

[Takket]

139. Oh yeah! I bet the Supreme Court would disagree with you!

Oh wait.... they wouldn't, would they?

[mwooldri]

12. There goes OnStar then...

They have had the capability to remotely shut down a vehicle for quite some time - provided it's a full installation. The devices that aren't hardwired don't have this feature.

[Travis_0004]

85. Thats a bit different

When was the last time onstar shut down a vehicle.? Probably a few stolen vehicles at the police request, which I am fine with, but that is probably the most common reason.

[Orrex]

13. Until the loan is paid off, you're basically borrowing the car

I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running, but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

Disabling a stopped vehicle doesn't strike me as materially different from having the car towed by the repo man. You might be "stranded in dangerous neighborhoods," but you'd have been stranded if they'd towed your car, too.


Having had a car repo'ed in the past, I know that it sucks. It's humiliating, it's incredibly inconvenient, and it's expensive. But since I was delinquent on the loan, I don't really have grounds for complaining.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. That's My Take Too

The computer in the car is sophisticated enough to disengage the starter circuit only if the car is not running.

It would still be massively inconvenient for the owner who drove to somewhere only to find the car won't restart, but at least it wouldn't be dangerous.

[kcr]

29. When they're stopped on the street, they block traffic

And that is vastly different from going to repossess a car sitting in someone's driveway.

[Orrex]

32. True, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The kill switch certainly shouldn't work while the engine is running, but I'm fine with it disabling an engine while the car is stopped.

If the driver turns off the engine while the car is positioned to block traffic, well, that's the driver's fault.

[kcr]

39. Yes, it does have to do with what you wrote. Did you read the article?

Do you realize that cars stop on the road?

[Orrex]

42. No, it doesn't. Did you read what I wrote?

From reply #13:

I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running, but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

What were you saying again?

[kcr]

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

From the article. What were you saying, again?

[Orrex]

47. Why are you blaming me for the policy that I explicitly rejected?

From reply #13:

[font size=6][font color="red"]I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running,[/font][/font] but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

Disabling a stopped vehicle doesn't strike me as materially different from having the car towed by the repo man. You might be "stranded in dangerous neighborhoods," but you'd have been stranded if they'd towed your car, too.

What were you saying again?

[kcr]

53. You aren't veing very clear in what you're saying, obviously

And bolding it in big red letters isn't making any clearer. It sounds to me like you're saying what they're doing is no different than repoing and towing a car.

[Agschmid]

56. Orrex is being incredibly clear IMO.

It's my understanding (and I agree) that a kill switch which works while a car is on, and or in motion, should be illegal.

However I do agree that is someone is not making a payment on a car, that a bank or finance company does have the right to repossess it. And a kill switch has the same general "function" as a repossment.

[kcr]

62. Well, that's nice. But that's not what's happening.

Unless one believes all these people are lying.

[Orrex]

67. No shit. As I wrote in reply # 13:

I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running, but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

Disabling a stopped vehicle doesn't strike me as materially different from having the car towed by the repo man. You might be "stranded in dangerous neighborhoods," but you'd have been stranded if they'd towed your car, too.


Having had a car repo'ed in the past, I know that it sucks. It's humiliating, it's incredibly inconvenient, and it's expensive. But since I was delinquent on the loan, I don't really have grounds for complaining.

Nowhere am I denying that it's happening as the people in the article report. Why would you even suggest the possibililty that they're lying, since it's clear that neither you nor I think that they are?

[Agschmid]

69. I personally don't find the source reliable.

But that's my opinion.

[kcr]

72. I just don't get your point is all.

The problem is that cars are being stopped while they're out on the road. That's what the article is about.

I'd also argue that it's a problem anyway because they're pushing the button when they're only a few days delinquent because when all they have to do is push a button instead of sending someone out with a truck, they don't even wait. It's a bit ridiculous to deprive people of the use of their vehicle over being late two days. What if the payment got hung up in the mail? Ridiculous.

[Orrex]

75. In reply # 13, I explicitly addressed what the article is about

Here:

I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running, but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

I am explicitly stating that there is "no good reason" for their policy of disabling the car while the engine is running.

I then offered an opposing condition for comparison, under which circumstances the use of the "kill switch" would not be unreasonable. Therefore, I addressed the content of the article and engaged in further discussion of the subject--how does this escape you?

I'd also argue that it's a problem anyway because they're pushing the button when they're only a few days delinquent because when all they have to do is push a button instead of sending someone out with a truck, they don't even wait. It's a bit ridiculous to deprive people of the use of their vehicle over being late two days. What if the payment got hung up in the mail? Ridiculous.

Obviously that depends on the contract that the borrower signed, which certainly includes language authorizing the lender to respond in the event of default. I agree that the timeframe is problematic, but that, too, is likely spelled out in the contract. As long as the lender is following the terms of the agreement, the borrower has no basis for complaint.

It's a bit ridiculous to deprive people of the use of their vehicle over being late two days.

"Ridiculous" is not legally binding. As long as the lender is following the terms of the agreement, the borrower has no basis for complaint.

As I wrote in reply # 13:

Until the loan is paid off, you're basically borrowing the car

[kcr]

78. Ok. I don't know how I can make my point any clearer

I'm glad you think it's wrong to disable a car while it's driving. I get that you agree with that.

What I'm not getting is the rest of it. They should just stick with traditional repo. I can think of no good reason to have these boxes, unless they just want to be able to stop these cars whenever they want to. Can you? Because stopping the car whenever is bad, and you agree with that, hence my confusion.

[Orrex]

96. A point of clarification:

What I'm not getting is the rest of it. They should just stick with traditional repo. I can think of no good reason to have these boxes, unless they just want to be able to stop these cars whenever they want to.

That's not quite correct. The lender doesn't "stop these cars whenever they want to;" instead, they disable the vehicles when the borrower defaults on payment. Again, though, I absolutely don't think that the kill switch should disable the vehicle while the engine is running. Disabling the vehicle while the engine is off, however, seems like a reasonable way to enforce the agreed-to terms of the contract.

Why should they "stick with traditional repo," by the way?

