> limit or disable certain functionality in the vehicle: ... over-the-air updates, which provide new ... safety enhancements ...
I wonder what happens if you disable the e-SIM (in the US) and then a safety recall appears via software update - do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
This is a huge unresolved issue with EVs IMO; ICE cars are required to provide emissions-relevant updates over software which can operate using a J2534 passthrough device, which effectively means powertrain modules have to allow (potentially signed) updates over CAN using software that can be obtained by an end user (a lot of people don't know this; for almost any ICE car in the US, you can buy a 3-day or 1-week subscription to the dealership level diagnostic software for a somewhat reasonable fee and use it with a J2534 device).
But for EVs, there's no such rule and as far as I can tell it's entirely a gray area in the US now; the NHTSA require a "remedy" for recalls but nobody seems to have pushed back to determine whether OTA is truly a remedy. The traditional autos all offer dealerships as a backup option, but Tesla and Rivian have several recalls with only OTA remedies already. This seems sketchy.
My experience is J2534 support is sketchy and if you want to do the things you actually want to do you need a manufacturer approved device with an insane markup. Also the subscriptions are insanely expensive, not even close to reasonable and you need to be a company (at least you used to be with Ford last time I checked, but they accept the UK or Dutch royal residence as a valid company location so there is that...)
> I wonder what happens if you disable the e-SIM (in the US) and then a safety recall appears via software update - do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
I would assume so. Even on older cars, service techs can typically manually push firmware updates over the OBD-II / J2534 port. Rivian's OBD-II port actually hides an Ethernet signal inside of it - so the interface is certainly there.
> Rivian's OBD-II port actually hides an Ethernet signal inside of it - so the interface is certainly there.
Nice. This is really normal now, for what it's worth - all of the European makes have moved this direction as well (DoIP over ENET). There's shockingly little documentation about Rivian online, though, probably because emissions regulation doesn't mandate it.
Yep! Depending on the vintage, BMWs have "real" DoIP or a BMW-ized version (sort of like how KWP2000 was the predecessor to UDS). For emissions modules, they still also have to support updates over UDS as well as ENET, though, for the above mentioned J2534 reasons (Ethernet wasn't added to J2534 until 2022).
Even more tangential: Kia declined to cover an engine failure, under warranty that was extended by recall because I change my own oil.
Kia's engines are known to fail predictably even within first 100K miles. They extended their warranty because of it. But then they weasel out of it unless you hire an attorney and go to war.
Yeah, because you allegedly consented to them being able to update your ECUs via the mobile link in the cars when you bought the car.
As if I needed another reason to keep my 2014 skoda.
If i ever have to get a new car, i will disable telemetry, and i will buy it either without telemetry, or with the agreement that i do not consent to telemetry.
(read the fine print before getting a new car. the shit they can do that can go wrong and you have to pay for.. no wonder old cars cost as much as new ones.)
I assure you that “old cars costing as much as new ones” isn’t the result of the market force of people reading contractual fine print and/or freaking out about telemetry. Concentric circles of echo chambers over here.
The main reason is more tangible to people. It is more reliability and simplicity. For instance the Toyota Tundra used to have a V8 that was pretty bomb proof. But over the years, manufacturers put in more efficient but more prone to problems turbocharged smaller engines. The bearing clearances went down, thinner oil then can be used which is also more efficient. But the margin for error when you are putting what used to be a performance engine in a car is much smaller and there have been issues. As car prices have gone up, people value a time tested drivetrain. There have been a lot of problematic CVT transmissions too.
Nice, thanks for the reply; this is surprisingly undocumented online. Presumably if they got cornered and the module under repair was updatable via this mechanism they'd have some ability to use that system, then. I wonder how charitable they will be about using it for non-recall updates for customers who have solely chosen to opt out.
Rivian are probably the only major manufacturer I've never had a chance to look at in any RE capacity and I'm getting more curious by the second. The reaction their vehicles had to the infamous bricked-infotainment update actually represented a pretty good adherence to safety guidelines (the drivetrain as well as the speedometer and warning lights on the cluster still worked in a degraded format even when the infotainment was bricked) IMO, so they do seem to apply a reasonable degree of care.
In the US, a vehicle with an outstanding recall technically isn't roadworthy, though consumer level enforcement of this is non-existent in practice. It's mostly enforced on dealers, who can't sell a vehicle with active recalls. The only way I can imagine it mattering to a consumer is if they sold it.
Doesn't being legally non roadworthy only apply to NHTSA safety recalls while there are other types of recalls for non compliance or manufacturer voluntary recalls?
"a lot of people don't know this; for almost any ICE car in the US, you can buy a 3-day or 1-week subscription to the dealership level diagnostic software for a somewhat reasonable fee and use it with a J2534 device"
Whoa, didn't know that. Well the caveat is finding a decent J2534 device, right? There are a lot of cheapo knockoffs. Then actually knowing how to use the software with it.
No, but I'm not a good person to ask. My two cars are on opposite extremes, one is simple and doesn't need anything beyond OBD2, and the other is too scary to mess with digitally.
What ever happened to take it to a dealer or authorized repair place to have it done? While I may be willing to take certain things apart that, the one thing in life I have resisted is any kind of monkeying with my car. There are certain things where I'm willing to accept that I took it apart and it no longer works because I bricked it, shorted something, or otherwise damaged it beyond my skill set to undo. My car is not one of them. However, I also do not want my car to be under the direct control of someone else that can decide I can no longer operate my car. If there's an update, I'll bring it in to have someone trained/responsible for that update.
Some people like messing with cars. They take the time to understand what's happening and learn the process and pitfalls. Hobbyists wiil never be as good as trained professionally but we can still get the job done. I went through the trouble to diagnose and replace a bad alternator on my civic after the battery started dying too fast. I did it cause it was fun.
The other reason i did it is because the dealership and other shops quoted me over 10 times the cost of parts, and I literally did not have the money to take them up should i have wanted to. Car maintenance is expensive, _especially_ at the dealership.
Some how, we've changed the direction of the conversation to something you lost vs a software update to the brains of the car. I'm guessing just to make the obvious point the dealership is not the cheapest place for repair.??? This isn't change the tire or get an oil change. This is something a consumer has deliberately done to prevent the manufacture from making an OTA software update. These are the kinds of changes that I want someone available right then and there to be responsible if the update borked the car.
My car needed another key. The stealership quoted me >$400 for it. I took it as a personal insult and did the research and ordered an OBD device and also discovered you can order replacement keys on aliexpress, and they'll even cut them for you with a good picture of your existing key. It was actually a fun project and very satisfying when I was able to successfully program and link the RFID chip to the ECU to start the engine.
May not be feasible with more locked-down modern cars which I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, but I was able to fix it for about $150, not including my time of course. But I have the OBD device to use next time now as well.
...do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
Of course they do. It would be absolutely silly not to. And in the case of safety recalls, their duty to inform you would entail a more traditional and substantiated disclosure i.e. a letter.
I wonder what happens if you disable the e-SIM (in the US) and then a safety recall appears via software update - do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
Yes.
You get a letter in the mail asking you to take your car to the dealer so they can install the update.
Interesting, I reviewed every Rivian software update recall letter I could find before I posted this and they all said something like "If you have not already updated to software version 2025.18.30 or later, please do so to remedy this issue at no cost to you," with no mention of the dealership as a remedy - for example, https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCLRPT-25V585-0759.pdf . This is different from other manufacturers who explicitly mention the dealer, like this Ford EV recall: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCAK-25V863-3736.pdf
Of course they don't mention it. They don't want you to bring it in and have to pay a tech to do the update for you. It doesn't mean the dealership can't do it.
I kinda assume the dealer does this as part of any service they do. Either that, or they update some other way. My software notices went away when I had my service done, even though I’ve opted out of everything (and verified again after).
WiFi is, err, still OTA, although it does answer the eSIM question. I assume the truly concerned/paranoid wouldn't want to connect to WiFi either, since presumably telemetry / tracking metadata could be uploaded at that time too.
Anyone concerned about preventing telemetry from being uploaded would probably also be concerned about taking it to the dealer for an update, though. Because how do you know the dealer won't just do an update by turning the car's e-SIM back on, then turning it off before giving the car back to you? Which would then allow the car to upload all the stored telemetry you're concerned about. (Note: generic "you" meaning "the person concerned about telemetry", not bri3d in particular). Or, as long as they've connected a device to the car that can upload data, how do you know that that device won't also download stored data, which the dealership can then upload over their own WiFi?
I believe the truly concerned/paranoid will not want to take their car to the dealership for updates at all. Which would, IMHO, be a mistake: having known security holes in your car's software is more likely to lead to a privacy invasion (via getting your car hacked at some point) than letting the dealership get their hands on it for a few hours.
(I should note that all of this is theoretical for me: I drive a car that's old enough it doesn't have any software).
EDIT to add this P.S.: Actually, I can think of one category of people who would be concerned enough to turn off the car's ability to connect to the Internet, but feel fine about taking it to a dealer for updates. That would be people who want to turn off the car's Internet connectivity not because of privacy concerns, but because they don't want anyone to be able to disable the car (either via hacking or via "legitimate" means, i.e. the manufacturer does it) while they're driving. Such a person would care a lot about the car's Internet access being completely off while they are driving, but not care about it being turned on while it is at the dealership.
This is the exact mindset that has amused me for years with computers. People use an OS with which they have a seriously hostile relationship. Why would you continue to pay a lot of money for a product you consider to be your adversary?
I'm pretty sure that the only diagnostic codes that an ECU is required to output are emissions-related codes. Since EVs have no emissions, I'm gonna guess they can force all diagnostics through the dealer if they really want to.
>Nissan earned its second-to-last spot for collecting some of the creepiest categories of data we have ever seen. [Their privacy policy] includes your “sexual activity.” Not to be out done, Kia also mentions they can collect information about your “sex life” in their privacy policy. Oh, and six car companies say they can collect your “genetic information” or “genetic characteristics.”
Ignoring the fact that it's absolutely unhinged and bonkers to include that in the first place, I don't even understand how they could possibly ever get any information about that. Are they using LLMs to generate these policies without review? Or are there really lawyers out there who thought this was pertinent and important to include?
Any car that can record audio in the cabin could have information about your sexual activity. Could also argue it based on location data.
Some laws require discussing very specific lists of categories of information they might have. I'm guessing this is a completionist CYA lawyer accounting for this.
They’re just including everything to be clear that you have no privacy in this agreement, so they don’t have to think about it too much when they realize there’s something more they can collect.
Well, there's the old cliche of someone being conceived in the back seat of their grandparent's Chevy... so a little extra DSP analysis with the seat occupancy sensors? :-)
EVs and luxury cars tend to have more fancy features that enable these issues than ice or hybrid cars. That’s changing as more advanced tech filters down.
I think the GP was talking about the fact it is hard to find an EV that is bundled with a lot of invasive software.
