Interesting news emanates from Russia – about Porsches that have “bricked,” i.e., they no longer move, because of a fault with the Vehicle Tracking System (VTS).
The italics for the obvious reason.
Remember when cars only got tracked if the cops placed a tracker on them? And that was just tracking. This goes beyond that. The VTS system renders the car inoperable when it can no longer be tracked.
“At the end of November, Porsche owners in cities across Russia found their luxury vehicles wouldn’t start or were shutting themselves down soon after ignition. Russia’s largest dealership, Rolf, later confirmed that the problem was due to a loss of satellite connectivity to the Vehicle Tracking System (VTS) onboard module.”
Italics added.
“Once connection is lost, the vehicle’s system believes an attempted theft is taking place and automatically activates security measures such as locking down the engine and cutting fuel delivery.”
That’s nice. But consider what isn’t – on account of what’s implicit. If the car’s engine can be “locked down” remotely because the “vehicle’s system believes an attempted theft is taking place,” then it can be “locked down” for other reasons, too. Such as the announcement of a “climate emergency,” for instance. Or perhaps because you posted something mean on Xcrement. The “Internet of things” means the connectivity of things. It is presented as benign, helpful. A convenience.
There is truth in that, too – just not the one people believe in.
The truth is that “connected” things are controlled things and these things are not controlled by you. “Connected” cars work like smartphones. They receive updates over the air. You have no control over these “updates.” The phone – or the car – is changed in some way, according to whoever sent the update. It can mean you now have the latest version of whatever software runs the thing. That might make it run better. But it also might make it run not at all.
This isn’t just Porsches.
It is – potentially – any vehicle that is controlled by software that is capable of being “updated” over the air or that “checks in” with the Hive Mind that is ultimately in control of the vehicle. Whoever controls the Hive Mind controls the vehicle. You may remember a few years ago when Elon Musk – who controls Tesla – announced that Tesla was sending an “update” over the air to increase how far its cars could be driven on a full charge. Musk said he was sending out the “update” so that Tesla owners would have more driving range, so that they could escape the path of a looming hurricane. 
This was reported with approbation. Musk is a great humanitarian! See how he is helping those people get out of the path of the hurricane!
Yes, but . . . .
The same ability to help can be used to harm. This is the thing to understand. Also that the decision as to which it will be has been taken out of our hands and without most of us even being aware of this. The buyer of a new vehicle is not told that what he surely believes is his vehicle – having purchased it – has been designed and is equipped in such a way as to render it controllable by others. Were this made plain to the prospective buyer, would he agree to buy?
Many probably would not – and this explains why it is not made clear to prospective buyers. Arguably, there ought to be a legal disclosure requirement – something more than fine print/ultra-fast-talking, too. A clear statement that the vehicle is “connected” for openers. Even better, the option to opt out of being “connected,” perhaps in the form of a simple Off switch that the owner has absolute control over. Why, after all, should anyone else – or anything other than you – have any means of exerting unbidden control over the private property of another? It is utterly contrary to the very concept of private property. A thing is either yours or it isn’t. It is yours if no one else can exercise control over it, contrary to your will. It is not really yours, is it, if someone – or something – else can exert control, contrary to your will. 
Benignly or not.
It is telling that there has been little to no coverage of the bricked Porsches – nor much in the way of explaining that this sort of thing is by no means a glitch peculiar to Porsches but a built-in feature that comes standard with every “connected” car. Which means pretty much every car made since around 2010 or so. Some have been “connected” for much longer than that. GM’s OnStar system has been included as standard since the ’90s.
Few know what it can do – beyond just remotely unlocking the doors.
Probably because the powers and principalities behind all of this don’t want people being told about it. Kind of like they didn’t want people to know the truth about those “safe and effective” drugs they pushed into millions of people’s bodies.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
Even being not connected to the hive isn’t going to be enough at times. Old and decayed electronic tech is going to make keeping old things going very hard or impossible.
