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)."

Comments

If i can't work on my car

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't work on my car, I will not buy it. Same with my computer.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[danbob999]

Unfortunately, unlike non-Apple desktop computers, cars aren't designed to be repaired easily. They are designed to look good, so screws are hidden, custom parts are used, and even when there are standard parts (such as tires), they use so many different sizes that you will be lucky to own two cars with the same tire format.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[cygnwolf]

And you think that they auto makers aren't doing that deliberately?

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all cars are 3D printed at home now?

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Anonymous Coward]

Snort, ROFLMFAO. You can still do a lot of things to them. I just had to explain how to adjust idle mixture on cars with an EFI airflow meter, yes it's adjustable but factory sealed and takes less than 60 seconds to remove. Tires? Screw what the sticker on the doorjamb says, change the size and pressure as you see fit, as long as it doesn't have ABS, in which case you're screwed unless you have the dealer program the new tire size in the ABS computer. Some cars you can hook up a laptop and tune away, some need tuner boxes, some can't.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[mi]

And you think that they auto makers aren't doing that deliberately?

No, they don't do it deliberately.

But they deliberately do not not do it either — that is, they don't care to make it easier for you to fix your car or find spare parts.

One thing, that prevents manufacturers from going completely bonkers with a design, is the cost of insurance — if a model is too hard (read "expensive") to fix, your insurance will rise, and smarter consumers — whether they do the repairs themselves or not — take it into consideration before buying. But, being able to do repairs — hardware or software — just is not a factor to most people. Or else Apple's products would never have reached the popularity they now enjoy.

And also, going bonkers with a design is what many people want — Corollas, for example, are very easy to repair (or were 10 years ago). They are still a great model, but I like my Quattro better :)

Re:If i can't work on my car

[suutar]

and this is one reason I want another VW bug. (Plus it's just fun. Given a real engine, anyway...)

Re:If i can't work on my car

[hawguy]

If I can't work on my car, I will not buy it. Same with my computer.

The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage. Few consumers want to open the hood and fix something -- myself included.. at one time I did all of my own oil changes, tuneups (back when a tuneup meant replacing points, condenser and rotor), brake pad changes, etc. But I won't touch a modern car, I'd rather just take it to the garage when it breaks (which is rarely with most cars, my VW is 4 years old and the only maintenance it has had in all of that time is 4 oil changes - 10,000 miles between each).

So you may say that you'll only buy a car that you can work on, but as those cars become harder and harder to find, eventually you won't be able to buy one. I used to say I wouldn't buy a phone that is sealed and doesn't allow battery changes or have a microSD slot. Those phones are getting harder to find, even the new Galaxy S6 doesn't have an easily replaced battery or an SD slot... the last phone I bought is sealed without a battery or SD card slot.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Tuidjy]

Heh. A 2000 Toyota running strong is not an exception, it's the rule.

My daily driver is a 1990 Supra with 7000 miles on its rebuilt engine. It had 310,000 miles when I decided that I was getting too little compression. I have replaced a lot of things on that car (every hose, for starters) but I can do everything but truly major work myself.

On the other hand, I just paid $5,800 to have the clutch, angle gear, etc... of my S60-R Volvo replaced. I could not have began to do the work myself. My regular mechanic was unwilling to work on it, and he has been fixing my cars for two decades. I still like that car a lot, it's a 460 sleeper with a hydraulic suspension that's my choice for long trips... but every repair is a major expense.

If I really want to feel that I own a car, it has to be something that at least a dozen of years old. Anything more recent is either really cheap crap, or is beyond my skills to really fully understand, let alone tinker with. Sure, I'm an CS guy, not a gearhead, but I do have an MEng, and I like cars. When I was thirty, I felt that I could at least talk with my mechanic. Nowadays... Oh, will you kids get off my lawn?

Re:If i can't work on my car

[loonycyborg]

Well, not having them designed for easier repair is objectively economically harmful. So it's an example of market failure. And forget about "looking good". It's all bogus, there's no contradiction between ergonomics and repairability. They're just making up excuses but real motives are "strategic", that is getting rid of competitors and making entry into market harder.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[DrakonKyrios]

Good luck, the masses are much dumber than you.

Where does this information come from? My whole company that i work for now could do work on a car if they wanted to do the research. What kind of media brainwashing are you listening to or are you basing this on the few people you meet that are as dumb as nails. To add this whole forum includes people who could do the research and complete this, don't spread the misinformation and elitist attitude that the world is dumb, its only helping the media to segregate us.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[TemporalBeing]

If I can't work on my car, I will not buy it. Same with my computer.

The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage.

No, I think most would rather that someone they know could work on it, only the cars are so needlessly complex and require such special tools that most do not know how to work on them, so people take them to the shop because they don't know what else to do.

I would love to fix my own cars; and I do do some of the work myself. But even then, there are limits simply due to the computer being so integral to everything.

Sadly, even most shops now are useless as they just plug the computer in and do what it tells them. This has probably lead to the current issue with my 2005 Mazda3 which needs a major repair to stop it burning oil (a known issue on the 2.3 litre engine that seems to be related to ethanol content in the gasoline, and one which is not being owned up to by Mazda - seems one of the original OEM parts doesn't withstand ethanol very well, so you have to replace it with an after-market part); it probably could have been fixed early on with very little issue except the dealer just plugged in the OBDII to the computer which said everything was running fine, and kept going. Only after one big repair at another (non-Dealer that was still Mazda approved) shop was the oil burning uncovered.

No, it's a matter of technology creeping too far in and people feeling helpless about it as a result - that an design engineers who don't know who to design to actually make things easy to work on since they do everything in AutoCAD where its just a few clicks. I had a direct experience there where an engineer designed something in AutoCAD per their boss's requirements, the parts were made, and when the technicians when to put them on, it didn't work due to how all the parts fit together and would have broken due to fatigue at some point since it bent under the weight - this after many hours of design and review and much expense in building the parts; the technician and I went to the hardware store and spent $13 CAN and solved the problem in under an hour.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[ganjadude]

even the new Galaxy S6 doesn't have an easily replaced battery or an SD slot...

which is exactly why samsung just lost at least 3 sales in my home. I went and looked at it in verizon today and while it looks nice, it doesnt have what I care about

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Sloppy]

most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage

Then these people are in for some tough times, because whoever works at the garage, probably also isn't the copyright holder. Therefore it's going to be illegal for them to access the car too.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[tompaulco]

I don't think people who want to work on their car are becoming more rare. People who are ABLE to work on their car are becoming more rare because cars are becoming less mechanical and more software. Meanwhile the hourly rates for repair are going through the roof, so clearly more people would like to avoid that expense if they can. But they can't because the car companies won't let them. Used to be you could buy a brand new car for 1/4 of your annual income, and then work on it yourself for only the price of parts. Now, a brand new car costs more than half your annual income, and getting it fixed costs about another 10% of your annual income.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it's all about cost of manufacturing. Every one of those decisions contributes to one of three goals: lowering production cost, improving fleet fuel economy, or looking good. Those are the only three things that truly matter. By the way, they have a very negative incentive to make accident repairs difficult; insurance companies penalized cars that are expensive to repair. Insurance is more expensive on German cars, in no small part, because getting parts in the US is more expensive in time/dollars than Japanese, Korean and American cars.

The manufacturing cost, for example, is why the damn throttle position sensor on my very repairable 94 F-150 is installed with Phillips screws that can't be reached without removing the throttle body assembly. That is automated, and Phillips are cheaper to automate than hex heads, so I ended up removing the throttle body to remove two screws. Simple, simple design decision, not a screw you to the guy who replaces the sensor after about double the design life of the vehicle.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[graphius]

By and large, cars are way more reliable than they were 30 years ago. Yes they were simpler to work on, but you had to work on them more. For example, it was easy to change and adjust points, now it is near impossible to adjust electronic ignition, but it lasts for the life of the car (usually)
Getting 100,000 miles on an older car was an accomplishment, now it is routine.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[TarPitt]

I hope you plan on driving that 1967 Volkswagen Beetle the rest of your life.

Re: If i can't work on my car

[Roblimo]

Two years ago traded my 1994 Jeep Cherokee in for a... 1996 Jeep Cherokee. Yes, it's fuel injected and computer-controlled, but everybody from Autozone to Hector at Segundo Auto (a traditional, highly-skilled "Mexican" mechanic from L.A.) has a reader that works on it. Can I fix my Jeep? My eyes are horrid and I'm sick and weak, but up to a point, yes. I still know how, and I still do the light stuff like tuneups and a/c recharges -- essentially annual service. Plus belts and hoses, which I routinely change because as all taxi and limo owners know, rubber is responsible for at least 80% of all road breakdowns. (check my login name - I used to own a small limo service.)

Brakes and more physical work? Hector needs to feed his kids, and he has a hoist and air tools -- and doesn't rip us off. Like when my wife went to the Hyundai dealer for a $19.95 oil change and tire rotation and they gave her a $2000 estimate for a 60,000 mile service (includes timing belt change) and Hector did all the work for $200 - not counting the timing belt kit, which includes the serpentine belt, water pump, and front main seal, that I got online for something like $120.

The day I can't fix my own car or hire someone like Hector instead of going to the dealer is the day I stop driving. Hopefully I'll be dead before things get that messed up.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Anonymous Coward]

The licensing mentality is destroying society. Drugs, medical services, cars, code, ... anytime the argument is made that "you can't do something with something that's yours because you don't understand it," it's an invalid argument. The whole "those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither" applies in spades in so many contexts. Arguments for government control (or government enforced control) because it's in your best interests are not.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[NormalVisual]

and even when there are standard parts (such as tires), they use so many different sizes that you will be lucky to own two cars with the same tire format.

Even more annoying than that are the myriad of fastener sizes in both metric and standard. Why do I need 2-3 different sockets just to remove the battery cable brackets? Is there *really* a solid reason that one bolt has to be 14mm and the other 1/2"?

Re:If i can't work on my car

[drinkypoo]

For example, it was easy to change and adjust points, now it is near impossible to adjust electronic ignition, but it lasts for the life of the car (usually)

No, you can adjust electronic ignition the same way you always have. Just degree the pickup. Usually you can just notch a part out and then install it just so. However, you really really don't want to do this, because it will make it misbehave some of the time. What you really want to do is just get a pluggable, programmable PCM. For most interesting cars you can get one for under a thousand. You can easily swap it out for smog tests if that's your thing. Then you can dial up any timing advance you want.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[drinkypoo]

Is there *really* a solid reason that one bolt has to be 14mm and the other 1/2"?

While I own a vehicle and have owned other vehicles with a mixture of SAE and metric fasteners, I have never seen one which came from the factory with two different sizes of battery terminal bolt.

I own a 1992 Ford F-250 with an International 7.3 engine. The motor is all-SAE. The chassis is a mixed bag. The cab is metric... But both battery terminals were definitely SAE.

