Slate Auto’s Simpler Electric Truck Highlights the Risks of Connected Vehicles

Attacks that disable supermarket refrigerators expose a basic weakness in connected technology: adding a network connection can create risks that users never asked to take on. A refrigerator’s job is to keep food cold; a networked one may also depend on software, remote services, and systems that weren’t part of that original task. That concern now reaches cars, where automakers are expanding cloud services even as Slate Auto prepares an electric pickup built around a less connected approach.

The comparison has limits. A supermarket cooler and a modern vehicle serve different purposes, and the risks of an attack depend on how each system is designed and connected. Still, the underlying question is shared: when an ordinary product becomes part of a larger digital system, who takes responsibility for the extra points of failure? For drivers, the answer affects more than privacy. It can shape what happens when services go offline, data is exposed, or a connected feature behaves unexpectedly.

When connected appliances become attack targets

Across Europe, cyberattacks on supermarket fridges and coolers have stopped them from keeping food cold, leaving stores with spoiled goods and costly losses. The disruption makes the risk unusually tangible. A cyber incident doesn’t have to expose personal information or take down a national network to cause damage; interference with a basic function can be enough.

Speculation has linked the incidents to Russian hackers and hybrid warfare, but the Kremlin denies involvement. That uncertainty matters. Attribution is often difficult, and a claim about who carried out an attack shouldn’t be treated as established fact simply because it fits a wider political narrative. The confirmed problem is simpler: IT systems can be vulnerable, and AI tools are making it easier to find and exploit weaknesses.

The article points to a past wave of PHP vulnerabilities discovered with AI tools as an example. The broader lesson is that software weaknesses can be found faster when tools assist the search, while fixing them still depends on the people and organizations responsible for the systems. Faster discovery can help defenders, too, but it doesn’t guarantee that every flaw will be found and patched before someone tries to exploit it. In connected products, that gap between finding a weakness and addressing it is part of the risk.

And this is the part most people overlook: a product’s connection can turn a local failure into an operational problem for whoever depends on it. Stores need cold storage to work; drivers need vehicles to function predictably. The specific consequences differ, but the design question is familiar. Does the connection provide enough value to justify the added dependence?

Cars are adding more cloud connections

Automakers are expanding the data and services tied to their vehicles. General Motors recently outlined plans for OnStar AI and cloud storage for information such as dashcam footage. GM says the footage will be end-to-end encrypted, though the need to upload it may still raise questions for some owners. Encryption addresses one part of the data journey; it doesn’t, on its own, explain what information is collected, how long it’s kept, or which services can access it.

Those details matter because a connected feature has more than one dimension. A driver might value the service that stores footage or assists with a task, while still wanting a clear account of what leaves the vehicle and what happens if an account or connected system is compromised. The existence of a cloud service doesn’t prove that a vehicle is unsafe. It does mean owners have to assess a chain of systems rather than a feature in isolation.

Ford has also announced a new privacy policy for connected vehicles, promising to protect customer data and let drivers opt out of some features. Those assurances matter, but they don’t answer every question about what data cars collect, where it goes, or how companies will protect connected systems from attacks. A policy can describe choices and commitments; the practical test is whether drivers can understand those choices and use them without losing functions they consider essential.

For automakers, that’s a difficult balance. Cloud services can support features that are hard to deliver through a vehicle alone, and some customers may welcome them. Yet each additional connection creates more work around security, maintenance, and communication with owners. If you’re working in this space, the real measure of a privacy promise is whether a driver can tell, in plain language, what they’re agreeing to.

Slate takes a deliberately simpler route

Slate Auto’s planned affordable electric pickup is a sharp departure from the connected-car trend. The truck is designed with few standard amenities: it has no standard infotainment system, and remote climate control requires an optional telematics module. Without that module, leaving your phone at home means the truck can’t connect to anything while you’re out.

That choice changes the product experience as well as the security profile. A buyer who wants remote controls or other services may have to accept the additional module, while a buyer who prefers a more basic vehicle can leave it out. Fewer connections can mean fewer connected services to manage, but it also means fewer conveniences. The trade-off is unusually visible because the vehicle’s design makes connectivity an option rather than an assumed part of ownership.

Some vehicle data may still be available to service staff through a wired connection to a service computer. That’s a narrower setup than the always-connected experience many automakers are building, though it also leaves open questions about what owners give up in convenience. A wired service process still involves data and access; it simply doesn’t imply the same continuous connection described for remote features. The available details don’t establish exactly what information can be retrieved, so buyers will need clear answers before drawing conclusions about the limits.

The numbers here are underwhelming only if convenience is the sole measure of a vehicle. For owners who want fewer digital services, a simpler configuration may itself have value. But simplicity isn’t automatically a security guarantee, and a stripped-down feature list won’t tell a buyer how well the remaining systems are maintained. Slate’s approach is a design decision with a clear appeal, not proof that connected vehicles are inherently unsafe.

What simplicity asks of automakers and buyers

Whether buyers want a two-door truck with crank windows and few creature comforts remains to be seen. That uncertainty is central to Slate’s bet: some customers may see the omissions as a fair exchange for a lower-cost, less connected vehicle, while others may regard them as basic features they expect. The market will judge that balance, but the security debate shouldn’t be reduced to whether a truck has an infotainment screen.

This is more significant than it looks. Connected features can become normal before customers have a clear sense of what data they involve or what happens when the supporting service fails. A product that offers fewer networked functions gives buyers a different starting point: they can choose whether particular capabilities are worth adding. That won’t suit everyone. Still, making connectivity optional can put a useful question in front of customers instead of burying it in a settings menu.

Automakers should explain what they collect and how they protect it before asking drivers to accept more connectivity. They should also make the choices understandable: what a feature does, what data it needs, and what changes when a driver opts out. Those explanations won’t eliminate technical risk, but they give customers a basis for deciding which trade-offs they’re willing to make.

For customers, that transparency may matter as much as the truck’s price or features. The case for simplicity isn’t that every connection is unsafe; it’s that added connectivity should earn its place through a useful service and a credible explanation of its costs. Sometimes, less connected.