Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM To Be Used In Renault Electric Cars

Posted by timothy on from the insert-coin-to-continue dept.

mahiskali writes with this interesting news via the EFF's Deep Links "The new Renault Zoe comes with a 'feature' that absolutely nobody wants. Instead of selling consumers a complete car that they can use, repair, and upgrade as they see fit, Renault has opted to lock purchasers into a rental contract with a battery manufacturer and enforce that contract with digital rights management (DRM) restrictions that can remotely prevent the battery from charging at all. This coming on the heels of the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership IP Rights Chapter leak certainly makes you wonder how much of that device (car?) you really own. Perhaps Merriam-Webster can simply change the definition of ownership."

33 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. And all these computer parts in cars... by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    are a good reason why again?

    1. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Plenty of good reasons. The real question is: Is closed source software safe? and the clear answer is "We have no idea... since it's closed. But it's probably not"

    2. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here are just a few of the electronic parts in modern cars
      Fuel Injection - the computer can monitor O2 and fuel precisely resulting in much better efficiency.
      ABS - a computer senses when your car is skidding and rapidly pumps the brakes so you can still steer.
      ESC/Traction control - when loss of steering or wheel spin is detected it will automatically start braking to enable steering and stop the skidding

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    3. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if Renault goes out of business? What happens to the owners of cars and renters of batteries then? What about hackers?

      I translated the original article and they don't seem to mention whether it is a deadman/watchdog kind of kill switch that needs to periodically hear from Renault that it is OK to continue to operate, or if it is a specific signal to stop operating that is only issued when that situation is deemed necessary.

      If it is a "one-time" signal, then that is possibly open to spoofing/hacking and potentially very disrupting for legitimate owners in good standing if someone figures out how to remotely shut them down. That would be quite the coup for hackers if they could stop the entire fleet.

      If it is a deadman kind of thing, one hopes that the company would continue to support sending that signal for as long as even a single car was still on the road and the owner was in good standing.

      Either way, I don't think I would buy one of these.

    4. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      There was a generation of cars that 'burned lean' (very late 80s early 90s). They can't do it anymore as burning lean produces unacceptable levels of NOX.

      But it's not a safety margin issue, it's an emissions issue. Less NOX, more CO2. All fuel injected, Oxygen sensor cars.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by BronsCon · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be clear, before you quote any industry averages, you need to realize that those were achieved not by producing more efficient vehicles, but by ceasing production of less efficient vehicles. What street legal, gas-only, 4 wheel vehicle exists on the market today that can get better than 50MPG? In the 1990s, there was the Geo Metro, weighing in at 42MPG; now we have hybrids on the market that can't touch that. Of the 19 hybrids listed in the chart on that page, 12 get WORSE gas mileage than a 1990's gas-only beater; the other 7 are made by Honda and Toyota. Where are the gas-only cars that get that kind of mileage today? Hell, where are the domestic hybrids that can do the same? Don't get my wrong, I'm not bashing imports at all; I love my Corolla, I just want to know when the fuck we're going to catch up to 20 years ago.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of cars like that on sale in Europe. In the US there just isn't enough demand for a car with a 1.0 liter 65 hp engine.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      Cars are much heavier these days, for several reasons. This is tangential to the discussion, which is engine efficiency, which has absolutely improved.

      Engine performance has increased with time, with fuel consumption going down. It's mostly heavier cars that account for the difference.

    8. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We use lighter materials than were used back then and you're more likely to be killed by the engine getting pushed into your lap by whatever you hit (which was allowed to happen by the "crumple zones") than you ever were by slamming into the steering wheel.

      That's the absolute opposite of the truth. Crumple zones don't extend into the passenger compartment. And you have no evidence they are less good than they were 20 years ago. They can be lighter because these days they can be designed and virtually tested on a computer. Which means the designers know much more about how they crumple, and can save on metal where it is not required.

      Car companies aren't selling what's safer, they're selling what they can easily convince YOU is safer;

      Bullshit. Cars are independently tested for safety, at various establishments around the world. And they have far more genuine safety features as standard than they used to. Such as for example side impact bars.

      selling what's actually safer would mean losing the sales they get when you total your crumple-box in a 5MPH bumper kiss.

