Slashdot Mirror
"Right To Repair" Bill Advances In Massachusetts
Wannabe Code Monkey sends along an article from the Patriot Ledger about an effort in Massachusetts to pass a "Right to Repair" bill. "Since the advent of congressionally mandated computers in vehicles more than 15 years ago (for emissions), cars have evolved into complex machines that are no longer just mechanical. Computers now monitor and control most systems in the car from brakes to tire pressure and all the electronics and engine fluids... [and] car manufacturers continue to hold back on some of the information that your mechanic needs in order to properly repair your car and reset your codes and warning lights... Massachusetts is now poised to solve this problem and car-driving consumers should pay attention this fall when the Massachusetts Legislature takes up landmark legislation that would force manufacturers to respect the right of consumers to access their own repair information. The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Time you started listening to OUR needs.
- The Taxpayers
p.s., next time we'll just outsource your C-level jobs to India and China and keep the factory workers here.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
This is very important, because if Ford* needs to release the information needed to repair the Focus* to the state of Massachusetts, they will basically make it available everywhere in the world where Ford sells this car.
Similar to other US state laws regarding pollution or safe materials, this will affect us worldwide
* Just as an example
No sig for the moment.
They will get around it. All it will take is for some car manufacturer to put in a EULA that you can not read until you have purchased the car. There will be no way to not accept this EULA. Starting the car to drive it back to the dealers will be seen as accepting all terms and conditions. If you were to install a new component to your vehicle for either repair or upgrade, your cars computer will assume that you are now a thief and the car will refuse to run.
. .
You might wonder what I mean, so here's my take:
If I have a corrupt Microsoft Office document, I should be allowed access to its "closed" file format in order to repair the document.
How about that?
Why would anyone oppose this? Lets see here our tax money has (without a popular vote even) bailed out most US auto makers, made it a crime to really reverse engineer computer systems in general, and has supported various pro-auto maker legislation. If they are going to take -our- tax money, and if the government insists on criminalizing reverse engineering and modification of cars, the only sane thing is that they must release documentation allowing everyone to do repairs themselves. Don't like it? Don't take our tax money, and lobby congress with all your $$$ to repeal various forms of legislation making it hard to reverse engineer things legally.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
People might accept that behavior for a $30 piece of software, but they will *not* accept it for a $18,000 car. I almost wish some car company would try it, but then they'd crash in flames and we'd have to bail them out again.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
So essentially the government is paying auto manufacturers to send lobbyists back to washington to lobby on behalf of the auto manufacturers which Washington actually owns?
or else!
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
Furthermore the vehicle will only come with one Vehicle Access License (VAL) for the purchaser (primary driver). Additional VALs must be purchased for each additional driver. VALs come in two forms: Standard for occasional drivers and Enterprise for secondary drivers. These licenses cannot be transferred from one vehicle to another unless you subscribe to the Vehicle Assurance program.
You're right that any mechanic can read the legislated OBD-II codes. However, manufacturers are allowed to use proprietary codes or protocols for anything that isn't emissions related, and it wouldn't be too difficult to lock you out of everything else, if they really wanted to. Reading OBD-II trouble codes is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do when you have full read and write access to the ECU.
That is the point of this law, they currently "lock you out" by not publishing what those codes mean. I'm pretty sure that what you are suggesting would violate either the current OBD-II legislation or this new law. Additionally, the problem with releasing the key only for cars sold in Massachusetts is that the manufacturer can only know what cars are sold new in Mass, this law would also cover cars sold used.
I find this business practice on the part of automobile manufacturers very offensive. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of additional government regulation. My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I guess the question we should be asking is "what's wrong with the world such that someone you've paid wants to screw you out of the thing you've paid for?". Really; how many more generations before this mindset dies for good? What is *wrong* with you ppl?
Requiem for the American Dream
I hope you're not suggesting that contracts revert to being bi-directional. We have a proud tradition of contracts being used to benefit us and screw you; if it's not broken, don't try to fix it.
Requiem for the American Dream
"The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Translation:
"We are getting rich off of keeping ourselves be the only ones able to fix our cars, and we don't want no smegging competition."