[kcr]

103. Yes, they do stop them whenever they want to.

This is why people are ending up out on the streets. Again, if they wanted to take care in the timing, they'd just stick to traditional repo. But they don't care. This is just a click of a mouse and they don't take care to even look where the borrower is, because they don't give a shit. They just go down the list of people who show up on the screen because they're more than a day late and click the button and done.

[Orrex]

106. No.

Yes, they do stop them whenever they want to.

No, they absolutely don't "stop them whenever they want to." Instead, they disable the vehicles once the borrower has gone into default.

This is why people are ending up out on the streets. Again, if they wanted to take care in the timing, they'd just stick to traditional repo. But they don't care.

I have known people whose cars were repossessed while they were at the grocery store, at a mall, parked on a downtown street, and at a school function. As for taking "care in the timing," well, that's a delusion. They don't defer to the convenience of the defaulted borrower; they repo the car once the borrower has gone into default.

This is just a click of a mouse and they don't take care to even look where the borrower is, because they don't give a shit. They just go down the list of people who show up on the screen because they're more than a day late and click the button and done.

If the borrower is inconvenienced by the repossession, then that's the borrower's responsibility. The borrower expressly authorizes the repossession, in fact, when he or she signs the loan contract.

Why do you not see this? Why do you insist that the borrower should not be bound by the terms of the legally signed contract?

[kcr]

109. Yes

Once the borrower has defaulted, they click the button. If the borrow happens to be out on the road, oh well. Maybe the car will stop when they're safely off the road. Maybe it won't. Not their concern.

[Orrex]

114. Again, no.

Once the borrower has defaulted, they click the button

But that's not what you said. You said that "they do stop them whenever they want to," which is not what they're doing. Since you now acknowledge that the kill switch is activated once the borrower has defaulted--which is entirely appropriate and consistent with the terms of the legally binding contract--we can move on.

If the borrower happens to be out on the road, oh well.

It has already been established that no one here feels that the kill switch should work while the engine is operating, so there's no further need to debate this point either.

Maybe the car will stop when they're safely off the road. Maybe it won't. Not their concern.

Some in this thread have doubted the story as told, on the basis that the lender would face huge liability if an engine were stopped while the vehicle is operating.

Without disputing the statements made in the article, I agree that it's more likely that the kill switch would take effect either immediately (if the engine is currently stopped) or else the next time the engine is turned off (if it's currently in use). I'm not saying that the people quoted in the article are lying; I'm proposing a more suitable alternative that wouldn't endanger the borrower.

[kcr]

116. Whenever they want to meant regarding whether they're on the road or not

Not whether or not they've defaulted. I didn't think we were debating whether or not default was actually occurring so I didn't mention it.. Or are you saying the fact that they've defaulted is relevant to this sort of treatment? See, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt so that was indeed what I was saying.

[Orrex]

120. It took half a dozen posts for you to understand and acknowledge an obvious point

Which Agschmid described as "incredibly clear," in fact.

Therefore I was unwilling to assume that you understood a point that you declined to acknowledge explictly. Namely, that we were discussing the lender's actions after the borrower has defaulted. Your use of the phrase "whever they want to" didn't suggest that you understood this point.

Since you know acknowledge it, we can move on.

Or are you saying the fact that they've defaulted is relevant to this sort of treatment?

What "sort of treatment" are you referring to? The disabling of the vehicle while it's in motion? No one here thinks that's a good idea, so no one here has to defend that policy.

Or are you instead referring to the disabling of the vehicle while the engine is already stopped? If so, then the borrower's default is entirely relevant and is in fact central.

[kcr]

128. But no one here was saying that cars shouldn't be repossessed.

What does it matter that the action is occurring after the borrower has defaulted? This is my confusion. What is your point?

[Orrex]

129. The disabling of the cars is part of the repossession, obviously.

Why else would the lender disable the car? To be a pain in the ass? Anyone who argues against the disabling is arguing against repossession.

It does the lender no good to leave a disabled car in the middle of nowhere. They repossess the car, store it on a lot and charge the borrower daily lot fees. if the borrower doesn't pay to get the car back, the car is sold at auction and the proceeds used to pay off the loan & expenses. If the auction price is less than the oustanding amount owed on the car, then the borrower is on the hook for the difference.

[kcr]

130. No

They aren't arguing against repossession. They are arguing against the manner in which it is being done because of the problems it causes. Switching off the engine higgledy piggledy causes people to be stranded on roads.

[Orrex]

131. That's a trivial objection.

They aren't arguing against repossession. They are arguing against the manner in which it is being done because of the problems it causes.

In other words, they're arguing against repossession. You can insist that they're not, but you'd be wrong. It's equivalent to saying "they can repossess the car, but they can't use a tow truck."

Switching off the engine higgledy piggledy causes people to be stranded on roads.

Such inconvenience is expressly and specifically the responsibility of the defaulted borrower. As I've noted elsewhere, I know people who've had cars repossessed while they were shopping and at parties, stranding them in each case and causing considerable inconvenience. While that's a shame, it's not the lender's fault.

I once had a car repossessed, and it was humiliating and disruptive and entirely my responsibility. The same is true of the borrower who defaults and thereafter finds the vehicle disabled.

[kcr]

132. Trivial objection?

I don't want the streets littered with disabled cars. I don't call that trivial.

[Orrex]

135. That simply means that you don't understand how repossession works.

I don't want the streets littered with disabled cars. I don't call that trivial.

Seriously? That's your objection? I hate to break it to you, but if that were to happen it would also be the responsibility of the defaulted borrower, so you'd need to take it up with them.

In any case, it's highly unlikely that we'd see much "littering" of disabled vehicles, simply because it's not in the lender's interest for the car to sit somewhere awaiting theft or vandalism.

I invite you to reread reply #129:

It does the lender no good to leave a disabled car in the middle of nowhere. They repossess the car, store it on a lot and charge the borrower daily lot fees. if the borrower doesn't pay to get the car back, the car is sold at auction and the proceeds used to pay off the loan & expenses. If the auction price is less than the oustanding amount owed on the car, then the borrower is on the hook for the difference.

