Cell Phones Disable Keys for High-End Cars 463
Geoffrey.landis writes "Turns out if you have a top-end Nissan car, your cellphone may erase your car key. '"We discovered that if the I-Key touches a cellphone, outgoing or incoming calls have the potential to alter the electronic code inside the I-Key," Nissan spokesman Kyle Bazemore said. "The car won't start and the I-Key cannot be reprogrammed."'"
That's a crying shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I mean "It's a god-damn satchel!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:5, Informative)
Then again, letting them drive runk is a pretty good way to lose friends as well
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's a crying shame... (Score:4, Funny)
Does she own a Nissan, by any chance?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... But that's a false dichotomy. Could just as easily take the key or hide it. No need to be an asshole and erase it.
Re: (Score:2)
The other way is to grab the car with a wrecker.
People don't seem to care about that when it isn't their car. We've hooked up to move cars off-property for legit repos, and when expedient we've dragged them down the street with brakes locked and tires smoking. Once off-premises we'd tow it properly, but the point is that unless you are with your ride, someone who wants it can usually still get it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, even the less proficient non car thieves know how to do so. My car came with a Karr alarm, and after a few years I lost the keyfob. The alarm wasn't armed, so I just let it be. A year or so later my battery died, and hooking up a new battery set off the alarm. I had no way to disable the alarm. Putting the key into the ignition didn't work (in fact, I couldn't even start the car).
So I look
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
PeeCee users are listening.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
My mom has a ford escape, there have been two wiring recalls and the wiring has failed on two separate occasions. They had to completely replace the main board!
I can understand that putting electronics in cars seems like a good idea, but it's not.
It's DANGEROUS!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem was that your mom owns a Ford.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Problem with your statement is that the Escape is a Mazda Tribute.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:4, Funny)
My mom has a ford Model T, there have been engine problems and the engine has failed on two separate occasions. They had to completely replace the engine!
I can understand that putting mechanical engines in cars seems like a good idea, but it's not.
It's DANGEROUS!
Think of all those poor out of work horses and buggy whip manufacturers now!
Re: (Score:2)
Counterexample!
I know someone with a Model T ford -- it was the first car he ever bought, it still runs and has the original engine!
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad, bad analogy! (Score:5, Informative)
The Model T had two different clutches, one for going forward and the other for reverse. When the forward clutch wore down and started slipping under heavy loads, one turned the car around to go up a steep hill. Or, if the brakes didn't work, you could use the reverse pedal to stop the car.
Perhaps one could say that Model Ts were so widely used because they were more reliable than horses. It's more probable that a horse would become sick and die than a Model T engine would need replacement.
Re:Bad, bad analogy! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it was extremely simple. It was even moderately sturdy for short periods of time. But reliable? compared to modern cars that can go 100,000 miles with *no service* -- not even oil changes -- it was a fiendish monster of horror and misery.
and, having rebuilt a couple flatheads from the 1940's, I don't want to imagine what rebuilding an engine built in 1920 would be like.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they do... (Score:5, Informative)
Huh?
Show me a car engine that can meet current emissions requirements without electronic controls while running on fuel that you can buy at your local gas station. You can't, because it simply isn't possible. Even diesels have computer controls these days.
Electronic controls are an absolute requirement for gasoline engines because of the fine level of control of air/fuel mixture and ignition timing required to burn the fuel efficiently and somewhat cleanly whilst not destroying the engine in the process.
One car I owned recently (a 1995 Chevy) had an 11:1 compression ratio and ran on 87 octane fuel (that's the lowest grade of gasoline available in most of the USA). Without electronic controls such as knock sensing, O2 sensor feedback, mass airflow measurement, and the precise control of both the quantity and timing of fuel injection and the timing of the ignition by a computer, it simply would have been impossible to reach the power level that engine developed (or even to drive at all with an 11:1 CR on 87 octane fuel without knocking holes in the pistons) and at the same time producing HC and CO emissions that were a fraction of the same size (5.7L V8) engine from ten model years earlier.