Personally I think that this is anticompetitive.
My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Or it could just be that the corporations found a way to screw the consumer out of a quick buck, and that we don't live in a universe with unlimited resources and competition? Seriously, it is within the realm of possibility that a government can Do Good (tm).
Greetings and Salutations;
Actually, the car companies are doing exactly what they are mandated to do. We all have to remember that the job of the car companies is NOT to produce great transportation for Americans and the rest of the world. Their job, being a publicly traded company, is to make as much profit for their shareholders, at the lowest expense possible.
As long as this subtle difference in goals is in force, we will have the same situation of the car companies working to vacuum as much cash out of our pockets as possible, and, doing what ever they can to keep competition from rising.
Regards
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
The problem is that you're assuming that a vehicle sold in Massachusetts stays and Massachusetts and that no other vehicles are brought in. A vehicle sold in Colorado would have to be serviceable by mechanics in Massachusetts, thus the code would have to work on all vehicles. If the code works everywhere, it WILL get leaked and people everywhere will be able to repair their own vehicles.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
A better way of looking at it is are the the car makers allowed to collude with the dealers to restrain the trade of the independent shops via lockout.
Posting the question that way even Adam Smith himself would say hell no. Markets have to be reasonably free for 'free markets' to work.
They all need to be publish all the diagnostic codes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Uh, and you come to that conclusion *how*, exactly?
Here, let's play a little game. Let's pretend there were no regulations dictating the actions of car companies, no laws restricting reverse engineering (it's not clear to me that reverse engineering is actually illegal, here, but I can see it falling into a gray area), and no IP laws protecting their trade secrets. You know what would happen? The manufacturers would encrypt all output coming from their car computers, and would include decryption hardware on the gear they sell to the mechanics. Those mechanics would then be placed under a strict contract (which, according to Libertarian thinking, is perfectly reasonable... the government, after all, should exist primarily to enforce voluntary contracts between individuals) such that any attempt to break down, reverse engineer, or otherwise misuse the equipment would result in termination of their contract and repossession of the equipment in question. Voila! The consumer is completely screwed and they have absolutely no recourse (after all, the government getting involved would be evil socialism).
Now, if you can find some clever libertarian solution to this problem, or can otherwise find an issue with my logic, please, show it to me. Because I just don't see it.
And as an aside, one might say "Well, competition solves the problem! A competitor can just come in, keep their cars open, and voila they steal market share!" But, of course, that completely ignores fun things like barrier to entry (yes, believe it or not, it costs a fuckton to get into the car manufacturing business), not to mention good ol' fashioned collusion. 'course, libertarians do like to ignore inconvenient facts such as this.
Capitalism is good, extortion is bad. We support people trying to make a buck, it's when they hold your life ransom in order to make unreasonable amounts of cash that we have a problem. This is an example of the government doing what it's supposed to do: represent the people's will. The people think the car companies are taking advantage of them and want it to stop.
Also, in terms of capitalism, the car companies are muscling legitimate competition (the independent mechanics) out of the picture. This brings us to the ironic position of requiring regulation in order to maintain a free market. It's a good thing, though.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
"industry standard connectors on the CPU"
It has nothing to do with the CPU. The reason ECMs are specific to cars is that different cars have different sensors and actuators that require different control hardware and signals. How many fuel injector lines should there be? What kind of drivers do they need? Turbo boost controls? How many knock sensors? Even open source ECMs are built to suit certain applications. One size fits all doesn't work unless everything goes on a network. I don't think fuel injectors and temperature sensors need network addresses and I certainly wouldn't want to pay the dealer to configure them for me.
You're pissed off that you had to pay $700 for something that should have been under $200. Toyota screwed you. What makes you think they won't charge $500 to program an ECM you get from someone else? The ECM for my 1987 GM is specific to the particular model, but I can get a replacement for $100 and transfer the data by plugging in a couple PROMs.
I agree that many modules in automobiles could and should be standardized for plug compatibility but the ECM is not one of them.
It's pretty different. It's more like if you had to take your Epson printer to a service shop to determine which cartridge needing replacement because the information for that was only available to Epson shops and the printer merely displayed "a new cartridge is required"