      You will come to far more injury and more likely die in a car that does not crumple. As will pedestrians you may hit. You are just plain wrong in your belief that a more solid car is a safer car. It is not. It's the difference between a stuntman jumping off a roof onto a pile of cardboard boxes, or jumping off and hitting a pile of bricks.

    9. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      NONE of which require fucking DRM...

    10. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Informative

      To many claims being made here, by you and others, with no qualifications whatsoever.

      In '76 I bought a new car - my first one ever. 76 Chevy Nova, 6 cyl 3 speed. The damned thing was advertised as "fuel efficient". 18 mpg off the showroom floor, combined city and highway driving. The BEST I ever got with it on the highway was about 20 1/2 mpg. I did some research, did a couple of minor mods, and improved that fuel mileage about 3 mpg. After my efforts were completed, the BEST I ever got was 24 mpg on the highway - overall lifetime fuel mileage for the car was right at 20 mpg.

      In recent years, I've owned several cars that got 29 to 31 mpg, and one that got 36 mpg consistently. I've not owned or driven anything that competes with my motorcycle, which got 53 mpg out of the showroom in 1983.

      Fuel mileage in vehicles that are meant to get good mileage has gone up - but not nearly as much as it should have. Cars SHOULD be getting close to 50 mpg, and they would be, if customer demand actually demanded it.

      The FACTS ARE, when Congress began mandating fuel economy goals, they screwed up by allowing trucks to be exempt. Enter the SUV. The American consumer demanded his power and luxury with lots of leg room and head room, so he paid a premium to have a luxury car mounted on a truck frame. That is why we STILL have personal vehicles running up and down the roads, getting 20 mpg and less.

      It would be simple matter for Congress to revisit fuel economy, and remove the exemptions for "trucks", or to modify that exemption. Slap all non-commercial "truck" frames with a ten thousand dollar excise tax, and at the same time require their fuel economy to improve to a minimum of 25 mpg. We would see a hell of a lot of more fuel efficient cars being sold, and a lot less 15 to 20 mpg vehicles on the road.

      The higher demand for fuel efficiency would at the same time encourage manufacturers to research even more economical drive trains.

      The wife had a Toyota Camry that flirted with 40 mpg. Never quite got it, but it was really close sometimes. That is what we should ALL be driving, unless we have a genuine need for a larger, more powerful vehicle. In which case you pay the excise tax on it, and recoup the taxes in your business.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:And all these computer parts in cars... by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      [Citation needed]

      Don't have a Citation handy. Will a Geo Metro do instead?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  2. No Problem. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ownership: 1. N. "The state or condition of being liable to an early termination fee in the event of returning, selling, or otherwise losing custody of an object."

    2. (obsc./archaic) N. "Possessing the right of use or disposition of an object as one sees fit."

    1. Re:No Problem. by bob_super · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People who realize that the main drag on buying electric cars (in countries with short commutes) is the lack of resale value because of battery life worries.

      Under Renault's scheme, you don't own the battery, just the frame, and you can even do road trips by swapping batteries along the way without worries about getting yours back (intact or damaged). Because you don't own it and you can just go get a new one anytime, and so does the guy who'd like to spend 10k on your used car but is worried about having to buy a 7k battery a month later.

      The DRM part probably comes from the fact that if you don't pay your lease, Europeans don't have the wild US repo guys. It takes a while to get the battery you don't own out of the car you do own via the legal system.

  3. Not entirely new by cornjones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is obnoxious but not entirely new. My 2005 volvo has a 'feature' where the power steering pump can only be changed by volvo as the software 'needs an update' before the car will start again. Can't even have another garage do it, you need the volvo computers.

    I guess it is just a way to ensure the dealership garages stay in business.

    1. Re:Not entirely new by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      First off, that's what you get for buying a Volvo.
      Second, you can reset the computer yourself. It's not that hard. Use the interwebs and all will be revealed. I had to deal with that mess on a friends 2007.