An easy example of how electronic controls have improved the reliability of modern cars is the elimination of the ignition distributor. Pretty much all modern cars do not have distributors now, because they were such a common point of failure for ignition systems that they made cars break down due to things like worn out cap and rotor, or burned points (going back to before 1975 when electronic ignition became pretty much mandatory). Take a look at the tune-up intervals in a modern car's maintenance schedule. It used to be you'd have to change half the ignition system out every couple of years - now the whole thing is good for at least 100K miles in most cases.
Without modern electronic engine controls, US cities would still be blanketed photochemical smog from vehicle exhaust, and people's cars would be significantly less fuel efficient and far less reliable.
Your statement that electronic controls are not a vast improvement over the previous mechanical and vacuum controls is patently incorrect.
Re:Except they do... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is very different from the UK. The UK isn't much bigger then a good number of states. In some places in the US distances are vast and the population is low. Ever wonder why people in the US and Australia tend to drive the same types of cars?
Oh and my car? One is a Mazda 3 and the other a Dodge Intrepid. Both get pretty good milage. And my commute is only 14 miles each way and I carpool with my wife. I would say that you are the one that needs to get off your high horse. The US is different from the UK. I happen to like European style cars but I can tell you that they are not ideally suited to the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A typical V8 of that size in the US produces around 270HP.
And I gurantee that you have engines like that in the UK. They are used for the same kind of vehciles that they are used for in the US - light trucks
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hahaha. I nearly sprayed coffee all over my monitor. Let's rephrase:
"But most of the people who use or own pickup trucks for business/work actually use them."
That's far more accurate. Greater than 80% of the pickups I see every day are in gleaming, immaculate condition, far more obviously used for "status
A DeLorean? (Score:3, Funny)
(The plutonium engine occurred to me also, but if plutonium passes the emissions test, the inspectors are slacking off.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When it comes down to it, how much "mechanical" engineering will it take to build an engine that will get the power for the size and efficiency of a modern engine? Combine that with the fuel efficiency and emission requirements being forced on modern cars, how do you think any mechanical system will be able to determine how much air/fuel mixture is needed so that th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's the electronics per se, but rather the attitude creeping in from the computer industry. I've noticed it in other industries as well, such as television and phone service. Faults that wouldn't have been tolerated ten years ago are suddenly cropping up everywhere. People have become desensitised to failure with electronics because of computers. Sloppy QA because of the training/expertise/staff overlap with computers.
And at the same time, another problem is preventing this from being solved. People put up with it. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that if somebody fucks up, you can go with a competitor. But now it's trendy to complain and then forget about it until next time something goes wrong. Shitty mobile phone reception? Moan about it, but don't ask for your money back. Crashing computer? Complain to your neighbourhood geek, but don't demand a refund. Evil dictator in charge of your country? Re-elect the fucker! When there's no consequences to providing a shitty service, that's exactly what people will give you.
Stupid New Software (Score:3, Interesting)
Products compete on price and glitz, not reliability or security.
Reliability and security were supposed to be _givens_ -- something you didn't pay attention to because they were minimum standards. Unfortunately, because most people were focusing on "glitz", "over here", software manufacturers were quickly taking money and resources from "QA" and security and putting them where they could get the best return on their money -- in "glitz".
Despite the
Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
The public want blingful features, the public are no longer mechanically literate, and the public will not vocally insist on reliable vehicles. This creates tremendous pressure on makers to offer stupid shite at a competitive price.
Even good features like electronically controlled automatic transmissions are often poorly engineered and are brutally expensive to replace when they fail.
As an aside, tool prices have remained quite low, and if you are the sort of person who isn't afraid to learn you can save many thousands of dollars by doing your own work. The money you save easliy buys good equipment you can use for a lifetime.
Never has an auto repair course at the local community college been a better value. You can free yourself from ever having to buy a new car, free yourself from being at the mercy of undertrained or unethical automobile repair outfits, and know the person who worked on your car gave a shit.
