[jpnh]

Originally Posted by wtfbrah

So I guess you could say that these individuals influence a collection of other people?

Not really

Individuals make decisions in part based on observations around them (concious and unconcious).

EVERYTHING is predicated upon individuals making decisions/choices

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Dylan86

Should I still buy an iPhone 7? My privacy, though...

We were probably all doomed from the first time we ever "agreed" to the terms and conditions from Apple, of which most never read or took the time to understand. I am one of those people who always press "agree" and never look back. If you don't, you can't play.

#victimsofourowncircumstances

Its not as if there are not other options....including going back to a flip phone or going the route of blackphone if privacy is a concern

[wtfbrah]

Originally Posted by jpnh

Not really

Individuals make decisions in part based on observations around them (concious and unconcious).

EVERYTHING is predicated upon individuals making decisions/choices

Right, so in the end, it still has to be a collective effort.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by wtfbrah

Right, so in the end, it still has to be a collective effort.

You know the drill....progressives will always try to come up with some reason/NEED to assert control over individuals......"Do it for the children"

Leave people alone......there would be a lot fewer problems EVERYWHERE of people were to just leave each other alone and stop trying to force them into doing something other that whats in their own best interests

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by jpnh

You know the drill....progressives will always try to come up with some reason/NEED to assert control over individuals......"Do it for the children"

Leave people alone......there would be a lot fewer problems EVERYWHERE of people were to just leave each other alone and stop trying to force them into doing something other that whats in their own best interests

This rhetoric describes one of three types of people:
1). An anarchist
2). A libertarian
3). A hermit

"Leave people alone" ... dude, if it wasn't for other people acting for the collective good, we'd still be lower than monkeys. In fact, the most advanced animal genii other than ourselves -- monkeys and dolphins -- are all socially minded and act constantly to favor the good of the collective over the individual.

I'm not going to participate in this discussion beyond this because clearly this has devolved into a debate on philosophy and individualism instead of our cars. Not going there. Believe what you will. It goes against nature.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

This rhetoric describes one of three types of people:
1). An anarchist
2). A libertarian
3). A hermit

"Leave people alone" ... dude, if it wasn't for other people acting for the collective good, we'd still be lower than monkeys. In fact, the most advanced animal genii other than ourselves -- monkeys and dolphins -- are all socially minded and act constantly to favor the good of the collective over the individual.

I'm not going to participate in this discussion beyond this because clearly this has devolved into a debate on philosophy and individualism instead of our cars. Not going there. Believe what you will. It goes against nature.

Dude...we're not bees

There is no collective

Individuals perform actions for themselves

People invent/develop/create solutions for themselves to better there own lives directly or indirectly (selling a product/service or creating a tool to solve an issue)

Any way you slice it the least common denominator is the indivudual

Other individuals readily adopt "Good Ideas" but again its back to individuals making decisions for themselves

As individuals we also make choices to help out friends/family others but again....it all boils down to individuals making decisions

This collective crap is nothing more than leftist utopian fantasy

[Dylan86]

Social media has everyone convinced of their own convictions, seriously, it's a rising concern of mine (to some degree, for my friends and family). The further I get away from Facebook, CNN, World News, the happier I am. I wonder why? Better yet, I moved across the country to find peace, and nature. Now, the bear poop here is my first world problem lol

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Dylan86

Social media has everyone convinced of their own convictions, seriously, it's a rising concern of mine (to some degree, for my friends and family). The further I get away from Facebook, CNN, World News, the happier I am. I wonder why? Better yet, I moved across the country to find peace, and nature. Now, the bear poop here is my first world problem lol

my current first world problem is too many coyotes......simple problem with a simple solution

[Dylan86]

Originally Posted by jpnh

my current first world problem is too many coyotes......simple problem with a simple solution

Absolutely, lol

[wtfbrah]

Originally Posted by Dylan86

Social media has everyone convinced of their own convictions, seriously, it's a rising concern of mine (to some degree, for my friends and family). The further I get away from Facebook, CNN, World News, the happier I am. I wonder why? Better yet, I moved across the country to find peace, and nature. Now, the bear poop here is my first world problem lol

Since we've officially derailed the shit out of this thread, I have to agree here. Social media is the worst. It has the liberals convinced of their safe-space agenda, and it's all fueled by what is essentially propaganda - making emotional arguments instead of logical ones. When you post your status about how offended you are that some guy catcalled you, and you get 27 likes and 12 comments, your ideas are now solidified in your head. Nevermind the fact that the people who think you're an idiot, simply ignored your status.


