Future Fords Could Repossess Themselves and Drive Away if You Miss Payments

[Frank Cox]

https://www.thedrive.com/news/future...-miss-payments

Average car payments have been rising for a while. Although auto loan delinquency rates have been down since the height of the pandemic, Ford applied for a patent to make the repossession process go smoother. For the bank, that is.

The patent document was submitted to the United States Patent Office in August 2021 but it was formally published Feb. 23. It's titled "Systems and Methods to Repossess a Vehicle." It describes several ways to make the life of somebody who has missed several car payments harder.

It explicitly says the system, which could be installed on any future vehicle in the automaker's lineup with a data connection would be capable of "[disabling] a functionality of one or more components of the vehicle." Everything from the engine to the air conditioning. For vehicles with autonomous or semi-autonomous driving capability, the system could "move the vehicle from a first spot to a second spot that is more convenient for a tow truck to tow the vehicle... move the vehicle from the premises of the owner to a location such as, for example, the premises of the repossession agency," or, if the lending institution considers the "financial viability of executing a repossession procedure" to be unjustifiable, the vehicle could drive itself to the junkyard.

No other automakers have recently attempted to patent a similar system, and indeed the Ford patent doesn't reference any other legal document for the sake of clarifying its idea. All of this being said, patent documents, especially applications like this one, do not necessarily represent an automaker's intent to introduce the described feature, process, or technology to its vehicles. Ford might just be attempting to protect this idea for the sake of doing so. The document does go into a lot of detail as to how such a system might work, though.

The first thing to know is that if your vehicle is connected to the internet in any way, this system could theoretically work on it. The application likewise describes a "repossession computer" that could be installed on future cars to make this system function smoothly, but it also states no extra hardware necessarily needs to be installed on the vehicle for it to function. "In some embodiments, the vehicle computer may be configured to perform some, or all, functions of the repossession system computer." Basically, if your car has an infotainment system already set up to receive something like over-the-air updates, this could probably work without physical modifications.

There would be several warnings from the vehicle before the system initiated a formal repossession. If these warnings were ignored, the car could begin to lose functionality ahead of a repo. The first lost functions would be minor inconveniences like "cruise control, automated window controls, automated seat controls, and some components of the infotainment system (radio, global positioning system (GPS), MP3 player, etc.)" The next level is more serious, and includes the loss of things like "the air conditioning system, a remote key fob, and an automated door lock/unlock system." Likewise, an "incessant and unpleasant sound" may be turned on "every time the owner is present in the vehicle."

If all of that is endured by the car's owner and payment still has not been received, they could get locked out of their car. The patent application states that "the repossession system computer may disable the door lock mechanism, thereby placing the vehicle in a lockout condition and preventing a person from entering a cabin of the vehicle." There are several caveats to go with this, such as locking out the owner only on weekends or allowing for vehicle use in emergency situations. Indeed, the patent explicitly notes that if somebody is suffering from something like a heart attack—it uses the heart attack situation several times in the document—then the car could be unlocked. It says the vehicle's onboard camera could be used alongside a "neural network" to determine if the emergency situation is legitimate.

A repo will still eventually take place, though, and this is where it's explained that autonomous or semi-autonomous cars might make this process easier for the bank. First of all, it says the vehicle will use its onboard sensors to detect whether or not it's in a garage. If it isn't, then the car could, without the owner being aware, repossess itself or drive somewhere nearby to avoid a confrontation with the repossessor. I will quote Ford's patent document explicitly for the sake of clarity here:

"In some cases, the vehicle can be a semi-autonomous vehicle and the repossession system computer may cooperate with the vehicle computer in the semi-autonomous vehicle to autonomously move the vehicle from a first spot to a second spot that is more convenient for a tow truck to tow the vehicle. The first spot may, for example, be located inside the property line of the owner (a garage or a driveway, for example) and the second spot may be outside the property line (a public road, for example).

In some other cases, the vehicle can be an autonomous vehicle and the repossession system computer may cooperate with the vehicle computer to autonomously move the vehicle from the premises of the owner to a location such as, for example, the premises of the repossession agency, the premises of the lending institution, an impound pound, or any other pre-designated location."

Here's where the junkyard comes into play. To paraphrase, the market value of the vehicle will be identified by the lending institution based on mileage, condition, and/or certain costs associated with repossession (towing, storage, re-sale proceedings etc.). If it will cost the bank more to repo the vehicle as compared to what it could sell it for, then "the repossession system computer may cooperate with the vehicle computer to autonomously move the vehicle from the premises of the owner to a junkyard."