If you can understand computers, it isn't a great leap to understand other technology, and as usual the internet can help.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen! It's important to remember that Ford is just fucking stupid. There's power in the doors of many Fords even when the vehicle is off, because the window motor switches supply ground instead of power - power is constant. This is, quite simply, retarded, and it is the opposite of what basically every other manufacturer does.
Amusingly however, when Ford bought Jagua
20% of vehicle problems stem from electronics. (Score:4, Interesting)
The electronics have given us more features and higher fuel efficiency. But still, there are times when it would be nice to make it all manual. Cars that you can't shift into neutral unless the battery is charged can be a pain to get off the road after an accident. If a wheel sensor goes bad, you ought to be able to turn them off and drive the car to a service station, instead of put-putting along at five MPH on the side of the parkway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I like not having any electronics in my car. Oh, wait, I think the indicators use an electronic flasher unit, but it's not like anyone else around here signals when they're turning.
Re: (Score:2)
How prophetic (Score:4, Funny)
Honda and Microwaves (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Honda and Microwaves (Score:5, Informative)
That's not unreasonable. We usually buy the cheapest appliances, and there's virtually no testing on imports after the demo model. Since around 1995, I've seen some amazing crap inside electrical items that were supposedly UL and CSA certified.
And really, do you want to stand beside a microwave that can trigger car alarms? Take Honda's advice on that one.
Re:Honda and Microwaves (Score:4, Informative)
Microwave ovens emit on the largely unregulated 2.4GHz band, the fact that crap on that frequency could hork up the Honda car alarm is almost certainly Honda's fault, regardless of if the oven exceeds signal strength limits or not. Especially on a security system, otherwise they've left the car owner a big wide denial of service vulnerability.
They should take a lesson from the MAFIAA (Score:5, Funny)
direct Reuters link (Score:4, Informative)
Nissan warns U.S. cellphones can disable car keys [reuters.com]
All microwaves? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe I should rethink the cel habit? (Score:2)
Somehow the tinfoil beanie types who worry about brain damage are seeming less tinfoil beanie-ish these days...
Where's that Reynolds Wrap?
Caution using cellphones (Score:5, Funny)
Lies... (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously it CAN be reprogrammed, or else they wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine holding a magnet up to a magnetic storage device. It destroys all the data on the device, and you can't just hold up another magnet on the other side and expect the device to have all the old data on it. You need to have any data you want to put on the device stored somewhere else, and go and get it to put it back on.
It could be that Nissan is using some sort of supposedly write-once chip in these keys. Although t
Cannot be reprogrammed? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you expose magnetic media to random magnetic forces you lose data... but it does not destroy the medium itself.
OTOH if you pass a Sensormatic EAS tag through an EMF it destroys the medium.
Why would you make a key like that? What's going on here? Who's running this show?
Re:Cannot be reprogrammed? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, it's certainly possible to change additional "1" bits into "0"s into the ROM and change the data further, but it is not possible to change a "0" into a "1" without erasing the entire EPROM (by removing it from whatever device it was in and shining ultraviolet light into window on the top of the chip).
My guess is that something similar is happening here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, I dunno, maybe it is tamper resistant or something wacky like that...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I know there are crypto chips that can destroy themselves using chemical agents stored inside the packaging. It's not easy to find out much detail about them for some reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IF the signature can be altered by a signal why could it not be re-alligned by another? Is the frequency somehow damaging the medium that holds the signature?
If you expose magnetic media to random magnetic forces you lose data... but it does not destroy the medium itself.
OTOH if you pass a Sensormatic EAS tag through an EMF it destroys the medium.
Why would you make a key like that? What's going on here? Who's running this show?
I'm just idly speculating, but it's perfectly plausible that the device is "programmed" at the time of manufacture by direct wire connection, then the device is cast into the plastic key head later. From the sound of it, the keys are the unfortunate victims of near-field radiation [wikipedia.org]. Near-field effects include surprisingly strong magnetic induction, which could reasonably be expected to fustigate a badly designed transponder circuit such as one would find in a key like this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only high-end cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, my understanding was that with most of these, the key leaves the factory with a fixed number, no two keys have the same number and you reprogram the car to recognise the key rather than reprogramming the key to work the car. This sounds to me like a simple case of bad engineering which was never considered when the key was designed.