I prefer to buy an import from a country where the engineers can count and know what metric is, like Germany or Japan. Every fastener will be metric, except spark plugs of course. Even the drain plugs will be metric if it's German. Then you just have to deal with triple squares, but hey, at least they're metric.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Balthisar]

I happen to work for a very large car company as a manufacturing engineer. No, we don't do this deliberately, and as said below, we don't not do it deliberately, either.

Our number one goal is customer satisfaction, and if you Pareto it right, the vast majority of customers don't service their cars themselves, and have no interest in doing so. They're more satisfied with fit-and-finish, safety, economy, and features that will delight them. If it were the case that 80% of our customers valued home-serviceability more than these things, then designs would shift towards these things. It's simply not possible to make every, single part easily serviceable given the demands of the modern designs.

There's not a single powertrain engineer that says, "Hey, let's put this air intake over the number 5 cylinder so that the customer will be discouraged from changing the spark plugs himself at 160,000 km." Instead it's, "Bummer that this air intake is in the way of the number 5 cylinder, but I have to route it here because the cabin air filter, goes here, the oversized washer tank goes there, and I have to figure out how to package the rest of the components, too."

And modern cars require less service. I used to have to change the points in my VW when I was a kid, every 3000 miles if I recall correctly. These days as long as you change your oil and filter every 10,000 miles, you don't really have to do anything else. Home serviceability is still possible, if inconvenient, but it's more than offset by the larger service intervals.

For other routine, at-home-typical tasks, there's not a huge barrier versus the past. Brakes, filters, oil plug, are all nearly as simple today as they were in the past. Maybe the alternator or water pump is hard to get to, but then again, you're not replacing these every 50,000 miles like in the past, either.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Balthisar]

Most cars produced in 1992 would have been 100% metric, but you have a body-on-frame vehicle with a long "carryover" history, i.e., the cab and engine were new (and metric), but the chassis was a carryover, pre-metric design. Although in 1992, the sheet metal may still have been specified in mils rather than mm.

Modern chassis have since been redesigned, and it's doubtful that there's a car produced by any manufacturer in any country that's not 100% metric now.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Z00L00K]

The original bug - you had one engine in the car and one in the garage that you could drop in as replacement.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Cederic]

The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage.

Yep. I bought my last car, drove it for four years without it breaking down once, with service/repair costs other than brakes/tyres/oil totally under £1000 across the period and sold it to buy a newer vehicle.

Could I strip an engine and rebuild it? Yeah. Can I be arsed? No. Just give me a fucking car that works.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[drinkypoo]

I own a 1992 Ford F-250 with an International 7.3 engine. The motor is all-SAE.

Most cars produced in 1992 would have been 100% metric, but you have a body-on-frame vehicle with a long "carryover" history, i.e., the cab and engine were new (and metric),

Reading comprehension, not your strong suit. The engine was new, but it was a very old design, so it is all-SAE. And I just thought of a bunch of SAE stuff in the cab, like the starter system including the solenoid.

Those crossover years were a dark time for American cars. Very, very stupid.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[drinkypoo]

There's not a single powertrain engineer that says, "Hey, let's put this air intake over the number 5 cylinder so that the customer will be discouraged from changing the spark plugs himself at 160,000 km." Instead it's,

...shoehorn this engine into this space into which it does not fit. Automakers are always pulling this bullshit. Their initial motor is too lame, so they have to refresh part way through a model year and the replacement engine fits like shit. Instead of cramming a bigger motor in there, maybe they should update their design.

For other routine, at-home-typical tasks, there's not a huge barrier versus the past. Brakes, filters, oil plug, are all nearly as simple today as they were in the past.

Brakes, now we have EPBs and you need a scan tool just to change the rears. Filters, much harder to get to in most cases and more often horizontal instead of vertical so you get spillage with every filter change. And yeah, you can check and add oil (although some vehicles are starting to lose the dipstick and get a float) but many vehicles now lack a transmission dipstick.

Re: If i can't work on my car

[qubezz]

I have a 1993 Taurus. It doesn't require a code reader as it is before the mandated OBD port in 1996, but still has sequential electronic fuel injection and an engine management computer that can be chipped and tweeked. How to get the codes? Put a paperclip between two pins of the underhood diagnostic connector, and count the flashes on the dash to get the codes. It has engine-running tests to diagnose sensors and report weak cylinders. The number of times it has seen a mechanic other than me in the twelve years I've owned it? Zero. It also doesn't spy on me with black box data available for insurance companies and law enforcement.

Regarding the original premise that people be able to modify their software, most flash MCUs made these days have a secure or protected mode: the firmware goes in to the chip, but doesn't come back out. There is no external flash EEPROM or data bus to access or hack, and the only way you would be able to update it is to understand the entire MCU and how every one of its data ports and D/A and A/D IO is used by the manufacturer and the specs for those sensor lines, and write a completely new firmware. We are talking minutia like knowing whether individual data lines are set high or low by the internal configurable pull-up circuits.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[FlyHelicopters]

And modern cars require less service. I used to have to change the points in my VW when I was a kid, every 3000 miles if I recall correctly. These days as long as you change your oil and filter every 10,000 miles, you don't really have to do anything else. Home serviceability is still possible, if inconvenient, but it's more than offset by the larger service intervals.

^ This.

When I had less money, I couldn't afford to trade in for a new truck every few years.

I drove my 2001 Tahoe for 9 years, putting hundreds of thousands of miles on it.

What maintenance did it require in 9 years?

Oil changes, a tyranny fluid change (twice), brake pads (once), spark plugs (once), and a few sets of tires.

Whoopee frickin do...

Tranny fluid was $80, brakes were maybe $150, spark plugs were $80, and tires are what they are.

Oil changes at $20 each at the quick lube place.

My "horrible maintenance bill"? Not even worth doing the math on, the cost of gas over 9 years completely swamps whatever maintenance cost.

Oh, I just remember, at emissions inspection, I did have to replace my fuel filler cap because it was leaking, that was like $14 or something silly.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[meta-monkey]

Of course it's one thing to say "we're not going to go out of our way to make it easy for you to service your vehicle" and something else to say "we're going to forbid you from servicing your vehicle, with force of law." (Copyright, DMCA, etc).

Re:If i can't work on my car

[rpstrong]

No, you don't drop in a replacement. You drop the car over the engine, not the other way around.

Re: If i can't work on my car

[drinkypoo]

I have a 1993 Taurus. It doesn't require a code reader as it is before the mandated OBD port in 1996, but still has sequential electronic fuel injection and an engine management computer that can be chipped and tweeked. How to get the codes? Put a paperclip between two pins of the underhood diagnostic connector, and count the flashes on the dash to get the codes.

For Ford vehicles of that vintage, especially with an automatic transmission, it's really nice to have an actual scan tool. Even a crappy one is going to be just as good as the real thing. I have an Actron unit I scored at a flea market for ten bucks, to go with my 1992 F250 7.3. You don't get engine codes from the IDI diesel, but you do get transmission codes from the E4OD, and the scanner tells you what to do and when so that the tests are executed correctly.

But yeah, you can use a paper clip.

Regarding the original premise that people be able to modify their software, most flash MCUs made these days have a secure or protected mode: the firmware goes in to the chip, but doesn't come back out.

Sure, but a lot of them have been hacked and you can get the code back out anyway. Conveniently, few automakers actually roll their own PCMs, so they tend to be standardized. And Bosch at least uses the same designs for both motorsport and street cars, so the software and documentation for their motorsport products (which is freely downloadable) is applicable to their street PCMs.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[graphius]

My point was that points needed to be constantly adjusted. Electronic ignition is pretty much set and forget.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[NormalVisual]

I have never seen one which came from the factory with two different sizes of battery terminal bolt.

Me either - I was talking about the bolts that fasten the battery cable brackets to the frame and engine block. :-)

Re:If i can't work on my car

[danbob999]

Yeah, part of the problem is that too many customers buy cars based on look instead of repairability and durability.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[stoatwblr]

"I prefer to buy an import from a country where the engineers can count and know what metric is, like Germany or Japan. Every fastener will be metric, except spark plugs of course."

And the bolts holding the seatbelt anchors. For some reason even in europe and japan these are SAE

Presumably this is to prevent someone kludging something unsuitable in.

Re: If i can't work on my car

[stoatwblr]

"But yeah, you can use a paper clip."

You can use a paper clip on (E)ODB cars too, or with some there's a "secret" mode for getting the readout (My nissan has something like keyoff/keyon/keyoff/keyon/ 5 *fullthrottle/off then hold the pedal down for 10 seconds)

It's generally easier to just use an ODB dongle though.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[stoatwblr]

"The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare"

I'll phrase it slightly differently: I want _my_ choice of mechanic to be able/allowed to work on it, not the stealership.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[stoatwblr]

"Sadly, even most shops now are useless as they just plug the computer in and do what it tells them"

Yup. A GF spent about $3000 getting her mercedes C220 fixed because of this - and it made no difference whatsoever.

The actual fault was a jammed open thermostat. Replacing that ( $50 because it comes in a special housing) solved every other problem.

Because the engine remained stone cold when it should have warmed up the computers got confused and reported alarm codes out the wazoo. A competent mechanic would have looked for a common cause. Competent mechanics at dealerships are a rarity.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[stoatwblr]

" Just degree the pickup."

Uh yeah right.

The pickup runs off a notched tooth ring on the flywheel plus another on the camshaft if you're lucky.
each plug has its own coil pack. Wasted spark is common (partly because it ensures unburned hydrocarbons don't go down the exhaust)

It's been a long time since cars had distributors.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[stoatwblr]

"My point was that points needed to be constantly adjusted."

Yup. I put a homemadeTAI system in my mother's car (A 1974 Datsun B210) back in the 80s and it went from needing point adjustments every 5000 miles to almost never (about 20k miles due to the rubbing block wearing out)

When I changed the points over to an optocoupler assembly the mechanic was horrified, but having eliminated the rubbing block the timing stayed solid for 60,000 miles.

As a nice side effect the engine could whiz through to 9000rpm if you weren't careful (6000rpm redline) but as we'd balanced everything this wasn't too much of an issue

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Aereus]

I have a 2011 Mazda6, and had both of my low-beam headlight lamps fail within 2 days of each other, before I had time to replace the first one. Long story short: The bulb access is through the wheel well— behind the debris shield attached with about a dozen grommets. Of which you can only access half of them without removing the wheel itself. What should be a process that takes minutes was instead an agonizing 90 minutes in 10F weather with no gloves, as it was late at night and I was nowhere near home. I damn near ripped the liner out completely in frustration. The next day I went and paid the $65 extortion charge for replacing the other standard halogen bulb. Getting the brighter type I would have installed myself would have cost me closer to $100 from them.

Re: If i can't work on my car

[drinkypoo]

You can use a paper clip on (E)ODB cars too, or with some there's a "secret" mode for getting the readout

Some cars have that stuff, some don't. On my 1989 Nissan (pre-CONSULT interface) you would crank the idle adjust screw (on the ECU) to max, wait for it to flashout that it was in diagnostic mode, then turn it back, and then it would flashout the codes. But lots of cars have no such mode and you have to use a tool or a paperclip.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[kheldan]

This. If it's a Black Box, sealed, and I can't get into it at all to do anything? It's a liability. I've spent literally my entire life repairing things I own, especially vehicles, and if you're going to somehow lock me out of it? I'll end up stranded somewhere because it broke down, and I'm screwed. If the world goes that way then I guess I'm going to start buying and fixing up antique vehicles to drive, or just go back to my 20's and own only a motorcycle.