The fact that Ford envisions autonomous cars will one day be worth so little that driving themselves to a scrapyard makes financial sense might hint at the nature of this patent. It may not be something the automaker plans to actually develop any time soon. That being said, the fact that Ford has any level of interest in this sort of thing, whether it's just for the sake of protecting an idea or not, is concerning. The thought of your autonomous car driving away because you missed a payment isn't a pleasant one, and keep in mind Ford also mentions "semi-autonomous" cars as potentially being capable of supporting a system like this. Its current "Blue Cruise" hands-free driving system could very well be "semi-autonomous."

As previously mentioned, Ford is the only automaker to attempt to patent something like this. Making repossessions go smoother for banks is not officially at the front of other car companies' minds. Let's hope, for the sake of anybody who has ever missed a few car payments, it stays that way.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

It's not a bad idea to be honest. But it will put all the Tee Vee repo guys out of business.

[Steve Guttag]

I think there is going to be a showdown on the whole consumer ownership of things they purchase. Manufacturers are trying to own (by way of controlling) things that people buy. This particular patent may be couched in "we're just providing a means of repossessing a car for which the owner hasn't been making payments but note that it will be able to disable most anything, including the air conditioner. This is about ownership and control and asserting a means of making all forms of life subscription.

We have printers now that will refuse to use 3rd party ink/toner or even 3rd party paper (Dymo)...everything is trying to put a DRM chip to ensure one and only one entity can provide all forms of support, including normal consumables. It has started with just repair (and there are many right-to-repair movements) but really it boils down to: Who owns the devices? That is the entity that should be able to do whatever they want with the device (within the law) and they own the entirety of the device. That includes the A/C, heated seats, the ink, the whatever. Manufacturers should be barred from having such control. Once they sell it, it is the person that bought it that owns it and everything contained within.

I don't know how soon, but there will be a showdown over this.

As to the car auto-repo...it will bring up privacy issues because if the manufacturer can summon the car back to an entity, it means they can track the user and everywhere the car goes. Setting aside everyone's phone is doing that already, it should not be within Ford's ability to do so as a matter of manufacture.

This crap has got to stop

[Frank Cox]

It also sounds like another greenfield for hackers. "Your car is now locked. 0.5 bitcoin to unlock it."

[Leo Enticknap]

I think the showdown will be accelerated by the growing awareness of this push toward control via subscription and expiration that technology manufacturers are behind, coupled with growing awareness at the sheer scale of personal data that big tech is gathering about us, and the potential ways in which they can use it against us.

When social media first became a thing, I made the conscious decision to stay off Facebook and Twitter, because I read several detailed articles about their business model (essentially, selling information about who you communicate with and what you do online to advertisers, who then use it to target marketing at you), and decided that I didn't like what that could progress into. I was criticized and made fun of by friends, relatives, and co-workers. As recently as my last job, I came under heavy pressure to register on Facebook so that I could "like" the PR lady's posts and thus boost their visibility. My reply was that if they wanted me to operate a Facebook account in the name of the organization in the course of my paid duties I would happily do so, but I absolutely would not create an account in my own name. Since installing the NoScript and Facebook Container plugins for my browser a few years ago, I've been shocked at the sheer number of third party sites with embedded scripts that pass information to FB and Twitter. Even if you don't touch their sites or apps, they are still trying to gather intelligence on you.

I will try not to get political, but substantive evidence now exists that Facebook, and Twitter pre-Musk, actively collaborated with government agencies in ways that represent a significant civil liberties threat. Three years ago, expressing such views got me laughed at and characterized as a tinfoil hatter who likely has several pallets of canned beans in his basement. Now, they are going mainstream. Tech geek publications such as Wired now routinely publish "how to turn off this tracking feature on your iPhone" type articles. Concerns about TikTok's links to the Chinese government are now covered in the mainstream media, as are government attempts to restrict the use of end-to-end encryption (e.g. the FBI lobbying against Apple's iOS 16 feature whereby you can encrypt your stuff in their cloud, and even Apple doesn't have the key).

One thing I found interesting was the shocked response by many I've discussed this with, to the news that after the Idaho student murders, law enforcement were tracking their suspect via geolocation data generated by his phone for over a month while they assembled their case against him, and also used this data to place him at the crime scene. I suspect that they'd rather not have made public the fact that they were doing this, but eventually had to because of (a) negative media coverage during that month - why no progress in the case? - and (b) the fact that this evidence would have had to come out in court eventually anyways, unless he pled guilty (which someone facing the firing squad is very unlikely to do). Most of the population simply didn't realize that by carrying your smartphone around, you are effectively carrying the same thing as the ankle tag on parolee ex-prisoners. The authorities have the ability to know exactly where you are or were, in the recent past at any rate. Thanks largely to the saturation coverage received by the Idaho student murders case, there is widespread awareness of this now.