There's another post on this article asking for an EV that doesn't:
"need internet connectivity via wifi/esim at all? I'm looking for something really simple. A chassis, four wheels, an engine, airbags. Basically my current ICE car, just electric."
I'm hoping that they get a lot of good suggestions, but I'm not holding my breath.
Internet-connected cars are a national security issue when manufacturers are from one country (A) and consumer is in another country (B). For example, the President of country A might wake up in a bad mood and order to disable all A-manufactured cars in B until they reconsider the trade deal. Or, he might order to collect geolocation, plugged for charging smartphone data, audio and video recordings from cars in B belonging to military personnel.
Smart cars can record street views, location of WiFi access points and GSM towers, and this data is useful for guiding missiles and drones when GPS is being jammed.
And how can we deal with this? Inspections on import? Country-level DPI to block data exfiltration? But DPI is not perfect because there are obfuscation and VPNs. And today we have Starlinks as well, which are difficult to block. Except from banning foreign smart cars altogether, there seems to be no simple solution. Or maybe oblige the manufacturer to use local computer boards and software when importing cars?
Firefox also has a setting like this, although I think it's even nicer in that it makes everything (current and future) AI default to opt-out, but still lets you opt in to specific use cases if you want.
Firefox took an awfully long time to get that global setting. It was clear that Mozilla Corp hoped they might be able to push AI services as a revenue generator, before the AI pushback.
Yes, indeed it does. I didn't feel this way until I worked for a YC-backed startup tho. I mean, YC is the first to admit that not everything needs to be VC funded and some things just aren't good fit for that funding model. I think a code editor is one of them.
> I mean, YC is the first to admit that not everything needs to be VC funded and some things just aren't good fit for that funding model. I think a code editor is one of them.
Fully agree. I also feel like a lot of companies do not need to be on the stock market, especially if they're reasonably profitable, feels like the stock market is where you go to let go of more of your company just to get rid of the VCs whom you owe a lot of money to.
I remember when I was learning about entrepreneurship in college I was baffled by their insistence of an “exit strategy”. The idea just seemed so foreign to me. See I naively thought the point of starting a business was to do the business, not to not do it and sit next to a pile of money instead. Silly me.
I remember yanking out the onstar unit in my 2015 silverado to physically disconnect the cell antenna. This was (is?) the only practical way to disable cellular in that vehicle.
Kudos to Rivian for making this a supported user privacy feature.
As someone who got into a rollover accident which ended with my car upside down on a freeway, hearing only the onstar person talking to me while half conscious, this is sad.
I do distinctely remember strongly disliking the user agreement I signed for the "internet connected" features of the car when I bought it. 100% rubbed me the wrong way and I couldn't' find a way to opt out, and I wasn't so motivated to physically remove it from my new car. Thankfully.
There's absolutely no reason an emergency e-call system needs to connect via the car systems such as infotainment. It could be a standalone module that does its own thing regardless of whether the car is permanently disconnected from everywhere. Probably should too, given its nature. And not just could: there are aftermarket e-call systems that do not integrate beyond requiring 12V supply.
This is how cars used to be made. Features were standalone modules: there could be some bus traffic about optional data (wiper module with rain sensor could broadcast that it's raining and body control module could hear that and could be configured to close windows when raining) but they weren't strictly integrated in any meaningful capacity. You could change the radio unit to whatever you liked: if you were lucky you could get one that can actually understand what the other modules in the car were saying and show some non-enterntainment info on its screen as well. Navigation used to be a standalone system that had GPS receiver but nothing else in the car couldn't necessarily tap into the location data.
SUre, it meant some more wires and maybe the features had disconnects because they weren't aware of each other that much but all in all that was a good thing. It kept everything simple, isolated and repairable. Now because of more integration the modules need to know who they're talking to which leads to bizarre things like having to code in new headlights and pair them with other modules or they won't be recognized and just stay off.
> As someone who got into a rollover accident which ended with my car upside down on a freeway, hearing only the onstar person talking to me while half conscious, this is sad.
Maybe in theory, but I trust Apple to detect a crash correctly about as far as I can throw my iPhone without breaking its glass back or front.
This is the company whose flagship voice assistant, in 2026, can’t tell the intended recipient in a sentence like “Text Bob Mary signed the deal.” And if my phone happens to be thrown into the back of the car by the crash, I doubt anyone will be able to hear me.
Not to mention that OnStar has operators who talk to first responders. the cell phone thing will just call 911 and hope for the best.
Lol, same thing for Android, too. It has full access to my contact list, but if I tell it to "Call Stephan Beier" I see the transcript for "Beyer" and then it fails. That sounds the same in German, now what shall I do. Stupid thing.
When they forced us to use Gemini as the assistant, saying "hey Google call X" stopped working because it came up with a list of phone numbers for them and I couldn't tell it "home" or "mobile" because I had to manually select.
That lasted about 6 hours before I figured out how to switch back to Assistant.
Other "it's the future year 2026 how the hell are things still this bad" examples:
1. For years "Navigate Home" has done exactly what you'd expect, then one morning it decides traveling to Home Depot is the only possible interpretation.
2. A bog-standard timed alarm goes off, and half the time "Silence Alarm" leads to it insisting that there are no alarms going off right now.
What stings is that these aren't issues with ambiguous grammar or unusual phrasings, these are extremely predictable commands for features I would expect in the minimum viable product.
> This is the company whose flagship voice assistant, in 2026, can’t tell the intended recipient in a sentence like “Text Bob Mary signed the deal.” And if my phone happens to be thrown into the back of the car by the crash, I doubt anyone will be able to hear me.
You can be using CarPlay to navigate at that moment to a destination, and because of the way my fiancee has Siri set up, if she says "Get me directions to the nearest Starbucks", Siri will say, "I'm sorry, I don't know where you are."
Only if it hasn't been crushed, damaged, or otherwise flung out of the vehicle that crashed so violently that it's actually upside down, as noted in the original comment.
Similar I got a new 2025 4runner last summer and...
A: never once installed the app or registered an account, which flummoxxed the salesman so much he argued with me for 10 minutes trying to say that I had to set up the app to even take delivery, even though I paid cash in full. He even cried to mama (the manager) to find out what to do about this impossible situation. In the end, of course you do not actually need to install the app, even temporarily just for a one-time setup, or even register an account. But MAN do they want you to.
B: Within a few weeks found that someone makes a kit that lets you completely disconnect the telemetry & internet functionality module while providing some pass-through connections that normally go through that box.
Apparently in this case all the bad stuff is conveniently in one box you can disconnect, and still have normal bluetooth for android auto, apple car play, or plain bluetooth headset & media. So still have gps & media on the console stcreen. I can only assume that this won't stay so convenient. They could have anything require anything else any time they want.
They do offer an official way to disable all internet features (remote start from your phone from any distance, remote vehicle monitor, tracking/shutdown, etc), but all that does is disable the useful functions for you, while not disabling any of the functions they use for themselves. It's still actively logging and uploading data, and they still have the ability to remotely track and even disable the vehicle.
I've been to the dealer (different from purchase) once for a free oil change and they didn't say anything. So idk if they even tried to do any updates, or they have some other way to do it or what.
They've fixed that in later models, disconnecting the module disables the dash now.
But don't worry, the FTC is out to protect you. Their settlement with GM says that can only sell your name attached to zipcode resolution location data and only sell your precise location trace attached to an opaque ID rather than your name.
Disabling internet connectivity disables lane keeping assistance. I wonder if this is a dark pattern to punish users who opt out or because they feel they need reports of crashes ahead to do it safely.
Lane keeping is often hard to disable and you have to do it each and every drive, so getting that off permanently and putting the car offline then that is an unexpected bonus. Probably the same also applies for the speed limit beeper that partially relies on GPS maps. Taping over the front camera also works.
I believe the "advanced" LKAS on Rivian only works on highways and relies on an "up to date" geofencing database, so that's the first-order technical reason. And I'm sure they don't exactly prioritize fixing or altering that behavior for the other reason.
This is a safety issue. I don’t think there is a “fix” for offline lane assistance that they are sitting on do avoid people from disabling telemetry
The gen 1 system uses cameras primarily. It’s not awesome lidar or AI. It needs up to date road information.
I’ve been driving down I-5, a major interstate and had it turn off on me, presumably because I hit a dead spot, as conditions were fine and I5 is one of the most popular routes there is.
I’m fine with all of this. I prefer that it hand back control to me rather than make me another statistic like Tesla’s system.
I just can't imagine relying on something like that for my safety. I have worked on GPS and IoT solutions in related spaces and the comms networks aren't reliable, and actual control of a consumer vehicle is about the last thing I would ever want relying on it.
I think if I might be critical, the idea that the car graciously hands over control to you at a moment you are capable of catching might be a bit of a blind spot. The car could lose one of the signals it needs at an inopportune time and you would need a split second and correct emergency reaction to not spear off the road or collide with something. The physics of cars at highway speeds is awe inspiring, problems happen really, really fast.
Sure; I think that's a reasonable take too. I have no idea what their TTL requirements are or how frequently they update the ADAS database; if they're on the order of real-time, this seems like a complete technical constraint, if they're on a longer time horizon they might be able to offer manual offline databases.
I'm very curious at what level the restrictions operate. With every other manufacturer I've looked at, they're extremely coarse-grained; it's more like "is there a known long-time-horizon hazard in this area that is known to impair the system" than a "we mapped every lane and you need a database." I wonder if your I5 issue was a weeks or months-old construction area, for example. I haven't looked at Rivian much, though, and it could be totally different or extremely fine grained, there's no reason to suggest otherwise either.
I think it's a coarse-grained "this highway has been deemed non-anomalous enough to allow the vision systems to engage," not a fine-grained "we mapped every lane marking."
I assume by lane keeping assistance they mean the more basic camera based system to warn and potentially correct drivers if they drift over a line without indicating. It makes sense it could also be geofenced to limit it to highways.
I have driven about half a dozen vehicles with this feature, and it has been annoying 100% of the time, and never helpful at all. In the company van I drive (Citroën Berlingo) I have to disable it every time I start the car. The lane keeping gets confused all the time by snow or dirt or when merging onto the motorway, or fucking background radiation - I dunno. It always shocks me when it pulls on the steering wheel. This crap should be forbidden. In the same car I also have to disable the start-stop system so as not to destroy the engine. Aside from that it's a nice enough van for a diesel, but I've been ruined by electrics.
In my own car (Nissan Leaf 2021), it stays disabled. But then it shows me a lawyer screen on every start asking me to consent to handing over my first born son etc.
Imagine if proper EV's had been invented in 2005 - we would have had some awesome cars.
My car from ~2020 has an intermediate "low" setting which I've been pretty happy with. The default "high" is a frustrating distraction though, jarringly affecting the wheel even when I'm very-well-aware of what's going on and have my own plans for the curves ahead.
If you need lane keeping assistance you should just accept you need internet connectivity at all times like wtf cars didn’t always have that just drive straight.