Re:If i can't work on my car

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I seem to recall VW improving the repairability of a Golf so that the newer model _should_ have a better insurance group rating. At least, that's what they said.

But at least insurance does provide some way to incentivise manufacturers to improve repairability... in theory anyway. However, I believe cars are increasingly brought on credit with bundled insurance, so maybe that's how they deal with it?

Re:If i can't work on my car

[TemporalBeing]

I've worked as a mechanical engineer and done metal part design. That doesn't really sound like a problem caused by computer aided drafting so much as just human laziness or incompetence.

Using *mechanical* design software like SolidWorks or ProE or Catia that stuff is pretty simple. AutoCAD, which I haven't used extensively but God knows I've tried and given up on it a few times, is basically just a shitty drawing program.* It's really old and well established though and it's locked in as the standard for civil engineering just because it's what everyone else uses, like MS Office or Photoshop (except those don't suck as much). Note I said civil engineering; designing mechanical parts in AutoCAD is really old school and dumb IMO. But SolidWorks and the others let you see your part in 3D, and assemble it together with other parts to see how they fit, and with plug-ins or separate software you can also model the stress and strain (bending, stretching, etc.) when it's put under weight at a given point. You can also do all those calculations by hand/in a separate math or modeling program just as you always could. And typically prototypes are manufactured and physically tested. AutoCAD's not supposed to replace the physical testing; it just replaces the pencil and paper. If people are skipping testing that's just good old corner cutting.

*It does have a lot of power user features and it may actually have the stuff I'm saying it lacks, just buried behind an impenetrable layer of hard-to-useness and suckiness. I haven't invested the time to become an AutoCAD expert because it's always been easier to just use something else.

I'm pretty sure AutoCAD can do all that stuff. I know it does the 3D stuff - the part I referenced was designed in a 3D model in AutoCAD. The problem is all the layering you have to do so see everything fitting together - updating every single diagram to show the new parts. Now, may be AutoCAD and others make that easier than I realize (I'm no expert at them); and I really don't know why they didn't figure out that the parts wouldn't fit (in this case, the one end of the piece made and the piece it attached to couldn't be physically accessed because other stuff interfered on one side but not the other, or at least the other wasn't as bad).

I wouldn't be surprised by a "shitty drawing" though as the one ME in charge was not liked very well by the technicians since this was not an abnormal thing - everything being in the drawing, but not necessarily being obvious how to do it, even when multiple detailed diagrams were provided. But that's a different thing entirely.

When talking about cars - I'm referring to things like you have to take off 10 parts that requires 8 hours of labor to do in order to change 1 part that takes only 30 minutes of labor; when providing a little more space could have enabled one to change that part in 30 minutes entirely without to disassemble a chunk of the vehicle to get to it.

Seriously?

[grimmjeeper]

They say you shouldn't be allowed to repair your own car because you might not do it right

They say that as if the dealers can do it right. Apparently they've never been to a dealer to get their car serviced.

Re:Seriously?

[Mashiki]

Back in 1994 my parents had a pontiac transport, the thing had been in and out of the dealer(warranty) for repairs(warm stall, cold stall, running stall, on and on). I finally had enough and asked him if I could take it to work(I was apprenticing at a local shop). It took me 10 minutes to figure out what the problem was, do the test, and tell him to take it back to the dealership. The problem? The TPS(throttle position sensor) wasn't working properly giving out of band voltage causing fuel to be cut. 10 minutes, the car had probably spent 2 weeks over a period of 5 months with them looking at it.

I've run across that several times over the years, with my old saturn under used warranty from a GM shop as well. Finding a good dealer with a competent shop is just as difficult. I've run across the same problems with friends from other companies, sometimes it seems that especially under warranty a garage will have the vehicle back in over and over again just to bill under warranty.

Re:Seriously?

[Gr8Apes]

I can unequivocally state that dealers absolutely don't know what they're doing. Changing brakes, oil, gaskets, sensors, etc, isn't hard, otherwise your average high school shop kid couldn't work on their cars. The only "hard" part is the tuning and diagnosing electronics which may require an adapter cable for your ODB-II plug on 2000 and later cars and special software. It's all available, although it may cost you.

Re:Seriously?

[Mashiki]

Good luck finding a high school that hasn't gutted their entire shop program these days. As for onboard diagnostics? Some places will let you borrow a scantool for 24hrs, one of the old small auto suppliers where I used to live did that. I know in the US there are some suppliers that will do it for you.

Re:Seriously?

[drinkypoo]

I finally had enough and asked him if I could take it to work(I was apprenticing at a local shop). It took me 10 minutes to figure out what the problem was, do the test, and tell him to take it back to the dealership. The problem? The TPS(throttle position sensor) wasn't working properly giving out of band voltage causing fuel to be cut. 10 minutes, the car had probably spent 2 weeks over a period of 5 months with them looking at it.

What's truly pathetic is that I will bet you a dollar that if you look in the factory service manual for that POS you will find the suggestion to test the TPS for problems like that. Dealers actually hire mechanics who can neither read nor follow directions.

Re:Seriously?

[Gr8Apes]

Sadly, a mere ODB-II scantool isn't going to do it for me. I need something that allows me to actually read the car specific codes and potentially do some coding, certainly reset vendor specific codes. As for high schools, what on earth are they teaching their students these days? If they're gutting those types of things, surely they replaced them with something worthwhile?

Re:Seriously?

[toddestan]

There were these consultants who couldn't their fancy new Linux server to authenticate with our domain. They literally spent two weeks at it (at $100's per hour) over a five month period and still couldn't make it work. One evening after they went for for the day I noticed they left the console logged in as root. Well, 10 minutes poking around in /etc and I figured out what the problem is. We fired them after that.

Re:Seriously?

[stoatwblr]

Why do you need to borrow a scantool when you can buy a bluetooth ODB one for $20-$60 (or $5 for the fake ELMs, which still work fine) ?

They learned Legal Wiggling 101 from Microsoft

[Tablizer]

It's not a purchase, it's a license agreement.

Re:They learned Legal Wiggling 101 from Microsoft

[Frobnicator]

It's not a purchase, it's a license agreement.

The frustrating thing is that the EFF knows, or should know, that this was already decided in a previous case. They submitted applications that included both automobile parts and video games. I've contacted their legal team as a reminder, but here it is for the masses:

This was all dealt with in the Lexmark v Static Control Components case. Lexmark accused them of several things, but the most notable were the DMCA 1201 and the Lanham Act. The 6th circuit wrote an opinion on the matter, and the SCTOUTS ultimately held with the opinion 9-0. In the earlier opinion:

Generally speaking, “lock-out” codes fall on the functional-idea rather than the original-expression side of the copyright line. Manufacturers of interoperable devices such as computers and software, game consoles and video games, printers and toner cartridges, or automobiles and replacement parts may employ a security system to bar the use of unauthorized components. To “unlock” and permit operation of the primary device (i.e., the computer, the game console, the printer, the car), the component must contain either a certain code sequence or be able to respond appropriately to an authentication process. To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and scènes à faire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright protection ...

If we were to adopt Lexmark’s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward.

Both the 6th Circuit and SCOTUS were clear in the matter that the DMCA provision referred to copyright protections on creative content like books and movies, and not codes for operations of devices, explicitly mentioning automobile and replacement parts as exempt.

Re:They learned Legal Wiggling 101 from Microsoft

[American Patent Guy]

Well, yes, but it's an implied license. The purchaser of a car doesn't sign a separate piece of paper permitting him to do stuff with the auto's code. It's like that video you bought over the weekend. Copyright law prohibits performances of protected works. Can you invite the neighbors to watch that video for free? Yes, because with your purchase you got the implied license to do so. Can you open your own movie theater and charge admission? No, because your implied license doesn't cover that.

Now, if you want to look at the code, copyright law won't stop you from doing that. (But the manufacturer might by not giving you a port of access.) If you possess the copy of the work, you get to look at it. You just don't get to reproduce it or perform it (say, in another model of a car, modified or not).

The manufacturer might claim the code to be a trade secret too, but that won't work very well because they will have published it by putting it in the cars they sell to the public.

So unless the car manufacturer is going to make the purchaser sign a contract not to fiddle with the code, and to make any subsequent purchaser bound to the same terms, I think they just have to put up with the modders and the rodders...

Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[AchilleTalon]

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!

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear to god the shills on this website....

this has nothing to do with the code. Car companies want to stop independent mechanics using software than bypasses the manufacturers electronic locks. The locks are present to give their dealerships a monopoly on car repairs.

Anyone who believes these shill: You are not as smart as you think. Learn to be more skeptical.

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[mrchaotica]

How would you feel about, say, 10% of the cars on the road running custom software by the next door kid?

How would you feel about the food you eat being prepared at home by a mere lay "cook" without any formal food service training (shock, horror!) instead of on a McDonalds assembly line?

How would you feel about playing sports with friends instead of having it be prohibited except for "professionals" because somebody might get hurt?

How would you feel about wiping your ass yourself, rather than having to hire a Certified Asswipe to do it for you because you're apparently so fucking incompetent that you might miss a spot and get sick?

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[Waffle Iron]

If there's a public safety concern about people hacking code in cars, then copyright is not the way to address it. The purpose of copyrights is purportedly to encourage the production of more works. It is certainly not intended to be a tool for ensuring public safety.

Ideally, hacking safety-related code (and then driving it on a public highway) should be legal only if the hacker got the appropriate certifications to work on that area, along with insurance riders to go with it. This would be completely unrelated to the copyright status of the original code.

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[maugle]

These are exactly the same sort of arguments the auto manufacturers trotted out back when they were trying to prevent people from repairing or modifying cars without having it done by the dealer. The arguments were bullshit then, and they haven't gotten any better since.

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[Mr. Shotgun]

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?

People have been tinkering and modifying their cars ever since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line, yet surprisingly civilization has survived. Or are you one of those people that thinks because it's "on a computer" it is scary and dangerous? If the kid next door starts trying to reprogram his ECU without knowing what he is doing he is more likely to brick the damn thing than anything else so he won't be going anywhere near a freeway after that unless he pushes it there.

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!

Oh blow it out your ass, the percentage of the driving population that is interested in modding their own vehicles is rather low, and a good portion of that crowd is more about the spoilers and ground effects than anything. What you are doing using jumped up hyperbole to try and scare people about a non existent threat. I do not support limiting people from modifying something they legally own, however if there ever came some legislation barring you from going outside I would back it 100% because I am convinced you are scared of your own shadow.

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[BronsCon]

Just like guns don't kill.

You're right, they don't, and it always cracks me up when people say they do. It's not the gun, it's the bullet. And, even then, only when an incompetent or malicious person, or someone defending themselves, makes it so.