Software/hardware as a service and right-to-repair issues are another aspect of this push for control and regulation. As with social media and advertising, they started out as simply a way for megacorps to make money out of you, but they now risk turning into something a lot more sinister. Hopefully, informed consumer pushback will inhibit their development.

[Harold Hallikainen]

The software subscription model is interesting. I see the advantage of steady income to software publishers, but it sure gets expensive for users. I've been using QuickBooks for over 30 years. I'm now using the 2019 version. Intuit no longer sells QuickBooks but, instead sells a subscription. My version supports an unlimited number of companies, so I handle the accounting for several organizations. The subscription lets you do one company for something like $30 per month. I paid under $200 at Staples for the version I have. A subscription would be very expensive.

I just started doing the accounting for another organization and, since QB is no longer available without a subscription, I'm using GnuCash for that organization. I find QB more intuitive, but that may just be the fact that I've been using it for so long.

Gnucash (and as far as I know, other accounting software) cannot import the qbw file, so it is a pain to move away from QuickBooks.

I'd expect some software publishers to compete with the subscription model by once again selling a license for the software. And, the ability to import a QBW file would be great!

Will consumers not buy cars that require a subscription for the remote doorlocks?

Harold

[Leo Enticknap]

I would hope that consumer resistance kills the idea, but may be overly optimistic.

[Brad Miller]

So what happens if the car drives itself somewhere to be repossessed and there happens to be important or valuable personal items inside? Could Ford or the bank be held responsible for stealing the person's private property?

[Marcel Birgelen]

I would hope that consumer resistance kills the idea, but may be overly optimistic.

It's like with so much of this stuff happening right now. Many people do care, but don't care enough about it, to invest considerable amount of resources into it to fight against it. You'd expect our politicians to do that work for us, but most of them are being bought by the lobbyists of the big corporations.

I'm an active follower of Louis Rossmann, who actively fights for consumer rights like the "Right to Repair", but it's pretty daunting what kind of forces you have to contend with, including corrupt organizations, corrupt and/or incompetent politicians. But there is a rising resistance in the population as more and more people directly and indirectly get hit by the negative consequences by the "you own nothing" trend that has been ongoing and building for the last 40+ years.

It's not a bad idea to be honest. But it will put all the Tee Vee repo guys out of business.

It will open new opportunities, because they can now stream it live to Twitch or YouTube while it's happening, live from your car. It will not only make it cheaper, but also more cost effective and will open up a whole set of new interactive opportunities: Like for every superchat exceeding $150, the car will drive by by someone in the previous owner's phone address list and will honk a few times during drive-by.

So what happens if the car drives itself somewhere to be repossessed and there happens to be important or valuable personal items inside? Could Ford or the bank be held responsible for stealing the person's private property?

I'm sure they'll put an exclusion for that somewhere deep in their 1,500 page EULA you obviously read, fully understood and accepted when you took delivery of the car.

[Mike Blakesley]

It's kind of amazing how modern life is slowly but surely turning into a higher-tech version of the book "Nineteen Eighty Four," except with better booze.

This whole car-ownership scenario is one where people might like the Supreme Court being of a more conservative stance. This nonsense is just begging to be endlessly challenged in court.

[Lyle Romer]

So what happens if the car drives itself somewhere to be repossessed and there happens to be important or valuable personal items inside? Could Ford or the bank be held responsible for stealing the person's private property?

A valid question. Since I've never had a vehicle repossessed or known anyone close to me who has, what happens if a repo man tows a car now to repossess it and it contains similar items?

I assume they have to return the contents as holding the title only entitles them to possession of the vehicle itself.

[Leo Enticknap]

I'm guessing that, in the absence of a SCOTUS ruling on the matter, this is a matter for state law, and that the situation is different in different states. It wouldn't surprise me if the vendor charges a humongous "processing fee" for the return of personal items in a car at the time it was repo-ed, though, and/or the small print allows the vendor to sell them off to recover outstanding debt.

[Martin McCaffery]

So what happens if the car drives itself somewhere to be repossessed and there happens to be important or valuable personal items inside? Could Ford or the bank be held responsible for stealing the person's private property?

Forget personal items, what about persons? How about a little child person? Is that kidnapping? "Car Dealer Kidnaps Child" is just the headline everyone is going to regret seeing.

[Mike Blakesley]

My guess is the car would do everything it could to contact you, and if it decided it wanted to repossess itself, you would have to do something to allow that to happen. Park it on the street, for example. Can't repossess a car that's in a garage.

[Steve Guttag]

I'd think that current law(s) cover what is in the car during a traditional "repo." I don't believe the tow truck driver or one that is issued keys is going to remove/catalog what is in the vehicle when they repo as often time is of the essence in getting the vehicle. Then again, if there is a person in the vehicle, that too is likely covered as it would be some form of kidnapping.