Lane keeping assistance is optional on any vehicle. I don't believe there is any current production in which you can't opt out of lane keeping assistance?
Not that I’ve seen. Every time I rent a recent model year, they have the lane keeping assist feature but it only works when you enable adaptive cruise control.
They need to keep lane availability up to date - lanes get closed for repair or realignment sometimes and it’d suck to rear-end an 18 ton grader because you don’t have current DOT info…
Anybody relying on lane-keeping assistance to prevent from slamming into the back of big yellow construction vehicle is doing it wrong, and we should be thankful they didn't hit something else with more victims.
My assumption would be that lane keeping would be about staying in the lines ahead of you, not knowing which lanes are available on the route. Available lanes can change in real-time due to all kinds of reasons.
I think the term has been used for various capabilities over the years.
My friend's 10-year-old Toyota will chirp annoyingly if you drift over a lane line but that's all it does. It doesn't have any ability to steer the car back into the center of the lane. Is that "lane keeping"?
Also great if you are distracted, perhaps by kids in the back or something happening on the side of the road. Mine has chirped at me a few times. It's basically the electronic version of rumble strips.
I've seen lanes on highways that abruptly end with zero markings or signs - the concrete barriers just force you into the other lane just as you realize what's going on.
I would have doubted this had I not experienced it myself on my way home from a movie last night. Not even a construction sign! Let alone something reflective.
Why cant users disable connectivity elsewhere other thsn canada? People are supposed to call their car dealer each time after car update before turning it off again? Seems to be a cheap pr stunt to portray canadian regulation in attempt to shed good light on rivian
The same reason Windows only respects users choices in Europe, they make more money with the settings elsewhere in the world and will only change unless regulated.
> In the EEA, Windows will always use customers’ configured app default settings for link and file types, including industry standard browser link types (http, https).
I don't know for certain, but likely because they are required to. There are lots of other examples where companies will only abide by regulations in places where it's required rather than applying it generally. A common example in Canada is with things like lotteries, coupons, or returns - many things exempt Quebec because it's not allowed there, but the companies still place that burden on everyone else they can.
Amusingly, my Cupra Born has all its connectivity disabled... because Cupra Australia just didn't want to bring it to this country. Not a bad thing really, aside from the annoying red notification dot telling me I have no signal!
"Can I disable all data collection from my vehicle?
Vehicle connectivity is a core feature .. blah blah blah"
I absolutely hate these kind of answers. I understand why the answer is written that way, but i truly hate it to the core. They are marketing speak/CYA answers.
Why i hate it? Because i do not mind the communication, but i absolotely do mind the collecting and harvesting.
I don't want to lose connectivity. I want to lose all the effing data harvesting. I don't mind leaving data and using navigation, but i do not want the data effing harvested.
I want to have phone calls, but i do not want my calls logged for a long time so that these logs can be abused in any form by someone or something.
ALL of these features do NOT need long time logging for it to function.
I still don't understand why this isn't treated as a national security threat. If X bad guy wanted to do devastating damage to the US Economy during a wartime situation, even a day "burb" in transportation would swing the tide of a war, let alone permanently disabling thousands of workers from getting to their jobs.
Cell connected vehicles are unnecessary and a danger for so many reasons.
Are there any electric cars that don't need internet connectivity via wifi/esim at all? I'm looking for something really simple. A chassis, four wheels, an engine, airbags. Basically my current ICE car, just electric.
Unlike most vehicles sold in the United States, the Slate Truck is not expected to have any in-car entertainment system; instead, customers are expected to use their own mobile device for audio streaming, navigation, and over-the-air updates for their trucks.
We all know selling your information to 3rd parties is a virtual goldmine. Either Rivian is doing much better than expected in the luxury space or they're unaware of the value of this data. There's no evidence of old fashioned goodwill here.
I think they know only a small percentage will actually turn it off, the data they get from the other 90% is worth the good will you get from the 10% that opt out. It’s a fair trade off
It would have been much better to be able to disable telemetry without losing basic functionality such as navigation and safety updates. Having to choose between being spied on and having no connectivity at all is a false dichotomy.
Any connectivity at all is telemetry. The connection itself reveals where you are. Navigation reveals where you are down to the meter, along with everywhere you've been, where you're going, speed, etc. What else are you worried about if not that?
It reveals where you are to the cell towers, but not to the car company. My phone already reveals where I am based on its cellular connectivity, so I'm not too worried about that.
I’m not OP but I just want to point out that navigation doesn’t need to mean I am always sharing telemetry with multiple third parties
I have a garmin watch which is great for overland hiking, multiple day expeditions etc
I download the maps and the watch has GPS to plot where I am on that map. My watch doesn’t have an eSIM at all.
Rivian is an adventure brand so if they wanted to design a maps system like that, where I am not continually downloading tiles from open maps or google and sending my location to them and others, they probably could
I just don’t think they have space for those types of features most people don’t care about while they are trying to compete in a rough industry and deliver new vehicles
It's telling just how completely successful the social media revolution has been, when we don't remember that two short decades ago 3rd-party car navigation options that relied on maps loaded on the device and GPS input and that's all. No SIM cards (though they could have done so at the time), no telemetry.
The experience was even comparable to today's experience - I've been auto-routed around a road closure, like, twice in 5 years? And it _failed_ to route me around a road closure probably twice as well?
Why would you be sharing that? There's no reason why the navigation system needs to constantly tell a remote system where you are. Navigation systems don't even need an Internet connection for basic routing.
Navigation through gps means you're connected to a satelite at all times. has nothing to do with an internet connection. You're directly connected to the U.S. government (Space Force)
You're reading too much into the editorialized title, this is a FAQ for Can I disable all data collection from my vehicle?
Lane keeping assist likely (a) shares data back to Rivian, and (b) depends on GPS and (live) map data to know location specific settings.. that there are 4 lanes on this road and the left 2 lead somewhere else (etc). Line detection (on-device) isn't always reliable (snow, rain, ice, mud, gravel, construction)
I've only used Google Maps for navigation myself so can't speak to what Rivian does. But Google Maps uses Internet access to determine the speed of traffic on your route, allowing it suggest alternate routes if there's a traffic jam. (It also uploads the speed that you're traveling to Google servers, which is how they know about traffic jams to begin with: in many cities they could buy data from traffic cameras, but in stretches of rural highway where there are no cameras, Google Maps still knows when traffic has slowed down to a crawl. Guess how.) It also uses the Internet access to access reports like "There's a police car / stalled vehicle / object on road ahead". It may do other things with Internet access that I don't know about, but those are the two that I do know about.
And at least the object-on-road feature is one I'm glad they have. I once saw a truck ahead of me in my lane suddenly swerve hard onto the shoulder, which alerted me to danger. (The truck driver remained in control of the truck, thankfully). And there was a wooden pallet lying squarely in the right lane of the highway. I avoided it by moving into the left lane, then once I spotted a mile marker I pulled over and called 911 to report the traffic hazard. About ten minutes later, as I was driving on, I saw a police car on the opposite side of the highway, heading towards where I had reported the pallet on the highway. No way of knowing whether that car was the one responding to my call, but the timing suggests it was. Hopefully nobody had an accident before the pallet got cleared away. These days Google Maps would be able to alert people to the hazard before they got close, so nobody will be in the situation I was where the vehicle in front of them blocked their view of the hazard until they were quite close.
Long story short (yeah, yeah, I know: "too late"), some Internet-required features of modern navigation are ones I'm glad they have.
>For non-Canadian vehicles, you may reach out to Rivian Service to request that we disable the eSIM card in the vehicle through a service appointment.
Why is that? I really don't want to bring it to the shop to turn off the radio. In Canada it's a toggle in the settings. Is there Canadian legislation mandating this or something?
Props to them. I'm holding onto an old car partially cause of this. Aside from semi theoretical problems like privacy and attack vectors, car tech is constantly annoying.
Are either privacy breaches or remote attacks really still in any way theoretical dangers? There have been numerous demonstrations of vehicles or their occupants being monitored, disrupted, or stolen as a direct result of the modern remote/online tech they usually come with now. I know quite a few people - myself included - who are wary of buying any new car that has all this junk tech built in and prefer to stick with older models for now.
Very tangentially related- Does Rivian put software licenses in the OS UI somewhere? Couldn't find it when I was playing with my friend's car. Seems odd if it is android-based...
This is the sign of a company who listens to their customers. They have received feedback saying some people don't want a connected car, so they make it an option.
I’m weighing whether I should get a Slate or R2 next. Yet, somehow, I feel like these don’t compete directly much. Perhaps I’m wrong. My friends with R1s would never consider a Slate. Maybe the R2 is more of a match even at twice the price.
Because Rivian doesn't have a mode for _just_ lane-keeping. There's Adaptive Cruise Control (which maintains speed) and there's Highway Assist (which maintains speed and position in the lane). Highway Assist only works on certain mapped highways.
Annoying how it doesn't disable the cell modem from registering to a network (in Canada). So no it doesn't provide any tracking protection. Or at least that is how it sounds.
If they can make it a toggle for Canadian vehicles, why do you need to schedule an appointment in the US? Obviously it's so they can try to talk you out of it, but c'mon, just give everyone a toggle.
It was expensive but every day I am happy with my Rivian purchase. Great to have a vehicle where the actual users are obviously thought of (contra for instance the cybertruck where some variety 'cool factor' was obviously prioritized, resulting in finger crunching hoods and such).
Cars before the enshitification, already had tons of security issues, I remember watching a hacker stopping a BMW the reports was driving in the middle of the highway.
This was decades and decades ago, imagine now??
When I bought a 2025 Suzuki Jimny XL, I wanted a car, not a computer on wheels.
- physical buttons everywhere
- head unit is the only touch screen
- Non-invasive safety features
- No firmware update
- No internet connection
- No enshitification
It is what cars used to be back in the day with minor modern touch like LED headlight. Its headlight does not have direct connection to the ECU.
Toyota cars, especially the new ones can be stolen by breaking the headlight and using its harness to talk with the ECU. Virtually speaking, all Toyota cars are being stolen like hotcake in Australia.
People buying these EVs do not understand how deep it goes buying a car you do not own.
Testa has done this over and over, removed features from the car via OTA update. Car was never meant to be a computer on wheel.
> For non-Canadian vehicles, you may reach out to Rivian Service to request that we disable the eSIM card in the vehicle through a service appointment.
I certainly appreciate that disabling network connectivity is even possible, but a bit scummy that non-Canadians have to make an in-person service appointment.
Is there some Canadian law at play here that requires they permit Canadians to disable this easily from the GUI? Would love legislation like that in the US.
Reading comments, I expectantly see a lot of cheering for this step, with many calling for further measures. I understand that privacy features are important to some people, but I am not one of them.
Can someone provide what needs these feature covers? Like, what are some reason to disable all internet connectivity?
