Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcey
If the manufacturer detects that the systems have been tampered with they can void the warranty, the same as they always have. They don't need the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) to deal with that.
If the vehicles safety feature have been tampered with they need to have a fail-safe and it should be dealt with via the highway safety act laws. Not copyright laws.
If the modifications are in violation of the terms on the insurance policy then it's for the courts to decide, not the DMCA.
If the modifications are in violation of government environmental / emission laws they can be dealt with the same way as if I make modifications to the vehicle exhaust. If there is proper auditing on the systems they can tell. My province already has emission tests.
There shouldn't be one security measure that gives complete access to onboard computer systems. It needs to be modularized. The command and control system need to be separated (with fail-safe) from the other systems. Speciality performance shops and home mechanics should be able to make modifications to things like the fuel injection maps without getting near the safety features. They might run the risk of violating warranty, government emission laws or highway safety laws but it shouldn't be a violation of copyright laws.
It's absolutely ridiculous what the manufacturers are proposing. The government regulations are well behind on this and they do need to be strengthened and updated. Unfortunately that doesn't happen until there is a major issue that forces it to happen.
|
Have you actually taken the trouble to read the second round of comments to
Section 1201 Exemptions to Prohibition Against Circumvention of Technological Measures Protecting Copyrighted Works: Second Round of Comments (not just the automobile ones but others too, such as medical equipment)? From you comments it would seem not.
First, despite your inference to the contrary, the control systems in a modern car are modularized. The number of ECUs may extend into double digits.
Second, despite your inference to the contrary, there is not necessarily one security system that gives access to all systems. And your claim that there is not operational interdependence between modules is not sensible, for example there are likely to be interdependencies between stability control and at least both of transmission and engine ECUs.
The Section 1201 comments are related to the protection of those security systems and there is no reason that the proposed exemption precludes, as you infer it does, manufacturers from allowing access by appropriate people to ECUs or parts of ECUs controlling simple functions.
"Appropriate people" may even include the vehicle owner as it is already common for the manufacturer to specifically provide for access to systems by the driver in the as delivered vehicle. For example, drivers are now able to control some functions of safety related systems e.g. they can disable stability control, or modify its functionality in some cars. They can also commonly modify other systems, such as selecting one of several transmission modes.
I will leave it at that for this thread {EDIT: it now turns out this will be real easy to do as wife and I have now decided to go off boating for a couple of days
) as it is pretty clear that a number of people here are just committed to getting their knickers in a twist even though they are likely never going to want to modify the embedded software of their vehicle's safety ECUs'.