I had “bait” the story a bit and an emotion symbol would have given it away. But I don’t think the Rutgers study has had holes poked in it a bit. The conclusions of Rutgers still stands.There is truth in what they conclude.My story was not intended as a bit of humor for others, only for me.
I dissected what they concluded on the previous page. You never responded to it. Yes, they’re right in that it’s technically possible to track a TMPS sensor, but in order to do it you either have to embed transceivers in the roadway (and therefore every road in the country to guarantee tracking) at the cost of billions, or you have to attach a signal booster to the car to get the TPMS signal to your receiver. And as long as you’re attaching crap to the car, you don’t need to track the TPMS, because you can just track the device you attached to the car.
In short: Sure, it’s technically feasible, but no one’s going to do it. Ever. It’s technically feasible to replace the car’s wheels with articulated leg-pods, but you won’t see anyone driving around in a walking car either, for the same reason. Even though it’s technically feasible, you get better results from easier plans.
I am not a Rutgers “fanboy” I am only reporting on their conclusions, you are free to have your conclusuons (but until it is “shadofax University”) I will go with Rutgers.
When I initally read the story I thought “perfect, a University study that is related to the automobile that I can use for my own purpose”. That purpose was to have a bit of a laugh at how easy it is for people to attack the messenger (in this case me). I knew if the story had my “byline” on it it was sure that most responses would be directed towards me (which is why I left off all sources and a disclaimer, I don’t need to write disclaimers so as not to be bashed), and then to just make sure the thing went “bang” added the “write your congressman” it worked.
I’m quite confused as to your goal here. You made a seemingly outrageous statement that sounded like it came from a conspiracy-nut website, and now you tell us you did it that way on purpose. I personally don’t understand why you’d set out to see if you could get people to think you were an idiot, especially when those of us who post here regularly know you’re not.
As for “Shadowfax University,” if Rutgers’ conclusions are really that we’re all in grave danger of being targeted by bad guys because we have tire pressure monitors, perhaps I should start one, because apparently the established universities are full of morons.
As I have said, Rutgers is correct in that it CAN be done. Anyone saying it therefore WILL be done is drawing false and unsupportable conclusions. Anyone saying that because it CAN be done to TPMS, we are in more danger than we were before is either, erm, “special,” or is fearmongering.
Or, apparently in your case, for some reason thinks it’s funny to make people think he’s nuts.
I never drew the conclusion from the story that Rutgers said we were all in “grave danger” and I am the one that read the story. Where did the “grave danger” conclusion come from? a bit of artistic license here. As I remember correctly it was the story writer that explained a motive to “spoofing” the TPMS. Certainly there are better methods to “get to someone” but so many people (and as expected), jumped up on the “wingnut” aspect of me realating this information. It was so easy to bash first (also as expected) and not ask “do you really think people are following you and trying to get to you this way”?
Rutgers never went as far to say it will be done either, merely stated it can be done.
I have emailed the story writer asking that he join our little discussion, do I think this is very likely (there I go providing a disclaimer), no.
So I see you are trying too make two points, It was justified to bash me (and this is never correct to do to anyone), but you guys merely took the bait AND Rutgers is all wet. I would think Rutgers would stand behind there conclusion, I have no way of knowing.
"Not only can you be tracked but the systems can be “spoofed” (a signal is sent causing the monitor to falsely report a tire is low, causing the driver to stop and now be in danger). "
“Perhaps a report to your Congressman is in order.”
No, he's not wrong at all. Well, except for it being a problem with "my" car. My 2000 Regal just compares tire rolling rate, if one is rolling faster, it's diameter is smaller and it's low. No radios and crap involved 8-).
Spoofing TPMS is easily possible, there's no crypto involved, just some ID numbers, no key exchange, no encryption, it's all transmitted in the clear. The chances of anyone bothering is low, because they would have to read out the codes off the tire pressure monitors and spoof them.
Tracking? Yes, the power of the TPMS is low but not THAT low. A roadside detector can easily pick up TPMS signals. I don't see why you all are joking about this, I mean, if someone said there'd be automated number plate readers, unmanned radio controlled drones, and so on like 20 years ago they'd probably be viewed as a real nutter. Luckily this junk's not common here, but it sure is in Great Britain.
Again, though, someone must already know the codes for your particular TPMSes, and go to the trouble of reading the sensors instead of just reading license plates or whatever. I have heard that one of the REAL impetuses behind the TPMS was actually for vehicle tracking though (with the safety aspect just there to make it sound reasonable instead of "we're putting a tracking device in your cars!") This was before automated number plate reading made that an easier technology for anyone who wants to go all 1984 on their citizens.Bladecutter, tire pressure monitoring[ valve stem type]sensor can be replaced by after market units. How are these coded to the system?
Did I misunderstand you?
Or is this intended consequences of technology?