So you're okay with every single company being able to track you, build a profile to you, and sell that profile to the highest bidder, while you get nothing remotely comparable in value?
This is, in a word, crap. We give you a fake option to turn off data and make it egregious by killing features that shouldn't need it like lane keeping. How about instead a real privacy option that actually is true? 'Block identification'. 'disable sim when not in use'. 'no server side storage'. And, yes, do allow turning off all data and NOT from a service call, just a simple option. Also don't block features that clearly don't need that like lane following.
Having ranted a bit though, in the world of car companies an official policy on how to turn data off is amazing. The bar is so low right now that it is crazy to think this terrible implementation riddled with dark patterns is a 'win'. These companies need to be shut down.
My understanding is that Rivian’s lane keeping (and other features like it) are only possible because of driving data collected to train their models.
It’s not such a stretch to believe that there’s some aspect of this that is specific to a driver or to a vehicle, and so requires that they collect your data. Even if this is not accurate, I can see a business making the decision that, given they need more and more data to improve the model, they would not allow customers to opt-out of that training cohort and still use the feature. Incentives etc.
Directionally though, I am with you on auto telematics data collection; I am not sure you can even buy a new car in the US that doesn’t ship with tracking, and many manufacturers (like the one who makes my car) don’t allow opt out at all. Fcking Stellantis
I’m still very happy with my 2024 4Runner, one of the purchases I never regretted a single bit, I did have a Sony head unit installed for a larger screen with support of wireless Apple CarPlay, and that’s enough tech in a car for me. My wife keeps complaining about its lack of auto lane keeping but I’m ok with it bc I enjoy driving it.
Ideally, they would support Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. There are a few big reasons this is preferable.
- I already pay for internet on my phone, I'm not interested in paying for another cellular service just to get maps and music streaming on the screen in my car. GM ditched CarPlay specifically to push customers to their subscription service. I know some electric automakers are offering it "for free", but I do not trust that it will remain free, and that's important when spending tens of thousands of dollars on something you plan to use for a decade+.
- Third party app ecosystem means I can use the maps and music player I want, and not just what my car manufacturer decides is worth including.
- Auto manufacturers suck at software. I've yet to use an infotainment system that wasn't a stark downgrade from CarPlay.
Basically, my car shouldn't need an internet connection because my smartphone already does all the same things but better.
Worth noting that with some brands when the free cellular service for the car's use runs out and you would need to start paying you can go to the network settings and tell it to use an external WiFi network, such as your phone's hotspot, instead of the built in cellular connection.
My car has Android Automotive and CarPlay and Android Auto are disabled. Honestly, if I was driving my car for all days, eight hours a day, the Android Automotive is better. However, I don't. I drive for a few minutes to work on days when it's not safe to ride my bike. That doesn't happen very often, but once in a while. It's just not worth the monthly fee and I'm really frustrated the few times I do get in my car that I can't use my phone because a car keeps jumping in when I say, hey Google. if I'm using maps, I don't see the friendly display. Which direction I'm supposed to turn and so if the kids are talking to me at the same time the jumps up, I sometimes miss my turn indicator. When playing music I don't have a nice convenient touch in front of me to say skip this song instead I have to pick up my phone which of course is illegal now for good reason.
Also, my phone follows me between vehicles and provides the exact same interface in all of them. Heck, I can switch vehicles and my podcast or music starts back up right where I left it. That alone is a major win for the phone-based approach - if I drive my spouse's vehicle for instance, or my old truck because I need to haul something, doesn't matter, they all have the same navigation and audio.
They could store data and then dump it later when the vehicle is being serviced. Unless their privacy states otherwise, assume data is being gathered and sold. Other car manufactures have been caught selling travel data. It's not even that paranoid. Google has been fined in the past for secretly collecting location data in Android when offline and then relaying it back to HQ once the phone got a signal.
How would they do that? I'm sure you can buy some sort of aerospace component that has the signal integrity to do radios, but it sounds expensive. There's a reason these kinds of components (e.g. muxes) aren't usually physical disconnections.
Automotive power relays are at least a thing, but they're expensive consumables that have significant power draw.
In either case they would have had to add the components at design time and do the physical validation/testing, not ship it as a software update.
I didn't notice until you mentioned it; fixed. Like others have pointed out, one issue has little to do with the other.
Cars were made for 100 years without an internet connection. Even for an EV there is no need for network connectivity or constant software updates. The first time a prominent figure is assasinated with a remote take-over of their vehicle people may start to see this issue a bit differently.
>It sounds to me like this is more akin to the Cellular Data toggle on Android as opposed to Aeroplane mode. If that is the case, it will presumably not prevent your vehicle from connecting to cellular base stations, which means your vehicle will still be trackable by network operators.
Your phone still connects to the cellular network without a sim card or eSim. It is mandated by law in the US. The only way to prevent your phone from connecting/pinging/being pinged by the cellular network is to put it in airplane mode.
Whether there is a sim enabled/disabled/installed is irrelevant. The question is whether this feature is Airplain Mode or if it is just disable cellular.
Ah, I thought you were likening it to the disable cellular data button which does not disconnect the cellular network.
Instead you are referring to the fact that the radio may remain on even if it has no active SIM card.
Given that the primary concern of connected vehicles is changes over time and manufacturer control, I don’t see any reason to make that distinction for most people.
> limit or disable certain functionality in the vehicle: ... over-the-air updates, which provide new ... safety enhancements ...
I wonder what happens if you disable the e-SIM (in the US) and then a safety recall appears via software update - do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
This is a huge unresolved issue with EVs IMO; ICE cars are required to provide emissions-relevant updates over software which can operate using a J2534 passthrough device, which effectively means powertrain modules have to allow (potentially signed) updates over CAN using software that can be obtained by an end user (a lot of people don't know this; for almost any ICE car in the US, you can buy a 3-day or 1-week subscription to the dealership level diagnostic software for a somewhat reasonable fee and use it with a J2534 device).
But for EVs, there's no such rule and as far as I can tell it's entirely a gray area in the US now; the NHTSA require a "remedy" for recalls but nobody seems to have pushed back to determine whether OTA is truly a remedy. The traditional autos all offer dealerships as a backup option, but Tesla and Rivian have several recalls with only OTA remedies already. This seems sketchy.
My experience is J2534 support is sketchy and if you want to do the things you actually want to do you need a manufacturer approved device with an insane markup. Also the subscriptions are insanely expensive, not even close to reasonable and you need to be a company (at least you used to be with Ford last time I checked, but they accept the UK or Dutch royal residence as a valid company location so there is that...)
> I wonder what happens if you disable the e-SIM (in the US) and then a safety recall appears via software update - do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
I would assume so. Even on older cars, service techs can typically manually push firmware updates over the OBD-II / J2534 port. Rivian's OBD-II port actually hides an Ethernet signal inside of it - so the interface is certainly there.
Fun fact: You can buy an Ethernet adapter directly from Rivian here to connect to the car's internal network: https://rivianservicetools.com/Catalog/Product/TSN00535-300-...
> Rivian's OBD-II port actually hides an Ethernet signal inside of it - so the interface is certainly there.
Nice. This is really normal now, for what it's worth - all of the European makes have moved this direction as well (DoIP over ENET). There's shockingly little documentation about Rivian online, though, probably because emissions regulation doesn't mandate it.
For those unfamiliar with DoIP:
https://automotivevehicletesting.com/vehicle-diagnostics/doi...
https://www.iso.org/standard/13400-2
Yeah, I got a cable to update my 2017 BMW's infotainment system, and it's OBD-II to RJ45. Doesn't seem to be too new of a thing.
Yep! Depending on the vintage, BMWs have "real" DoIP or a BMW-ized version (sort of like how KWP2000 was the predecessor to UDS). For emissions modules, they still also have to support updates over UDS as well as ENET, though, for the above mentioned J2534 reasons (Ethernet wasn't added to J2534 until 2022).
This is tangential, but Kia declined to cover an engine failure, under warranty that was extended by recall, because I had not done an update.
Edit: I eventually recovered most of the cost via a settlement court.
Even more tangential: Kia declined to cover an engine failure, under warranty that was extended by recall because I change my own oil.
Kia's engines are known to fail predictably even within first 100K miles. They extended their warranty because of it. But then they weasel out of it unless you hire an attorney and go to war.
This would be a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act of 1975 which requires they show the work done directly caused the failure.
If this were a widespread policy I bet class action lawyers would be all over it without you having to pay for it.
Maybe they researched customers’ backgrounds and only screwed the ones they thought wouldn’t lawyer up
Yeah, because you allegedly consented to them being able to update your ECUs via the mobile link in the cars when you bought the car.
As if I needed another reason to keep my 2014 skoda.
If i ever have to get a new car, i will disable telemetry, and i will buy it either without telemetry, or with the agreement that i do not consent to telemetry.
(read the fine print before getting a new car. the shit they can do that can go wrong and you have to pay for.. no wonder old cars cost as much as new ones.)
How do you disable telemetry in a new car. I have a 2022 Kona. It's the first car I've had with telemetry. No idea how to disable it.
I assure you that “old cars costing as much as new ones” isn’t the result of the market force of people reading contractual fine print and/or freaking out about telemetry. Concentric circles of echo chambers over here.
The main reason is more tangible to people. It is more reliability and simplicity. For instance the Toyota Tundra used to have a V8 that was pretty bomb proof. But over the years, manufacturers put in more efficient but more prone to problems turbocharged smaller engines. The bearing clearances went down, thinner oil then can be used which is also more efficient. But the margin for error when you are putting what used to be a performance engine in a car is much smaller and there have been issues. As car prices have gone up, people value a time tested drivetrain. There have been a lot of problematic CVT transmissions too.
I agree. I have never met anyone in real life that's concerned about telemetry on their car.
They're worried about the cost of a new car, and the cost of all the electronics, should they go bad.
I’ve certainly met them, particularly in the context of Chinese EVs.
I really wish car review publications would start adding a ‘Privacy’ section along side the Perfectly, Road Handling etc parts of reviews
Do they seriously not? Malpractice
> do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
I get some updates OTA, but the dealer has to install some others, and when I took it there they updated it with a USB stick.
Nice, thanks for the reply; this is surprisingly undocumented online. Presumably if they got cornered and the module under repair was updatable via this mechanism they'd have some ability to use that system, then. I wonder how charitable they will be about using it for non-recall updates for customers who have solely chosen to opt out.
Rivian are probably the only major manufacturer I've never had a chance to look at in any RE capacity and I'm getting more curious by the second. The reaction their vehicles had to the infamous bricked-infotainment update actually represented a pretty good adherence to safety guidelines (the drivetrain as well as the speedometer and warning lights on the cluster still worked in a degraded format even when the infotainment was bricked) IMO, so they do seem to apply a reasonable degree of care.
I said this elsewhere, but I had trouble with Kia even for an issue covered by recall. Because I hadn’t had the update done, they refused to cover.
