High-Tech RepoMan 452
PlayfullyClever writes "A new gizmo is upping the odds that even the most hard-knock customer will come up with the car payment. Hooked into the ignition system, the gadget comes in a handful of versions with one common conclusion:
No pay, no start.
It's worked wonders at Norfolk's Patriot Auto Sales, where nearly every car that drives off the lot is outfitted with a PayTeck Smart Box, a system that hands over a five-digit code in exchange for each payment. Come due date, the car won't crank until the customer punches the code into a palm-size keypad wired into the dash.
I would think this "Smart Box" would get hacked way too easily, leaving car companies without their money."
What the hell (Score:1, Insightful)
You would buy it (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad logic (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. It just means that they would fall back on the existing system, that is, physical repossession. In other words, it's no worse than the current system (from their perspective), and might encourage the non-hackers (eg almost everyone) to pay up.
Slight improvement (Score:3, Insightful)
Repossession is not a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't even like loan companies send out the repo man after your first failure to pay. You typically get several months of haggling and pleading before the loan company has no other alternative but to send someone out to repossess the automobile. And the repo man is frequently in danger from people who don't have enough money to pay the loan companies but usually enough to buy bullets.
Using a technical measure to disable cars, making them useless to the owner, is a great idea. It works with drunk drivers and car thieves. Just kill the engine and the car isn't going anywhere. The loan company can then repossess the car at their leisure, along with adding extra pressure on the defaulting "owner" to pay.
The real bottom line is not to over-extend your finances. Try to buy large items like cars with cash. The worst monetary investment you can make is to take out a loan to pay for a car you can't afford.
Smart Contracts (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont think so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Could the experienced person tinker with this and get away with the car? Perhaps. I think its a good system. Its meant to be more of a pain in the ass than anything. I know of some dealers who install GPS signals into the cars they sell to their "good credit-bad-credit-no-credit-come-one-come-all" customers. No pay, they repo the car. The reciever is hidden in some crazy place like behind the dash so the customer will never find it.
Also remember that if the do go delinquent on their payments, and the dealer files the car as stolen... they are then commiting
GRAND THEFT AUTO.
Re:What the hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at least people with bad credit histories will be given the chance of buying to buy a car. It won't matter for those who have the money, but it just might be good for those who are poor.
Actually, it's still extortion plain and simple. There is a local "buy here, pay here" car dealer that has been using these devices for quite awhile. You would think that in exchange for getting put a device on a car that you own that they would give the people with shitty credit history a break on the interest payments. After all, isn't the theory behind charging people with lousy credit higher interest that you need to do so in order to recoup losses? Not as much room for losses with this system.
Of course it doesn't work out that way in practice. They still charge anywhere from 15%-25% on a car loan. It's legalized loan sharking that takes advantage of the most desperate among us.
I'd also point out that even if you need a loan to buy a car you still own that car outright. The only thing that the bank/financing company has in the car is a security interest. This is not the same as them owning a percentage of the car. So why the hell should they be allowed to require this?
I would encourage everybody out there to avoid the whole problem by not buying a car that you need a loan on. I have never spent more then $2,000 on a car. Sure, I spend some money in repairs -- but the year end figure doesn't come close to most car loans (which still need repairs). And driving cheap ghetto cars allows me to avoid having to pay for expensive collision coverage.
Failing that, if you must have a nice car and can't afford to buy it outright, then get the loan for your car from your credit union or local community bank. Why the hell should we be doing the auto financing companies any favors?
These aren't for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
For the majority of people, you wouldn't need a system like this. Why? Because the majority of people, especially here, have reputable credit and can get a car loan, or have cash on hand to put a significant amount down.
I have a good friend who works in auto sales, and things in the used car business have become so bad, in terms of financing, that they were getting customers on the lot, essentially 'sold' them the car, and then couldn't get any banks to finance them. So what were they left doing? Financing the sale themselves.
Basically, you agree to pay the car dealership directly, instead of a bank. This puts a lot of pressure on the dealership, because instead of getting, say $12,000 upfront, in one payment from a bank, they are now getting monthly payments of $250 for the next 5 years or so. In doing this, they are really hanging their rear out, because if that customer makes two payments, and disapears off the face of the earth, that dealership has no way of tracking them, or their car, down.
That's why these systems are catching on so quickly, not as another form of 'big brother', but as an alternative for someone out there who needs a car, and can make payments, but can't get financed through a bank. This way, a dealership can move cars off their lot, and still protect their investment.
If you don't want a system like this in your car, the solution is simple, keep good credit. If you do that, then you'll be able to get bank financing, not get ripped off by a car dealership, and don't have to worry about 'big brother' in the passanger seat.
Re:I wouldn't buy a car with this system (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't ask rich people to help you fix your car. Rich people who can fix cars are called "mechanics" and "shop owners", and won't help you for a twelve pack. Poor people fix their own cars, or junk 'em and buy another one for $300.
Now, bad with credit != poor, but bad with credit != stupid, either. And poor != stupid as well. But most people I know who are handy with a wrench fall below the poverty line.