      Now if you replace the engine or transmission... yea, you need to get some software off the piratebay to program the computer correctly. Done that to. That sort of crap should be illegal.

  4. So... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 2

    Looks like I still can't download a car... but I sure as hell will be pirating one!

  5. Re:Defensive move - Informative update. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people....

    The 'expired' date on medicines (and food) does NOT give a time after which they are unsafe to use.

    Please concentrate, because this is slightly non-intuitive. The manufactures lobbied, not to provide this, but to provide a time UP TO WHICH it had been tested to be safe.

    Now, those two times may be very similar for cases where an item spoils quickly - a cake or bread, for instance. But in many cases medicines (or food) can last essentially unchanged for many decades. In those cases a manufacturer will NOT test for several decades and try to find the maximum shelf life, but will test for, say, 5 years. That's a reasonable length of time, and he will be very happy if after 5 years a warehouse has to throw away perfectly good items which would have lasted another 15 years, and buy some new produce from him again.

    If you are using something with an outdated shelf-life, consider the chemistry. For instance, a sealed jar of sodium bicarbonate isn't going to go 'off' even if it's 100 years old...

  6. Re:Defensive move by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people. Do you propose to embed DRM on it?

    I am sure that as soon as it becomes practical, somebody will propose that, yes.

  7. Might not be as evil as it sounds by MtHuurne · · Score: 5, Informative

    What I heard is that Renault realized that the cost of the battery is one of the main problems in electric car adoption, both because it is expensive and because it is unclear how its value will depreciate over time. Therefore, instead of letting people buy the car with the battery, they sell the car much cheaper without a battery and the battery can be leased. At least here it is clear the battery is not sold, unlike many products with DRM.

    I haven't looked into this further, but a possible reason for refusing to recharge would be if someone stopped paying the lease of the battery but didn't return it. Or if the battery pack got stolen from the person who leased it.

    Of course some people don't like the idea of any kind of kill switch existing at all, which I can understand. It is a sign of distrust and it is also a potential mode of failure (both technical and administrative). But making the battery a rental was done for a good reason here, not just out of corporate greed or control freaking.

    1. Re:Might not be as evil as it sounds by Rlindstr · · Score: 2

      "But making the battery a rental was done for a good reason here, not just out of corporate greed or control freaking." They could have offered it as an option and not a requirement then.

    2. Re:Might not be as evil as it sounds by ultranova · · Score: 2

      What I heard is that Renault realized that the cost of the battery is one of the main problems in electric car adoption, both because it is expensive and because it is unclear how its value will depreciate over time.

      But because that was a problem potentially solvable through technology, they decided to replace it with a much bigger problem that does not depend on insufficiently advanced technology to remain unsolvable. It's an utterly brilliant move that should definitely help make all electric cars seem suspicious. Well done, Renault. My lungs thank you, or would if they weren't choking on exhaust fumes.

      Therefore, instead of letting people buy the car with the battery, they sell the car much cheaper without a battery and the battery can be leased.

      Yes, that solves the problem. Renault is run by independently wealthy philanthropists, thus it can take the loss of leasing the battery for less than its monthly deprecation.

      I haven't looked into this further, but a possible reason for refusing to recharge would be if someone stopped paying the lease of the battery but didn't return it. Or if the battery pack got stolen from the person who leased it.

      Or to protect the customer from being preyed upon by third party battery manufacturers, who might tempt them with cheaper and/or better replacements. A weak soul might yield, thus committing the mortal sin of giving their money to these seducers rather than Renault, who it rightfully belongs to. It's a dangerous market full of such moral pitfalls, and Renault needs to protect its customers from being poached by competitors.

      Oh well. We were already moving towards own-nothing culture by making everything disposable; I guess letting DRM spread and infect physical products is the next step. Won't it be glorious to return to the past where everything is owned by the King and we're all just leasing from him, subject to his goodwill which in turn depends on our continued obedience?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Re:rentership society by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    We're simply returning to the feudal roots of modern civilization. Feudalism never really died anyway. It was just cleverly masked with the illusion of ownership.

