GM, Ford, And Others Want to Make Working on Your Own Car Illegal

[cromag]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

...
You give the impression that you quite happy that cars sharing the road with you may have modified lane keeping systems, modified adaptive cruise control or modified stability control, even if those are performed by owners who claim expertise, as you seem to do for yourself, because they belong to an amateur car club ? Reading your post I can understand why they are called "petrol heads".

That's not how it's done, of course.

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

You seem to be saying it is owners' right to fiddle as they please and to hell with the consequences to other people.

No one has suggested that.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Wow this is so offbeat that I can't resist before heading off.

Your post and expressed experience seems to be all about the simple aspects of the power train control (and the tenor of your comments is as in non recent vehicles). If you were to read the second round of comments to Section 1201 as I have suggested (yes I know it is much more fun to not know the facts before complaining) and seek some knowledge of recent vehicles you will find that the concerns are actually very little to do with the engine and transmission and their ECUs in the dated at least decade old terms you see them in. And even less to do with the spanners you keep mentioning.

You give the impression that you quite happy that cars sharing the road with you may have modified lane keeping systems, modified adaptive cruise control or modified stability control, even if those are performed by owners who claim expertise, as you seem to do for yourself, because they belong to an amateur car club ? Reading your post I can understand why they are called "petrol heads".

You seem to be saying it is owners' right to fiddle as they please and to hell with the consequences to other people.

You also reference Diapdealer's response to my earlier comment about the manufacturers wanting to control the nut behind the wheel - I suspect that the inference of that was not understood by you (exercise your mind on lane control, adaptive cruise control, driverless cars, etc. - things not to be found in 1971 Chev's).

I would rather share the road with them than have my own freedoms taken away. Freedoms and fences are always put up for "our own safety" when in fact, those fences lock us up and take away basic freedoms. The number of people who are going to go after the bits and pieces you are talking about are very small. Shoot, it's hard enough to find people willing to work on cars, washers, dryers, and lawn mowers. Let's not make it harder. Let's not make an auto shop have to buy even more expensive software to read the software (which, yes they already do, but this could mean they have to buy yet another license/unlocking key) to fix my car.

At this rate, I'll have to buy a motorcycle. Until they make those so complicated only a dealer can fix them. There's a guy down the street with a golf cart for sale...it's just so hard to be badass in those.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by cromag

That's not how it's done, of course.




No one has suggested that.

Also, it is probably safe to say that MOST of us have been driving on roads for some odd MUMBLE years (30 plus) with cars that have no electronic stability control, lane safety whatever and many still don't have cruise control at all. Some have the older cruise controls. My dad's neighbor still owns a truck that is so old it is exempt from seat belt laws in his state. Just suddenly changing this thing into a law isn't going to offer much protection to those of us on the road. The major benefactor will be the car companies.

[murg]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

At this rate, I'll have to buy a motorcycle. Until they make those so complicated only a dealer can fix them. There's a guy down the street with a golf cart for sale...it's just so hard to be badass in those.

You just have to find the right golf cart...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by murg

You just have to find the right golf cart...

Ooooh. It worried me (a tad) how quickly you came up with that picture...

[gmw]

Of course the linked article skews things to be more alarmist - its what such articles are supposed to do. There are legitimate concerns to be addressed with the increasing computerisation of cars. That said, the DMCA hardly seems an appropriate vehicle (pun intended) to address those concerns.

The first comment I saw against that article said: "That's the most un-American thing I've heard." It's not really a surprise, and given the significance of cars to many people (not just in America), it is easy to see this debate heading much the same way as gun control debates. When is someone going to say "You can have my car when you prise the steering wheel from my cold dead fingers"? I can certainly see the passion as strong enough to generate such rhetoric.

Of course, it doesn't have to be like that. The situation is growing complex enough that only specialists will have the knowledge required to safely modify certain aspects of a car's operation. That is simple fact. However, just as already exists, I expect car manufacturers will continue to supply interfaces to allow changes to other areas. Might some manufacturers try to lock away more than they should? Quite possibly, but in doing so they open the market to competitors who let people play more - think "overclocker motherboards" for computer enthusiasts. Of course the worst a PC overclocker is going to do in bypassing the safety features built into the BIOS is fry their own motherboard, the stakes are much higher when it comes to cars - so appropriate legislation is definitely required. But...

