Can a 'kill switch' be added via software to existing trucks?

[bigdodge]

Your truck already has the ability to be turned on and off remotely.

really
why are thefts not stopped before they get too far away?

 

[bigdodge]

A guy on the TRX forum just had his Redeye stolen in 30 seconds (no key fob cloning - the thieves pulled some wiring) - it's all on video. These vehicles are extremely easy to steal for someone who knows what they're doing.

I keep hearing there is somekind of a software update to prevent some of this.

have you heard anything?

 

[Eighty]

I keep hearing there is somekind of a software update to prevent some of this.

have you heard anything?

No. The hellcat engines (think TRX) are highly sought-after by thieves. There are some high-priced security systems out there, but the most reliable option appears to be a hidden kill switch.

 

[GKIII]

really
why are thefts not stopped before they get too far away?

Hell if I know? Via Uconnect your vehicle's location can be tracked and remote started (and by extension remote turned off, since the uconnect command is routed to the same system your keyfob remote start/stop uses).

In theory the thief could disconnect the battery to disable Uconnect's features. But we aren't talking about theft, we are talking about a hypothetical 'kill switch', for which all of the tools already exist on our trucks (and most other higher end modern vehicles). If the government wanted to have the ability to remotely disable our vehicles, we're basically 99% there.

 

[AV8OR]

I’m curious as to the cost to add this monitoring system?

The increased percentage added on to a $75k Ram Limited is going to be minuscule compared to someone trying to buy their first car.

Another government program that is going to hit the bottom wage earners the hardest.

 

[jmt8706]

I believe OnStar does this on GM vehicles already.

 

[KWKSLVR]

If this gets implemented, there will be an addendum to allow law enforcement to selectively, or blanket, kill vehicles. They'll use the example of the attack in Wekausha (sp?). "What if a police officer had had a kill switch that would've immobilized every vehicle in 100 yards? It would've saved lives..."
Or, the example of "tight beam" aimed ahead of a pursuing police car to immobilize the vehicle being chased. Or, my car got jacked and mah baby is in it...remote kill.

There will be a LOT of reasons given to allow government to control private vehicles.

(I won't even get into the pollution/fuel conservation arguments. Those of you of my age may remember the odd/even days to buy gas. Imagine the same idea but to control emissions. Yeah...I see the government types LOVING this.)

Whether or not it happens comes down to property rights. Either you own your vehicle or you don't. Either you're willing to drive something that lets someone else leave you stranded in your car, or you don't. Can you imagine an active shooter fleeing a scene that is in a situation where 30 cars all get shut down at once and all those people are in the line of fire between the shooter and law enforcement?

No thanks. As far as a kill switch for one's vehicle, well, these exist https://www.amazon.com/Switch-Vehicle-Tracker-Disable-Ignition/dp/B008YHR04U And by "kill switch" it means ignition disruptor. If law enforcement is given the ability to true kill switch traffic you'd have potentially dozens of cars flying down the road with no power steering or power brakes.

 

[Scram1500]

As long as it can't detect cocaine or heroin I'm good

 

[Jako]

As long as it can't detect cocaine or heroin I'm good

Funny point, considering all the states legalizing marijuana drunk driving may be the least of the issues of driving while impaired. The implementation of such a law seems lacking in scope.

 

[Scram1500]

Funny point, considering all the states legalizing marijuana drunk driving may be the least of the issues of driving while impaired. The implementation of such a law seems lacking in scope.

Smartphone distractions cause just as much mayhem as well along with giant dash displays that have a multitude of confusing menus

 

[Zig10]

Didn't Dodge already do something like this for the Hellcats?

Dodge Adding Security Code to Stop Charger, Challenger Thefts - Motor Illustrated

New key and pin tech offered to SRT Dodge buyers limits Charger and Challenger to idle rpm to discourage theft

www.google.com

I would love that to be an option on our vehicles. Can't be that hard to push an update out for a PIN requirement if you'd like to use it.

Also, I would have to agree that I see far more issues and accidents from distracted driving than DUIs. I am not in any way soft peddling the DUI issue, but on a daily basis I see idiots on the highway with their phone in the their hands on the steering wheel while cutting in and out of traffic.

 

[Jako]

Didn't Dodge already do something like this for the Hellcats?

Dodge Adding Security Code to Stop Charger, Challenger Thefts - Motor Illustrated

New key and pin tech offered to SRT Dodge buyers limits Charger and Challenger to idle rpm to discourage theft

www.google.com

I would love that to be an option on our vehicles. Can't be that hard to push an update out for a PIN requirement if you'd like to use it.

Also, I would have to agree that I see far more issues and accidents from distracted driving than DUIs. I am not in any way soft peddling the DUI issue, but on a daily basis I see idiots on the highway with their phone in the their hands on the steering wheel while cutting in and out of traffic.

According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drunk driving resulted in 10,142 deaths in 2019 in the United States. This is far more than the 3,142 deaths caused by distracted driving over the same period.
From

Drunk Driving vs. Distracted Driving: Which is More Prevalent, and Which is More Deadly?

Drunk driving and distracted driving both claim thousands of American lives each year. We looked at the data to find out which is more prevalent and which is more deadly. Learn more about these deadly habits and how to prevent the behavior.

www.aceable.com

How many "minor" fender benders or injuries but no fatalities? Still trying to figure out how some smoke, drink coffee and talk on the phone at the same time.

 

[Shots]

This is all a bunch of panic over nothing. For starters, legislation may have pass on some random pipe dream, but seeing that to fruition is a whole other thing. Stuff gets passed all the time that never sees the light of day, and this could easily be one of them.