It’s time for my insurance renewal, and as always I called the Other Company to see what they’d offer this year. This is a very useful thing to do once in a while; in my experience, whatever insurer you go with will quietly jack up your premiums over time. Calling the others once in a while keeps everybody honest.
Well, this year Progressive offered me something new. They want to PUT AN ACCELEROMETER in my car. They’ll maybe lower their premium, some unspecified time later, if it say’s I’m a good driver.
I declined. Their quote was almost twice Geico’s anyway, unless I accepted the accelerometer and then hoped they’d do better after they have a record of my driving. Besides, personally I’m vaguely queasy about having a remote tracking device on my vehicle.
Does anyone else have an opinion?
Sounds like pure BS to me. While I assume that the technology exists to track the frequency of ANY given electronic emission source I doubt it’s possible to cull out one given signal from millions of identical signals. And furthner, unless the auto manufacturer keeps a list of the frequency of the tire pressure monitor for each vehicle then how is Big Brother going to be able to link the frequency to the vehicle owner?
I knew that posting this story, even though it comes from a credible source (and dealt with automobiles) would cause people to look at the poster and not the actual story.
You keep saying it comes from a credible source, but you choose not to prove it.
It seems to me you have admitted to engaging in troll-like behavior. Thanks a lot for wasting everyone’s time.
Bladecutter, please let us know when you get a copy. I doubt you will.
I don't see this as a valid test. The TPMS receiver in the cars is going to be necessarily small, whereas somebody going all 1984 and tracking car locations would only have to fit it in a van or road sign or whatever. It's like any other RF, a bigger antenna will increase the range. (This is for sake of argument. I think anyone who tried this would use number plate reader cameras*.) And for spoofing, the transmit power would not be limited to whatever fraction of a milliwatt an on-tire sensor can manage.
*These number plate reader cameras should also be eliminated. There’s too many cases of these being abused (yellow lights set below state or federal minimum length, improperly marked speed limits that are lower than they should be for that type of road, some that are demonstrably miscalibrated, and so on) and problems that arise from the camera’s lack of information that actual police policing the intersection wouldn’t have problems with. In particular, cameras ticketing people making legal right turns on red, and ticketing people that go into the intersection because there’s a fire truck or ambulance behind them.
Thinking about it, and looking back, a BIG unintended consequence of technology in the car is that the driver has become so detached from the actual driving experience. Stuff like radar controlled cruise control, self parking, navigation systems, cell phones all serve as some kind of distraction or detachment for the driver that they forget they need to use the steering wheel and DRIVE instead.
I’m pretty sure that somewhere, the government spook who’s job it is to track my every move, is being bored to tears.
The two rules for conspiracy theorists:
- “They” are not as competent as you think they are.
- You are not as important as you think you are.
It is my observation that delusions of grandeur and paranoia go hand in hand. After all, in order to believe that they are out to get you, you must first believe that you are important enough to be dangerous.
That just increase my field reception and just expanded my thoughts about tracking devices in our car each time u take it in for service at the dealer, they hook up ur car to their system to suck up all data stored generated by u driving the car and what it did and did not - real time. Similar to the black box, it can help u or incriminate u if u screwed up - crashed! For all we know, it records our driving habits for their own use in designing marketable new cars. We’ve just been hack - Sleek eh!
Listen, a tire pressure monitor system is going to be a pretty short range transmitter. That transmission has to be picked up by the on board computer and sent out through some sort of antenna. It is not the antenna used to receive radio signals because thieves could just break that off. So the question is where is the antenna and how can it be disconnected? I have received information from GM by email that included tire pressure, miles traveled, etc. So the info is picked up through some fixed antenna or by satellite. We need to be able to shut that off or eliminate connection to the hidden antenna.
GM’s “OnStar” system is a different animal altogether. If you have OnStar, your car has a radio telemetry link which I believe is cellular. You are paying for the subscription to this service, and you are giving your consent to have it monitored. The system probably uses an antenna on the roof of your car, which you may just see as a bump and not recognize as an antenna. If you are paranoid and wish to totally disable the system, it’s probably as simple as pulling the fuse or finding and removing the electrical connector to the OnStar electronics.
While I’ve wondered about the potential for hacking this and “Pwning” someone’s car for years, it is an entirely different animal than Bluetooth devices, which are often referred to as “Personal Area Networks” due to their very short range. If you’d ever played with these devices, you would realize how short the range really is. They have a theoretical range of around 40 feet, but I struggle to get my Bluetooth-enabled headphones to work one room away in my house. Plus they are encrypted. By the time you managed to break the encryption key and “handshake” with the device, the car would have driven way out of range. And big deal, you’re going to listen to someone’s audio for a few seconds or be able to tell what their tire pressures are? Maybe of interest to tire manufacturers, but that’s about all.
Now people obliviously walking around with Bluetooth on, on their Blackberries and other devices may be a different matter, as there are personal data on these devices.