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

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by cromag

...Back then there was a push to prevent so-called "speed shops" from selling any parts that were not "original equipment." It made a lot of news for the papers, especially among hobbyists, but never went anywhere.

But, corporate lawyers get paid by the hour. I'm not surprised they're trying again.

But they are not "trying again" to prevent the selling of parts such as you claim. If you read the media and the documentation available on the internet regarding the comments filed regarding Section 1201 you will see that the concern is to do with the software in the on board systems associated with safety and security.

This point has been made in several posts now. If you wish to comment authoritively, perhaps go and read the automotive related comments in the second round of comments regarding exemptions on Section 1201 and then come back here and tell us all about them. Maybe read all of this thread first .

[cromag]

Perhaps I was being too subtle. Back in the 70s I didn't "chip" my cars because there was no "chip" to reprogram. The only way to improve performance was through hardware.

Today, software is part of the total package, and trying to prevent 3rd parties from improving upon stock software makes no more sense than trying to impose OEM-only hardware limits did back then.

As far as emissions concerns go, in my state emissions are checked when the registration is renewed. In fact, my registration is up for renewal this month and I have an appointment for inspection on Monday. As long as my car's emissions are within the legal limits, and the vehicle can be operated safely, there should be no reason for the state to be concerned about the source of the software.

Imposing broad "manufacturer-only" restrictions on software/firmware today makes no more sense than the attempt to impose "OEM-only" hardware restrictions back then.

[Apache]

The dealer's repair shop has technicians now not mechanics. If the computer can not tell them what is wrong with your car, then nothing is wrong with your car. It is a pretty sorry state when you know something is wrong and the dealer insists that there isn't because the computer does not have a log of the error.
Apache

[Barcey]

I would like to thank GM and Ford for educating more people on how stupid the DMCA is and how it can be abused. Repairing your own car should be considered a copyright violation! ROFL

If they're so concerned about safety they should be lobbying for regulations of these electronic safety measures, how they're secured, managed and deployed. But of course they have stellar safety records and don't need oversight.

[DiapDealer]

Microscopic robots in the motor oil that calls 911 unless a licensed Nanite Whisperer has sung them to sleep before changing.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Geez .... we'd need an Alf for vehicle parts .....

I'm waiting to be pulled over for a RDT...

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by murg

I'm waiting to be pulled over for a RDT...

Given the amount of hallucinating and inability to read demonstrated by many in this thread maybe we should have RDTs here, perhaps even mandatory ones .

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Given the amount of hallucinating and inability to read demonstrated by many in this thread maybe we should have RDTs here, perhaps even mandatory ones .

Why attribute to an "inability to read" that which can just as easily be explained by "read (and understand) everything completely, but still going to 'go there' anyway--just 'cause?"

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why attribute to an "inability to read" that which can just as easily be explained by "read (and understand) everything completely, but still going to 'go there' anyway--just 'cause?"

Yes you are correct, there are those 'egging on' others who are hallucinating and unable to read so that they are encouraged to make even bigger idiots of themselves .

Interestingly in my looking around I have found that the auto makers are also claiming that they should have rights over the software in the nut behind the wheel.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Interestingly in my looking around I have found that the auto makers are also claiming that they should have rights over the software in the nut behind the wheel.

Well that's just silly. There's no nut behind the wheel.
Besides, the best place for that kind of software would be in the lugs themselves (thus avoiding any Ralphie "Oh, fudge" accidental roadside data-loss that would occur if it were in the nuts).

[Barcey]

Well I'm glad that these 13 automakers are recognizing the very real risks. That they consider the DMCA to be a mitigation to the risk just means we're all truly f@#$'d. They could implement modular security to isolate the automated command and control features. They could include fail safe for those modules if they detect unauthorized code updates. Of course that would cost money to properly manage.

"Hmmm there must be a cheaper solution, what's this DMCA thingie? Think it will work as a CYA so we don't get sued? Good idea and we can make more money for our authorized dealers too."

[murg]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Well I'm glad that these 13 automakers are recognizing the very real risks. That they consider the DMCA to be a mitigation to the risk just means we're all truly f@#$'d. They could implement modular security to isolate the automated command and control features. They could include fail safe for those modules if they detect unauthorized code updates. Of course that would cost money to properly manage.

"Hmmm there must be a cheaper solution, what's this DMCA thingie? Think it will work as a CYA so we don't get sued? Good idea and we can make more money for our authorized dealers too."

Actually, this does bring up a tangent idea. If the car makers are making a big deal about safety (or lack thereof) associated with the on-board software, do they then become responsible for securing that software, and become responsible if someone hacks it and changes it for malicious purposes?

[BearMountainBooks]

John Deere has already made it mostly impossible to work on their tractors. They have proprietary computer parts/chips and they store all kinds of information--how much is planted, what is planted, when it's planted. They don't share this info with the owners either. And the parts can't be replaced or overridden from what I've read. (People have tried and failed).

I'll just keep my old car. It's bad enough. We had to buy software to read the computer chips to find out what some of the various lights meant for passing inspection. And if a sensor goes, replacement is very expensive but they tell you that you have to have it so that the damn thing can be read to prove it isn't producing too much pollution. Huge hassle. If I could, I think I'd just peddle my bicycle around.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

John Deere has already made it mostly impossible to work on their tractors. They have proprietary computer parts/chips and they store all kinds of information--how much is planted, what is planted, when it's planted. They don't share this info with the owners either. And the parts can't be replaced or overridden from what I've read. (People have tried and failed).

I don't understand...Ok...so they could definitely have software that creates a timestamp of when and where the machine was run, and I guess they could weigh the amount of seed and approximate how much was planted, but how would they tell *what* is planted unless the farmer told them?

Shari

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by shalym

I don't understand...Ok...so they could definitely have software that creates a timestamp of when and where the machine was run, and I guess they could weigh the amount of seed and approximate how much was planted, but how would they tell *what* is planted unless the farmer told them?

Shari

There's sizing and parts that deal with seeds. They even send farmers an email when they need to buy pesticides and such because they track as much of that as possible.

Here's a related article to the ones above.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-hig...tmare-farmers/

I read the other one concerning planting on another site and I can't find it because I read it too long ago. But essentially, the equipment knows what is being planted because the design it such that they track how many acres are planted and with what because the farmer logs the hours and also uses their programs/designs a certain way with certain seeds/sprays. I'm guessing based on the limited farming I did that the tractor is set up a certain way in order to plant the various seeds. Corn seed is not planted the same way as beets or soy. But when I read the article I remember thinking, 'How did they ever give over such control to the tractor companies?" If the companies know essentially how much you and your 80 neighbors plant, this can give them a huge advantage in not only selling seed, but in the entire commodities (stock market) exchange. And if they don't share the info with farmers or share it sparingly, the farmer is at a disadvantage.

It's really quite astounding.