When Self-Driving Cars Turn Against You: The Risks of Using Autonomous Technology for Repossession

By: Mack Jackson Jr.

By: Mack Jackson Jr.

As a cybersecurity researcher, I recognize the many potential benefits of autonomous vehicle technology and the significant risks it poses. Self-driving cars rely on complex networks of sensors, software, and machine learning algorithms, which present a multitude of vulnerabilities that cybercriminals could exploit. A successful attack could have catastrophic consequences, including loss of life, property damage, and economic disruption. Therefore, addressing the cybersecurity concerns associated with autonomous vehicle technology is critical. This requires collaboration between the automotive industry, cybersecurity experts, and government regulators to develop robust security measures and protocols to protect these systems from cyber threats. As a cybersecurity researcher, I’m committed to advancing this critical work to ensure the safety and security of the future of transportation.

In 2016, Ford filed a patent application for a technology enabling its autonomous vehicles to return to the dealership if the owner fails to pay or defaults on their lease agreement. The patent application, “Autonomous Vehicle Arrangement for Transport to Receiving Location,” describes a system allowing dealerships to remotely disable a self-driving car’s autonomous mode, causing it to drive back to the dealership for repossession.

The proposed technology involves a series of sensors and cameras installed within the vehicle that can detect when the car is near a dealership. Once the sensors detect the dealership’s location, the vehicle’s autonomous mode will be enabled, and the car will be guided to a specific location at the dealership for pickup.

While the technology outlined in Ford’s patent application is still in its early stages and may never come to fruition, it highlights the potential for self-driving cars to be used for purposes beyond transportation. The technology could automatically track and repossess leased or financed vehicles, reducing the need for human intervention in the repossession process.

However, the idea of autonomous vehicles being repossessed without human intervention raises concerns about privacy and security. Critics argue that allowing dealerships or finance companies to disable an autonomous vehicle’s autonomous mode remotely could open the door to abuse, with companies potentially using the technology to track and surveil vehicle owners.

Moreover, the use of autonomous technology for repossession could be problematic from a legal standpoint, as current laws and regulations governing repossession were not designed with autonomous vehicles in mind. The technology raises questions about liability in the event of accidents or damage during the repossession process.

It’s worth noting that while Ford filed a patent for self-driving cars to return to the dealership for repossession, Tesla has already implemented a similar feature in its vehicles. In 2019, a Tesla Model S owner reported on Twitter that their vehicle had been remotely disabled by Tesla after they failed to pay for an upgrade to their vehicle’s software. The owner claimed that the car had been stranded on the roadside and could not move.

In response, Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk confirmed that the company had remotely disabled the car’s software and explained that Tesla’s policy is to disable a vehicle’s software if the owner does not pay for an upgrade. However, Musk also stated that the company would not use the feature to disable a vehicle’s core functions, such as driving or braking, as it could be dangerous.

Tesla’s use of remote disablement highlights the potential for autonomous vehicles to be used for purposes beyond transportation and raises concerns about privacy and security. It has been argued that allowing corporations to disable a vehicle’s software directly could lead to abuse, such as the tracking and surveillance of vehicle owners. Hackers might be able to use this technology to “e-hijack” vehicles by hacking into the vehicle manufacturer database or financial company’s data systems.

However, unlike Ford’s patent, Tesla’s use of remote disablement has been implemented and has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and potential for abuse. Tesla’s use of the feature highlights the need for industry leaders and lawmakers to address these issues to ensure that autonomous vehicles are deployed safely and responsibly. As autonomous vehicle technology continues to evolve, it will be crucial to establish clear regulations and guidelines for the use of autonomous vehicles for purposes beyond transportation, including repossession.

As the use of autonomous vehicles for repossession becomes more widespread, legal and insurance liability questions have arisen. No specific laws or regulations govern the use of autonomous cars for repossession, leaving many legal and insurance questions unanswered.

One issue with using autonomous vehicles for repossession is a liability in the event of an accident or damage to the vehicle during the repossession process. Suppose an autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident while being driven back to the dealership for repossession. In that case, who would be liable for damages or injuries is unclear. Would it be the dealership or finance company, the software provider or manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle, or the vehicle’s owner?

As a security researcher, I believe the legal concern that the possibility that dealerships or finance businesses will misuse the technology. Concerns regarding an individual’s right to privacy and safety are raised when a financing business can deactivate a vehicle’s autonomous mode from a distance. Is it possible for companies or hackers to use this technology to monitor and surveil vehicle owners or disable an autonomous vehicle mode when there is no justifiable reason to do so?

On the insurance side, using autonomous vehicles for repossession raises questions about coverage. A question to ask is, would a standard auto insurance policy cover accidents or damage during the repossession process, or would a separate policy be required? Additionally, in the case of an accident or injury, or damages caused by an autonomous vehicle during repossession, how would the claims process be handled?

As the use of autonomous vehicles for repossession becomes more common, it will be crucial for lawmakers and industry leaders to address these legal and insurance questions to ensure that the technology is deployed safely and responsibly. Clear regulations and guidelines will be necessary to establish liability and insurance coverage and prevent potential abuse of the technology.

In conclusion, while Ford’s patent application for autonomous vehicles to return to the dealership for repossession highlights the potential for self-driving cars to be used for purposes beyond transportation, it raises concerns about privacy, security, and legal implications. As autonomous vehicle technology continues to evolve, it will be necessary for lawmakers and industry leaders to address these issues to ensure that autonomous vehicles are deployed safely and responsibly.

About the Author — Mack Jackson Jr

Mack Jackson Jr. is the CEO of Vanderson Cyber Group. In the age of global cyber threats, Vanderson Cyber Group helps businesses protect themselves from cyberattacks by teaching them cybersecurity awareness. Vanderson Cyber Group uses state-of-the-art practices in security policy development and comprehensive employee training. One of the essential services is phishing simulation and compliance training, which keep employees up-to-date on the threat landscape. Vanderson Cyber Group also provides resources for cyber insurance, managed services, and legal representation. For more information: http://www.vandersoncybergroup.com