As for the rest of your comment: Do you have a blog or newsletter I can subscribe to?

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[sjames]

If the kid next door re-writes the firmware in his car, I'm fine with that. Since it won't even likely start after that, it should be quite safe.

After the analysis of Toyota's firmware, I'm not sure I feel absolutely safe with the auto makers software on board.

Note, if the car is designed properly, no amount of software changes will make the car unsafe. It may make it blow the engine or shred the transmission, but it will still stop every time. Perhaps the possibility that the kid next door might customize the firmware will remind the designers of that very important rule of design safety.

They could take it a step further and make it in 2 layers like autopilots do. The core of it is developed very carefully and changed rarely. It's job is to keep the plane within safe parameters. The cutting edge stuff goes on top of that. It flys with more finesse. It can economize, avoid making passengers seasick, allow the pilot to set a destination and let it do the rest, etc. If it attempts to fly the plane outside of safe parameters, the other layer shoots it in the head and tells the pilot to take over.

Re:Would you like next door kid reprogram his car?

[trawg]

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I found your comment pretty funny given the general groupthink on Slashdot about the typical quality of software engineers and how most of them shouldn't be trusted to do anything more complicated than "hello world".

The air of superiority on here (which may or may not be misplaced, thanks Dunning-Kruger) when it comes to programming is such that I'm amazed to find people supporting the concept that people should be hacking on their own cars from a pure quality-control point of view.

I firmly support the EFF's perspective that users should own their own devices and be able to do whatever they want with them. If it's hacking on their entertainment systems or the seat warmers, who cares? But there are parts of the automotive system that are designed by actual engineers and go through serious testing to ensure they perform to certain parameters, presumably in some cases according to state-provided regulations. So there's a case to be made on that side.

I'm having a tough time...

[JaneTheIgnorantSlut]

...coming up with a good care analogy for this.

Software does not belong in cars

[Anonymous Coward]

get the god damned software OUT of cars, and all the chips. they weren't present for the first 100 years of the automobile, and they aren't needed now.

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[sexconker]

Yeah! We should all be hand-cranking our cars and working the choke to control the fuel-air mixture!

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[grimmjeeper]

I disagree. Computer controlled fuel injection in the last 20-30 years has done more to improve driveability, reliability, fuel efficiency, and emissions reduction than anything else anyone has ever been able to do with purely mechanical systems. A modern V6 makes as much power as a 1980's V8 at twice the economy or more. All due to computer control.

I grew up learning to work on cars and I can still tune a carburetor with the best of them. But I really love the new computerized systems. Once you figure out how they work, it's a cake walk to figure out what's going on with your car. Plug in your scanner and the car tells you what's wrong. No more farting around trying umpteen different things that "might" be the problem. You read the code and know exactly where the problem is manifesting itself.

Now, way too many people don't know both ends of it. They may know just the mechanics of old school engines and they're afraid of the new technology so they can't begin to figure out what's going on. And, worse, kids these days aren't learning how things work. They can master talking to the computer with ease but they have no idea what's going on behind the scenes so they have no idea how to fix what's wrong even when told what the problem is. And both sides seem to want to refuse to learn, which is the real tragedy.

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[speedlaw]

Sure. Using a set of mechanical switches to fire spark, along with a set of weights to advance spark, is a great idea, very reliable, and adapts to real time conditions.

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[drinkypoo]

Sure. Using a set of mechanical switches to fire spark, along with a set of weights to advance spark, is a great idea,

It was a good idea.

very reliable,

Uh no. Nowhere near as reliable as an optical or hall effect trigger and an igniter transistor.

and adapts to real time conditions.

To just one condition, engine vacuum. And using vacuum advance precludes a whole lot of other nifty technologies.

Points suck, and throwing them away and putting in electronic ignition is one of the best thing you can do for an old vehicle to improve reliability and performance.

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[sjames]

I know a guy who ended up ripping most of the automation out of his car when it failed. There actually was a mixture adjustment and manual choke lever.

It ran well that way for years.

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[Agripa]

Uh no. Nowhere near as reliable as an optical or hall effect trigger and an igniter transistor.

Hall effect sensors are surprisingly unreliable because of their fragility. Reluctance pickups made from a coil of wire work just as well in this application yet automobile manufacturers still manage to build unreliable ones.

One significant disadvantage to electronic ignition is that when it does fail, and I have seen both the sensors and output transistors fail, it completely quits. Points wear out requiring refurbishing but the only way I have seen them completely fail is when the ignition transformer failed again showing how the automotive companies can screw up even a coil of wire.

Re:Software does not belong in cars

[sexconker]

His farm didn't have horses, as far as I know.
As for fucking them, husbandry practices are more akin to hand jobs and turkey basters. But if you like to do it the hard way, more power to you.

Modifying the car's odometer is already covered.

[Anonymous Coward]

Under existing laws.

It's a car so...

[SeaFox]

They say you shouldn't be allowed to repair your own car because you might not do it right.

I feel like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is going to come into play at some point here.

Re:It's a car so...

[drinkypoo]

The big deal pertaining to autos in Magnuson-Moss was not voiding warranties for use of compatible replacement parts, consumables, etc. It only governs warranties, and not service you do yourself.

Re:It's a car so...

[SeaFox]

What happens when the "replacement" part has a software component required?

Re:It's a car so...

[drinkypoo]

What happens when the "replacement" part has a software component required?

It doesn't govern whether they have to make it possible for you to install a replacement part, only whether they have to warranty the product if you manage to come up with a third-party compatible part, and install it. They should have to show that your modification caused a problem, at least by providing illustrative specifications.

I tried to raise this issue before...

[ckatko]

I tried to raise this issue before... with the Tesla auto-updating your cars firmware without asking the owner of the car first, and how that means they can literally put anything in there without your consent. (NSA GPS tracking anyone?)

Everyone was too busy going "OMG TESLA RULEZ" to care. (A great car sure, but that doesn't mean we need another Apple walled-garden.)

Re:I tried to raise this issue before...

[Gordo_1]

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.

Re:I tried to raise this issue before...

[ckatko]

>Technically you do get asked before firmware installs proceed (download happens automatically in the background). You're free to simply not apply the update.

Thank you for this clarification. Because all I've heard is Elon Musk sent a magical firmware upgrade to everyone's car overnight to fix an issue, with no mention of people getting the option of opting in, or approving it. That's better. But as you continued, we're not getting smarter and smarter cars, with more GPS and Internet, and zero ability to check what it's doing or who it's calling.

Re:I tried to raise this issue before...

[Ogi_UnixNut]

" 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."

By which point you may no longer have a choice. This stuff tends to get rolled out slowly. First the water is tested by a new model, usually a special or exclusive one, then if there isn't a backlash, it trickles down the market, until all cars end up having it.

By the time it is decided by the powers at be to enable the "tickets via telemetry" or "Your 24/7 spy informer to the NSA/FBI/Whoever", probably the majority of cars will have the technology. They are not silly to enable these kinds of features while people still have alternatives. Not to mention self-driving cars, or cars which can override the occupants decisions on speed, direction and route. Sounds like a dystopian nightmare in a vehicular package to me.

And as the electronics get more integrated into cars, not only does it make it harder to rip it out and install your own, but it makes it harder to repair, potentially killing off the second hand market.

I've only ever dealt with and ran second hand cars, and one thing that you notice is that a cars electrics tend to go bad long before mechanical/engine wear becomes a problem. The more electrics a car has when new, the more there is to go wrong 10 years down the line (and the harder it is to debug). Cars that are all electric, or heavily computerised, will pretty much kill the second hand market IMO,

If the EFF wins, and people are allowed to hack/modify and replace the electronic systems within the cars, then things may turn out better than expected, but the automakers will lose lots of potential revenue. Not just from people buying second hand rather than new, but in certified garage/maintenance fees/licencing. I suspect they will fight the EFF tooth and nail over this.

Re:I tried to raise this issue before...

[Gordo_1]

I was being facetious with that comment, but do you have any other viable choices in mind? Don't all cars come with non-free software in them? The only thing Tesla's done is enabled an OTA update mechanism for the firmware. Virtually all new cars sold today have update-able firmware and even if they didn't, there's still no way you can prove that the NSA hasn't got a back door in there from the factory. So, unless you want to go around driving a classic from the 70s or 80s, you're pretty much at the mercy of your car's manufacturer anyway.

Re:That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone not working on their brakes and killing you is equally liable. Should people be charged if they don't take there car to get regularly serviced?

The odometer example is more like the Iphone eco-system. If someone wants to jail break their phone they are allowed but Apple will do whatever it can to make sure that doesn't happen.

Re:That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete, fucking idiot, and I hope you never vote in any election of any kind. You have lost your right to have an opinion.

Re:That car behind you...

[blackest_k]

Brakes tend to be one of the easiest jobs going. Disk brakes maybe 10 minutes or so Drum brakes can take a bit longer. It is not a hard job. At least the dust is less toxic these days.
 

Re:If its regulated it needs to be open

[AchilleTalon]

Avionics software isn't open and it doesn't prevent it to be subject to regulations. It is part of the certification for an airplane. The same thing holds for cars.

Re:That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I should lose my right to modify something I own because you can't be bothered to learn how to do something properly? Is that the gist of your argument? You realize someone not washing their hands could contaminate your food, does that mean people shouldn't be able to cook without permission of the grocery store? Someone can potentially kill themselves using drugs at home, but as long as you follow the instructions, it certainly doesn't require a nurse at your home to give them to you. As a liberal this is the firearm issue all over again. Just because someone could do something doesn't mean I should lose my right to it. Punish people who are stupid and stop thinking emotionally.

Re: That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that very few people will actually be writing new code for their cars. Far more likely a few experts will do some mods and distribute it to any who want with instructions on how to install it. People who change their own brakes aren't manufacturing the brake pads in their garage - they are buying some third party hardware and following general procedures for installing them.

Re:They do have a point...

[WillgasM]

Ummm...that's already the case. Google reprogrammers.

Re:That car behind you...

[Pentium100]

Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes :)

That's an argument for me to reinforce the back of my car not to ask the politicians to make a law that prevents you from working on your brakes.

It's *possible* to roll one back, but there certainly tamper resistant preventions to this in place

Didn't see any tamper preventions on the odometer of my car (made in 1982) - just a mechanical counter. In fact, I know that the odometer on my car is wrong for the simple reason that it was replaced (twice) with nobody bothering to set the replacement to the same number as the original.

Re:They do have a point...

[BitterOak]

Ummm...that's already the case. Google reprogrammers.

Ummmm, that's kind of my point. This is exactly the sort of thing auto makers are trying to make illegal.

Re:That car behind you...

[WillgasM]

Sounds like you just need a log to audit.

The Car Analogy Come to Life

[Howitzer86]

I'm glad the EFF has taken up this fight. To me there's no symbolic difference between the code controlling the digital throttle in my xB and the cable doing the same thing in my 24 year-old Tercel... except that the Tercel does it better. I'm not sure, but I think the values that represent my throttle pressure aren't as smooth as they could be, and it might be due to it not being a float value.