But back to the topic of the thread, I think an interesting question is - given the current security flaws of a connected car, do the risks outweigh the benefits? Example - BMW's driver's assistance plus package could very well save your life (or someone else's) by braking when you weren't paying attention. What's more likely - that the connected CPU saves your ass, or that someone hacks your car and assassinates you? I'd lean towards the former

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by wtfbrah

Since we've officially derailed the shit out of this thread, I have to agree here. Social media is the worst. It has the liberals convinced of their safe-space agenda, and it's all fueled by what is essentially propaganda - making emotional arguments instead of logical ones. When you post your status about how offended you are that some guy catcalled you, and you get 27 likes and 12 comments, your ideas are now solidified in your head. Nevermind the fact that the people who think you're an idiot, simply ignored your status.


But back to the topic of the thread, I think an interesting question is - given the current security flaws of a connected car, do the risks outweigh the benefits? Example - BMW's driver's assistance plus package could very well save your life (or someone else's) by braking when you weren't paying attention. What's more likely - that the connected CPU saves your ass, or that someone hacks your car and assassinates you? I'd lean towards the former

I suppose you need to ask yourself how many people you've run over this year eh?

I personally am not prone to flattening live/dead objects with a motor vehicle with the singular exception of a skunk that INSISTED on crossing the road at the WORST time with a car coming AT me and a guard rail on the opposite side.......I managed to swerve far enough to get the front wheels around him and he hurled himself under my LR wheel and blew his stank all over the wheel well as he was run over.......

Seriously though.....I've driven over 400k miles in the last 10 years and have no use for expensive nannies and connected vehicles....if I need connectivity I'll use a phone

[wtfbrah]

Originally Posted by jpnh

I suppose you need to ask yourself how many people you've run over this year eh?

I personally am not prone to flattening live/dead objects with a motor vehicle with the singular exception of a skunk that INSISTED on crossing the road at the WORST time with a car coming AT me and a guard rail on the opposite side.......I managed to swerve far enough to get the front wheels around him and he hurled himself under my LR wheel and blew his stank all over the wheel well as he was run over.......

Seriously though.....I've driven over 400k miles in the last 10 years and have no use for expensive nannies and connected vehicles....if I need connectivity I'll use a phone

are you being serious right now, you could use the exact same argument and say "ask yourself how many times youve been the target of an assassination in the past year eh? personally i am not prone to assassinations"

point is - you have to balance the safety net of a connected car with the risks. i would personally lean more towards having drivers assistance, because despite my clean driving record without even a ticket, i find it much more likely that i have a lapse in attention, than, say, a car hacking in an attempt to murder me.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by wtfbrah

are you being serious right now, you could use the exact same argument and say "ask yourself how many times youve been the target of an assassination in the past year eh? personally i am not prone to assassinations"

point is - you have to balance the safety net of a connected car with the risks. i would personally lean more towards having drivers assistance, because despite my clean driving record without even a ticket, i find it much more likely that i have a lapse in attention, than, say, a car hacking in an attempt to murder me.

I actually am being serious

In no small part because most of these features are being forced on people and increasing the cost of vehicles

It would be quite a different story if these were optional features.....but they are not....they are being forced on people

Some people may gripe "well...you can afford it if you're looking at a BMW" but thats now how it works......this garbage is being forced on ALL vehicles across the range

Why dont you ask someone struggling to put food on the table and pay to get their kids to the dr when they are sick that they have to instead pay an extra $500-1000 dollars for some nanny to be built into their car.....or how about those of us that live in states where we get a pile of snow having to spend an extra 250 bucks on a second set of wheels so we can have TPMS sensors installed

Backup camera's are on the verge of being mandated by law

Next will come avoidance systems and soon after than will be auto pilot and a breathalizer/drug tester

And that 20k car will now be 27k and you will have to make the choice between putting food on the table for the family and paying for wheels so you can get to work

Its all a pile of bullshit

If you're so incompetent that you cant pay attention while you're driving then you shouldnt be driving period

SOMEHOW the overwhelming majority of us have managed to drive many hundreds of thousands and in some cases MILLIONS of miles without a blip....but someone this bullschtein is going to be forced on us for our own good.....and you'll pay for it AND like it

[wtfbrah]

Okay bud you're clearly pretty worked up here, but the point was that the safety features being added to cars nowadays DO provide life-saving technology and you have to weigh that up.

