This issue of being able to remotely disable a vehicle raises some interesting legal questions. To begin with, is it really a "repossession"? The dealer/financer will not physically "possess" anything. The car will sit where it is when the ignition is turned off -- perhaps on the buyer's driveway. So who is liable for physical damage to the car (or whose insurance will cover it) while it is disabled? Simply turning the car off won't result in satisfaction of any debt (the point of repo is that the financer can sell the vehicle to recoup his loan). What if the car is disabled but subsequently needs to be moved (i.e. "No parking after 5 pm") and gets towed. Who pays to get the car back?
If disabling *is* repossession (and it probably is, though I can't recall offhand how things like boots are treated), then there is a legal process for it. A financer should not be able to just 'turn off' your car any more than they are able to (or at least are supposed to) snatch it off the street. There are requirements of notice, contractual interpretations, etc. One problem with making things technologically easy is that then people/companies often bypass the administrative processes that are supposed to be safeguards (but also "slow things down.")
But there is another aspect to this remote monitoring/control : Why would anyone ever "sell" us anything, when they can so easily track and control it and "rent" it to us instead? Perhaps you won't be able to ever "buy" a car, but just so many miles. In effect this could make hardware like cars more like software (or, say, music) where you don't really purchase a physical thing but rather a "license" to use. The very concept of "ownership" that Americans have had for hundreds of years is slowly -- and soon maybe not so slowly --- changing.