Wonky throttle values aren't exactly unknown to Toyotas, as Wozniak discovered with his Prius. I probably would be unable to fix this bug, but he could. It's also possible that the somewhat rough transition between super-light pressure and the notch above that is actually a developing issue with my engine (it's not that noticeable, so the nuance leads me to believe it isn't physical - or at least that it could be improved in code).

So what if I could kill someone by editing the code in my xB? I could kill someone by working on my Tercel too. The legal responsibility rests with me either way. There's no real difference except that there exists precedence for controlling what people can do with the code in their gadgets. Perhaps in some crazy parallel universe, not only could automakers argue that the code isn't yours, they could argue that the whole car isn't yours to do with as you please either. I can imagine the same kind of EULA you agree to in software being applicable to the entire vehicle, listing off all the things you can and cannot do to with "your" brand new car. If they say you must go to the dealer for all repairs, then you must do it, and in the event of tempering, they can revoke your license and take your car back from you.

It's really the car analogy come to life. I have no doubt this argument has been made before. It's just that in the past, computers were computers, cars were cars, and if your car had a computer, it was just an 8-bit micro-controller that managed your vacuum control valves and fuel pressure.

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[jklovanc]

So what if I could kill someone by editing the code in my xB? I could kill someone by working on my Tercel too.

The difference being that when you incorrectly modify the Tercel there is physical evidence of the tampering. With software changes it is quite possible that the code is unrecoverable and there may be no way to show tampering. The car maker then get left liable for the accident when it was actually caused by hacked code.

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[graphius]

I would think it would be easier to show faulty code than a tampered throttle cable. Of course it depends on how the cable was tampered...

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[sjames]

The code is far more likely to be recoverable than many mechanical mods.

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[jklovanc]

Try to recover code from a lump of melted plastic. Heat also effects memory cells.

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[jklovanc]

If there is a fire involved and the memory chip melted there might be issues.

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[graphius]

Throttle cable may not survive either...

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[sjames]

Try to recover a mechanical mod from a broken shard of metal.

Many crashes do not cause a fire. The flash chips will easily survive a mechanical shock that would obliterate all evidence of a mechanical mod.

Re:The Car Analogy Come to Life

[toddestan]

The smart way would be to make the important electronics relatively inaccessible so you'd have physical evidence that someone was accessing them (scratches on the case, soldered on JTAG connector, etc.). But if you can upload new firmware to the engine computer over the CAN bus then all bets are off I guess.

Re:That car behind you...

[DaTrueDave]

had an idiot reprogram the brake software. Sure he's 'liable' but you're now dead...

On the same front, I've always marveled that anybody can work on their own brakes...and legally drive on the roads. Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes :)

I know how to work on my own brakes, but I don't enjoy it and would rather pay someone else to do it. I can't tell you how many times a so-called 'pro' has screwed up my brakes. I would place much more trust in a car enthusiast than a minimum wage greasemonkey. This is one of the reasons why it's so important to find a mechanic you can trust.

Re:They do have a point...

[mlts]

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.

Re:That car behind you...

[David_Hart]

had an idiot reprogram the brake software. Sure he's 'liable' but you're now dead...

On the same front, I've always marveled that anybody can work on their own brakes...and legally drive on the roads. Sure lots of people are more than capable of doing so, but I know you wouldn't want to be in front of me if I had worked on my brakes :)

I would be comfortable with most people on here changing their brakes. After all, most of us would research the components that are needed and select upgraded parts that work better with our cars, research the process through youtube videos, repair manuals, experts in forums, etc. and then take the time to ensure that everything was completed to specification. We would then test it and make any necessary fixes.

How is that any more scary than the mechanic in the shop, usually the least experienced guy, rushing to get 4 cars out the door on a Friday afternoon?

Most geeks would make excellent mechanics... In fact, most cars are now just rolling computers and thus the EFF efforts...

Where is this headed?

[craighansen]

The real issue that we're going to be up against is whether 3rd parties will be permitted to continue to manufacture replacement parts. Soon every part incorporates an RFID, and the car refuses to start without all the RFID tags matching the authorization database. Perhaps they'll start with all the parts that they can justify as safety-critical, 'cause, you know, for the children. The government could even push for this in order to make sure that mileage and pollution critical parts are kept unmodified, 'cause, you know, for the environment. Then when the complaints pour in that it's anticompetitive, they'll authorize third parties so long as they tithe back to the original manufacturer, 'cause, you know, for the corporations. Finally, after some number of years, they'll just deauthorize all the parts, so you have to scrap the car, 'cause, you know, you need a new car, or just because they can't be bothered to keep supplying security updates for the buggy software.

Re:That car behind you...

[Ichijo]

had an idiot reprogram the brake software. Sure he's 'liable' but you're now dead...

I think the real issue is that manufacturers don't want you to even look at the code, probably because they would be embarrassed at what you might find.

Re: That car behind you...

[OzPeter]

Except that very few people will actually be writing new code for their cars. Far more likely a few experts will do some mods and distribute it to any who want with instructions on how to install it. People who change their own brakes aren't manufacturing the brake pads in their garage - they are buying some third party hardware and following general procedures for installing them.

You're comparing apples (code) to oranges (break pads). Third party manufactured break pads will be subject to some oversight and regulation, especially as you can't just whip up break pads in your garage. On the other hand you are suggesting that anyone who really wants to can modify and install software without oversight or regulation - and that is not something I'd like to see in safety critical systems.

And if the people writing the code have to get it certified before it can be used, then that puts them on the level of car manufactures right now, and sort of defeats what is being proposed by the EFF, as you will still not really own the code that is in your car.

I'd argue they shouldn't be allowed to

[djsmiley]

.....sell cars which maybe used to kill people.

There are limits to everything.

[westlake]

I'll take my stand with the automakers on this one.

The only way to gain popular acceptance of the substantially automated or fully driverless car is to guarantee that the technology is trustworthy and reliable ---

that all hardware and software changes are fully documented, competently performed, meet all statutory requirements and will not leave the owner or manufacturer exposed to civil or criminal action somewhere down the road.

The geek may obsess over his "ownership" of a vehicle. I care more about avoiding a crash and a lawsuit that may cripple me financially.

Re:There are limits to everything.

[tehlinux]

You could always dual-boot your car. You can keep the stock firmware for when you're on public roads, but still be free to disable some safety features when you're ghost-riding the whip with your homies (all of whom are professional drivers, of course) on private property.

Re:There are limits to everything.

[Pfhorrest]

Exactly. There are two orthogonal issues at hand here:

- Should there be laws regulating what kind of software can control vehicles on public roads?

- Should there by laws regulating whether the owner of a vehicle can look at and modify the software in his car?

It's perfectly analogous to existing hardware modifications. There's no laws saying you can't modify you car in any way you damn well please. There are laws about what kinds of cars can be operated on public roads. There's a possibility that some modifications you make (hardware or software) may make your car unsuitable to operate on public roads. But that doesn't mean you are preemptively prohibited from making those changes — just that you can be liable for operating such a modified vehicle on public roads.

Re:There are limits to everything.

[Hussman32]

I care more about avoiding a crash and a lawsuit that may cripple me financially.

Or cripple you physically, forever.

My view is if you've chosen to have a car with a computer, and that computer somehow affects the momentum vector that is your vehicle, then you, and everyone else you may encounter on the road, has the right to software that has passed rigorous software QA. If you have a hot rod that has no computer, do what you want with it. If you're driving on the same road our taxes pay for, your vehicle needs to be safe.

Re:There are limits to everything.

[graphius]

Exactly, I mean it isn't like any of the car manufacturers have ever had any recalls due to bad software or anything....

Re:There are limits to everything.

[graphius]

This is what people don't seem to get. There are already laws describing what is legal on public roads. I see no reason these could not be expanded to cover software. If you want to go off road, or on a track, you should be able to do what you want.

Personally I would also feel more comfortable if the code in cars was open to public analysis. I am not a programmer, but I trust many independent eyes over one biased set with ulterior motives....

Re:There are limits to everything.

[havana9]

Ok, if I don'actually own a car i have now some legal ways to rent a car. I could use an operative leasing and at the end of the leasing period refuse to pay the release fee and leave the old car at the leasing company. Or I could go to car rental services like Avis or Hetz. Or I could use newer rental services like Car2Go. Finally I could decide to use a Taxi. I suppose that self driving cars will be almost rented in a taxi like service or with a long time rent because of civili liabilities. Actually I take every workday a sef driving metro train.

Re:That car behind you...

[Howitzer86]

Dude... brakes are easy to work with. If something goes wrong, you'll find out before you even make it onto the street. The neglectful driver who needs new brake pads is much more of a threat to your safety.

Maybe someday...

[tehlinux]

>by changing the mileage.

If only there were some way to digitally sign that.

Re:Maybe someday...

[tompaulco]

If they have written the software such that you, they or anyone else can modify the mileage then they are violating a lot of laws. I believe this to be a strawman argument.

Re:They do have a point...

[Pentium100]

You mean somebody could do the same thing to their car that I can do to mine? I can adjust the carburetor on my car to pass the CO test, then adjust it back so the car runs OK. I have not done this, but it is possible if I need to.

Re:That car behind you...

[quintessencesluglord]

All the more reason to keep something like brakes mechanical. It's not like electronics don't ever fail, and you usually have clear indicators for when something mechanical is on its last legs.

You are stating as such that even homebrewed reprogramming doesn't take a bunch of specialized equipment and knowledge still. It's not like opening a program, moving every value to 11 and closing. Someone who had no clue would be lucky to get the car to start, much less move move than 20 feet.

Nope, what is at issue here is more non-factory authorized tuners and repair shops. Your basic idiot can purchase an engine management system now and go to town, or hold the engine in with chicken wire, so it's not like you have safeguards regardless.

And especially as electric cars come into the fold, being able to modify parameters is the equivalent to putting on a larger exhaust. I'd rather have more options than what the factory allows, especially when the factory is charging twice the garage rate of my local shop.

Re: That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

now your in the situation of if "why can't I modify my cars radio, while I can modify my cell phone" as an example ...

Why might this need to be done? Nissan has a defect in the Nav system (integrated into the radio), that can cause your radio not to turn on, or reboot sporadically, or freeze, or turn on only after the car has been running for a few minutes. I have personally seen most of these issue, the straight freeze being the exception. However, I can't fix it because Nissan won't give me the fix and the dealer will only apply the fix if they see it happen. So I have maybe 5 chances to make it happen with each visit to the dealership, until they see it I'm stuck with a known, documented, and readily correctable issue... If I were able to pull this update from another vehicle and apply it to mine, the problem would be done and over.

Nothing real to complain about today?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't own anything.
Got source code for your coffee maker? Any applience?
PCB schematics?
Mechanical Drawings?
Patterns for your shirt?

By you definition you own nothing.

Re:Nothing real to complain about today?

[sjames]

Got source code for your coffee maker?

Yes. The microcontroller isn't protected in any way.

Re:They do have a point...

[grimmjeeper]

Fascinating. You say that as if you believe the automakers care about the environment.