Not sure what you're on about talking about poverty, these features are optional and nobody is being forced to buy a fully optioned BMW.

You've lost the plot - to imply that you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you may ever make a mistake, is ludicrous. Humans aren't perfect. You can be a perfect driver 100% of the time but if some jackass pops out of a shadow and cuts you off, you may not have much time to react. Thats why there are safety features, like seat belts and air bags. You sound confident in your ability to never make a mistake, you willing to drive without seat belts and air bags?

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by wtfbrah

Okay bud you're clearly pretty worked up here, but the point was that the safety features being added to cars nowadays DO provide life-saving technology and you have to weigh that up.

Not sure what you're on about talking about poverty, these features are optional and nobody is being forced to buy a fully optioned BMW.

You've lost the plot - to imply that you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you may ever make a mistake, is ludicrous. Humans aren't perfect. You can be a perfect driver 100% of the time but if some jackass pops out of a shadow and cuts you off, you may not have much time to react. Thats why there are safety features, like seat belts and air bags. You sound confident in your ability to never make a mistake, you willing to drive without seat belts and air bags?

Thats the thing.....they are NOT optional

Go find a car in the US that doesnt have air bags, TPMS and a raft of other crap on it that inflates the price by 10-20% to the consumer

How many cars go through their entire life without being in an accident let alone having an airbag deploy?

Maybe this will better illustrate my point



This is number of fatalities per billions of miles driven

Whats happened to the graph since 1990?

Almost NOTHING

And yet since 1990 we've had a crap ton of costly "Safety" equipment shoved down our throats

We've long past the point of diminishing returns

If you need nannies then feel free to add them to the cost of your vehicle,,,,,,but these need to be OPTIONAL

[RoundelM3]

On the subject of the title of this thread...and having worked in the IT industry for 44 years, with the last 12 dedicated to what is now known as "cybersecurity", I am extremely leery of anything "connected". I don't use "the cloud" (also known as "somebody else's computer"), and I don't own a smartphone. I never connect to an unsecure network, contrary to how Microsoft thinks you should connect to any network your "friends" connect to, and I suspect Apple thinks the same way. People have become co-dependent on their phones and being "connected" to the point of being incapable of thinking on their own. Not everyone, mind you, but more than you realize. I have acquaintances who won't even answer a phone call - they insist on using text messaging. How pathetic is that?

Any secured system, no matter how complex the security scheme, has one huge vulnerability - the person or persons who created it will always know how to defeat it. And there are lots of other people equally as clever who can figure out a way to defeat it as well. When you throw in "autonomous" cars that will doubtless have to be connected to one another in some fashion, imagine what hacking into that network and shutting it off could prroduce. Think of the redundancy required to prevent a chaotic loss of service, which is not at all linked to a perpetrator, but just good ol' mean-time-between-failures logic.

Food for thought, my friends. Those of you who remember Orwell's "1984" and "Big Brother" should think about how every time we connect to a website, that information is used to send focused advertising our way (unless you use an ad-blocker like I do). There's a trail of where we've been and what we've done (unless you know how to shut that off, but most people don't). So ol' George was eerily prescient after all...

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by roundel335

On the subject of the title of this thread...and having worked in the IT industry for 44 years, with the last 12 dedicated to what is now known as "cybersecurity", I am extremely leery of anything "connected". I don't use "the cloud" (also known as "somebody else's computer"), and I don't own a smartphone. I never connect to an unsecure network, contrary to how Microsoft thinks you should connect to any network your "friends" connect to, and I suspect Apple thinks the same way. People have become co-dependent on their phones and being "connected" to the point of being incapable of thinking on their own. Not everyone, mind you, but more than you realize. I have acquaintances who won't even answer a phone call - they insist on using text messaging. How pathetic is that?