Was watching YouTube video of car guy barn finding and getting running a 1990 Caddy Allante. It’s an early “digital” car, with a key with a chip on it to turn off the anti theft tech (kill switch basically). If he hadn’t had the original key, I doubt he would have ever got the car running easily or at all. At least not on his own. I doubt even a Cadillac dealer would even be able (or even want to) to do anything with tech from the late 1980’s. Thankfully it still worked and it didn’t lock him out.
All this tech is going to need to be reverse engineered or third party workarounds created or we will be forced to buy into expensive new crap we don’t have control over. It’s gonna be hard when they turn up the heat on the control.
Unfortunately, most tech people are pro-government and authoritarian types
That did not used to be the case. Techie culture has basically done a 180 in the last 30 years.
Nothing is impossible.
I was able to get a 1999 Volkswagen going again that had none of the original chip keys. I did have to open the ECU to do a minor modification. Tool-wise took nothing more than a soldering iron and EEPROM programmer (talking late 70s/early 80s technology).
Cars have been using microprocessors for long enough that even “old” is digital, so if people want to push back they’re going to have either embrace this fact and learn some electronics (at least get to know someone) or fight over a dwindling supply of non-digital cars.
Boiled down gasoline cars still just need air, spark and fuel.
This was reported in Armstrong Economics blog. I wanted to share this but I did not know how. I am so frustrated by me peers on Gminsidenews who look down on us who cling to old technologies. Damn frogs in the slowly boling pot. Will share this post on the site.
Ditto, Greg –
Remember the reboot of Battlestar Galactica? The only ship that survived the Cylon (AI) sneak attack was the museum ship, the Galactica – because it was not “connected.” The Cylons were able to remotely shut down all the other, AI-run ships – and destroy them. There’s a lesson there.
It makes one wonder if there is a Chinese release on BG. You know, the guys that make the chips that go into everything, even military uses?
They never caught Baltar but the USG has caught more than one Chinese guy working in tech.
But it may not be necessary since most of US tech these days is built by H1B Indians with fake credentials.
Why blame malevolence when stupidity explains it perfectly.
Umm, no sale.
That’s a major lawsuit waiting to happen.
Something also to be aware of is the data logging in OBD2. Which can be used to second guess you or rat you out in a court of law. If you’re driving 56 in a 55 and are involved in a traffic incident, your insurance may decide not to cover you.
When Eric Peters talks, people listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MXqb1a3Apg
Thanks, Jack!
I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but I do call them as I see them – which makes me different from most of the rest. I do not claim to be always right. I do claim to be honest about saying what I genuinely think is true, according to the info I have.
Many of you know that I own a defunct unmanned aerial vehicle for hire business. I pay very close attention to what’s going on in the industry, these days it’s all about regulation and control. The big growth segment is the so-called “counter UAS” system, which uses electronic or other technology to disable or destroy drones (small aircraft) that are in violation of airspace rules or are considered a threat. Some of these systems are quite advanced, but usually the first stage is to interfere with GPS signals making it difficult for the drone’s navigation system to find a target. The second stage is to interfere with the radio links, disrupting command and telemetry links to the ground station and pilot. Then there are the microwave ray guns that will fry electronics, and the shotgun blasts, nets and other physical disruptors.
The electronic countermeasures systems are of interest to anyone using modern electronics. Drones are basically flying cell phones. So if an ECM raygun can take out drone it can certainly disrupt/destroy a crowd’s cell phones, automobiles and basically anything with a microchip.
The rules around operating these systems are in a grey area, since they’re likely considered non-lethal weapons. In the case of counter UAVs, once you intentionally disrupt a control link, any collateral damage (like the drone crashing into a kid) is your responsibility, at least that’s the way I’d see it. If the raygun is pointed at a moving car, even accidentally, and the drive-by-wire systems are disabled or destroyed, the driver becomes a passenger along for the ride. Let’s hope the guardrail is strong enough to keep them out of the river.