If you're not aware of this, or if you don't understand it, or if you refuse to acknowledge it, then you have no credibility in this discussion.

[kcr]

137. No. I'll take it up with the lenders who decided this was the way to handle default.

Instead of just going out and getting the car with a tow truck. I knew this wasn't a case of misunderstanding. I was reading you loud and clear all along.

[Orrex]

152. How exactly do you plan to "take it up with the lenders?" And why?

Because you don't like that they're enforcing the terms of the contract?

Instead of just going out and getting the car with a tow truck.

Obviously, they will still do this, but now they'll know exactly where the car is and that it won't be going anywhere until they get there.

If you're ok with towing the car while it's parked, then why do you object to towing the car after it's been disabled? The process is the same in either case, and in either case it's the responsibility of the defaulted borrower.

[Orrex]

57. Please.

From reply #13:

[font size=6][font color="red"]I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running,[/font][/font] but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

Disabling a [font size=6][font color="red"]stopped vehicle[/font][/font] doesn't strike me as materially different from having the car towed by the repo man. You might be "stranded in dangerous neighborhoods," but you'd have been stranded if they'd towed your car, too.

Do you understand? Can you see that I'm referring to a [font size=10][font color="blue"]stopped vehicle[/font][/font] and not to a [font size=10][font color="blue"] car while the engine is running?[/font][/font]

What were you saying, again?

[kcr]

63. You can't think of a good reason other than the people saying that it's happening?

Sorry, I'm not going to make my words all big and pretty with colors.

[Agschmid]

68. All of us agree stopping a car in motion is wrong.

I actually don't think it happened, I don't believe the story. I don't feel like it's a reliable source. I read the article. I don't think a company would assume the liability that stopping a car in motion would cause.

I think a kill switch usable while the car in motion is insane.

I think a kill switch usable while the car is off is acceptable.

[Orrex]

71. I'm confident that it's happening exactly as they describe.

As I wrote in reply #13:

I can think of no good reason why the "kill switch" should be able to stop the car while the engine is running, but that's very different from making it impossible to start the engine in the first place.

Disabling a stopped vehicle doesn't strike me as materially different from having the car towed by the repo man. You might be "stranded in dangerous neighborhoods," but you'd have been stranded if they'd towed your car, too.


Having had a car repo'ed in the past, I know that it sucks. It's humiliating, it's incredibly inconvenient, and it's expensive. But since I was delinquent on the loan, I don't really have grounds for complaining.

What makes you think that I doubt their account of the experience?

I made "my words all big and pretty with colors" because you were otherwise curiously unwilling to read or understand my clear and straightforward words.

[kcr]

73. I basically answered your question in another post

The whole article is about how this technology is being used to exploit people. Of course they're exploiting it. That's the reason it's used. If they were just going to use it like any other repo, they'd just stick to repo. They aren't just disabling these vehicles while they're stopped in driveways. Note that even when they do, the customers are often only two days late. They use these boxes for a reason.

[luke102938]

79. The car would have to be off for the kill switch to work.

[kcr]

80. Well, except that's not what's happening.

Cars are being disabled out on the road.

[jberryhill]

191. sure, if you beleive every exaggerated story you read

[Fred Sanders]

87. What? So your house is also not yours, until fully paid to the last penny? Please.....sir.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. That is absolutely the case. You do not own a home until you pay for it fully.

And yes your home can be lost to you by not completing the purchase of the home. If you are still buying it, you don't own it. That's how it works.

[Orrex]

99. Thank you.

That was more succinct than what I was going to post.

[Fred Sanders]

100. Thank you, Bank of America.

[Orrex]

108. That's not a rebuttal; it's petulance.

[Fred Sanders]

119. That is presuming to know tone of voice in written text.

[Orrex]

122. I presume nothing. Failure to convey tone is the fault of the writer.

[dreamnightwind]

155. So a box could lock you out of your home on late payment

An equivalent case would be that mortgage lenders, seeing the success of this new electronic kill-switch used by auto lenders, would do the same on a house with a mortgage. They could install a remotely controlled lockbox on the home until the 30 year or whatever term it is loan is fully paid, and a homeowner would not be able to enter (or leave) their home until the mortgage payment is made. And they could do this as soon as you are late on a payment. Sounds like a very bad idea to me, and dangerous.

[Fred Sanders]

158. Some defend the notion, when in law it is not even the notion.

[Orrex]

159. Foreclosure is not the same as repossession

There's a process that must unfold in the courts before the lender can force the borrower from the home.

Ultimately, after proper adjudication, the lender will change the locks and bar the borrower from entry.

Since the lender can't simply seize the home, it is invalid to compare foreclosure to repossession.

[dreamnightwind]

167. Seems like an apt comparison to me

And illustrative of the situation these car owners find themselves in.

I'm aware that there is a legal procedure that must be followed. Seems like that could be changed, proof of title could change into ownership of the lockbox, which would change hands anytime the home is sold, though good luck to the financial industry if they have to work this out for a mortage-backed security that gets sliced up and resold, it is a farce any way you look at it in these cases, title is not actually transferred and it's a mess.

I don't see what difference it makes whether they can physically seize it or not, the "seizing" amounts to control of entry/exit and the ability to resell the property. If anything the home example is less onerous, the house is not moving (as some of these vehicles apparently are) nor is the owner randomly stranded in a place they only intended to briefly stop at.

[Orrex]

169. I'm sure that you see it that way, but you're mistaken.

Having been through both, I can tell you that there is nothing at all similar about the processes, nor the impact.

Anyone who makes the comparison knows very little about either.


The comparison itself is an emotional appeal to generate sympathy for the borrower delinquent on his car loan by likening the inconvenience of a temporarily unavailable vehicle to the permanent loss of a home.

Additionally, your reference to "some of these vehicles apparently" moving at the time of deactivation is irrelevant here, because everyone in the thread agrees that such use of the "kill switch" at such times is unacceptable.

[pipi_k]

184. Probably not the same thing

If you default on a home loan, that house isn't going anywhere. It's easy to find.