I wonder what happens if they issue a recall that you want to refuse.
What if they did the EV equivalent of Dieselgate[1]? Say it has a dangerous amount of torque or something, but you like that.
Could you just turn off the network and keep it in the desired (unsupported) state?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
In the US, a vehicle with an outstanding recall technically isn't roadworthy, though consumer level enforcement of this is non-existent in practice. It's mostly enforced on dealers, who can't sell a vehicle with active recalls. The only way I can imagine it mattering to a consumer is if they sold it.
I can imagine car insurance refusing to pay out in the case of an accident
Doesn't being legally non roadworthy only apply to NHTSA safety recalls while there are other types of recalls for non compliance or manufacturer voluntary recalls?
"a lot of people don't know this; for almost any ICE car in the US, you can buy a 3-day or 1-week subscription to the dealership level diagnostic software for a somewhat reasonable fee and use it with a J2534 device"
Whoa, didn't know that. Well the caveat is finding a decent J2534 device, right? There are a lot of cheapo knockoffs. Then actually knowing how to use the software with it.
I'm pretty sure decent ones run about 50-80 dollars, a very good one.
Oh that's not bad at all, I thought it was like $500. My cheapo knockoff was $20.
Have you flashed anything? I need to flash the gearbox on my CRV, really wanted to DIY it at home and not get upcharged by the stealerships.
https://www.crvownersclub.com/attachments/tsb-15-086-crv-tra...
No, but I'm not a good person to ask. My two cars are on opposite extremes, one is simple and doesn't need anything beyond OBD2, and the other is too scary to mess with digitally.
What ever happened to take it to a dealer or authorized repair place to have it done? While I may be willing to take certain things apart that, the one thing in life I have resisted is any kind of monkeying with my car. There are certain things where I'm willing to accept that I took it apart and it no longer works because I bricked it, shorted something, or otherwise damaged it beyond my skill set to undo. My car is not one of them. However, I also do not want my car to be under the direct control of someone else that can decide I can no longer operate my car. If there's an update, I'll bring it in to have someone trained/responsible for that update.
Some people like messing with cars. They take the time to understand what's happening and learn the process and pitfalls. Hobbyists wiil never be as good as trained professionally but we can still get the job done. I went through the trouble to diagnose and replace a bad alternator on my civic after the battery started dying too fast. I did it cause it was fun.
The other reason i did it is because the dealership and other shops quoted me over 10 times the cost of parts, and I literally did not have the money to take them up should i have wanted to. Car maintenance is expensive, _especially_ at the dealership.
Some how, we've changed the direction of the conversation to something you lost vs a software update to the brains of the car. I'm guessing just to make the obvious point the dealership is not the cheapest place for repair.??? This isn't change the tire or get an oil change. This is something a consumer has deliberately done to prevent the manufacture from making an OTA software update. These are the kinds of changes that I want someone available right then and there to be responsible if the update borked the car.
The perfect modern consumer/sucker...
My car needed another key. The stealership quoted me >$400 for it. I took it as a personal insult and did the research and ordered an OBD device and also discovered you can order replacement keys on aliexpress, and they'll even cut them for you with a good picture of your existing key. It was actually a fun project and very satisfying when I was able to successfully program and link the RFID chip to the ECU to start the engine.
May not be feasible with more locked-down modern cars which I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, but I was able to fix it for about $150, not including my time of course. But I have the OBD device to use next time now as well.
Excellent. Sounds about what I’ve paid.
eBay key fob (new) + local locksmith, easy and no insults!
...do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
Of course they do. It would be absolutely silly not to. And in the case of safety recalls, their duty to inform you would entail a more traditional and substantiated disclosure i.e. a letter.
I wonder what happens if you disable the e-SIM (in the US) and then a safety recall appears via software update - do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
Yes.
You get a letter in the mail asking you to take your car to the dealer so they can install the update.
Been there. Done this.
Interesting, I reviewed every Rivian software update recall letter I could find before I posted this and they all said something like "If you have not already updated to software version 2025.18.30 or later, please do so to remedy this issue at no cost to you," with no mention of the dealership as a remedy - for example, https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCLRPT-25V585-0759.pdf . This is different from other manufacturers who explicitly mention the dealer, like this Ford EV recall: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCAK-25V863-3736.pdf
Of course they don't mention it. They don't want you to bring it in and have to pay a tech to do the update for you. It doesn't mean the dealership can't do it.
Aren’t Rivian dealers relatively rare? I’d compare them to Tesla.
WiFi. Flip it on for an update, then leave it off.
> do dealers have any way to update control modules besides OTA?
Yes.
I kinda assume the dealer does this as part of any service they do. Either that, or they update some other way. My software notices went away when I had my service done, even though I’ve opted out of everything (and verified again after).
WiFi is, err, still OTA, although it does answer the eSIM question. I assume the truly concerned/paranoid wouldn't want to connect to WiFi either, since presumably telemetry / tracking metadata could be uploaded at that time too.
Anyone concerned about preventing telemetry from being uploaded would probably also be concerned about taking it to the dealer for an update, though. Because how do you know the dealer won't just do an update by turning the car's e-SIM back on, then turning it off before giving the car back to you? Which would then allow the car to upload all the stored telemetry you're concerned about. (Note: generic "you" meaning "the person concerned about telemetry", not bri3d in particular). Or, as long as they've connected a device to the car that can upload data, how do you know that that device won't also download stored data, which the dealership can then upload over their own WiFi?
I believe the truly concerned/paranoid will not want to take their car to the dealership for updates at all. Which would, IMHO, be a mistake: having known security holes in your car's software is more likely to lead to a privacy invasion (via getting your car hacked at some point) than letting the dealership get their hands on it for a few hours.
(I should note that all of this is theoretical for me: I drive a car that's old enough it doesn't have any software).
EDIT to add this P.S.: Actually, I can think of one category of people who would be concerned enough to turn off the car's ability to connect to the Internet, but feel fine about taking it to a dealer for updates. That would be people who want to turn off the car's Internet connectivity not because of privacy concerns, but because they don't want anyone to be able to disable the car (either via hacking or via "legitimate" means, i.e. the manufacturer does it) while they're driving. Such a person would care a lot about the car's Internet access being completely off while they are driving, but not care about it being turned on while it is at the dealership.
This is the exact mindset that has amused me for years with computers. People use an OS with which they have a seriously hostile relationship. Why would you continue to pay a lot of money for a product you consider to be your adversary?
What's special about EVs that gives them this loophole? Is it something to do with not having dealerships and going direct to consumer?
Emissions. Most things about ICE cars come through EPA and CARB.
I'm pretty sure that the only diagnostic codes that an ECU is required to output are emissions-related codes. Since EVs have no emissions, I'm gonna guess they can force all diagnostics through the dealer if they really want to.
without oil change and wear of brakes there is little need for inspections.
Ball-joints and tires are still consumables, and they go faster as weight goes up.
Surely wheel bearings too. And you have to do a safety every year to check for rust perforation (at least in the U.S. states that still do that).
Related: Mozilla did a review of different cars for privacy:
(https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/arti...)
>Nissan earned its second-to-last spot for collecting some of the creepiest categories of data we have ever seen. [Their privacy policy] includes your “sexual activity.” Not to be out done, Kia also mentions they can collect information about your “sex life” in their privacy policy. Oh, and six car companies say they can collect your “genetic information” or “genetic characteristics.”
Ignoring the fact that it's absolutely unhinged and bonkers to include that in the first place, I don't even understand how they could possibly ever get any information about that. Are they using LLMs to generate these policies without review? Or are there really lawyers out there who thought this was pertinent and important to include?
Any car that can record audio in the cabin could have information about your sexual activity. Could also argue it based on location data.
Some laws require discussing very specific lists of categories of information they might have. I'm guessing this is a completionist CYA lawyer accounting for this.
I was thinking all it takes is an IMU to tell if the car is a rockin'
150lbs on each front seat at 8pm, 300lbs on one rear seat at 2am, they gotcha like Kalanick & the Uber one night standers
https://web.archive.org/web/20140827195715/https://blog.uber...
Or malicious compliance by a true friend to privacy.
They’re just including everything to be clear that you have no privacy in this agreement, so they don’t have to think about it too much when they realize there’s something more they can collect.
Well, there's the old cliche of someone being conceived in the back seat of their grandparent's Chevy... so a little extra DSP analysis with the seat occupancy sensors? :-)
Now I want a hacker competition - I’m seeing utilizing the microphone, TPS, roll sensors, seat occupancy/airbag sensors …
Apparently there are cases of passenger's jaw closing on the driver's protrusion on crash, causing injuries
Legal wiggle room in case the sleepy eyes cam catches some action? Disclaimer: no idea how the tired driver sensors work.
But that safety functionality doesn't require storing or transmitting the footage ...
You’re thinking like a consumer and not a business who could make money by transmitting that footage and using it for other purposes!
Just wait until genome sequencing becomes cheap enough...
I wonder how Slate ( https://slate.auto ) will rate when production begins? I suspect poorly as it's a Bezos property.
If it doesn’t get a perfect score then it was overbuilt and maybe will be underpriced counting on the sale of customer data
Main reason why I will never buy an EV, and keep driving my Internet-free Honda until it dies, which will likely be after me.
nothing about this has anything to do with EVs
EVs and luxury cars tend to have more fancy features that enable these issues than ice or hybrid cars. That’s changing as more advanced tech filters down.
I think the GP was talking about the fact it is hard to find an EV that is bundled with a lot of invasive software.
There's another post on this article asking for an EV that doesn't: "need internet connectivity via wifi/esim at all? I'm looking for something really simple. A chassis, four wheels, an engine, airbags. Basically my current ICE car, just electric."
I'm hoping that they get a lot of good suggestions, but I'm not holding my breath.
There are a number of basic EVs that have no more telemetry than the equivalent ICEV.
Someone with the requirements you outline is not in the market for any new car, regardless of powertrain.
What are these on the us market?
The boring ones. Things like Bolt, Niro, Equinox, Lightning, etc. Not every EV is like Tesla.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47865868
^^ Not EV, but... :)
Internet-connected cars are a national security issue when manufacturers are from one country (A) and consumer is in another country (B). For example, the President of country A might wake up in a bad mood and order to disable all A-manufactured cars in B until they reconsider the trade deal. Or, he might order to collect geolocation, plugged for charging smartphone data, audio and video recordings from cars in B belonging to military personnel.
Smart cars can record street views, location of WiFi access points and GSM towers, and this data is useful for guiding missiles and drones when GPS is being jammed.
And how can we deal with this? Inspections on import? Country-level DPI to block data exfiltration? But DPI is not perfect because there are obfuscation and VPNs. And today we have Starlinks as well, which are difficult to block. Except from banning foreign smart cars altogether, there seems to be no simple solution. Or maybe oblige the manufacturer to use local computer boards and software when importing cars?