The upshot is that Nissan will re-design the key so it's not affected by cell-phones, new cars will ship with the redesigned key and owners of existing cars will have to pay a small fortune to replace the keys because it's not a safety recall issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say about recent US-designed cars, though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only high-end cars? (Proximity Key!) (Score:3, Informative)
who thought this was a good idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
why can't we just use a bit of properly carved metal to start the vehicle without throwing in a bunch of junk?
Re: (Score:2)
Try to imagine your insurance rates for said car without the chipped keys. I'm not in the business but I'd wager that the chipped keys fairly significantly reduce the rate of car theft which makes insuring said car cheaper. I'd further wager that the rate increase of carved metal versus chipped keys to be more than $50 per annum.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't be farther from the truth. Look up the list of most stolen cars. A few use chipped keys. I'm particularly fond of Honda's idea of security, its downright idiotic. Honda has had chipped keys for 10 years. My mom's 1999 3.2TL has a simpler key than a generic padlock, and that is justified because the keys are chipped. However, looking at the top stolen cars, you'll see Honda
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
thinking about it. Eventually it feels like the car just knows you.
Sometimes it can be confusing, like if you get out of th
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely why... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is precisely why, at least where I live, the cars you most commonly see are more than 15 years old OR are less than three years old.
The relative simplicity of cars even from the early 1990's, nevermind the 60's and 70's, is what allows them to stay on the road so long. They're easier to work on (no super-expensive diagnostic equipment needed in most cases), the parts are made of stronger metals (steel and iron instead of aluminum and plastic) and the electrical systems are more independent of eachother than in today's cars.
The electrical mess that is today's cars is probably the single largest contributing factor to people's desire to replace a car instead of repairing it. Electrical gremlins are one of the hardest problems to chase down in today's cars because everything is sensor this and computer that. The systems are not redundant in most cases, and the parts and skills necessary to fix the problem once its diagnosed can be cost-prohibitive.
In an age when everyone is rightfully concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency, why are we building cars that are very complicated, have a high energy cost to produce and go straight to the junkyard, on average, in less than 10 years?
The worst problem is that, with the exception of some of the more advanced engine control systems allowing better fuel economy, very few of these electronic 'improvements' actually make driving safer, better or more enjoyable.
I mean, as cool as it looks to wave an electronic key and have the car start, have we gotten to the point where a mechanical lock and tumbler are too hard to turn?
People got along for more than 100 years in cars without GPS systems telling them (in some cases incorrectly) to "turn right in 300 yards".
Even hybrid gas-electric cars are based on 80+-year-old tech. Diesel-electric submarines were built and operated with very little, and early on no computer support systems.
As with a great many things, I think it's time we take a good hard look at what we have, and attempt to simplify instead of further complicate.
Re:This is precisely why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perspective
People got along for thousands of years without cars, so maybe you should consider getting rid of yours.
Re: (Score:2)
When I lived in DC, I did exactly that. Where I'm at now, there is no reliable public transportation and my job requires me to carry large amounts of heavy, fragile equipment thereby requiring a car.
When I'm not working, or my kit is light I walk whenever possible. When walking's not possible I do try to carpool to save energy.
I appreciate that people got by for thousands of years without cars. I also appreciate the advantages that technology affords us. Cars are not inherently bad. , nor is driving
Re: (Score:2)
As I replied above, yes: technology is supposed to improve our lives and make tasks simpler.
How, exactly does a non-mechanical ignition system (that apparently can be broken by proximity to a cellphone) achieve either or both of those goals, over a good, old-fashioned metal, essentially fail-proof key?
I betI know why! (Score:4, Informative)
The capacitive coupling of an antenna to a key could then be quite good at the 1-2GHz frequencies (0.5pF @ 2GHz => 150Ohms). That's a low enough impedance to power up a device (through its protection diodes) and cause it to reprogram itself due to noise on the inputs. It could actually even fry the poor little silicon device, if it rectified the voltage got up high enough (>5V) for any length of time.