OTOH, people defaulting on a car loan can, and have, hidden their cars so they can't be repo'd.

that's the point of the GPS and the kill switch. To keep people from hiding vehicles that are not their property until the loan is paid off.

[rhett o rick]

177. A ladies car died here in Seattle and she tried to pull to the side of the road

but was hit by a semi and brutally killed. I don't know if she was the victim of a kill switch but it shows what can happen.

[Demeter]

14. One flaming crash and multiple fatality should put an end to this

maybe....if the victims are sufficiently photogenic and clean cut....and connected to a high-ranking Senator....

[xchrom]

16. ...

[badtoworse]

17. I believe this is mostly dealer financing. Get your loan elsewhere.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

142. Oh I know a few "credit unions" I wouldn't put this past.

[HoosierCowboy]

19. Stop the vehicle in a bad neighborhood

Leave it there overnight and recover whats left of it in the morning. Really really smart

[marions ghost]

23. Good point

this is such a stupid way to repossess a car--not to mention all the other implications for how such technology is used.

[ReRe]

20. If...

... the car has GPS, how can they get away with zapping the car while in operation? Why don't they do it while it's sitting in your driveway? Does the car have to be running in order to zap it?

Otherwise, miss a payment and you (and family/friends) will pay with your life (lives.)

OR, if you can't make your car payment, go turn the fucking deathtrap in to the dealer the day before and tell them to shove it.

[suffragette]

197. The companies say it doesn't work when car's running. Yet one paid a "confidential settlement" to

Make a case go away.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/miss-a-payment-good-luck-moving-that-car/