Reminds me of Zed's setting { "disable_ai": true } [1]
Glad it's an option be it for regulatory compliance, security, privacy, or any combination of the three.
[1]: https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features
Firefox also has a setting like this, although I think it's even nicer in that it makes everything (current and future) AI default to opt-out, but still lets you opt in to specific use cases if you want.
Firefox took an awfully long time to get that global setting. It was clear that Mozilla Corp hoped they might be able to push AI services as a revenue generator, before the AI pushback.
Zed is one of the best editors I've ever seen, I always worried the mention of AI would put off people who are missing out on a truly amazing editor.
The thing that really puts people off about Zed is "VC-funded"
Hacker News is not for you then.
There is a healthy dose of VC skepticism here. HN is here for that.
I think they meant that ycombinator is literally a VC shop
So if being VC funded puts you off an editor, being VC funded may also put you off ycombinator.com
Yes, indeed it does. I didn't feel this way until I worked for a YC-backed startup tho. I mean, YC is the first to admit that not everything needs to be VC funded and some things just aren't good fit for that funding model. I think a code editor is one of them.
> Yes, indeed it does. I didn't feel this way until I worked for a YC-backed startup tho.
Same, same.
Nothing made me skeptical about the tech industry like working for a VC-backed startup. Ugh.
> I mean, YC is the first to admit that not everything needs to be VC funded and some things just aren't good fit for that funding model. I think a code editor is one of them.
Fully agree. I also feel like a lot of companies do not need to be on the stock market, especially if they're reasonably profitable, feels like the stock market is where you go to let go of more of your company just to get rid of the VCs whom you owe a lot of money to.
I remember when I was learning about entrepreneurship in college I was baffled by their insistence of an “exit strategy”. The idea just seemed so foreign to me. See I naively thought the point of starting a business was to do the business, not to not do it and sit next to a pile of money instead. Silly me.
It's rare to find so many grazing in their natural habit, so it's a great place for vc-watching.
It did, verifiably here. Based on their own marketing, I thought it an alternative to Codex, not Codium.
Knowledge of this setting has shifted my perspective considerably.
edit: not enough to ditch Sublime, however.
VSCode has this too: chat.disableAIFeatures
Sources:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46501220
https://code.visualstudio.com/updates/v1_104#_hide-and-disab...
I remember yanking out the onstar unit in my 2015 silverado to physically disconnect the cell antenna. This was (is?) the only practical way to disable cellular in that vehicle.
Kudos to Rivian for making this a supported user privacy feature.
As someone who got into a rollover accident which ended with my car upside down on a freeway, hearing only the onstar person talking to me while half conscious, this is sad.
I do distinctely remember strongly disliking the user agreement I signed for the "internet connected" features of the car when I bought it. 100% rubbed me the wrong way and I couldn't' find a way to opt out, and I wasn't so motivated to physically remove it from my new car. Thankfully.
Shouldn't have to trade privacy for safety.
There's absolutely no reason an emergency e-call system needs to connect via the car systems such as infotainment. It could be a standalone module that does its own thing regardless of whether the car is permanently disconnected from everywhere. Probably should too, given its nature. And not just could: there are aftermarket e-call systems that do not integrate beyond requiring 12V supply.
This is how cars used to be made. Features were standalone modules: there could be some bus traffic about optional data (wiper module with rain sensor could broadcast that it's raining and body control module could hear that and could be configured to close windows when raining) but they weren't strictly integrated in any meaningful capacity. You could change the radio unit to whatever you liked: if you were lucky you could get one that can actually understand what the other modules in the car were saying and show some non-enterntainment info on its screen as well. Navigation used to be a standalone system that had GPS receiver but nothing else in the car couldn't necessarily tap into the location data.
SUre, it meant some more wires and maybe the features had disconnects because they weren't aware of each other that much but all in all that was a good thing. It kept everything simple, isolated and repairable. Now because of more integration the modules need to know who they're talking to which leads to bizarre things like having to code in new headlights and pair them with other modules or they won't be recognized and just stay off.
>Shouldn't have to trade privacy for safety.
You shouldn't have to, and yet...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/...
> As someone who got into a rollover accident which ended with my car upside down on a freeway, hearing only the onstar person talking to me while half conscious, this is sad.
My phone does this now. Most phones do it now.
Maybe in theory, but I trust Apple to detect a crash correctly about as far as I can throw my iPhone without breaking its glass back or front.
This is the company whose flagship voice assistant, in 2026, can’t tell the intended recipient in a sentence like “Text Bob Mary signed the deal.” And if my phone happens to be thrown into the back of the car by the crash, I doubt anyone will be able to hear me.
Not to mention that OnStar has operators who talk to first responders. the cell phone thing will just call 911 and hope for the best.
I pay for OnStar, and think it’s worth it.
Lol, same thing for Android, too. It has full access to my contact list, but if I tell it to "Call Stephan Beier" I see the transcript for "Beyer" and then it fails. That sounds the same in German, now what shall I do. Stupid thing.
When they forced us to use Gemini as the assistant, saying "hey Google call X" stopped working because it came up with a list of phone numbers for them and I couldn't tell it "home" or "mobile" because I had to manually select.
That lasted about 6 hours before I figured out how to switch back to Assistant.
Other "it's the future year 2026 how the hell are things still this bad" examples:
1. For years "Navigate Home" has done exactly what you'd expect, then one morning it decides traveling to Home Depot is the only possible interpretation.
2. A bog-standard timed alarm goes off, and half the time "Silence Alarm" leads to it insisting that there are no alarms going off right now.
What stings is that these aren't issues with ambiguous grammar or unusual phrasings, these are extremely predictable commands for features I would expect in the minimum viable product.
> This is the company whose flagship voice assistant, in 2026, can’t tell the intended recipient in a sentence like “Text Bob Mary signed the deal.” And if my phone happens to be thrown into the back of the car by the crash, I doubt anyone will be able to hear me.
You can be using CarPlay to navigate at that moment to a destination, and because of the way my fiancee has Siri set up, if she says "Get me directions to the nearest Starbucks", Siri will say, "I'm sorry, I don't know where you are."
sorry, I didn't find someone named "bob mary" in your contacts list
Yup! Or it starts a group text with Bob AND Mary saying “signed the deal”
"I found this on the web. Check it out."
Stress test your mounts!
My phone does this now. Most phones do it now.
Only if it hasn't been crushed, damaged, or otherwise flung out of the vehicle that crashed so violently that it's actually upside down, as noted in the original comment.
The same is true of the cell phone hardware built into the vehicle that is crashed and upside down.
> Kudos to Rivian for making this a supported user privacy feature.
Same. This is the first thing that I've ever read that makes me think I might be willing to buy a modern vehicle.
Similar I got a new 2025 4runner last summer and...
A: never once installed the app or registered an account, which flummoxxed the salesman so much he argued with me for 10 minutes trying to say that I had to set up the app to even take delivery, even though I paid cash in full. He even cried to mama (the manager) to find out what to do about this impossible situation. In the end, of course you do not actually need to install the app, even temporarily just for a one-time setup, or even register an account. But MAN do they want you to.
B: Within a few weeks found that someone makes a kit that lets you completely disconnect the telemetry & internet functionality module while providing some pass-through connections that normally go through that box.
Apparently in this case all the bad stuff is conveniently in one box you can disconnect, and still have normal bluetooth for android auto, apple car play, or plain bluetooth headset & media. So still have gps & media on the console stcreen. I can only assume that this won't stay so convenient. They could have anything require anything else any time they want.
They do offer an official way to disable all internet features (remote start from your phone from any distance, remote vehicle monitor, tracking/shutdown, etc), but all that does is disable the useful functions for you, while not disabling any of the functions they use for themselves. It's still actively logging and uploading data, and they still have the ability to remotely track and even disable the vehicle.
I've been to the dealer (different from purchase) once for a free oil change and they didn't say anything. So idk if they even tried to do any updates, or they have some other way to do it or what.
https://www.autoharnesshouse.com/store/AHH-DCM77
They've fixed that in later models, disconnecting the module disables the dash now.
But don't worry, the FTC is out to protect you. Their settlement with GM says that can only sell your name attached to zipcode resolution location data and only sell your precise location trace attached to an opaque ID rather than your name.
Disabling internet connectivity disables lane keeping assistance. I wonder if this is a dark pattern to punish users who opt out or because they feel they need reports of crashes ahead to do it safely.
Lane keeping is often hard to disable and you have to do it each and every drive, so getting that off permanently and putting the car offline then that is an unexpected bonus. Probably the same also applies for the speed limit beeper that partially relies on GPS maps. Taping over the front camera also works.
I believe the "advanced" LKAS on Rivian only works on highways and relies on an "up to date" geofencing database, so that's the first-order technical reason. And I'm sure they don't exactly prioritize fixing or altering that behavior for the other reason.
This is a safety issue. I don’t think there is a “fix” for offline lane assistance that they are sitting on do avoid people from disabling telemetry
The gen 1 system uses cameras primarily. It’s not awesome lidar or AI. It needs up to date road information.
I’ve been driving down I-5, a major interstate and had it turn off on me, presumably because I hit a dead spot, as conditions were fine and I5 is one of the most popular routes there is.
I’m fine with all of this. I prefer that it hand back control to me rather than make me another statistic like Tesla’s system.
I just can't imagine relying on something like that for my safety. I have worked on GPS and IoT solutions in related spaces and the comms networks aren't reliable, and actual control of a consumer vehicle is about the last thing I would ever want relying on it.
I think if I might be critical, the idea that the car graciously hands over control to you at a moment you are capable of catching might be a bit of a blind spot. The car could lose one of the signals it needs at an inopportune time and you would need a split second and correct emergency reaction to not spear off the road or collide with something. The physics of cars at highway speeds is awe inspiring, problems happen really, really fast.
Sure; I think that's a reasonable take too. I have no idea what their TTL requirements are or how frequently they update the ADAS database; if they're on the order of real-time, this seems like a complete technical constraint, if they're on a longer time horizon they might be able to offer manual offline databases.
I'm very curious at what level the restrictions operate. With every other manufacturer I've looked at, they're extremely coarse-grained; it's more like "is there a known long-time-horizon hazard in this area that is known to impair the system" than a "we mapped every lane and you need a database." I wonder if your I5 issue was a weeks or months-old construction area, for example. I haven't looked at Rivian much, though, and it could be totally different or extremely fine grained, there's no reason to suggest otherwise either.
Can LIDAR see lane markings? I would have thought that was computer vision only.
how would that even work? even if you could generate accurate maps of lane markings, non-differential gps in not accurate enough
I think it's a coarse-grained "this highway has been deemed non-anomalous enough to allow the vision systems to engage," not a fine-grained "we mapped every lane marking."
I understand how it could disable some features. Hyundai has a GPS-assisted database of highways that are approved for enhanced driver assist (HDA2).
I assume by lane keeping assistance they mean the more basic camera based system to warn and potentially correct drivers if they drift over a line without indicating. It makes sense it could also be geofenced to limit it to highways.