It's not that hard a problem to prevent (put a filter on your inputs folks!), but I doubt the automotive key entry designers are normally thinking of transmitters at that power and frequency.
Slightly OT (Score:3, Interesting)
I've looked into this and I'm not the only person who has speakers/electronics that respond to cell phones this way. Are they really pumping that much juice in the signal these days or is my setup wired so that EM signals somehow translate into sound on the speakers? And how do I fix that?
TLF
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking the signal from my phone must be very powerful. Scary considering its in my pocket quite often and that cell phones operate in the microwave band.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason, it seems that the "bad" cell phones are ALL GSM, and CDMA phones never interfere, come in on my speakers etc - I can always here my crackberry, but none of the verizon phones in the house do this (the Crackberry is works - hate the darned thing)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not recent as you suggest; I saw the same thing around ten years ago. Generally it's "cheaper" systems that get interfered with the most.
Re:Slightly OT (Score:4, Informative)
Check your line-in. If you have nothing connected there, disable the input at the control panel.
my clock radio
Clock radios are usually "el-cheapo" units with very high sensitivity antenna inputs. Designed for RFI.
my friend's speakers
Check the input connectors. Replace old cables, use only good-quality (gold plated connectors) cables at the inputs.
my TV
Same as clock radios.
and my computer monitor
Sorry, I can't explain that one...
Oh, and a plane's directional sensor that the Mythbusters team sat next to a phone.
I'm an electronics engineer and have worked most of my life in aerospace equipment. Electronic equipment in airplanes are *very* sensitive, they are designed to work far away from everything. There's no sense in a directional sensor that only works inside the airport. That's why no one is allowed to use cell phones in an airplane.
Cell phones (at least some GSM phones) cause short bursts of *massive* amounts of EM interference
Define "*massive*". Would a trillion (or, in British units, a million million) times do? Well, it's pretty normal for inputs in electronic equipment such as radios and TV receivers to have -120 dBm sensitivity. That means one trillionth of one milliwatt. A phone with a 100mW signal has a hundred trillion times more power than the smallest threshold a radio or TV can detect.
Cell phones are designed to have enough power to send signals through one or two concrete walls and that's all. If they were more powerful than that, their batteries wouldn't last. OTOH, radio and TV receivers are designed to detect the most feeble signals possible. The combination of a so-so transmitter in a cell phone with a non-limited sensitivity on a TV or radio is what makes RFI happen.
Altima is high end (Score:3, Funny)
What exactly is a mid range car?
This is news? (Score:3, Informative)
New Owner -- G35 (Score:5, Informative)
Infiniti has been dealing with the problem quite well.
This is really not as big of an issue as the press is making it out to be -- it's a very isolated issue. I keep my phone next to my Blackberry all day and haven't had any problems. On the G35 forums, maybe 3-4 people have run into the issue. All owners recieved a letter about 2 weeks ago informing us of the issue and that they would have a replacement key for us within a few months.
Read more about it here: http://g35driver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1537
Can still open the car (Score:2, Funny)
This is why... (Score:4, Interesting)
On a similar note, I was getting ready to store my jumper cables in the trunk (accessible only through one of three electric pushbuttons) when I realized that if the battery dies, I won't even be able to get into my trunk! What kind of crap is that?
Re:Reinvent the key (Score:4, Funny)
With either type of chipped key, the cost of replacing the key is very high. I am reminded of an incident I witnessed about 3-4 years ago at my Lexus dealer while I was waiting for service to be finished on my car: In comes a fellow, all excited that he had just managed to buy a nice Lexus for a ridiculously low price at a police auction. (No doubt it was a vehicle confiscated from a drug dealer or something.) Trouble was, the car he bought had no key with it. He came into the dealer with the VIN hoping to get a replacement key issued. The parts man did a lot of manual searching, and catalog thumbing and told the man the cost of a new key would be $3000+! Seems not only a new key was needed, but a complete replacement of the main computer module for the car. I don't know when I have seen someone more disappointed and frustrated as the fellow who got such a good deal on the Lexus.