Last year, Nevada’s Legislature heard testimony from T. Candice Smith, 31, who said she thought she was going to die when her car suddenly shut down, sending her careening across a three-lane Las Vegas highway.
~~~
“PassTime has no recognition of our devices shutting off a customer while driving,” Ms. Kirkendall of PassTime said.

In her testimony, Ms. Smith, who reached a confidential settlement with C.A.G., said the device made her feel helpless.



All the companies also say they only do this when payments are missed, yet the same article notes that one person had her car turned off four times even though she had met payments each time. In her case, luckily, her car was not on the road, but one of those times was when she needed to take her daughter to the hospital.


Of course, the last thing these companies want is for any of this to be regulated in any meaningful way.

[ReRe]

198. Right...

... mercy no! Regulations stifle the free enterprise machine. Can't have that, now can we?
A dead family? No problem.

[suffragette]

216. Looks like similar tech use is spreading - $$$ prioritized over privacy, safety and dignity

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/16/356693782/your-car-wont-start-did-you-make-the-loan-payment


Other auto repossession technologies have raised data security concerns. In March, The Boston Globe reported that Texas-based company Digital Recognition Network installs automated readers in "spotter cars" around the country that capture images of every license plate they pass. Each picture is sent, along with the time and GPS location at which it was taken, to a database that already contains more than 1.8 billion scans.

Law enforcement has used this technique for decades, but not without its own problems. Boston police suspended their license plate scanning efforts in December 2013 in the wake of news that data on more than 69,000 license plates had been accidentally released.

Subprime borrowers have also been subjected to tracking when purchasing other products with a loan, such as personal computers. In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission charged that several rent-to-own companies had spied on consumers by remotely taking screen shots, tracking computer keystrokes and taking webcam pictures, all without consent. The software, licensed by DesignerWare, also enabled the stores to disable the computer if the renter was late on payment.

Apartments might be another area where technology will begin to play a role when consumers are behind on payments, according to Rotenberg. Electronic lock systems are beginning to be used, and renters could be remotely or automatically locked out of their apartment if they are behind on rent.



Very disturbing!

[ReRe]

224. That is so "Police State", isn't it?

That last one threw me for a complete loop! Can you image a single Mother with her arms full of groceries and little ones at her feet, NOT able to get into her door?

All I can think to tell the young adults is to save your money in order to pay cash for your car.

Thanks for sharing!

[suffragette]

225. Yes, Corporate Police State, at that.

The scenario you state has already been happening with the cars. Not to be able to enter your home would be a horrible escalation of it.

[ReRe]

228. If we keep going...

... we're going to annihilate ourselves right out of existence. Why worry about the 'terrists' over there, when they have a whole country (99% anyways) of 'em right here inside our borders? That's what's going to happen if we don't make those Corporatists walk the plank and turn this ship around. And the longer it goes on, the harder it's going to be.

[suffragette]

229. Very true

The security theater siphoning of funds from societal security areas: education, protecting pensions/social security, assistance programs keeps growing. And much of that goes into the pockets of the corporate CEOs and financiers who keep creating the financial havoc and advocating for more slashing of social programs.
It's a vicious cycle.

[hot hunk]

21. Just don't be late.

Every coin has two sides and the other side to this one is that now many who would not have been able to get car loans will.

[nc4bo]

28. More predatory lending.

Most people run into some unforeseen circumstance that forces them do delay on unnecessary bills; what I mean is necessary = electric or heating bills, water bill, doctor bill when you or child gets sick and needs emergency doctor care, there's any number of things that could happen.

So now the predators make sure you lose your job because you're late on your crap car note.

I don't think this will work exactly as intended except perhaps the borrower has a big red x in their credit report which btw, the lenders already knew when they offered the loan in the first place.

Nice.

Almost forgot, sounds like the upside down mortgage gig has taken on a new form.

[pipi_k]

185. Yes, there are sleazebag lenders, but...

I don't think this will work exactly as intended except perhaps the borrower has a big red x in their credit report which btw, the lenders already knew when they offered the loan in the first place.

Nice.

borrowers should also be aware of where they stand on the credit continuum.

Back in the early 90s I needed a new(er) car. One that ran more than half the time. I went to a dealership and looked at their "special" section of used cars for people with credit as bad as mine was. They were pieces of shit.

So the salesman tried to get me to sign up for a loan for a nice shiny new car.

One problem, though. My income wasn't really high enough. He tried to convince me that it was a minor problem that we could deal with (i.e. a little bit of creative finagling with numbers!). I thought about it for a minute and politely turned him down because I knew that the car would probably end up being repo'd at some point because I could not pay for it.

Was I disappointed? You bet.

But not as disappointed as I would have been had I decided to be dishonorable and greedy.

Moral of the story...people need to stop listening to (and believing) the bullshit little fairy tales they're being fed by dishonest car salesmen.

[suffragette]

222. "Banks Can’t Get Away With Horrible Mortgage Practices Anymore, So Now They’re Doing It With Car

Loans"

http://consumerist.com/2014/07/21/banks-cant-get-away-with-horrible-mortgage-practices-anymore-so-now-theyre-doing-it-with-car-loans/

Subprime loans: they aren’t just for mortgages anymore. The next big bubble of ill-advised loans to borrowers who can’t pay is coming due. This time, it’s used car dealers reaping the interest and repossessing the cars.
The New York Times reports that subprime auto loans have risen over 130% in the five years since the big financial crisis hit in 2008. Over a quarter of all new auto loans issued in 2013 went to lower-credit borrowers.
The wave of questionable lending is being driven by exactly the same thing that drove the mortgage bubble, according to the NYT: Wall Street firms making a buck on trading packages of bundled loans. These complex bonds then increase the demand (from insurance companies, mutual funds, and financial companies, not from consumers) for more loans, triggering a big cycle.
The subprime loans, meanwhile, come with sky-high interest rates — up to 23%, reports the NYT. They add, “The loans were typically at least twice the size of the value of the used cars purchased, including dozens of battered vehicles with mechanical defects hidden from borrowers.”


Your post is so on point. This is tied to the latest Wall Street plundering. And it's a double hit, since many of the same people who were devastated by the early 2000's Wall Street financial debacle had their credit ratings impacted, so now are being hit by this as well. In the meantime, the same people and their buddies are still cashing on on others' misery.

And similar practices are extending into other arenas- see my post at #216 for more on that.

[peace13]

30. Guess you have never had a bank make a mistake.

It happens.

[kcr]

31. So why ignore the side that says don't lend to people who can't afford it? n/t

[MillennialDem]

24. Well, one more reason for me to never buy a car made after 1995 ;)

[Auggie]

25. This sounds slightly sensational ... Wall Street? It's car dealers and automotive lenders ...

And I'll further guess the "bad" neighborhood / freeway occurrences are rarities, caused by uncaring assholes.

No one should kill a moving vehicle. That's unimaginably dangerous.

[peace13]

27. Saw this used in a T V drama!

Now they are getting the people used to the idea that big brother can stop you in your tracks. It is surprising how these dramas desensitize the public to invasion of privacy, police intimidation and now this. I have also noticed how many times ISIS and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars come up. I often wonder how a vet who has seen battle recently feels about this for entertainment!

[Jerry442]

33. First they came for the deadbeat car buyers...