I still say the DMCA is the wrong battleground. Leave copyright out of it. This is a public safety issue, not a copyright one. Legislation needs to address the real issue - maybe it already does.

[nokia3210]

Damn automotive Nazzis

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Wow this is so offbeat that I can't resist before heading off.

*snip*

You seem to be saying it is owners' right to fiddle as they please and to hell with the consequences to other people.

First I think you should back off some of your more insulting rhetoric. An apology would be nice not just to me but to others whose intelligence you want to question.

Second- I am quite aware of engine management and safety systems in modern vehicles, how they work and the advancements made in just the last few years are quite stunning. Yes I believe the systems for the most part should be open with the proper tools.

Tomorrow or next month/year or 40 years from now if someone wants to take the car out to a track and they decided to tweak the brake force distribution for stability control so they can make better speed on the exit of turn 3 then the tools should be available to do so.

Tomorrow or next month/year or 40 years from now if a person pulls a car from a barn and decides to put it back to new they ought to have the tools available to do so and that includes being able to ensure that the electronic modules are doing what they are supposed to do correctly, whether lane departure systems, adaptive cruise control, whether OEM trained mechanics are available or not.

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

You also reference Diapdealer's response to my earlier comment about the manufacturers wanting to control the nut behind the wheel - I suspect that the inference of that was not understood by you

That's called self-deprecating humor - I suspect the inference was not understood by you.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Were I an automaker, I would tout my products as OPEN. As soon as one does this, all others must follow..

You can't seriously believe that.

It would be more accurate to say "As soon as one does this, some some statistically insignificant fraction of consumers that is the FOSS community will be pleased."

For evidence, look at...oh...every other thing in the world that has both open and proprietary options.

Most people won't care a whit either way, so other makers won't follow any more than Apple is clamoring to follow Redhat, or Amazon is clamoring to follow Hanlin.

It's only MORE so with cars, where, of the set of people who care about hacking cars' tech one way or the other, at least some of them probably want cars COMPLETELY secured against any modification, so hackers and rogue AIs can't take over and kill them.
(We can start a side thread in 'reading recommendation' to talk about books with that plot element....)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Ooooh. It worried me (a tad) how quickly you came up with that picture...

Don't worry...it's one of the first things to come up in a google image search of "bad ass golf cart." He's probably not the Mad Max of the PGA.

[crich70]

I think the flip side of the auto makers argument is that it should make lawsuits against them easier to win. After all if something is mis programmed by the auto maker and there is an accident as a result then they are at fault. Certainly there have been enough recalls of cars for manufacturing errors to make the idea of a mistake in programming (on their part) a possibility.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

...I suspect that the inference of that was not understood by you.

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

...That's called self-deprecating humor - I suspect the inference was not understood by you.

No, it is called suspecting that the inference was not understood by you.

Of course, if you consider we must all assume that you understand everything others say and we must not question that, then that considerably detracts from the veracity of everything that you have say.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

No, it is called suspecting that the inference was not understood by you.

Allow me to translate for Dulins Books.

You suspected wrongly. Your error has now been corrected.

Of course, if you consider we must all assume that you understand everything others say and we must not question that, then that considerably detracts from the veracity of everything that you have say.

I must have missed the part where anyone suggested that everyone must understand everything everyone says.

That being said, I personally understood him just fine in the first place. I suspect most people with a sense of humor did.
Obviously, people without a sense of humor cannot be expected to understand, but I imagine such people are used to needing explanations.
Likewise people whose humor muscles are a little slow today.
Of course, as I said, no rule is 100%.

I won't try guessing which one of the three you are, but regardless I think it is a bit much for you to (reading between the lines) complain that no one is allowed to say anything unless we know you will understand... considering you just complained about that imagined behavior in someone else.
Someone is feeling a little defensive today...

Originally Posted by ApK

It would be more accurate to say "As soon as one does this, some some statistically insignificant fraction of consumers that is the FOSS community will be pleased."

I imagine that a great number of people who like working on their vehicles would appreciate an "open" car, as well as people who have older vehicles and know a mechanic who will do work on their vehicle on the side. It is not the exclusive domain of the FOSS community, though I'll grant you that the audience is limited.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Ooooh. It worried me (a tad) how quickly you came up with that picture...

Lord Vader, your golf cart is here....