Roll your own!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently this is news to slashdotters, but hot rod enthusiasts are able to completely build replicas early model cars. You can build a 1940 Ford Coupe with steel frame and steel body, 1965 small block built to moderrn quality. Not one bit of electronics except for the radio. Street legal.

Nowadays building your own car is like paint by numbers. Note: possessing an indoor garage and automotive tools is recommended before attempting to build your own car.

Re:Roll your own!

[Locke2005]

Sure, anybody can build a car from scratch... but how do you license it and make it street legal? Doesn't there need to be some original vehicle to pull a VIN off of, or you can't register the vehicle, therefore you can't drive it on public roads?

Re:Roll your own!

[craighansen]

There's an outfit in Florida that's advertising your choice of new or restored 1964.5 Ford Mustangs. If you get one "new" they create a VIN that refers to their company - if you get one restored, you get the VIN of the donor car they rebuild. They upgrade safety and emissions to some degree, but I don't know how they meet modern requirements for their "new" cars. (See http://revologycars.com/faqs/ )

Re:Roll your own!

[drinkypoo]

Doesn't there need to be some original vehicle to pull a VIN off of

Nope. The federal government recognizes your right to create a completely customized vehicle and drive it on the roads. The Rally Fighter car is built partly by the buyer in order to get around the crash testing requirements; if it's a "kit car", simply meaning you put it together, then it doesn't have to have all that crap. Emissions requirements have no real restrictions; if you want to use a truck motor you'll have to title as a truck, and you have to bring the whole smog system over from the air filter box to the back of the cats and any downstream O2 sensors. The situation is slightly more stringent in California; any replacement parts in this series including headers, intake pipes and the like must be CARB certified and carry a CARB E.O. number sticker on the part or on the radiator support or firewall. The vehicle then has the same emissions restrictions and requirements as the donor vehicle. Or you can build a totally custom powertrain starting with a crate motor etc., but in California that means having the vehicle approved by an emissions referee.

Re:That car behind you...

[CurryCamel]

GP does make a point, unlike you.
You don't even make a counter-point.
But then, what do we expect from an AC?

They want dealer only service just think what they

[Anonymous Coward]

They want dealer only service just think what they can do with that? lock out jiffy lube and make you pay $50-$60 + labor at the dealer each 3000 miles or 3 months with a light you can't turn off and or locked in limp mode.

Re:Don't buy cars with computers

[Pentium100]

And I have a 1982 W123. It has power steering and power brakes, but no computers (well, the tape deck has a MCU). It is worth the additional cost in fuel to me (though since it is modified to run on LPG, the cost isn't that much higher than that of a newer gasoline car).

Features for the sake of features add to the list of stuff that can fail. I have seen an ad for a Tesla with the door handles that come out after you unlock the car. I wonder how that mechanism is going to work after 10 or more years...

I will not buy a car with computers unless the government makes old cars illegal to own.

Re:That car behind you...

[ganjadude]

brakes are one of the easiest things on a car to fix on your own these days (saying you just need a change of pads and rotors, and not a new caliper)

Re: That car behind you...

[BronsCon]

You're comparing apples (code) to oranges (brake pads).

uhmm...

Far more likely a few experts will do some mods and distribute it to any who want with instructions on how to install it.

I'm pretty sure that was written about code and not brake pads. The AC who posted it is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong (much like I corrected which version of the word "brake" you used).

Exemptions are only about legal access

[melting_clock]

No exemption does not mean no access. Those with malicious intent do not care about laws so the lack of an exemption will not slow them down. The criminals that want to cause crashes, steal cars, defraud buyers, etc. really don't care about the DMCA.

Exemptions are only for the rest of use, that want to be able to legally work on things that we purchased and should have every right to work on. That said, people should not be modifying the software that could leave the car unsafe to drive and there should be some sort of protections. Reading and understanding the software is perfectly reasonable. We have already seen manufacturers releasing flawed software that has caused dangerous situations which provides a strong case for third party review of the code.

How about a non modifiable log? problem solved.

[echostorm]

If Dell can do this, I am pretty sure General Motors could figure it out.

Re:Mechanics' Oath

[PPH]

reputable mechanics are ex-cons.

Because screwing with something will get their parole revoked. Its the mechanics with no criminal record you can't trust.

Re:That car behind you...

[Obfuscant]

And especially as electric cars come into the fold, being able to modify parameters is the equivalent to putting on a larger exhaust.

Which electric car would benefit from putting on a larger exhaust?

I'd rather have more options than what the factory allows, especially when the factory is charging twice the garage rate of my local shop.

So you change a few of the parameters of your electric car and some of the safety systems stop working right. E.g., you didn't realize that a parameter used for maximum current for acceleration interacted with the regenerative braking. I.e., you go fast but your brakes don't work as well. Or you change that acceleration parameter and your motors burn up because of the overcurrent. Or you change some other parameter that's based on a hardware limitation and you break the hardware and expect the dealer to fix it under warrantee. You blame the manufacturer, but it's your fault.

The issue though is really not the one-off experimenter who will hopefully only kill himself when he screws up, but the cottage businesses that will pop up selling kits to modify street vehicles and the people who don't understand why allowing twice the current during acceleration might be a bad thing -- but faster is gooder! Or the kit makers who reverse engineer the code for the 2016 model, but the 2017 model uses different code and they just overwrote the antilock braking function ...

It's bad enough that phones or other firmware-driven devices can be bricked by hacked code, imagine your car.

Re:That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

No he isn't.

"On the same front, I've always marveled that anybody can work on their own brakes...and legally drive on the roads."

He's talking about the current situation, where people work on their own physical brake equipment.

Re: That car behind you...

[mrchaotica]

You're comparing apples (code) to oranges (break pads). Third party manufactured break pads will be subject to some oversight and regulation, especially as you can't just whip up break pads in your garage. On the other hand you are suggesting that anyone who really wants to can modify and install software without oversight or regulation - and that is not something I'd like to see in safety critical systems.

Bullshit. Sure, brake pads in particular might end up with oversight and regulation (in the sense of regulating the operations of the factory, but not necessarily in the sense of their suitability for the application) because they're hard for one person to make himself, but there are plenty of other things on a car that are almost as essential but completely unregulated. There's nothing whatsoever stopping a random guy with a welder from fabricating his own suspension parts, engine parts, the entire car body, etc. He could even weld a big spike on the front of the car if he wanted. The police would probably look at him funny, but they wouldn't stop him.

And if the people writing the code have to get it certified before it can be used, then that puts them on the level of car manufactures right now

If you're a car manufacturer -- which means somebody who builds more than X cars a year, where X is a pretty big number -- then you need to meet regulations. However, home-built cars are exempt from most (if not all) of it.

Re:That car behind you...

[quintessencesluglord]

Which definition of equivalent are you unaware of?

The bit that you are too dense to grasp is that all of your fears are happening NOW. Every single car you see on the road has the possibility of some modification to the mechanicals or EMS. I upgraded to larger brakes. The horror!

The main difference is being able look over the entire code so it is obvious that maximum current is linked to regenerative braking or having to kluge together some code and finding out after the accidents start coming in.

And especially here, arguing for security through obscurity is just delicious.

Smartphone 2.0

[snadrus]

Already answered. Smartphones are very programmable,
- except you don't have root (which is to ensure the system works like the OS maker),
- except the FCC-approved radio chip (to ensure you use public airspace inappropriately).

"Programmable cars" have been here since they put in radio tuners. The level of programmability should increase, but they should retain control of safety-critical operations.

I don't agree that cars cost more.

[Chirs]

As far as I can tell the cost of a Toyota Corolla is basically the same number of dollars as it was 10 years ago. Which means that after factoring in inflation the car is significantly cheaper than it used to be.

I have a 2005 Toyota Matrix, and aside from oil changes and tires I've only had to replace one part (the airbag clockspring) which cost a few hundred bucks and which I installed myself.

Re:I don't agree that cars cost more.

[tompaulco]

As far as I can tell the cost of a Toyota Corolla is basically the same number of dollars as it was 10 years ago. Which means that after factoring in inflation the car is significantly cheaper than it used to be.

Simple research on cars.com shows that the MSRP of a new 2015 Corolla is between 16,950 and 22,955. The original MSRP on a 2005 Corolla was 13,780 to 17,555. The price has increased between 23% and 31%. In that timeframe, inflation has supposedly gone up 20.2%, so the price of the Corolla has output paced inflation by a factor of 1.15 to 1.5.
In 2005, the Median household income was $55,238. A Corolla cost 25-32% of that.
In 2013, the last year for which numbers have been released, the median household income was $51,939. A Corolla costs 33-44% of that.
In 1968, the Corolla was first introduced in the United States. It cost under $1,700. Median household income was $7,700. The Corolla cost 22% of that.
Clearly cars are costing more as a fraction of income then ever before.
This does not even take into consideration that many households in 1968 were single earner households. Now, most households are dual income, but with nearly twice the earners in the household, the cost of a new car is still a higher percentage of income than ever before.

Re:I don't agree that cars cost more.

[GrimShady]

As far as I can tell the cost of a Toyota Corolla is basically the same number of dollars as it was 10 years ago...

... but it has waaaayy more radiation :)

Re:I don't agree that cars cost more.

[FlyHelicopters]

Simple research on cars.com shows that the MSRP of a new 2015 Corolla is between 16,950 and 22,955. The original MSRP on a 2005 Corolla was 13,780 to 17,555. The price has increased between 23% and 31%. In that timeframe, inflation has supposedly gone up 20.2%, so the price of the Corolla has output paced inflation by a factor of 1.15 to 1.5.
In 2005, the Median household income was $55,238. A Corolla cost 25-32% of that.
In 2013, the last year for which numbers have been released, the median household income was $51,939. A Corolla costs 33-44% of that.
In 1968, the Corolla was first introduced in the United States. It cost under $1,700. Median household income was $7,700. The Corolla cost 22% of that.
Clearly cars are costing more as a fraction of income then ever before.

That is interesting...

However, it is worth noting that the 2015 Corolla will last a lot longer than the older ones and hold more of its resale value.

What a car costs matters less than what it costs you to own.

I recently traded in a 2011 Ford Explorer last year, I paid about $41k for it and sold it to the dealer for $29k. In just under 3 years, that isn't much depreciation. Cars are tending to hold their value since they last so long these days.

If that Explorer doesn't last to 250k+ miles, I'd be shocked. I wouldn't say that about a 1991 Explorer.

Re:I don't agree that cars cost more.

[samwichse]

The '05 Corolla is 5 inches shorter and 3 inches narrower than the '15.

It also weighs 2,530 to 2,670 lbs, vs 2,800 to 2,875 lbs for the '15.

Sadly, Toyota no longer sells a car that size to compare to. Nissan sells a Versa sedan (ugh) that is a lot closer in size than the '15 Corolla (it's a bit smaller). Base price is $12k.

Cars always bloat and become larger with time. Then they introduce a "new" small car at the bottom. People love it, but they think "it'll sell better if it were just a bit bigger" every time they redesign. Rinse, lather, repeat. The size/weight of a brand new Honda Civic is actually larger overall than a 1987 Accord. Go figure... now we have the Fit. Which jumped up in size with the '09 refresh.

