Slashdot Mirror
EFF Fighting Automakers Over Whether You Own Your Car
An anonymous reader writes: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains anti-circumvention prohibitions that affect everything from music files to cell phones. The EFF noticed that it could apply to cars as well, so they asked for an exemption to be put in place so car owners would be free to inspect and modify the code running on their vehicles. It turns out U.S. automakers don't agree — they filed opposition comments through trade associations. "They say you shouldn't be allowed to repair your own car because you might not do it right. They say you shouldn't be allowed to modify the code in your car because you might defraud a used car purchaser by changing the mileage. They say no one should be allowed to even look at the code without the manufacturer's permission because letting the public learn how cars work could help malicious hackers, "third-party software developers" (the horror!), and competitors. John Deere even argued that letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system, which would be one of the more convoluted ways to copy media (and the exemption process doesn't authorize copyright infringement, anyway)."
I'm sorry, but auto manufacturers have a point. Not anyone is competent to reprogram embedded car software. Unfortunately, bugs can be deadly. How would you feel about, say, 10% of the cars on the road running custom software by the next door kid?
Cars are killing much more people than guns. In fact, I would go further than the auto manufacturers. Nobody should be allowed to drive a car. How many people on the roads shouldn't have even a driver's license at all? A lot. And you are ready to see those people hacking their own car software? No way!
Achille Talon
Hop!
This is a double-edged sword. Once people are locked out of their cars, what is to prevent automakers from charging for the ability to go above 45, to go on country roads, to go outside of a state, have more stations on the radio, allow full use of the speakers, allow use of the sunroof, or many other features?
It would be trivial for automakers to license these features just to the owner... so the used car market would dry up, just like it did with used game sales and the fact that most content is from DLC, not on the game disc. Do we want to see automakers demand $5000 from the next person you sell your car to in order to have a software license to start the vehicle?
Look at the console market and how gamers are charged for virtually everything. Would people want that in their cars where they have to pay $100 a month in order to keep access to their climate control and radio? Remember, the car will come with a EULA and those have stood quite well in courts.
Hi, Tesla Model S owner here... Technically you do get asked before firmware installs proceed (download happens automatically in the background). You're free to simply not apply the update. However, and more to your point, as with any binary update mechanism, there's really no viable way to determine what's actually getting installed in the process and you would lose out on potentially important bug fixes. Not all that different from Windows Update...
My personal assumption is that the firmware is a complete privacy-invading cesspool. I love the car overall, so I'll keep it until such time as I get the first mailed speeding ticket based upon my car's GPS location and internal speed telemetry.