Any secured system, no matter how complex the security scheme, has one huge vulnerability - the person or persons who created it will always know how to defeat it. And there are lots of other people equally as clever who can figure out a way to defeat it as well. When you throw in "autonomous" cars that will doubtless have to be connected to one another in some fashion, imagine what hacking into that network and shutting it off could prroduce. Think of the redundancy required to prevent a chaotic loss of service, which is not at all linked to a perpetrator, but just good ol' mean-time-between-failures logic.

Food for thought, my friends. Those of you who remember Orwell's "1984" and "Big Brother" should think about how every time we connect to a website, that information is used to send focused advertising our way (unless you use an ad-blocker like I do). There's a trail of where we've been and what we've done (unless you know how to shut that off, but most people don't). So ol' George was eerily prescient after all...

(Good gawd. I've gotta dive in again ... )

That's because Mr. Orwell understood how societies and cults of personality work. And collectives. And masses that act as so-called 'amoebas' (this has been the case throughout human history). And survivalism. And the fundamental dichotomies that exist between three basic tendencies of sentient beings -- the exploration of which is the primary reason he wrote 1984:
- To survive, with a minimum of energy expended
- To advance himself and those like him
- To think and act freely

These three things are dependent on each other. But for those who focus on the third tenet: it's listed last for a reason -- because the first two are necessary for the third to even be a possibility on an individual or small-scale level.

Connectivity is only going to increase. The world is only going to get smaller. Our cars are only going to become 'easier' to use. And security is as big a part of all of this as it's ever been -- it's just that the idea of what security is is morphing as quickly as the world shrinks because of technology and its role in post-Industrial societal advancement.

As for the graph above ... the poster plainly has only a rudimentary understanding of statistics, as well as cause and effect. Let's turn the poster's point around: to get a car capable of 180mph to be able to go 5mph faster, horsepower must be increased several times more than what is necessary to get a car capable of 120mph to go 5mph faster. Does that mean automakers give up on it because it's not worth it? No ... and in the case of safety equipment, lives are lives.

E Pluribus Unum. Look up what that translates to. It refers to a collective. As does the word "United". Man, selfishness pisses me off.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

(Good gawd. I've gotta dive in again ... )

That's because Mr. Orwell understood how societies and cults of personality work. And collectives. And masses that act as so-called 'amoebas' (this has been the case throughout human history). And survivalism. And the fundamental dichotomies that exist between three basic tendencies of sentient beings -- the exploration of which is the primary reason he wrote 1984:
- To survive, with a minimum of energy expended
- To advance himself and those like him
- To think and act freely

These three things are dependent on each other. But for those who focus on the third tenet: it's listed last for a reason -- because the first two are necessary for the third to even be a possibility on an individual or small-scale level.

Certainly valid topics for discussion

If a person has to work 4 of 12 months of the year EXCLUSIVELY to satisfy the never ending lust of the bureaucracy to spend your money in increasingly perverse ways how exactly does that fit in with the first item

http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax...-2016-april-24

Clearly it doesnt

And while "Connectivity" implemented in a sane manner can enhance/improve life (ie its a better tool than sitting in your library for example) it also very easily turns into a slave master when implemented poorly

When the tool controls the tool user then you are a slave not a free individual

Consider how close we are to that tipping point for a minute.

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Connectivity is only going to increase. The world is only going to get smaller. Our cars are only going to become 'easier' to use. And security is as big a part of all of this as it's ever been -- it's just that the idea of what security is is morphing as quickly as the world shrinks because of technology and its role in post-Industrial societal advancement.

The point you continue to ignore is whether or not connectivity is a choice or whether its forced on people

The former is freedom, the latter is nothing less than tyranny

Originally Posted by Viffermike

As for the graph above ... the poster plainly has only a rudimentary understanding of statistics, as well as cause and effect. Let's turn the poster's point around: to get a car capable of 180mph to be able to go 5mph faster, horsepower must be increased several times more than what is necessary to get a car capable of 120mph to go 5mph faster. Does that mean automakers give up on it because it's not worth it? No ... and in the case of safety equipment, lives are lives.

