Charging extra for safety features is nothing new, but actively disabling them for missed payments may be the future.

@onlooker
91M

Wow, a subscription-based safety vest. Just when you think humanity couldn’t reach a new low.

@Zerush
8
edit-2
1M

I think it’s hard to be more miserable. Another of the ‘goodness’ of neo-liberalism, of prevailing some bucks over human life. That sucks, they’re no better than any poop that catches you with a knife in an alley. The future? I hope not Free way to be blocked airbags and seat belts in the car, if you don’t pay a fee, or that they block your computer files until you pay, ah no, the latter are criminal hackers who put you in a Root-Kit.

@gun
71M

I thought this was satire at first. They’d knowingly let someone die in a crash because they didn’t pay. There has got to be a better way to make your profits.

kurigohankamehameha
6
edit-2
1M

This should be considered illegal, right? I mean, this is like sabotage isn’t it? An enterprise killing people for not paying fees, this isn’t Yakuza, though Yakuza isn’t a company anyway.

edit: The last comment was before i’ve read this article, but yet i’m not sure if doing this kind of stuff is correct

@Axaoe
6
edit-2
1M

“Further, if someone pauses their subscription and forgets to restart it, they won’t actually be able to get their In&box into ride-ready status when they go to turn it on. If they then choose to ignore the indicators and ride with the In&box inactive, that’s on them and we can expect it not to inflate in the event of a crash.”

Ah there it is, I wondered how they were going to justify the safety features being disabled if a crash occurred. My gut reaction is that it seems like a great opportunity for some enterprising person to supply a patch to fix that particular issue, but that’s mostly due to the idea of subsidizing safety or other features in items I purchased feels wrong.

The site for the vest is relatively straight up about the extra cost of activation in the FAQ section, but feels like a bad example to post the base price and not include an asterisk or call-out to the FAQ below imo.

@Zerush
51M

I think that such practices should be prohibited, as is done with any other product that endangers the safety of the person. What will be next, if these practices are allowed? Companies have never had a problem claiming back fees from you, without resorting to such miserable practices.

The roof on your apartment is available in a DLC.

@Axaoe
11M

I agree, but I dont believe legislation and regulation has caught up to techniques/product evolutions such as this and feel it might take awhile for people to take notice.

@levity
21M

The laws are there- this company is clearly engaged in criminal negligence and extortion. It’s enforcement that needs to “catch up”. For that to happen, some adjustment of enforcement agencied is necessary. Some lawsuits and court orders might help with this process. This company deserves to notexist. No one should buy anything from them unless to have standing to sue them.

@Zerush
21M

Although it is true that the law is made by old men who confuse the remote control with a mobile phone, this is not a technical issue, but a commercial abuse that puts people at risk and against this there are already laws since a long time. A company can’t put measures in place that can endanger the health of consumers, as well as they will not be able to sell a car where the airbag does not work or the seat belts cannot be used, even if the user has not paid their bills. I don’t think these people will be able to market this vest under these criminal conditions, at least not in the EC

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage


  • 0 users online
  • 3 users / day
  • 32 users / week
  • 126 users / month
  • 454 users / 6 months
  • 2825 subscribers
  • 1221 Posts
  • 2997 Comments
  • Modlog