To answer the question though. If it's truly a "monitoring system" that is checking the driver's BAC? Then no our trucks can't do that and it wouldn't be possible without physically installing the systems to check your breath. If you're talking about the ability to remotely kill the truck? Then yes they could technically do that now. If they can start it, they can kill it. It may take a slight code change/update but UConnect will allow you to remotely start it so I don't doubt they could push an update over the air to enable a kill feature.

As for police or other government entities killing your car remotely. That's a long way off, if it ever happens at all. Probably not in my lifetime. The biggest hurdle I see is the actual application of it. The officer/agent would have to know your exact system access to kill it. You couldn't do a "beam" as someone mentioned because you'd kill other vehicles in the area. Not only that but a beam would be so easy for nefarious people to duplicate and randomly shut down whatever car/truck they want to. Talk about easy car jackings. Just wait for the car you like to drive up, kill it, and walk up and take it. You wouldn't even have to be at an intersection or parking lot. Just a random road somewhere. With a risk like that, there would immediately be aftermarket options to block the beam. In which case the govt. beam would be useless too.
So long story short, it would have to be shut down very specifically (like UConnect) and an officer/agent wouldn't have access to that fast enough to be practical.

I think a lot of people over estimate the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the government. Anyone in the military or those who work for State/Federal government knows that the people at the top have no idea how boots on the ground work. They can say they want something done but it rarely goes as they planned, and never as quickly as they want it to.

 

[JimKIII]

This is all a bunch of panic over nothing. For starters, legislation may have pass on some random pipe dream, but seeing that to fruition is a whole other thing. Stuff gets passed all the time that never sees the light of day, and this could easily be one of them.

To answer the question though. If it's truly a "monitoring system" that is checking the driver's BAC? Then no our trucks can't do that and it wouldn't be possible without physically installing the systems to check your breath. If you're talking about the ability to remotely kill the truck? Then yes they could technically do that now. If they can start it, they can kill it. It may take a slight code change/update but UConnect will allow you to remotely start it so I don't doubt they could push an update over the air to enable a kill feature.

As for police or other government entities killing your car remotely. That's a long way off, if it ever happens at all. Probably not in my lifetime. The biggest hurdle I see is the actual application of it. The officer/agent would have to know your exact system access to kill it. You couldn't do a "beam" as someone mentioned because you'd kill other vehicles in the area. Not only that but a beam would be so easy for nefarious people to duplicate and randomly shut down whatever car/truck they want to. Talk about easy car jackings. Just wait for the car you like to drive up, kill it, and walk up and take it. You wouldn't even have to be at an intersection or parking lot. Just a random road somewhere. With a risk like that, there would immediately be aftermarket options to block the beam. In which case the govt. beam would be useless too.
So long story short, it would have to be shut down very specifically (like UConnect) and an officer/agent wouldn't have access to that fast enough to be practical.

I think a lot of people over estimate the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the government. Anyone in the military or those who work for State/Federal government knows that the people at the top have no idea how boots on the ground work. They can say they want something done but it rarely goes as they planned, and never as quickly as they want it to.

"If they can start it, they can kill it. It may take a slight code change/update but UConnect will allow you to remotely start it so I don't doubt they could push an update over the air to enable a kill feature."

Which begs the question, can over-the-air UConnect updates be disabled or optioned like on Windows?, such as:

a.) Check for and install code updates automatically.
b.) Check for code updates automatically but don't install - install manually.
c.) Manually check for code updates.

If b or c is an option than one can read what the updates involve (is that possible to find out what is in the code updates?) and decided whether or not to install one that may include the ability to disable or severally degrade the vehicle.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Now you bastards got me paranoid.... I'm trading this thing in and getting a 1965 Powerwagon. Shut that down with your smartphone! Protecting me and my dog with alien technology too!

 

[JimKIII]

Now you bastards got me paranoid.... I'm trading this thing in and getting a 1965 Powerwagon. Shut that down with your smartphone! Protecting me and my dog with alien technology too!
View attachment 113029
View attachment 113033

Ha ha! Tinfoil hats may actually soon have their place in the world. But of course one would need a full-body tinfoil wrap to actually guard against the dreaded frequencies. A town full of tinfoil wrapped civilians may be the only truly free people left in 20 years. Great truck!!

 

[c3k]

I've seen a lot of kill switch installs. Most, on manuals, have a switch hidden under the shift boot so it's invisible but can be flipped as needed. The usual install is just an interrupt to the fuel boost pump, as far as the ones I've seen.

^^^
In case anyone wants an old-school install.

 

[Shots]

"If they can start it, they can kill it. It may take a slight code change/update but UConnect will allow you to remotely start it so I don't doubt they could push an update over the air to enable a kill feature."

Which begs the question, can over-the-air UConnect updates be disabled or optioned like on Windows?, such as:

a.) Check for and install code updates automatically.
b.) Check for code updates automatically but don't install - install manually.
c.) Manually check for code updates.

If b or c is an option than one can read what the updates involve (is that possible to find out what is in the code updates?) and decided whether or not to install one that may include the ability to disable or severally degrade the vehicle.

Yeah I suppose it would be easy enough to prevent automatic updates. All you'd have to do is block/interrupt the incoming signal. I don't know what effect that would have on other features though since I don't know how they're sending/receiving information.
I assume it's a cellular style signal, but I don't actually know. I also don't know if it's independent of other functions such as radio, gps, UConnect or any others that I'm not thinking of. I would imagine it's part of the UConnect signal, so if you disconnect whatever antenna is responsible for that signal you should effectively eliminate over the air updates, but you'd also disable the UConnect features.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

^^^ Antenna, more tinfoil needed.