Norfolk VA car dealerships (Score:5, Insightful)
The state could step up and do something about it by applying reasonable intrest rate caps like a bunch of states do.
Re:What the hell-"/." lawyers. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can point till the cows come home. Legally your still wrong.
Umm, bullshit. Do you not know what a Lien [wikipedia.org] is? To quote: "In U.S. law, lien is the broadest term for any sort of charge or encumbrance against an item of property that secures the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation."
A lien tells somebody who might be looking to buy your property that somebody else has a security interest in it. This does not mean that you don't own the property. It will probably prevent you from transferring ownership of that property until that lien is satisfied but it does not change the fact that you own that property yourself.
In fact, even if the property is transferred the lien will usually survive and the new owner has to deal with it. A good example would be a house that was seized by the government for taxes that still had a mortgage against it. If you buy that house at government auction you are going to have to come to terms with the bank that holds the lien against it.
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Even still, if you don't own a car outright, even from a reputable dealer, that title has a lien set against it that is callable if you ever violate your payment contract, even if the loan is with a company not related to the dealer (ie your bank/credit union).
But that lien doesn't mean that they own the property. It only means that they have an interest in the property and it may serve to restrict your rights regarding the transfer of that property. It doesn't restrict any other rights that you may have.
If it did, then buying a house would be just like renting it until you paid off your mortgage. Why should the bank let you pound holes the wall to hang pictures and paint the walls any color but white? Most landlords won't in a renting scenario. The answer is that the bank doesn't own your house -- they only have a security interest in it.
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
This device secures their interest in the property, well within their rights.
Yes, their interest in your property. Not "the property". I suppose I would be perfectly within "my rights" to remove such device from my car. The worst thing I'd be doing is breaking a civil contract -- not any laws. Unless it phones home then I don't really see what they can do about it.
Leave it to Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
The loan agreement more than likely has a "instant default" clause for tampering. They will still send a real repo man out to get the car
Re:Repossession is not a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Repo men, whatever you think about their profession, risk their lives daily in order to prevent auto theft, which in a way is what failing to pay car payments is.
Why is it everyone has to turn every crime that involves property into theft? If you fail to make house payments have you "stolen" the house? I have no problem with repo men and reposession in general, but failing to make payments isn't theft. Don't try to make repo men into some sort of heroes. They're nothing more than contract enforcers.
Treating bad credit as bad credit (Score:2, Insightful)
What's sleazy about getting paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
You can do whatever you'd like to your car, as long as you do not violate the loan terms contract governing the security interest in the car. Most of those stipulate insurance coverages and limits as one of those terms. It is still perfectly legal for me to cut the roof off the car, weld a cage onto it, jack up the suspension, and use it as a dune buggy. I might violate the terms of the civil contract with the financer, but that is different. The State has no say in the matter, becase they aren't involved in my financing. The only thing that matters is the terms of the finance contract.
As has been said umpteen times, a lien says that the financer may take ownership of your property if you violate the terms of the contract. You're using the car's title as security for the loan. The government can place a lien on your real estate if you fail to pay your taxes, but that doesn't mean they now magically own the land. It just means that they're stating that they may take ownership of it if you do not fulfill your legal obligation to them.
All that aside, if there are people that are willing to put up with these devices, then whatever. There's nothing illegal about them, nor should there be. When you buy a car from these places, it simply isn't your car. You didn't buy the car, you bought a contract that says that after you pay a certain amount, the dealer will transfer the title to you. Because of that (and as long as this contract doesn't state otherwise), the dealer can place any conditions they want, at any time they want, on your use of the car, since it is the dealerships property. I wouldn't accept these terms, but if someone desperate enough may, and obviously does.
Re:Leave it to Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There are several competing systems like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I take it you're not poor at the moment. I'm not poor at the moment. I'm in college, as it happens. If I walk around campus on a Friday (or even Thursday or Wednesday these days) night, what do I see? Hundreds of spoiled rich frat boys partying it up and basically trashing the campus area, leaving garbage all over the place, vandalizing property (I've had the side mirrors kicked off my car, and someone attempted to steal my bike, which was locked to itself because there was no space in the rack; this attempt apparently led to the lock getting stuck in the spokes, hopefully throwing the would-be thief painfully to the ground). When I arrive at class, these people walk in and talk through the lecture about how they're going to spend the evening at bar crawls, or how they need to restore the prestige of their fraternity by increasing the level of hazing (I literally heard this conversation directly behind me in an engineering class, it was surreal). They pass their classes because they have files at the frat of old homework assignments that they copy. They get their college degree and get well-paying jobs, even if they slacked their way through; nobody cares because the jobs don't really require much intelligence anyway. They might get promoted into management through some kind of good-old-boy-ish network that they're in because they have a college degree and fit into the culture (where "the culture" == "yay conspicuous consumption" + "yay to sexism and classism with a subtle hint of racism sometimes" + "yay manipulative personalities and objectification"). These kids are quite rich; they wear the latest fashionable clothing and clearly they aren't paying a cent towards their education (if they were they wouldn't have time for all the barcrawls and hazing).