Sam

Re: That car behind you...

[Richard_at_work]

In the UK, modifications such as you suggest still need to meet the vehicle roadworthiness test for the car to gain its MOT certificate - can't hit the road without one of those, so the work is definitely regulated.

Re:They want dealer only service just think what t

[tompaulco]

Hey no problem. They want dealer only service for the life of the car, then go ahead and supply it under warranty.

They are welding the hood shut!

[Gim Tom]

I remember when the standard analogy comparing open source to proprietary software was, "Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" Sound to me like they are wanting to weld the hood shut.

Re:That car behind you...

[Obfuscant]

Which definition of equivalent are you unaware of?

The one where changing one thing on a car is "equivalent to" changing something else that the car doesn't have to begin with. If changing the exhaust on a electric car (which has no effect at all) is equivalent to changing the software, then why bother? It will have no effect.

The bit that you are too dense to grasp

Thanks for playing. Putting one aftermarket piece of hardware on a car is not the same as (or equivalent to) modifications to software that runs a large number of systems on that car. There is a manufacturer that designed and tested that bit of kit you upgraded to. Who tests the modified software that you think you are smart enough to write to control the functions of your car?

The main difference is being able look over the entire code so it is obvious that maximum current is linked to regenerative braking

Except it may not be obvious. And it may not be obvious that the current limit on acceleration is based on circuit limits, unless you also tear the car apart to see what the specific electronic circuits involved are rated at. Wouldn't it be really safe if you load your family in the car and head off for a long trip, and show them how much better your car accelerates that it used to? And what's that burning smell, by the way? Great, the car is on fire.

And it may be a physical hardware limit. What's the tensile strength of the bolts that mount that motor?

And especially here, arguing for security through obscurity is just delicious.

So don't argue for that. And stop being patently insulting in your attitude. People who disagree with you aren't dense, they just don't agree with you.

Re:That car behind you...

[pixelpusher220]

flamebait, really? just wow.

Re: That car behind you...

[pixelpusher220]

home-built cars are exempt from most (if not all) of it.

Is there a source for this? I know things like ultra-light aircraft have very low regulatory hurdles, but cars on the open road? I thought there were minimums in place that get stricter every year. Like how all new cars need a tire pressure monitoring system?

Genuinely curious :)

Unreasonable straw man argument

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

What an unreasonable argument. I doubt any time in modern times has the ability to modify a car resulted in 10% of the cars on the road being modified from stock, not by experienced and qualified auto shops much less by some pimply faced kid next door. And confusing the argument by bringing driver skill into the equation is nonsensical -- that is entirely a separate subject that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This is all about using questionable digital asset laws like the DMCA to fundamentally change the landscape of the auto service industry (and other things). An automotive mechanical system can be reverse engineered by taking it apart. A manufacturer comes up with a mechanical systems improvement, and pretty soon third party parts companies are offering cheaper if not sometimes better replacement parts. Customers get choice, competition flourishes, etc. Now take a new digital auto system. It could be reverse engineered by "taking it apart" digitally, but DMCA makes that illegal. Worse yet, the communications protocols that allow auto subsystems to talk to each other will soon be encrypted and will also fall under the DMCA. The end result is that third parties will not be able to offer replacement parts. Customer choice plummets, competition is non-existent, and the end result is a capture of recurring revenue by the auto manufacturer.

Don't fool yourself into thinking this is a little thing. This is a big deal. It's like buying Keurig and forever buying chipped K-cup coffee instead of using an old Mr. Coffee and using any old ground coffee. The digital trends in automotive engineering are far more subtle and complex, but the end result -- and the reasons to pursue some of these changes -- are exactly the same.

Re:That car behind you...

[pixelpusher220]

I would place much more trust in a car enthusiast than a minimum wage greasemonkey

I can fully agree with this statement. However it's not the point I was making. What about someone worse than a minimum wage greasemonkey....like me? Perfectly legal today....

Re:That car behind you...

[pixelpusher220]

Most geeks would make excellent mechanics

yeah but this would become actual reality

"Would you want a car that would crash twice a day for no reason?"

Re:That car behind you...

[pixelpusher220]

because in an electric car, changing the setting on the radio can actually change the setting on your brakes.

When connections are made via code, you have NO idea what changing one setting is going to do because it's writing to a common location that multiple things are reading from.

Is that scenario realistic? Of course not, but any one who programs has experience changing setting A and watching B, C and Q go haywire just because somebody didn't document what they were doing.

Re:They do have a point...

[drinkypoo]

Cars today must meet rigid safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions standards. The car's computer is an essential part of the system. A small modification to the software can be the difference between a car being in compliance with these regulations and falling well outside them.

The automaker isn't responsible when you do that. It's your problem. That's why it's bullshit when automakers bring this up. All they need to do is implement the same sort of modding detection that phones have.

Re: That car behind you...

[graphius]

You have never worked on a car then? Getting a modified car approved for insurance can be difficult. (A friend had to jury rig adjustable sun visors on his convertible for the test, for example) No insurance and you cannot drive your car on the road (at least in most sane parts of the world)

The police will most definitely pull you over, confiscate your vehicle and issue a fine.

I have worked on a number of custom cars, and have friends who have worked on many more. No you cannot just do whatever you want to Mad Max your car...

Re:That car behind you...

[graphius]

This ^

Re:That car behind you...

[quintessencesluglord]

Oh for fucks sake...

If I change timing an a vehicle through software or through larger injectors is irrelevant. I'm changing an operating parameter, but since software is more akin to magic to you, it's nothing that should be trusted to mere mortals.

And beyond your doomsday scenarios, even with complete modification being available now, that hasn't transpired; it's possible, and so should be outlawed. Do you work for DHS by chance?

And the ONLY thing that would change is increasing the cost, as again, you were too dense to catch it, complete EMS systems are available now. Complete motor management systems are available now. By your estimation we should have death tolls, and yet nothing.

There are even critical systems running linux now. No explosions that I'm aware of.

What do you have against empirical evidence anyway?

Further, arguing for safety concerns through the auspices DMCA is disingenuous in the extreme. You are arguing for no modifications, which, allow me to laugh even further. Putting in an aftermarket stereo could overload the electrical systems of a car, sending kittens and babies to a fiery death. Oh dear god.

The only thing patently insulting is your idiocy.

Re:That car behind you...

[DaTrueDave]

I thought I understood your point. Your point was about restricting the rights of people to work on their own cars because some portion of those people may be dangerously incompetent. My point was that the alternative to allowing people to work on their own cars, forcing them to go to "professionals, also poses the risk of having some portion of those people being dangerously incompetent.

It's my opinion that restricting liberty should be backed by very sound reasoning, if not considered only as a last resort.

Re:They do have a point...

[Mr. Shotgun]

So what you saying is we must prohibit everyone from being able to modify their vehicles because someone somewhere might do something illegal? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? I mean what kinda Orwellian world do you want to live in where everything is banned unless approved by the government? Do you want people to wear coded chastity belts, only unlockable by approved agents, as well in order to prevent rape? Jeez, of all the arguments against people modifying their own cars this is the most mewly mouthed bullshit i have ever heard.

No lets call a spade a spade, the reason the auto manufacturers are proposing this is to lock out independent repair shops and drive all that sweet sweet repair shop money back to their sponsored and sanctioned dealerships. Any argument about illegal car mods and the like are just bullshit out the gate.

Re:They do have a point...

[graphius]

This has been done since there were regulations for cars....
I remember as a kid fitting a gas cap before the muffler on the headers. Normal driving you would leave the cap on, but when it was time to race you took the cap off and ran straight pipes.

Re: That car behind you...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why you use the video in your cell phone to document it. With video documentation either they will cowboy up and fix it, you can shame them into fixing it with social media, or you can go to small claims and slap them into fixing it.

No, the EFF is talking about *modifying* code

[drnb]

I swear to god the shills on this website...this has nothing to do with the code.

Actually this thread is really about the code. Re-read and note: "The EFF ... 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."

Car companies want to stop independent mechanics using software than bypasses the manufacturers electronic locks.

Yes, that is also true. However that does not negate the reality that the EFF wants people to be able to MODIFY code. That is something FAR beyond simply getting the error codes and diagnostic data that would allow non-dealership mechanics to work on the car. Its a related but quite separate issue.

Re:That car behind you...

[Obfuscant]

The only thing patently insulting is your idiocy.

I understand. People who disagree with you are idiots. End of story.

Further, arguing for safety concerns through the auspices DMCA is disingenuous in the extreme. You are arguing for no modifications,

Since it is clear you haven't bothered to take the time to understand what my position is, why should I bother talking to you?

but since software is more akin to magic to you,

Ok, because you aren't looking for a discussion of the issue and are planning on winning by insult, you win. Bye.

Re:That car behind you...

[drinkypoo]

Brakes tend to be one of the easiest jobs going.

And yet people get it wrong all the time.

Disk brakes maybe 10 minutes or so Drum brakes can take a bit longer.

Many of my vehicles have had four wheel disc and yet twice I've opened up a drum brake to do a brake job and found a component installed backwards.

As an aside, why the fuck are there drum brakes any more? Anyone who has specified them for a production vehicle since WWII should be slapped, smacked, stabbed, shot, and then taken outside and really hurt.

Re:That car behind you...

[drinkypoo]

Didn't see any tamper preventions on the odometer of my car (made in 1982) - just a mechanical counter.

OBD-II vehicles maintain an internal odometer in the PCM, even if the cluster somehow has a physical odometer. Modern vehicles with immobilizers have security codes which come into play when replacing immobilizers. In many cases it is possible for the shadetree mechanic to program immo codes so long as they manage to get the codes out of the old hardware before replacing it. If too much smoke has been let out of components, it means a trip to the dealer... or replacement of the PCM with an aftermarket unit. My Audi A8 has all that fancy-pants stuff, but in a pinch I could buy a $500 replacement aftermarket PCM. It wouldn't be smog-legal, but my county doesn't do repeat emissions testing. I'd lose my immo functionality entirely, of course.

Re: That car behind you...

[drinkypoo]

Third party manufactured break pads will be subject to some oversight and regulation, especially as you can't just whip up break pads in your garage.

What? Who told you that? I watched a video of some guys doing it in Cuba. They took asbestos out of a bag and mixed it with phenolic resin, then put it into a mold with a brake lining they had cleaned and cooked it until it was a brake shoe.

Also, third party brake pads aren't subject to any regulation, because you can sell them "for off-road use only".

Re:That car behind you...

[drinkypoo]

brakes are one of the easiest things on a car to fix on your own these days (saying you just need a change of pads and rotors, and not a new caliper)

Harbor Freight will sell you a Mity-Vac kit for twenty bucks. Or you can buy Russell speed bleeders for about $40/vehicle. Either way, easy one-man caliper changes.