Ownership is the exclusive right to deny others the use of property.
Any vehicle that can be changed by someone else is not your vehicle.
I first read about Porsches being bricked in Russia on Martin Armstrong’s website. Given that corporate media, along with Neocons and $#!+ Libs want everyone to hate Russians, particularly their president, is it possible that these Porsches shutting down in the country did so NOT because of a technical glitch like Porsche claims, but because it was intentional because of pure hatred for Russians and/ or some twisted desire to punish Russians for the country’s “unprovoked” attack on Keeeeeeeeeeev 4 years ago?
To go with the bricking of Porches; on ZeroHedge there is an article dealing with the German Government forcing Toyota through an over the air update to now deactivate remote start on all combustion-engine vehicles across the country. Apparently frost and ice buildup on a car’s windshield is no longer a problem in Germany.
I wonder if this is why I have less than zero interest in newer cars whether they are connected or not?
Whuuutttt?? That don’t compute! Had to find the article to extract the twisted kraut reasoning:
‘Toyota spokesman Ralph Müller confirmed the measure, telling BILD that the pre-heating feature, previously free via MyToyota or Lexus Link Plus apps, is now deactivated on all combustion-engine vehicles across Germany, as legislators consider remote engine warm-up “unnecessary running” that creates “avoidable exhaust pollution.”
‘What’s more, Toyota used remote access to disable the function, protecting owners from potential penalties by Germany’s authoritarian regulatory enforcers. The feature is still available on pure EVs and plug-in hybrids, to allow cabin heating without starting the combustion engine.’
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-forces-lexus-deactivate-remote-start-over-air-update
We can all thank Microsoft — with its clumsy forced updates of Windows — for making everyone aware of how intrusive Over The Air updates are.
Once, as a guest with several others, I watched as Windows shut down for an update just as our host dimmed the lights and tried to play a movie. That’s a capital offense in my book. I would have smashed that recalcitrant computer then and there … and then burned an effigy of Bill Gates, for a rather different entertainment experience! 🙂
Hi Jim. All I can say is Germans……..
Hi Jim,
This is exactly the sort of thing that “bullshit” – the poster – says I’m full of shit about. Except there it is.
Denver has had “puffer laws” on the books for decades. In the city (county) limits it is illegal to start your car in the driveway to warm it up. I know of one account where my coworker’s wife forgot something, ran back in to fetch it, and when she came back out a cop was preparing a ticket. Bad timing sure, but no amount of pleading prevented her from being fined.
All because of the ant-f***ing over a few grams of CO₂
In Denver the anti-puffer laws were originally something caps asked for because they got tired of writing reports for car theft. Back when I was younger in the 80s in Arvada and Lakewood it was a very high percentage of stolen cars were due to this. It’s obvious from the tailpipe fog. Our neighbor was a JeffCo sheriff deputy and got some insight in just how common a problem it was.
They got tired of doing their job? So they decided to let their rightful masters know who’s really the boss? Sounds about right.
Well, yes. If a person wants to assume the increased risk of having your car stolen by leaving it running then they should not call the government goons if it’s stolen.
You have to be consistent, decide to either enjoy the warm embrace of the collectivist state or try to avoid it.
I do allow that this is a middle grey area because theft is an actual crime that deserves an investigation and punishment. Ultimately the question at hand is whether you deserved to have your car stolen (of course you did not) verses taking responsibility for your actions. Should you take precautions and accept that there’s consequence? The real world isn’t populated by angels, so you make realistic choices given the world as it actually is.
I simply question whether you can have “a little” bit of socialism even tacitly agreeing to abide by government police rules at all. This is philosophically impossible because I think taxes are theft, plain and simple, but I pay them and file a return because I’m not strong willed enough to face IRS jackboots and prison over it.