E Pluribus Unum. Look up what that translates to. It refers to a collective. As does the word "United". Man, selfishness pisses me off.

Again.....there's a point of diminishing returns which we've long ago passed

The collectivists out there crack me up.....you're typically the first ones to rail against religion and the way it influenced/coerced people/societies in past

But you're the first ones generally speaking to replace religion with the same force/coersion in the form of government

Force=Tyranny

Choice=Freedom

And for the record once again....Security with regard to the connected car is barely an after thought

The vulnerabilities that have been discovered so far are ones that any security concious individual present in the design stage would have caught riight off the bat

[krhodes1]

Originally Posted by jpnh

the point however is that neither should exist and both are easily/cheaply avoided

Do you put the shittiest lockset on your house, leave it unlocked while not home or worse yet leave a key IN the front door as a matter of practice?

Of course not

What care manufacturers have done is to make it possible for folks to purchase a 30 dollar electronic tool kit that gives them a master lock to all BMW, VW's etc etc etc

My house had no keys for the first 8 years I lived in it. It only has keys now because I changed all the door knobs for keyed alike door handles. It still almost never gets locked. A thief is going to get in regardless, unless you live in a steel shipping container or something. Every door in my house has an easy to break glass window right next to it. So if the door is locked, I will have to replace a door or a window too. I have the best security system known to man - nosy old lady neighbors! NOTHING gets past those old bitties.

If there is a huge rash of BMW thefts and insurance rates go up, then I will worry about it. Not holding my breath. This isn't Europe where cars easily disappear to the East never to be seen again. The cars that are stolen in the US are the most popular cars, stolen to be parted out. There is not enough demand for BMW parts for it to be much of a problem.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by krhodes1

My house had no keys for the first 8 years I lived in it. It only has keys now because I changed all the door knobs for keyed alike door handles. It still almost never gets locked. A thief is going to get in regardless, unless you live in a steel shipping container or something. Every door in my house has an easy to break glass window right next to it. So if the door is locked, I will have to replace a door or a window too. I have the best security system known to man - nosy old lady neighbors! NOTHING gets past those old bitties.

If there is a huge rash of BMW thefts and insurance rates go up, then I will worry about it. Not holding my breath. This isn't Europe where cars easily disappear to the East never to be seen again. The cars that are stolen in the US are the most popular cars, stolen to be parted out. There is not enough demand for BMW parts for it to be much of a problem.

I totally agree with you on the efficacy of the "Old Bitty Security System"

But looking at the crime rates in the town listed in your profile I'd say your just lucky

But if you're not interested in security systems and are not going to lock your car just like you dont lock the house then why would you want to spend all the extra money for the connected car "features"?

[krhodes1]

Originally Posted by jpnh

I totally agree with you on the efficacy of the "Old Bitty Security System"

But looking at the crime rates in the town listed in your profile I'd say your just lucky

But if you're not interested in security systems and are not going to lock your car just like you dont lock the house then why would you want to spend all the extra money for the connected car "features"?

What do the connected car features have to do with security really? I'm not paying for any of the BMW Assist subscriptions. I like having the car Internet connected for POI search and such, very convenient. I like the iDrive NAV setup. If I could have bought it with no screen and the stereo setup in my '11 328i, I would have though. But I still want comfort access and keyless start.

Westbrook, Maine covers a large area, and there are a couple of parts of town were I simply would not live at all. No issues in my neighborhood, and I have lived here for 15 years. If a thief wants your stuff, a lock is going to slow them down for all of about 15 seconds. And FOR SURE, the local meth heads that do commit crimes here are not going to be doing highly technical attacks on BMWs. If they want to steal a car there are plenty of old Hondas you can steal with a screwdriver. I'm pretty sure I could hotwire my '95 LR Discovery with my bare hands, but most of the crackheads probably can't drive a stick so I don't worry about that one much either.

I simply refuse to live life in a state of paranoia.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by krhodes1

What do the connected car features have to do with security really?

Depends on the feature dont you think?

If its connected to the internet then its just like any other endpoint on the internet with its own vulnerabilties depending on operating system, configuration and the user operating it

Even if there's no economic motivation there are a lot of scumbags out there that will wreck a device just because they can.

If "the door is locked" so to speak bad people will usually move onto something easier.....