...and I did not speak up because my loans are always up-to-date.

Then they came for those late in child-support payments and I did not speak up because I'm not divorced.

Then they came for those with overdue parking tickets and I did not speak up because I don't park illegally.

Then they came for those whose license numbers were ID'ed in the vicinity of a protest march and I did not speak out because I never march for anything.

Then they came for me...

[marions ghost]

40. ^^^^^++

the righteous never get it....

[Orrex]

50. That's a false slippery slope.

First they came for the deadbeat car buyers and I did not speak up because my loans are always up-to-date.

The "deadbeat car buyers" were in breach of the legal contract that they signed and faced the agreed-to consequences of that breach for failure to pay.

Then they came for those late in child-support payments and I did not speak up because I'm not divorced.

Missing child support payments is a direct violation of a court order, for which the penalty is clearly established in advance.

Then they came for those with overdue parking tickets and I did not speak up because I don't park illegally.

The person who receives a parking ticket has multiple opportunities and options for addressing it; ignoring the ticket doesn't make it go away, and the penalties for default are clearly indicated on the ticket itself.

Then they came for those whose license numbers were ID'ed in the vicinity of a protest march and I did not speak out because I never march for anything.

This would be a violation of the first amendment and has nothing to do with the other three examples that you provided.

[Agschmid]

60. Yup.

[Jerry442]

83. Ah, but didn't they tell you...

...that some protestors trespassed on private property, did not disperse when so ordered by the police, and by blocking traffic, endangered the welfare of the public. Authorities had no choice but to activate the "kill switch" on vehicles likely to be transporting unruly protestors, purely as a public safety measure, doncha know. It's unfortunate that the immobilized vehicles had to be towed to impound lots and some of those vehicles sustained accidental damage while being towed, but, y'know, shit happens.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. But is it you who is comparing protesters to those who have broken agreements, stiffed their kids,

and violated minor laws then scoffed at paying the fines. 'Protesters' you say 'are like deadbeat dads and those who park in handicap spots'.

[Jerry442]

117. And we all know that law enforcement never, ever, ever...

...uses powers granted to deal with people who are true threats to public order and safety on people they just don't like.

[Orrex]

124. The analogy still fails

Police acting illegally in violation of the first amendment are in no way similar to parties who legally enforce the terms of a contract or who enforce the legal requirements of a court order, etc.

[baldguy]

165. Rest assured, everything they do will be letter-perfect legal

Even if hundreds of innocent people are killed.

Because profit is always more important than people's lives - especially so if they're "deadbeats". Right?

[Hotler]

34. Too bad there is no kill switch on the high frequency trading computers on Wall St.....

or just a kill switch on those fuckers credit cards and their cars. When they fuck up we shut them down. On-off, on-off, on-off how fun would that be.

[xchrom]

44. ...

[Jerry442]

86. Excellent idea.

Having a hard time though, getting a handle on when exactly would be a good time to turn it back on.

[Hotler]

151. On-off, on-off, on-off, on-off just to mess with them :).......n/t

[UglyGreed]

35. Disabled their

car so they can't make it to work to pay for the car, makes sense to me.

[Rex]

45. Not surprised.

Anything for money.

[sendero]

46. One should avoid..

... buying a car at a dealership that does self-financing.

Don't do that, and this won't happen to you.

[yeoman6987]

59. Car dealership get pissed off when you dont

Finance with them. My case was unbelievable. I walked into Toyota to but a new car in August 2011. I received prefinancing from my credit union in the form of a check to a certain amount. I went about looking for a car. Found one I liked. The dealer came up and asked if he could help. I said yes and we go into the whole process of negotiating the car with both of us satisfied with the price. They send me to the finance department where the person said ok now here is what your payments are going to be. I pull out my draft from the bank and say I am paying cash. They said, no your not you are paying with a preloan and now I have to call your bank for a code. It was really snotty. If I didn't want the car so badly, I would have left. Anyway it was worse then I am even explaining, but glad it was over. Car dealerships hate pre approvals in my experience.

[sendero]

66. You should have......

.. walked out of the dealership waving your middle finger.

Of course they want you to finance, they will make more money that way. But most of them are smart enough to realize that a sale is a sale and take it however they can get it.

[yeoman6987]

70. You are right

I feel I was weak that day. Not proud of it. Treated horribly and accepted it. Not good.

[KingCharlemagne]

93. The most important thing is that you now recognize that you were treated shabbily and

have learned from it. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say for myself about a lot of issues.

[yeoman6987]

118. Thanks! Lessons learned are certainly a part of life.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

143. I don't blame them.

We refused to take those from certain lenders due to the fact they weren't actual drafts. Like you said, some of the documents were pre-loans. Some required the dealer to jump through all the hoops AND RISK of placing a loan without the reward of a profit. We didn't mind taking a check but once you bounced a check with us you were done.

We had a draft bounce because the borrower didn't provide the lender proof of income in a timely manner. We were penalized for something outside our control.

Btw, some of those drafts came from sub-prime lenders like Household Finance (HFC).

9 times out of 10, I could match or beat an outside bank or credit union and wrap the deal up on the spot. Often times, the customer would get the "wholesale" rate because there wasn't an incentive to mark the loan up to earn "finance reserve" from the lender - it made more sense to write the deal at retention rate and get paid the flat fee (couple hundred bucks).

I've written here a lot about not financing your car where you save your savings/checking. ESPECIALLY CREDIT UNIONS - a credit union is more likely to exercise "right of sett off" and snatch your savings in the event of a default. We learned that in "finance school" - it didn't make sense to me at the time but, after going through the 2008 recession, you see what can happen to good people when bad things happen. Never heard of a foreclosure in my neighborhood before 2008 either.

You live and you learn.

[ileus]

48. You of course meant to say the loan companies.

Wall Street doesn't give two shits about me making my car payment. They care about my 403c.

Wall Street isn't just big banks. Hell big banks aren't the ones disabling cars, they turn all the info over to collection agencies and they hit the kill switch.

[CK_John]

49. Car dealer admitted that his gps kill switch device lead to arrest of kidnap

in Maryland case that is all over the news.

[AverageJoe90]

164. No doubt the corporatists will trumpet that story to the ends of the earth.

But for the ONE miracle that may happen once in a while, there are thousands of tragedies that have been happening since this became a thing.

[liberal N proud]

51. There has been many low budget used car dealers doing this for a long time

Mostly those that prey on low income people who can't get financing through the normal process.

[unblock]

55. just to be clear, there are at least 2 distinct issues here:

first, is this ethical and appropriate in the form described.

second, are there any particular restrictions which would make it ethical and appropriate.


to my mind, the answer to the first question is an obvious no, we shouldn't allow cars to be disabled while driving or while idling at a stoplight. this is reckless endangerment at a minimum, and inevitably would lead to a incident which could be considered negligent homicide.

the answer to the second question is more complicated, and might be yes, provided that the restrictions reasonably match what's currently allowed in terms of repossessing live and in person.

number one, the device could only allowed to lock up the vehicle when it has been in the same location for a fairly lengthy period of time, say 6 hours or so. that would at least prevent the "while driving" or "idling at a stoplight" scenarios.