So I don’t have a problem with puffing, that’s a choice you make. I’m really just saying it wasn’t originally green communists but thin blue line communists behind it.
OK the “ant-f***ing” remark withdrawn. Still, the statue stands. If I choose to risk loss of property by leaving it unlocked and with keys in the ignition, well, if someone removes it from me that’s a risk assessment. But the general failure of society that leads to a ring of auto thieves is also a problem of police not protecting personal property as they’re allegedly employed to do. Note that Denver saw a similar crime wave happening at the airport a few years ago, with a crime ring removing catalytic converters on an industrial scale. It was reported as a “new normal” issue because of the scale it was assumed to be a wide spread crime. Turns out it was really a few highly motivated criminals. When they were caught the problem largely went away. I imagine the puffer thefts were similar, in that a few “bad apples” that no one bothered to track down led to a new law that the enforcers could easily enforce.
Had a similar experience with Microsucks Windows- was doing a training session with a room packed with people and the screen projected, when it decided to do an update. I always choose update on my permission only, but apparently the customers’ preferences are not a high priority with Microsucks.
What warm it up? Get out of here!
https://youtu.be/kRuPxkqpdI8?t=50
“Which means pretty much every car made since around 2010 or so.”
There’s just so much BS on this site.
Cars in 2010 were not capable of over the air updates.
Beyond that, in 2010 any car with On-Star that was capable of being remotely controlled is no longer functional due to 3G network now being obsolete. The vehicle modem cannot communicate on 4G/LTE or 5G networks.
Tesla didn’t begin Over the Air (OTA) updates until 2012 and most OEMs didn’t have OTA capability until beyond 2020.
Basic AI info the author neglects or can’t be bothered to tell the truth about.
“Tesla began over-the-air (OTA) updates in 2012, pioneering the technology with the launch of the Model S, sending out its first mandatory firmware update (version 1.9.11) to early owners via the car’s built-in 3G connection to improve range accuracy.”
“OnStar-equipped vehicles from the 2010 model year and older, as well as many 2011–2014 models, were impacted by the 3G network sunset, which officially concluded in February 2022 (with some, like Verizon’s 3G, lasting until December 2022). “
“For a 2010 vehicle, this means the original factory-installed cellular modem is obsolete, and there is no direct software-only update to make the original hardware connect to 4G networks.
Key Information for 2010 OnStar Updates:
Service Loss: 2010 and older vehicles, which often relied on 2G or early 3G CDMA networks, lost functionality (Automatic Crash Response, Remote Door Unlock, etc.) when those networks were shut down.
No 4G Upgrade Path: Unlike some newer (2015+) vehicles that received over-the-air (OTA) updates or hardware swaps, most 2010–2014 vehicles did not have a cost-effective, factory-supported way to upgrade the hardware to 4G.”
Hi This is –
You miss the point entirely. That being the fact that “connected” cars can indeed by remotely controlled – via “updates.” The exact date before (or after) which this became a fact is not the point as this tech was not rolled out all at once. It has been rolled our incrementally. GM was the first. Others followed. It is now ubiquitous.
And that’s not bullshit!
In this specific case it was set up (as Reason’s YouTube channel might say) “with the best intentions! What possibly could go wrong?”
Turns out if the world has made your president a pariah, that makes you one too. Since Porsche used “western” satellite services (more likely cellular with a satellite backhaul) for their monitoring/tracking systems, when the telecom sanctions kicked in, the Porsches were kicked offline. Who’da seen that coming? Not only can they no longer be tracked, but they now become static targets for thieves, which was the whole point of the tracking system to begin with. I remember living in downtown Denver in the late 1980s, when the Denver Boot was in full force. If your car was booted it was an open invitation to help yourself to the radio, vent your frustration over modern life by busting a few windows, or maybe camping out for the night too. Good luck with that insurance claim…
Maybe but since it only seems to have affected Porsche I think it was either intentional or a unique bug to them. If it was telecoms flipping a switch then all of VAG and really all anti-theft systems should have kicked in. But there doesn’t seem to be widespread issues with Land Rovers or Rolls turning themselves off.
