[mojosam]

> So can someone who owns a modern car please help me understand why you would buy a car that has the mere capability to be remotely shut off?

That’s not what is going on here. These cars are not being intentionally shut down remotely. Instead, a software update for some computerized components of the car was pushed down to the cars and installed with the owners permissions, but that update apparently has severe bugs that should have been caught by QA.

[voakbasda]

This is a distinction without a difference. Intentional or not, these vehicles were disabled remotely.

Even if the owner gave permission to install the update, I would strongly wager that they did not give concurrent permission for the update to change the behavior of the vehicle.

Of course, I sincerely doubt the EULA offers any way to separate those permissions; you are all in, or you are all out. Assuming that you even have an option to opt out.

And that’s exactly why these cars can never be trusted under any circumstances, ever.

[mystraline]

"Do you want to update? Yes or later". And blocks semi-critical stuff so you must address it.

"Do you want to update? Yes or later". And blocks semi-critical stuff so you must address it.

"Do you want to update? Yes or later". And blocks semi-critical stuff so you must address it.

"Update now. You cannot refuse since you said no 3 times"

Or, other parodies, "Just say MAYBE LATER to drugs"