What I said is not true of everyone in any particular situation; there are plenty of good people with money, there are plenty of good people in the Greek system. But if a lot of poor people deserve to be poor, then there are also a lot of rich people that deserve it just as much. They're just lucky enough to have their future well-being handed to them no matter how much they choose to screw around.
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter what legal language you put on it. Doesn't matter if you legally, technically own it according to the letter of a law. If something can be taken away from you for non-payment, you de-facto do not yet own it.
Anything with a property tax is non-owned. You are just renting the experience of owning it.
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
y definition, someone with bad credit has bad credit *because* they tried to screw a creditor by not making payments on time
That's a bit of a leap. I know a fair share of people (my own sad life story included) that have bad credit because of events beyond their control. Try medical bills for starters. Try unemployment. Try the death of a working spouse who didn't have enough life insurance. Take any number of scenarios that could result in falling behind on bills without purposefully trying to "screw" the creditors.
The result is that they pay huge interest rates on everything. Seems fair to me.
It seems fair on the surface until you think about the nasty circle that it creates. You can't deny that the industry is setup to screw people in many cases. Why the hell does a secured credit card (often used to rebuild credit) need a 24.99% APR? By definition a secured card represents absolutely no risk to the issuer. They charge those rates because nobody is stopping them.
the next thing to realize is that most of the people at the bottom of the pay scale remain very poor because they insist on buying things (on credit) that they cant afford
I would agree with that statement if you had phrased it as "some of the people" instead of "most of the people".
I personally know more than a few people who "bought" a $25,000 car on credit at 20% interest at the same time they were being evicted for not paying their rent. Why didn't they buy a $15,000 car, or even buy a used car?
And that means everybody is like that? Personally when I was having hard times I always made a point to pay my car insurance first (if I can't get to work and make money then everybody is screwed), my landlord second, my food and utilities third and everybody after that can take a number. Screwing your landlord while you drive around in a $25,000 car is deplorable. I just take exception to your statements that "most" people who are poor or who have bad credit are acting like this. Did you know that about 70% of bankruptcies are triggered by medical bills?
I personally make only 20k / year, in a city where 30k / year is considered to be the line between middle class and poor, but in two years I have saved enough money to buy two rental houses, and the home I live in. I bought a used suzuki (on which I splurged) for $9,000. I don't own a TV (I use a TV card I bought for $5 from a local computer salvage store). I don't have a "kick ass stereo" I don't have a sweet living room set. I don't have a car stereo, and I wear clothing bought off the rack at a sears end of season clearance sale. Most importantly, I didn't marry a woman who is so stupid that she believes that children are a welfare funded meal ticket. If you want to get ahead in life stop trying to look like you're already ahead and put your mind towards the task of getting there.
Yeah, I'm about in the same boat. I make about 26k / year in an area with an avg of 40k. I drive a 1991 car that I bought at a charity auction for $205. I live in a one bedroom apartment. I'm saving every dime of my excess income to build a safety cushion and I'm considering a second job. So what's your point? I still take issue with your statements about "most" people.
Now as for these devices, I think they are a great idea. I want these for my rental units. The door would refuse to open from the outside unless they deposit $20 / day into the lock box... It would save me about 2 evictions every year, and I'll bet I would get paid more reliably.
And I would refuse to rent from you if you had those devices. If you felt the need to deploy such devices on your apartments then that alone is going to scare me away (who the hell else are you renting to? do I really want to live next to them?). And like RIAA I also have a serious problem with any business that treats me like a criminal before I've done anything wrong.
But that's just me.
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
fucking moron. yeah we all really believe that you are willing to go to jail or worse for killing a repo man. Most likely if you did anything at all it would be more big talk.. "I'm gonna sue you!", "Dont you know who I am!", "Get the fuck off my property".. etc etc.. but in the end you would still watch your vehicle get towed away.
No, but if I start the car up and drive it away there isn't a goddamn thing he can do about it. He can't pull me over. The repo man may be professionally intimidating but he isn't a peace officer. He has no arrest power over me. He can't force me to do anything.
Of course more likely then not they will repossess your car at 2AM and you won't realize it happened until the next day. I'm just pointing out the fact that a repossession is a civil matter -- they don't have any sort of special authority. In fact, if you had the vehicle in a locked garage then they are effectively fucked without getting a court order. They can't break into your home to repossess something just because they have a lien against it.
Re:What the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yes, true. But what I'm talking about in principle is removing the kill-switch-box after finding out it disabled your ignition for non-payment. At this point, it could be argued in court with certainty you commited grand theft auto.
I don't think so. Grand theft auto is a criminal matter. Until they actually decide to repo the car it is still mine and I can do whatever the hell I want with it. What if that device broke and wouldn't let me start my car? What if I was only 30 days late and it wouldn't let me start my car? In most states they wouldn't be able to repo it until you were at least 90 days late.
Now, if you later filed bankruptcy and tried to get the debt related to that vehicle discharged (if they repo it and sell it for less then you owe then you are still on the hook for the rest) you might find that your actions could be used against you. But it still doesn't make it a criminal matter.