  9. Re:Defensive move - Informative update. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Funny

    The 'expired' date on medicines (and food) does NOT give a time after which they are unsafe to use.

    True story: I had a box of fungicide in my shed, and my wife wanted to throw it out because it was expired. I finally convinced her that it was unlikely that fungicide would rot.

  10. Re:Simple, Don't Buy Them by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And If you don't want a cell phone with GPS, buy one that doesn't have it.

    Welcome to the small picture.

  11. If it's rented, not owned by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

    and they can disable it at any time, as owners are they liable for any damage it may cause? So when my Zoe leaves me for someone else and Renault fails to disable the charging and said new person is at fault in a serious accident, how long will it take for someone to argue Renault was at least partially at fault since they fails dot take action in a timely manner?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  12. Renault won't go out of business. by boorack · · Score: 2

    They'll just go screaming to government and receive big bailout. Plus some laws that will force everyone to purchase their crap. This is how modern business works - it too far from how communism operated in the old days.

  13. Re:Defensive move by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Yeah, like DRM inside print cartridges is for the good of the user.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  14. Re:Seriously by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Should the "hack" that the owners did purning their Priuses into plug-in hybrids have been banned by law? This is no different. At least in the USA, bypassing DRM, in most cases, is a crime, even if you are allowed to do what the DRM is preventing you from doing. The crime is bypassing the DRM. It's like being arrested for resisting arrest. If you didn't arrest me for resisting arrest, then I couldn't have resisted arrest.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  15. Re:Defensive move by almechist · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people. Do you propose to embed DRM on it? There is no need for remote capabilities for that, just add a timer and disable it after their secure time of life. The problem with this case is not only the remote capabilities, but that they don't sell you a battery, they rent it to you, not a problem they give you an option to buy one or others are able to provide the same rental service and by definition of DRM I am pretty sure this will be something like "only Renault can provide that service"

    There is not a single drug that has been proven to become unsafe after it's passed the expiration date - or any other date, for that matter. After expiration a drug may become less effective, i.e. you may not be getting the full dose as labeled, but the medicine isn't going to suddenly start to have different pharmacological effects, dangerous or otherwise, just because of the passage of time. There was at one time a single known case where a drug was thought to possibly degrade into a potentially harmful substance, but it was subsequently proven that the drug in question, tetracycline, remains safe even after expiration, and in any event tetracycline is only sold for veterinary use these days. So no, you won't kill yourself or anybody with expired meds, that's basically an urban myth, although big pharma would no doubt love for everybody to continue to believe it.

  16. Watch. Learn. Admit you made your point poorly. by SirSpammenot · · Score: 2

    1959 Belair vs a 2009 Malibu in a modern IIHS crash test shows exactly, and in graphic detail, why modern crumple zones and air bags are WAY better than than having more raw weight and a steering column collapsing your chest cavity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xtxd27jlZ_g

    --
    1 Dachshund + 1 Dachshunds = A Paradox.
    1. Re:Watch. Learn. Admit you made your point poorly. by SirSpammenot · · Score: 2

      Please. Would you retrofit a car and test it? Air bags wouldn't keep the cabin from collapsing in on the driver, they would only keep the driver from bouncing around inside a cabin in some state of "intact". My Chevy Volt has 10 airbags, including knee airbags and ceiling rail bags that extends back into the rear seat. But they would be near useless in a decent crash without help from the huge pillars and crumple zones. Also, the 430 lbs of battery right between the wheels makes the car neigh unto untippable - and heavier where it counts than most other cars. Unfortunately for some. http://insideevs.com/video-owner-testimonial-shows-how-safe-chevy-volt-actually-is/ http://brightonhovehub.blogspot.com/2013/08/fatal-crash-occurs-in-brighton-twp-with.html

      --
      1 Dachshund + 1 Dachshunds = A Paradox.
  17. Re:Defensive move - Informative update. by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 2

    That is interesting, I cant say I've ever used self raising flour, don't think I will now, sounds like DRM built in.