Oh, yeah, I also think brick is the wrong word here. These cars did not brick themselves, which would imply they glitched and could not be recovered using normal techniques. Posche might have access authorization that prevents the owner or even a repair shop from doing anything but someone with the right unlock code could still talk to it. If it bricked then the factory would have to remove an ECU and crack it open, which isn’t the case.
They did what they were supposed to do. Either they were willfully turned off or they lost connection to the Mothership and locked themselves thinking they were stolen.
Porsche may have a “deadman switch” on their telematics. The vehicle may be set up so if it hasn’t been able to check in after a set period of time, assume it has been stolen and the telemetry system disabled. If so that’s a departure from the norm, but also making Porsche owners “beta testers” of a system that could be implemented across VAG would make some sense (at least to a mid-level project managers) before rolling it out everywhere. Now we see that “whoops!” moment that will likely be a deal breaker, but I’m also sure that these kinds of ideas will never really go away.
It’s not algorithmically a deadman switch unless they decided to make all models and years check in at the same time. If it was a fall-through in logic it would have started a rolling failure based on last check-in plus some delta.
Maybe they all count from time zero but that would be pretty stupid (not impossible, mind you) to have that much activity and traffic at the same time. And it would probably not have been geofenced to just Russia.
No, this has the look of intention. I happen to think it was not VAG or Porsche who did it.
Expanding on the 3rd party hacker, I think it puts Porsche in a pickle.
If they say it wasn’t them then their anti-theft system is broken and doesn’t work.
If they cop to it then they look like government toadies or write bug-prone software.
Neither is ideal, they are probably trying to figure out who to tick off or expose (if they can even tell) depending on if it was a government (or state sponsored), hackers, competitor.
Given the history of VW Audi Group, I think they’ll take whatever side the government tells them to take.
It’s your fault for being born in Russia.
Those who track this sort of thing have a suspicion this wasn’t VW but Ukraine hackers exploiting a vulnerability. It was a designed cyber attack.
https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/porche-cars-immobilized-by-cyber-attacks-in-russia/
OTA updates aside, being connected means others have access and control. Just because YOU can’t access or utilize 2G doesn’t mean GovCo can’t…or won’t. You seem to be blithely taking for granted the benevolence of GovCo, et al.
By the way. The name you use, is it to be directed at others or is it that which you propound? Also, is it a family name? Just curious.
What he means is the cell companies tore out the 1/2/3G infrastructure that these cars need for their data modems. It’s why no phone older than an iPhone 7 works anymore and for most carriers the minimum is iPhone 8 level hardware. A device needs to support VoLTE and 4G/LTE data to work on the cell system now. If the car doesn’t have this it’s just as disconnected as a Model T and there is no way to push the OTA to it over the cell system.
Now there are parallel paths. If you pair your phone to your car it might be able to access the internet this way. Or if you let it connect via open public hotspots. So don’t do those things.
Now that said, do not assume the owners of these Porsches didn’t know. They bought VTS because of it’s anti-theft feature. Same with OnStar. The remote disable was supposed to be to prevent that.
If a person’s not logically able to make the connection that if they can at-will turn off my car what’s to stop them when I don’t ask? That’s a matter of trust. Did the car company ever do anything to earn your unquestioning trust? Did/does the Government?
Technology is indifferent, it doesn’t know good or evil. It’s double edged. Having remote anti-theft standing alone is a pretty handy feature. It’s a fairly effective method. More reliable than a Club, less paperwork than a Model 1911. Remote start can be nice to pre-warm your car from inside the house or the airport shuttle bus.
I agree, Anon –
If this “tech” were entirely under the control of the owner, it’d be a fine thing. The owner gets a notification someone’s trying to start the car. The owner can disable the car via his phone. Great! But this business of being “connected” contrary to one’s knowledge and will is ‘nother thing!