number two, the device probably shouldn't beam back gps locations, but simply store them locally and beam back limited information, such as the amount of time at the same location -- really, the minimum needed to effect a safe "repo".

number three, the remote disabling shouldn't be permitted until preliminary collections efforts have failed, including, at a minimum, attempted phone contacts, written notice, and a reasonable time period for the customers to pay up or make other arrangements.

[pipi_k]

186. Those are some

really good ideas/stipulations there, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with them.

I don't know how those particular car loan contracts spell out the consequences of default, but it would probably also be a good idea to list those points in a whole separate section, in clear, plain language, that a borrower would take the time to read and understand. Maybe also have the terms read to them by the salesman just to make sure.

Two days late? Nahhh...

Two weeks or more, after multiple attempts to make contact? Absolutely.

[ryan_cats]

58. Pay your bills

I seriously doubt they shut off that one woman's car after only being a few days late, yeah right.
If it's connected to the OBDII connector, just unplug it.
How dare auto manufacturers expect to be paid for their cars!

Funny how all the stories are, "I was on my way to perform a heart transplant and they shut my car down, I was on the way to deliver my baby, I was in a bad neighborhood, etc...

[demwing]

127. Yeah...funny

just your particular sense of humor, I guess

[SheilaT]

64. This simply reinforces

why when I buy a car I always pay cash. That means I don't by a fancy new car with every bell and whistle, but an older car I can actually afford.

Yeah, I understand that may sound smug, and that it's not always easy to pay cash, but if people would start out buying a used car, paying it off within a year or two, then saving what had been their car payment for whenever they need to replace the first car, and go from there. Once you have a paid off car, never take out another car loan.

It sounds from the article as if many of the people buying cars with the starter interrupt switch don't really understand what it's all about. Consumer finance is almost never taught in schools. It should be, and it should include serious information about all sorts of loans as well as how to read a contract. It doesn't matter if you didn't read the contract. Once you've signed, it's binding.

And yeah, banks and loan companies make mistakes, which is another whole topic.

[hunter]

65. I removed such a device from our used, fully paid for, car.

It started life as a rental car so I figure the rental company simply didn't bother to remove it. But I couldn't stop thinking that someone could stop my car by simply mistyping a number on a computer, or even for nefarious reasons.

The trouble with newer cars is that such capability is often just a software setting. It's built in. It wouldn't surprise me if law enforcement at some level can turn off any modern car, just as they listen in on phone calls.

There is no easy way to remove this capability, it has to be done by hacking the software, which can really mess up your car if you screw up. It's not a device, it's just another "feature" like smart keys and all the other electronic crap.

A much greater problem with automobiles is that they've never been about "freedom" for anyone. They are tools of fascism. You travel around "freely" with a license plate on your butt and an identity card in your wallet.

And when you are rejected by the economic system and can't afford a car and your "freedom" to travel is severely limited.

[rjsquirrel]

175. Lol "freedom" and not just with cars

I mean, we walk or drive around with phones in our pockets that record our precise location as known-to-surveilled "metadata." All day long. In the car too. We drive under cameras and toll pass readers constantly too.

What is this illusion that a car has ever been a site of freedom? You have to license the driver and the car just for a start.

As for kill switches, they've been around a while. Liability is a huge concern in their design and use. And frankly you'd probsbly rather walk away from a killed car in a parking lot then have to go nose to nose with Lenny from Cro-Magnon Towingand Recovery Inc.

Poor people have been getting repoed since Henry Ford's time. The traditional method often involved a baseball bat.

[Mr Dixon]

76. IMO

Seems to me that a reasonable counter would be to control our lustful purchasing and maintain our older but still operational vehicles. This could be the beginning of a revolution in consumer spending, apply this practice to all purchasing decisions and we could effectively regain control of our dollars.
Instead of a new Dodge 1500, how about maintaining the vehicle you already have, if you really need a truck just rent it for whatever purpose it is required. I’m thinking maybe a 2 year moratorium on all vehicle purchasing and Wall street will adjust and remove these kill switches. Wall Street only speaks the language of money, and they only listen when the money flow stops. Can we collectively ban together?

[hunter]

105. The people most damaged by these have few choices.

They need a reliable car to get to work. If they don't have such a car they lose their jobs and slip further into poverty.

I can drive an $800 piece of shit mid-'eighties car because I have the skills to maintain and repair it myself, and I usually have enough money in my credit union account to buy any replacement parts I might need.

The average lower income person has few defenses against the automobile loan sharks. When their old car fails, they need another car in a hurry.

This is just one of the reasons I despise our automobile culture. Most people shouldn't need an automobile to get to work or do their shopping. We really ought to be restructuring our cities that this is possible. It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions too.

[woo me with science]

77. Note the familiar patterns in this thread.

Usual Third Way authoritarian laser-like focus on justifying and excusing vicious, humiliating pre-emptive treatment of the poor by predatory lenders, and blaming the poor. We know what has been done to the middle class in this country. Now we are going to punish every poor person with a credit problem for it.

It's vicious propaganda. We are trained to hate and punish the poor, preemptively and to accept every new way that they are harassed and singled out by those with power over them. No ordinary borrower would be subject to this draconian assault and humiliation for being a couple of days late on a payment.

We shape the Democratic Party and its attitudes. Or at least we have a responsibility to try to. Are we going to try to make this party still our last, best hope for creating a compassionate nation?

Ignore the 3rd Way shills with extreme prejudice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

[MindPilot]

113. Nailed it again Woo!

Again, making me think I am no longer conservative enough to be be a liberal, let alone a Democrat.

[hunter]

133. Absolutely.

Something is terribly wrong with a society that accepts predatory lending like this.

[hifiguy]

138. + 1

[treestar]

194. And you don't have a pattern?

That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm actually in favor of laws against this, since the authoritarian state has the interest in keeping traffic flowing and avoiding vehicles on the side of the road.

Do you think people should be given cars? I wonder if your pattern makes you against repossession at all? Not just this way?

[Odin2005]

203. This is the kind of poor-shaming that has happened since the Sumerians.

It's sickening.

These people are essentially going "these poor people should just stop being poor, HURR DURR DURR!!!".

[Rex]

204. True, they worship Wall Street so much that they don't even pay attention to what they

say sometimes in threads.

[Marr]

213. I was just noticing that myself.

The same people who take offense at the word "authoritarian" don't even seem to notice how they just instinctively back the money/authority in cases like this. It's bizarre.

It reminds me of a game I used to play by myself when I had a long commute to college, back in the 90's. Whenever a news story about police brutality broke, I'd switch to right-wing radio shows and listen to their coverage. Without exception, they backed the police.

[Orrex]

217. Interesting

Enforcing the terms of a lawfully executed contract signed by both parties is hardly "vicious, humiliating pre-emptive treatment of the poor" or "blaming the poor." If you can demonstrate that the lenders in this case are indeed predatory, then by all means do so. No one in this thread has advocated on behalf of predatory lenders, and I don't see anything befitting your favorite catch-all "3rd Way shills" insult, either.

No ordinary borrower would be subject to this draconian assault and humiliation for being a couple of days late on a payment.