I think this is exactly how it works (also offline in my Hyundai).
Toyota advanced LKA (called Traffic Jam Assist) requires mapping subscription to be active as well
So you disable both internet and the most annoying feature after touchscreens and start stop. Double win.
>disables lane keeping assistance
That is a desirable outcome.
I have driven about half a dozen vehicles with this feature, and it has been annoying 100% of the time, and never helpful at all. In the company van I drive (Citroën Berlingo) I have to disable it every time I start the car. The lane keeping gets confused all the time by snow or dirt or when merging onto the motorway, or fucking background radiation - I dunno. It always shocks me when it pulls on the steering wheel. This crap should be forbidden. In the same car I also have to disable the start-stop system so as not to destroy the engine. Aside from that it's a nice enough van for a diesel, but I've been ruined by electrics.
In my own car (Nissan Leaf 2021), it stays disabled. But then it shows me a lawyer screen on every start asking me to consent to handing over my first born son etc.
Imagine if proper EV's had been invented in 2005 - we would have had some awesome cars.
My car from ~2020 has an intermediate "low" setting which I've been pretty happy with. The default "high" is a frustrating distraction though, jarringly affecting the wheel even when I'm very-well-aware of what's going on and have my own plans for the curves ahead.
Well, I love my lane assistance (Hyundai). If I didn't want it though, it's a very easy (and "sticky") toggle in settings.
2005 was peak car interior
If you need lane keeping assistance you should just accept you need internet connectivity at all times like wtf cars didn’t always have that just drive straight.
LOL, you guys really read quite funny if that's the way you decide to comment on that.
Lane keeping assistance is optional on any vehicle. I don't believe there is any current production in which you can't opt out of lane keeping assistance?
Isn't it mandatory in the EU if the car supports it? Mandatory as in it's opt-out and will re-enable itself every time you turn on the car.
Not that I’ve seen. Every time I rent a recent model year, they have the lane keeping assist feature but it only works when you enable adaptive cruise control.
But maybe that’s what you meant?
> will re-enable itself every time you turn on the car
I think that's only for the speed limit alarms. Wouldn't have that if people would stick to limits, I guess...
You have a lot of trouble driving your car inside the lanes?
LOL, is this really your only thought?
Did you also disable ABS and refuse to use smart cruise control?
They need to keep lane availability up to date - lanes get closed for repair or realignment sometimes and it’d suck to rear-end an 18 ton grader because you don’t have current DOT info…
Anybody relying on lane-keeping assistance to prevent from slamming into the back of big yellow construction vehicle is doing it wrong, and we should be thankful they didn't hit something else with more victims.
My assumption would be that lane keeping would be about staying in the lines ahead of you, not knowing which lanes are available on the route. Available lanes can change in real-time due to all kinds of reasons.
I think the term has been used for various capabilities over the years.
My friend's 10-year-old Toyota will chirp annoyingly if you drift over a lane line but that's all it does. It doesn't have any ability to steer the car back into the center of the lane. Is that "lane keeping"?
No, that's "lane departure warning"
Mine has either off, warn, or warn+adjust (but adjustment is very gentle, more of a nudge).
I can imagine it can save a life someone dozing off and drifting.
Also great if you are distracted, perhaps by kids in the back or something happening on the side of the road. Mine has chirped at me a few times. It's basically the electronic version of rumble strips.
It does say lane "keeping" not lane "changing". I assume it's the safety feature to remain in the lane.
I've seen lanes on highways that abruptly end with zero markings or signs - the concrete barriers just force you into the other lane just as you realize what's going on.
I would have doubted this had I not experienced it myself on my way home from a movie last night. Not even a construction sign! Let alone something reflective.
I didn't know that. I assumed it was sensor-based. How up-to-date can that really be? That sounds pretty crazy.
Why cant users disable connectivity elsewhere other thsn canada? People are supposed to call their car dealer each time after car update before turning it off again? Seems to be a cheap pr stunt to portray canadian regulation in attempt to shed good light on rivian
The same reason Windows only respects users choices in Europe, they make more money with the settings elsewhere in the world and will only change unless regulated.
> In the EEA, Windows will always use customers’ configured app default settings for link and file types, including industry standard browser link types (http, https).
https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2023/11/16/preview...
I don't know for certain, but likely because they are required to. There are lots of other examples where companies will only abide by regulations in places where it's required rather than applying it generally. A common example in Canada is with things like lotteries, coupons, or returns - many things exempt Quebec because it's not allowed there, but the companies still place that burden on everyone else they can.
Amusingly, my Cupra Born has all its connectivity disabled... because Cupra Australia just didn't want to bring it to this country. Not a bad thing really, aside from the annoying red notification dot telling me I have no signal!
On a single device or within a surrounding area like a walking EMP zone? now thatd be useful.
I'm pretty sure they mean across the whole nation. The entire internet is disabled.
In the UK, this URL simply redirects to the UK version of the homepage, sadly.
For anyone in the same situation, https://web.archive.org/web/20260430234304/https://rivian.co... leads to the correct page.
"Can I disable all data collection from my vehicle?
Vehicle connectivity is a core feature .. blah blah blah"
I absolutely hate these kind of answers. I understand why the answer is written that way, but i truly hate it to the core. They are marketing speak/CYA answers.
Why i hate it? Because i do not mind the communication, but i absolotely do mind the collecting and harvesting.
I don't want to lose connectivity. I want to lose all the effing data harvesting. I don't mind leaving data and using navigation, but i do not want the data effing harvested.
I want to have phone calls, but i do not want my calls logged for a long time so that these logs can be abused in any form by someone or something.
ALL of these features do NOT need long time logging for it to function.
This pay-with-your-privacy system has to stop.
Show me where I can rip out the antennae/modem, otherwise you’re all talk.
Exactly. Any software toggle can un-toggle itself.
I still don't understand why this isn't treated as a national security threat. If X bad guy wanted to do devastating damage to the US Economy during a wartime situation, even a day "burb" in transportation would swing the tide of a war, let alone permanently disabling thousands of workers from getting to their jobs.
Cell connected vehicles are unnecessary and a danger for so many reasons.
Are there any electric cars that don't need internet connectivity via wifi/esim at all? I'm looking for something really simple. A chassis, four wheels, an engine, airbags. Basically my current ICE car, just electric.
I read the upcoming slate truck might be that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Truck
https://www.slate.auto
Unlike most vehicles sold in the United States, the Slate Truck is not expected to have any in-car entertainment system; instead, customers are expected to use their own mobile device for audio streaming, navigation, and over-the-air updates for their trucks.
We all know selling your information to 3rd parties is a virtual goldmine. Either Rivian is doing much better than expected in the luxury space or they're unaware of the value of this data. There's no evidence of old fashioned goodwill here.
I think they know only a small percentage will actually turn it off, the data they get from the other 90% is worth the good will you get from the 10% that opt out. It’s a fair trade off
Interesting how the question is about disabling collection, but the answer is about connectivity.
Mods renamed it
It would have been much better to be able to disable telemetry without losing basic functionality such as navigation and safety updates. Having to choose between being spied on and having no connectivity at all is a false dichotomy.
Any connectivity at all is telemetry. The connection itself reveals where you are. Navigation reveals where you are down to the meter, along with everywhere you've been, where you're going, speed, etc. What else are you worried about if not that?
It reveals where you are to the cell towers, but not to the car company. My phone already reveals where I am based on its cellular connectivity, so I'm not too worried about that.
what telemetry are you worried about if you're already sharing your exact location at all times (navigation)
I’m not OP but I just want to point out that navigation doesn’t need to mean I am always sharing telemetry with multiple third parties
I have a garmin watch which is great for overland hiking, multiple day expeditions etc
I download the maps and the watch has GPS to plot where I am on that map. My watch doesn’t have an eSIM at all.
Rivian is an adventure brand so if they wanted to design a maps system like that, where I am not continually downloading tiles from open maps or google and sending my location to them and others, they probably could
I just don’t think they have space for those types of features most people don’t care about while they are trying to compete in a rough industry and deliver new vehicles
It's telling just how completely successful the social media revolution has been, when we don't remember that two short decades ago 3rd-party car navigation options that relied on maps loaded on the device and GPS input and that's all. No SIM cards (though they could have done so at the time), no telemetry.
The experience was even comparable to today's experience - I've been auto-routed around a road closure, like, twice in 5 years? And it _failed_ to route me around a road closure probably twice as well?
Why would you be sharing that? There's no reason why the navigation system needs to constantly tell a remote system where you are. Navigation systems don't even need an Internet connection for basic routing.
Navigation through gps means you're connected to a satelite at all times. has nothing to do with an internet connection. You're directly connected to the U.S. government (Space Force)
> limit or disable certain functionality in the vehicle (e.g., navigation, lane keeping assistance (…)
Curious why lane keeping assistance would need to communicate externally. Isn’t all this processed in the vehicle?
You're reading too much into the editorialized title, this is a FAQ for Can I disable all data collection from my vehicle?
Lane keeping assist likely (a) shares data back to Rivian, and (b) depends on GPS and (live) map data to know location specific settings.. that there are 4 lanes on this road and the left 2 lead somewhere else (etc). Line detection (on-device) isn't always reliable (snow, rain, ice, mud, gravel, construction)
I find it ridiculous navigation would require always-on internet connectivity. Seems a regression from the offline TomTom devices from the past.
I've only used Google Maps for navigation myself so can't speak to what Rivian does. But Google Maps uses Internet access to determine the speed of traffic on your route, allowing it suggest alternate routes if there's a traffic jam. (It also uploads the speed that you're traveling to Google servers, which is how they know about traffic jams to begin with: in many cities they could buy data from traffic cameras, but in stretches of rural highway where there are no cameras, Google Maps still knows when traffic has slowed down to a crawl. Guess how.) It also uses the Internet access to access reports like "There's a police car / stalled vehicle / object on road ahead". It may do other things with Internet access that I don't know about, but those are the two that I do know about.
And at least the object-on-road feature is one I'm glad they have. I once saw a truck ahead of me in my lane suddenly swerve hard onto the shoulder, which alerted me to danger. (The truck driver remained in control of the truck, thankfully). And there was a wooden pallet lying squarely in the right lane of the highway. I avoided it by moving into the left lane, then once I spotted a mile marker I pulled over and called 911 to report the traffic hazard. About ten minutes later, as I was driving on, I saw a police car on the opposite side of the highway, heading towards where I had reported the pallet on the highway. No way of knowing whether that car was the one responding to my call, but the timing suggests it was. Hopefully nobody had an accident before the pallet got cleared away. These days Google Maps would be able to alert people to the hazard before they got close, so nobody will be in the situation I was where the vehicle in front of them blocked their view of the hazard until they were quite close.
Long story short (yeah, yeah, I know: "too late"), some Internet-required features of modern navigation are ones I'm glad they have.