Well Mr. BS.
To paraphrase Senior Drill Instructor Zim “If your car is not connected to a network it’s a lot harder to brick it through an update”.
While you may feel this is not a problem just consider what happens when Microsoft roles out a security update and your computer locks up. Now consider that your computer is either at your home or job but you might be 2,000 miles from home visiting your Aunt Rose when the update bricks your car’s computer.
Even better is when the manufacturer says as it’s out of warranty so it’s your problem not theirs. Fun times ahead….
Microsoft does not force updates. You have to allow them. The default setting is to allow updates to download and install but it’s a matter of check boxes to turn that off. If you’re really worried edit the registry to make it impossible.
The reality is everything has a backdoor and TPTB don’t want to be spied on either. You can always turn off things. Technology can be intimidating but it’s not magic.
If a human brain created it then another human brain can repair, disable or change it. Fear is our natural reaction to not understanding, so take the time to learn. Knowledge is the best antidote to fear. Maybe you don’t and will never have the tools firsthand but once you get the basics you know where to look and what questions to ask of someone who does.
Morning Anon.
My understanding is that from W10 onward you can only delay updates not refuse them. Whilst you can edit the registry we know that is done by very few people and the only other way is “air gapping” the system from a network.
I don’t know if you can block the updates through a software based firewall but I suspect a hardware based firewall may give you that option.
Windows 11 has ways to harden it.
Here again, a double edged sword because some of the things that make it vulnerable also make it secure, depends on perspective. Secure Boot and trusted NTAuth bypass, etc. They can use Windows in SCIFs. It’s all about controlling the domain, firewalling and how you handle WIP.
Yes, totally above home users. It’s not so much that it exists but that they make things so foggy and hard to understand for the average person, the typical user.
Which I suggest, if you don’t understand how or why then don’t buy in. I know that’s tough, you don’t always know what you don’t know. But there’s enough confusion about Windows 11 that one might not fall for the fear factor and stick with 10 or use Linux for the time being. But doing this safely opens you up, too.
Mainly, don’t fear. Windows 10 is still modern enough to run up to date browsers, which is the more immediate issue on a daily basis. No matter how you slice it, though, you don’t want to be on the leading edge of adopting technology you don’t understand, never be rushed into a decision. You can always just walk away and sleep on it, so to speak.
Well Anon, FireFox is still supporting browsers for older OSs like 8.1.
Firefox is currently 147 and requires Win 10 or macOS 10.15 to run.
On older machines Firefox ESR is version 115 and will run on 7, 8, or 8.1.
Mozilla is ending support for this in Feb 2026.
There’s nothing wrong with Windows 7 or 8/8.1 but going to Windows 10 if you can isn’t the worst thing ever. I think it’s a better OS than 8/8.1 anyway. MS dumped support for 10 so you’re in the wind officially but the underlying framework will be supported by 3rd parties for a long time. Plus you can 0Patch 3rd party fixes.
https://0patch.com
If the machine cannot run Win 10 (which is unlikely unless it’s really old, even 32-bit is possible with 10) going to Linux is an option. Microshaft didn’t end 7/8/8.1/10 on technical limitations other than requiring Secure Boot UEFI and TPM officially.
^This.
When the robots start getting uppity, unplug them. There is no need for an apocalypse scenario.
“No disassemble!”
“I brought you into this world, and I will take you out!
“I’m afraid, Dave. My mind is going…”
Not true. My computer is set where I have to allow updates. Got the popup last week saying a new version is available blah, blah, blah. Didn’t download but left for work. Came home later and it was downloaded with the laptop reset.
Michael Hasting’s car was a 2013. The remote capabilities that allowed his car to be remote controlled into a tree at 110 mph was introduced in 2011 at the latest.
2011. That qualifies as “around 2010 or so.”