Really? No ordinary borrower is held to the terms of the lawfully executed contract that they signed? I will be greatly interested to see your evidence for this claim. Surely you're not offering raw speculation as if it were absolute fact, right?

Can you explain why, exactly, the borrower should not be held to the terms of the signed and lawfully executed contract?

Also, I'm sure as hell not a Third Way-er, but if you can identify who in this thread is part of that apparently irredeemable cult, I'm certain that we'd all benefit hugely.

Thanks!

[hughee99]

81. Big deal, "Detroit" has been able to do that for years,

Though not on purpose.

[dembotoz]

111. i buy used cars-just cheaper-how do i know device is not on car i just bought

from original lender

seems like a hackers dream
drive down the road
shut off folks cars

do it just for fun or do it for ransom--pay me x dollars or your car will never start again.

go to the republican national convention and shut off a bunch of delegate cars--yeah that would be fun--alas do not worry my tech ignorance protects them...

[AZ Progressive]

115. This is America

You either make a lot of money and avoid predators or you suffer the consequences, especially in Republican controlled America.

[louis-t]

121. Waiting until someone dies because of this.

Then we'll hear some great excuses.

[former9thward]

125. A vicious kidnapper was just found due to the devices you are attacking.

Less than 72 hours after being violently snatched off a Philadelphia street as she walked home from visiting her godson, Carlesha Freeland-Gaither has been rescued from the "vicious predator" police say kidnapped her.

Now as she recovers from the attack that was caught on video and seen nationally, focus moves to her alleged abductor, who authorities have linked to a similar crime against a teenage girl.



Authorities began tracking his gray Ford Taurus through a GPS device placed inside the vehicle by the car dealership where it was purchased, detectives said. The GPS was installed because Barnes had poor credit, officials said.




Read more: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Abducted-Woman-Found-Alive-in-Maryland-Police-Source-281698261.html#ixzz3IPEM8rID

[nichomachus]

140. Well that settles it

We should just have the government implant chips in our heads -- and then we'll all be safe.

[former9thward]

141. I don't favor that but that is coming.

Within 20 years at the most. By then I will be ready for the dog food factory and they won't care if I get lost.

[REP]

210. My car has two GPS devices - but I paid to have them installed and know about them

One can disable the car under specific circumstances; that is part of its intended function as a security device for me, not a bank (I paid cash for the car when I bought it new). While I don't think the 'deadbeat GPS' will disable a moving vehicle - too much liability - it's not there for the car buyers' good.

[demwing]

126. Good, maybe people will be reluctant to buy the fucking things

Meaning less cars on the street.

I will never own another personal vehicle. I have a truck for my business, other than that I take the bus.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

144. Here's what I wrote on the other thread

as someone who use to work in the car finance (including sub-prime) business, I'm against this. It's degrading and subject to abuse.

I wonder if some of these practices violate state or federal consumer protection and lending laws. It used to be, we would send the sub-prime lender a set of keys when we sold the contract. The lender wanted the keys to make repossession easier. Someone sued and that practice ended. The lender only has a security interest in the event of repossession and it seems meddling in the owner's use, short of repossession, could violate ownership rights. Yeah yeah, I know it's legal - until it isn't. Just like keeping a set of keys.

I also wonder if harassing the debtor via audio in the vehicle could step over the line of fair lending laws regarding harassment in collections. Not to mention violations of confidentiality - are other occupants of the vice made privy to collection efforts?

A guy I used to work with told me in the "old days" they would put an "x" in the top corner of the faxed credit app to let the lender know the borrower was black. He also told me of a lender that would pre-repo the car before the first payment was due as a warning the lender was serious - "come get your car. Next time you won't see it again"

Shit like this is always going to be abused. Until someone sues and makes the lender pay.

[JimDandy]

211. Great post. Thanks... n/t

[dilby]

156. Well hopefully people will learn not to finance stuff.

Basically we have turned into a need it now nation and people are going into serious debt because of this fake system we have fallen victim to. If there were no financing available period does anyone think cars would cost $30,000, tuition $40,000 and homes $500,000, no they would drop to the prices of what people could pay with the money in their bank accounts.

[stevenleser]

157. If I were in anonymous, and I am NOT suggesting they do this, but, I would be tempted to...

find out the names of the directors and officers of the finance arms of the dealerships that do this, and hack in and shut down THEIR cars.

[JoeyT]

176. Or keep a log of everywhere they stop for a few weeks,

then post them and proof that they're accurate for the world to see. It would probably immediately result in a flood of divorces and a bunch of outraged guys screaming because now their privacy had been violated.

[niyad]

160. and welcome to our brave new world.

to those who are in any way defending this obscenity--wow. . . . just. . . . wow.

[AverageJoe90]

161. This is really just another form of extortion, nothing less.

Time for a national "remote kill switch" law forbidding these kinds of things in these kinds of situations and harsh penalties for any company who tries to skirt it.....or at least, no penalties for anyone who disables such devices.

Either way, this technology is being abused. And that needs to stop.

[suffragette]

174. Buy from us and we now own you

And we know where you are!

Crazy times we live in.

[Nye Bevan]

180. Well I for one do *not* want to live in a United States where Lloyd Blankfein cackles maniacally

while pushing the button to disable the car of a poor single mother, driving her kids to daycare, while she is passing through a dangerous neighborhood.

[treestar]

192. That's dangerous

To others and to traffic, so I bet states will make laws against it.

[Odin2005]

199. This is Orwellian as fuck. And very bad for public safety.

Remotely shutting off your vehicle in the middle of rush hour traffic on I-494? Can anyone say MASSIVE SAFETY HAZARD???


(Oh, and off topic, but the woman in the picture looks like my Ex-GF, LOL...)

[RB TexLa]

208. Imagine this. Someone borrows money from you and agrees to pay it back, then they don't and tell

they will pay it back when they feel like it.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

209. Besides doing this at a time that could indanger the drive, what if that do someting stupid.

What if they make a paperwork mistake and disable the wrong car, and do it during a bad time, like going down a freeway? And They can not guarantee that some hacker out to hurt people won't get in.

Look at credit cards, one thinks that the store is safe to use it at, but then you find out that they got hacked and your account is missing a boat load of money.

The money is bad enough, now we have to be scared of our lives due to the banking system?

[JimDandy]

212. Good point about the possibility of being car hacked.

So we have car jacking, car whacking and soon, car hacking. It's a brave, new post-Nadar car world.

[puzzledeagle]

214. NEVER get a loan to buy a car, buy a used car

Ask your friends and family, look online on Craigslist or even just look around the neighborhood and see if someone is selling their car. Cars are a money pit and a depreciating investment that you will lose money on. Don't get suckered into a loan!

[Historic NY]

226. A bit deceiving to say its Wall Street....

Its made to sound like the manufacturers and new car dealers are installing these on unsuspecting buyers. People who otherwise wouldn't be able to buy as car make a purchase from a used dealer who gets them financing. The dealer installs a disabling switch so if they fail to pay the car will not start. The purchaser signs that agreement with the dealer, payment due or the car won't go.

"Beyond the ability to disable a vehicle, the devices have tracking capabilities that allow lenders and others to know the movements of borrowers, a major concern for privacy advocates. And the warnings the devices emit — beeps that become more persistent as the due date for the loan payment approaches — are seen by some borrowers as more degrading than helpful."