Fisker launched that feature over a year ago
>For non-Canadian vehicles, you may reach out to Rivian Service to request that we disable the eSIM card in the vehicle through a service appointment.
Why is that? I really don't want to bring it to the shop to turn off the radio. In Canada it's a toggle in the settings. Is there Canadian legislation mandating this or something?
Yes, no credit if I have to ask someone to turn it off for me. It could obviously be a toggle here in the US.
Props to them. I'm holding onto an old car partially cause of this. Aside from semi theoretical problems like privacy and attack vectors, car tech is constantly annoying.
Are either privacy breaches or remote attacks really still in any way theoretical dangers? There have been numerous demonstrations of vehicles or their occupants being monitored, disrupted, or stolen as a direct result of the modern remote/online tech they usually come with now. I know quite a few people - myself included - who are wary of buying any new car that has all this junk tech built in and prefer to stick with older models for now.
Very tangentially related- Does Rivian put software licenses in the OS UI somewhere? Couldn't find it when I was playing with my friend's car. Seems odd if it is android-based...
This is the sign of a company who listens to their customers. They have received feedback saying some people don't want a connected car, so they make it an option.
Or trying to get ahead of competition such as slate.
I’m weighing whether I should get a Slate or R2 next. Yet, somehow, I feel like these don’t compete directly much. Perhaps I’m wrong. My friends with R1s would never consider a Slate. Maybe the R2 is more of a match even at twice the price.
tesla let you do this too - they would pull the e-sim. They mentioned that wifi would automatically connect to tesla hotspots at the dealer.
alternatively, how old should the car be so i know there is no data being collected?
Why the hell would disabling internet connectivity disable lane-keeping assist? O.o
Because Rivian doesn't have a mode for _just_ lane-keeping. There's Adaptive Cruise Control (which maintains speed) and there's Highway Assist (which maintains speed and position in the lane). Highway Assist only works on certain mapped highways.
Annoying how it doesn't disable the cell modem from registering to a network (in Canada). So no it doesn't provide any tracking protection. Or at least that is how it sounds.
If they can make it a toggle for Canadian vehicles, why do you need to schedule an appointment in the US? Obviously it's so they can try to talk you out of it, but c'mon, just give everyone a toggle.
in response to most of this thread, the answer is summed up in one word.
greed
Does it improve things or break things?
It was expensive but every day I am happy with my Rivian purchase. Great to have a vehicle where the actual users are obviously thought of (contra for instance the cybertruck where some variety 'cool factor' was obviously prioritized, resulting in finger crunching hoods and such).
Cars before the enshitification, already had tons of security issues, I remember watching a hacker stopping a BMW the reports was driving in the middle of the highway.
This was decades and decades ago, imagine now??
When I bought a 2025 Suzuki Jimny XL, I wanted a car, not a computer on wheels.
- physical buttons everywhere
- head unit is the only touch screen
- Non-invasive safety features
- No firmware update
- No internet connection
- No enshitification
It is what cars used to be back in the day with minor modern touch like LED headlight. Its headlight does not have direct connection to the ECU.
Toyota cars, especially the new ones can be stolen by breaking the headlight and using its harness to talk with the ECU. Virtually speaking, all Toyota cars are being stolen like hotcake in Australia.
People buying these EVs do not understand how deep it goes buying a car you do not own.
Testa has done this over and over, removed features from the car via OTA update. Car was never meant to be a computer on wheel.
I wish Tesla did this.
can this be done on a tesla ?
I just want to bring my own electronics.
If you mean the self-driving part specifically, apparently Comma AI already does this: https://comma.ai/
> For non-Canadian vehicles, you may reach out to Rivian Service to request that we disable the eSIM card in the vehicle through a service appointment.
I certainly appreciate that disabling network connectivity is even possible, but a bit scummy that non-Canadians have to make an in-person service appointment.
Is there some Canadian law at play here that requires they permit Canadians to disable this easily from the GUI? Would love legislation like that in the US.
Reading comments, I expectantly see a lot of cheering for this step, with many calling for further measures. I understand that privacy features are important to some people, but I am not one of them.
Can someone provide what needs these feature covers? Like, what are some reason to disable all internet connectivity?
I am genuinely curious.
So you're okay with every single company being able to track you, build a profile to you, and sell that profile to the highest bidder, while you get nothing remotely comparable in value?
I feel like I am getting access to lots of products in part shaped by my data. It is not like I have better things to do with it.
This is, in a word, crap. We give you a fake option to turn off data and make it egregious by killing features that shouldn't need it like lane keeping. How about instead a real privacy option that actually is true? 'Block identification'. 'disable sim when not in use'. 'no server side storage'. And, yes, do allow turning off all data and NOT from a service call, just a simple option. Also don't block features that clearly don't need that like lane following.
Having ranted a bit though, in the world of car companies an official policy on how to turn data off is amazing. The bar is so low right now that it is crazy to think this terrible implementation riddled with dark patterns is a 'win'. These companies need to be shut down.
My understanding is that Rivian’s lane keeping (and other features like it) are only possible because of driving data collected to train their models.
It’s not such a stretch to believe that there’s some aspect of this that is specific to a driver or to a vehicle, and so requires that they collect your data. Even if this is not accurate, I can see a business making the decision that, given they need more and more data to improve the model, they would not allow customers to opt-out of that training cohort and still use the feature. Incentives etc.
Directionally though, I am with you on auto telematics data collection; I am not sure you can even buy a new car in the US that doesn’t ship with tracking, and many manufacturers (like the one who makes my car) don’t allow opt out at all. Fcking Stellantis
I’m still very happy with my 2024 4Runner, one of the purchases I never regretted a single bit, I did have a Sony head unit installed for a larger screen with support of wireless Apple CarPlay, and that’s enough tech in a car for me. My wife keeps complaining about its lack of auto lane keeping but I’m ok with it bc I enjoy driving it.
excellent.
Hope to see more of this.
How about also adding Android Auto as well? Oh no, it'd take away their "control the user experience" power-tripping.
So why would you prefer goggle's "control the user experience" power-tripping, to rivian's?
I'd much rather side with the company that was willing to allow the user to disable net connectivity...
I would prefer to have the choice.
Your phone has an airplane mode.
Also, I can replace or upgrade my phone a hell of a lot more easily than I can replace my car.
Ideally, they would support Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. There are a few big reasons this is preferable.
- I already pay for internet on my phone, I'm not interested in paying for another cellular service just to get maps and music streaming on the screen in my car. GM ditched CarPlay specifically to push customers to their subscription service. I know some electric automakers are offering it "for free", but I do not trust that it will remain free, and that's important when spending tens of thousands of dollars on something you plan to use for a decade+.
- Third party app ecosystem means I can use the maps and music player I want, and not just what my car manufacturer decides is worth including.
- Auto manufacturers suck at software. I've yet to use an infotainment system that wasn't a stark downgrade from CarPlay.
Basically, my car shouldn't need an internet connection because my smartphone already does all the same things but better.
Worth noting that with some brands when the free cellular service for the car's use runs out and you would need to start paying you can go to the network settings and tell it to use an external WiFi network, such as your phone's hotspot, instead of the built in cellular connection.
My car has Android Automotive and CarPlay and Android Auto are disabled. Honestly, if I was driving my car for all days, eight hours a day, the Android Automotive is better. However, I don't. I drive for a few minutes to work on days when it's not safe to ride my bike. That doesn't happen very often, but once in a while. It's just not worth the monthly fee and I'm really frustrated the few times I do get in my car that I can't use my phone because a car keeps jumping in when I say, hey Google. if I'm using maps, I don't see the friendly display. Which direction I'm supposed to turn and so if the kids are talking to me at the same time the jumps up, I sometimes miss my turn indicator. When playing music I don't have a nice convenient touch in front of me to say skip this song instead I have to pick up my phone which of course is illegal now for good reason.
Also, my phone follows me between vehicles and provides the exact same interface in all of them. Heck, I can switch vehicles and my podcast or music starts back up right where I left it. That alone is a major win for the phone-based approach - if I drive my spouse's vehicle for instance, or my old truck because I need to haul something, doesn't matter, they all have the same navigation and audio.
My phone runs GrapheneOS and does not use any Google service. But it supports Android Auto. Allowing it would dramatically improve the experience.
Instead, Rivian adds a purely performative toggle that makes the car's navigation largely useless and doesn't provide a good alternative.
This is insufficient. There needs to be a physical button that either physically disconnects every antenna and/or de-powers the transceiver.
They could store data and then dump it later when the vehicle is being serviced. Unless their privacy states otherwise, assume data is being gathered and sold. Other car manufactures have been caught selling travel data. It's not even that paranoid. Google has been fined in the past for secretly collecting location data in Android when offline and then relaying it back to HQ once the phone got a signal.
How would they do that? I'm sure you can buy some sort of aerospace component that has the signal integrity to do radios, but it sounds expensive. There's a reason these kinds of components (e.g. muxes) aren't usually physical disconnections.
Automotive power relays are at least a thing, but they're expensive consumables that have significant power draw.
In either case they would have had to add the components at design time and do the physical validation/testing, not ship it as a software update.
Kinda rich coming from someone who doesn't even have a valid SSL cert on the website in their profile bio...
I didn't notice until you mentioned it; fixed. Like others have pointed out, one issue has little to do with the other.
Cars were made for 100 years without an internet connection. Even for an EV there is no need for network connectivity or constant software updates. The first time a prominent figure is assasinated with a remote take-over of their vehicle people may start to see this issue a bit differently.
What does that have to do with anything?
He expects an absurd level of effort from other people to protect privacy when he isn't doing the bare minimum for what he actually does himself.
> a physical button
New definition of "absurd" just dropped...
This is massively simplifying what is needed for a single button to physically (not just digitally) disconnect multiple components.
didn't you get the memo? If you don't set up proper SSL certificates you can't give opinions on the features you want in a car...
>It sounds to me like this is more akin to the Cellular Data toggle on Android as opposed to Aeroplane mode. If that is the case, it will presumably not prevent your vehicle from connecting to cellular base stations, which means your vehicle will still be trackable by network operators.
(https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/rivian-allows-you-to-dis...)
> disable the eSIM card in the vehicle
Disabling a SIM card almost certainly means no connection to the network.
Your phone still connects to the cellular network without a sim card or eSim. It is mandated by law in the US. The only way to prevent your phone from connecting/pinging/being pinged by the cellular network is to put it in airplane mode.
(https://grapheneos.org/faq#cellular-tracking)
Whether there is a sim enabled/disabled/installed is irrelevant. The question is whether this feature is Airplain Mode or if it is just disable cellular.
Ah, I thought you were likening it to the disable cellular data button which does not disconnect the cellular network.
Instead you are referring to the fact that the radio may remain on even if it has no active SIM card.
Given that the primary concern of connected vehicles is changes over time and manufacturer control, I don’t see any reason to make that distinction for most people.