Already too late

[Locke2005]

Already had this problem with my 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. The hybrid battery went dead. I went to the dealer and asked them to sell me a new battery so I could put it in. They refused, insisting THEY had to install it, and they would not sell me the battery! That's right, kids -- they refused to let me fix my own car, despite the fact that I am a trained electronics technician and hold a Bachelor's degree in Electronics Engineering!

Re:Already too late

[drinkypoo]

they refused to let me fix my own car, despite the fact that I am a trained electronics technician and hold a Bachelor's degree in Electronics Engineering!

Wrong, they refused to sell you a complete assembly. So why didn't you rebuild the battery, if you're a trained ET and have a BS in EE?

Re:Don't buy cars with computers

[Locke2005]

My car did worse, as in when you closed the door, it would turn on the alarm 60 seconds later. You'd come back to the car, open the door... and the alarm would go off, despite the fact that you never enabled it! Used to annoy the heck out of my neighbors. Years later, I found out the problem was the door open sensor was bad. Agreed, any systems that override the driver in an attempt to compensate for bad driving should be able to be disabled by a driver that knows what the heck they are doing. But then, any electric windows or sunroof should have a manual backup, too, as anyone who has had an electric window freeze open in the winter can tell you.

Internet of things.

[PopeRatzo]

This is one of the main reasons I absolutely reject the "Internet of Things". It's because it will inevitably lead to you not actually owning any of those "things" that you buy.

As long as we have these cockamamie "intellectual property" laws in place, I see the "Internet of things" as an assault on my rights and counter to my preferences as a consumer.

Re:Internet of things.

[drinkypoo]

This is one of the main reasons I absolutely reject the "Internet of Things". It's because it will inevitably lead to you not actually owning any of those "things" that you buy.

Bollocks. There are people working on FoSS IoT already, and we still have a legally protected right (in the DMCA no less) to reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability. Plus, I give better-than-average odds of an Open IoT standard gaining dominance... eventually

Re:Internet of things.

[PopeRatzo]

Plus, I give better-than-average odds of an Open IoT standard gaining dominance... eventually

You think car companies are going to allow people to "root" their vehicles and install FOSS?

Do you really believe the "Apple Car" project has anything to do with Apple making a car? Just count the number of things you buy today that you don't really own, according to the law. From you phone and car and the DVDs you buy, game consoles to now wristwatches, HVAC systems and more.

You think your "Internet of Things" toaster of the future is going to be more like your purpose-built PC onto which you've installed Ubuntu or your iPhone or PS4? Which direction do YOU think the industry is leaning? Now ask yourself the same question about the "Internet of Things" automobile. You think the automakers are going to favor the homebrew, no-name, PC built from parts model or the Apple model?

Re:Internet of things.

[drinkypoo]

You think car companies are going to allow people to "root" their vehicles and install FOSS?

They have nothing whatsoever to say about me installing an alternate PCM. It may be illegal, but we're not yet at the age of OBD-II spot checks, so it would be easy enough to drop the old one back in.

I'm more worried about infotainment. I finally felt a need to own a vehicle with more features than my venerable W126 300SD, so I bought an A8. But it has just a stereo, and I'm in the midst of rolling a carputer out of mostly components I have already, and it's going to run Linux. It's got nVidia graphics, thankfully, and everything I need is onboard. I've got a backup camera lying around, so all I will need to shell out hard-earned money for really is a touch display. I've got a data center teardown pull PicoPSU and a relatively low-power Athlon 64 X2 processor coming, to match my existing Boxer DA078L motherboard. I've got the audio signal relays to cut into the CD changer audio signal wires, and the documentation so I know which ones they are. Had to solder one of 'em back into the connector already as it is.

Do you really believe the "Apple Car" project has anything to do with Apple making a car? Just count the number of things you buy today that you don't really own, according to the law. From you phone and car and the DVDs you buy, game consoles to now wristwatches, HVAC systems and more.

Well, the car is not a big problem, because it doesn't have VVT and it does have CoP ignition so it's easy to control. On my Audi A8 I could either use a $500 VEMS which plugs in or go ahead and figure out a megasquirt. Apparently it's been done before.

You think your "Internet of Things" toaster of the future is going to be more like your purpose-built PC onto which you've installed Ubuntu or your iPhone or PS4?

it will be, because I will build it. And if I can't get one without a computer in it, I can still rip it out and throw it away. I don't see that becoming illegal within my lifetime.

Re:Internet of things.

[PopeRatzo]

I envy your ability to thwart the worst intentions of the companies seizing control of our privacy and choices. I wish I could do the same but lack the know-how.

For most people though, I still maintain the "Internet of Things" is going to be a whole lot of bad stuff wrapped up in shiny packages. Where I can, like you, I try to circumvent these things. But your skill probably represents far fewer than 1% of consumers and mine fewer than 10%.

Either way though, the companies designing this "Internet of Things" is not doing it for your (or our) benefit.

And I hope for your benefit that the manufacturer of whatever car you decide to mod does not object to your rooting your car and then engage in the automotive equivalent of the DMCA takedown notice while you're doing 80mph on the Pacific Coast Highway.

Re:That car behind you...

[sjames]

The guy behind you took his car to Bubba's reel cheep breaks. Or was relieved when that annoying squeaky noise when he applied the brakes finally stopped on it's own. Guy behind you is stealth texting.

Or, since he didn't know how to get the brakes into maintenance mode, so he used a tire iron and a hammer to make it go back together...

Given that, I'm not so sure I'm all that worried about the guy somehow managing to go from reading a few things out and sending a few commands to re-flashing his brakes. As risk goes, it's a drop in the bucket.

Now, let's look at reprogrammable devices. How many average Joes reflash with Cyanogen mod? Do you know anyone running Windows with a patched kernel? It's possible to reprogram the ECS now. A few people do, but most do not.

Re:Go EFF -- control is ownership

[American Patent Guy]

Buying a copy of a copyrighted work is not "owning" that work. It's owning that copy with its associated rights against the copyright holder (under an implied license). The fact that you can copy a copyrighted work (i.e. "control" it) doesn't make doing so legal.

Re:That car behind you...

[sjames]

So you change a few of the parameters of your electric car and some of the safety systems stop working right. E.g., you didn't realize that a parameter used for maximum current for acceleration interacted with the regenerative braking. I.e., you go fast but your brakes don't work as well.

You mean the regenerative portion doesn't work and you end up failing to recapture the energy.

Or you change that acceleration parameter and your motors burn up because of the overcurrent.

Bad news for the idiot but I don't see a public interest here.

Or you change some other parameter that's based on a hardware limitation and you break the hardware and expect the dealer to fix it under warrantee. You blame the manufacturer, but it's your fault.

Your firmware doesn't match the factory and they can see you re-flashed. Bye Bye warranty.

Bricked car? Flash back to factory. Bricking is for cheap routers and PCs. Real embedded hardware can be re-flashed even if you completely wipe the firmware and then power cycle. (So can the router, but you have to solder pins on the JTAG pad).

Re:Mechanics' Oath

[BronsCon]

En ex car thief (a professional, not some kid that boosted cars on the weekends) is likely to be one of the most apt mechanics you'll be able to find. If they're able to turn their life around and play it straight when they get out, more power to 'em. Think about it; being able to steal a car and strip it in under an hour without damaging *anything*, and quickly identify which parts are worth selling and which are garbage (e.g. broken, failing, or not the OEM part) and move all of that out of your shop before the cops catch on, there's more than just luck and speed involved in that. It's a skillset, and a major part of that is vehicle diagnostic and mechanical ability.

Hell, just selecting the right car to steal; the one, out of dozens of the exact model and color that you might see in the area, that will net you the most salable parts; that takes some automotive know-how. To be able to hear the car drive by and know whether or not it's worth your time, that's talent.

Would I take my car to a shop I know was run by an ex con? Hell yes. I wouldn't leave it overnight, it would have to be a same-day repair, but I'd trust them ot do a better job fixing it than the dealership. Of course, I'd also have to not have the time to fix it myself, as I greatly prefer to do my own work; the two times I took a car to a shop (based on "our family's used this shop for decades" recommendations) I got screwed; the first shop told me my (brand new) water pump was so old it was about to fail (and purposely damaged it while replacing a belt -- that's what I took it in for, to have a damn belt replaced because I didn't have time (it was a bitch to replace on that car). I just finished cleaning up after the last shop. They did my brakes (again, didn't have time, but boy did it cost me my time tonight) and "bled" the lines. Well, they bled them bloody-well backwards. I completely emptied the brake reservoir before I got *any* fluid out of the right-rear brake, damn near emptied it again before I got anything out of the left-rear, drew 1/4 of it our before anything came out of the right-front, but the left-front seemed somewhat alright; that must have been the only working brake I had driving home. I know all-new pads and rotors don't stop super well until they're bedded in, so I didn't think much of it, it felt just like I expected it would, but when they hadn't bedded in a hundred miles later, I knew something was amiss. I had a back injury in December, right after I took the car in for the work, and haven't been driving it; so, 100 miles happened this morning. I'm not going to confront them about it, it's not worth my time; I'll just not go back to them again, and I've already told the friend who recommended them that they should maybe reconsider that particular business relationship.

Re:They do have a point...

[sjames]

In a healthy market they would be forced to turn on the high end features at the base price anyway. It's a good reason to force openness.

Re:They do have a point...

[sjames]

I believe that nearly became a national sport in the late '70s. Only they went further, you could get a kit to allow you to easily swap back and forth between a strait pipe and the catalytic converter.

Re:That car behind you...

[mirix]

At least the dust is less toxic these days.

That's a myth. Asbestos based linings were never banned, and still exist.

I learned that a couple years ago. I swore it was banned too, but it isn't the case.

Re:That car behind you...

[drinkypoo]

Putting one aftermarket piece of hardware on a car is not the same as (or equivalent to) modifications to software that runs a large number of systems on that car.

It can in fact be much the same thing. If you replace the PCM, it will affect many systems. The PCM is a part.

Wouldn't it be really safe if you load your family in the car and head off for a long trip, and show them how much better your car accelerates that it used to? And what's that burning smell, by the way? Great, the car is on fire.

So, just like if someone changed a major engine part? What's the difference?

Re:Mechanics' Oath

[drinkypoo]

Think about it; being able to steal a car and strip it in under an hour without damaging *anything*,

No. That's not what they do. They damage things. They just don't damage enough things to make it unprofitable.

Hell, just selecting the right car to steal; the one, out of dozens of the exact model and color that you might see in the area, that will net you the most salable parts;

Most car thieves don't do this. They just look for cars which are easy to steal. The most stolen cars are the easiest cars to steal. People talk about parts demand, but what do you think stealing cars does? Many of those cars are recovered with only some parts missing.

Nothing like an 80s Volvo...

[bkcallahan]

1981-89 Volvos FTW.

Fighting to Lose

[JimSadler]

Car makers may not want to win such a suit. By getting the courts to force them to make code available the companies establish a legal shield against law suits caused by people who incorrectly use the code. They can not be held liable if they are forced by the government to reveal that code. Sometimes suits are filed with the intention of loss or at least with the hope of establishing "clean hands" to show a jury that everything possible was done to prevent a situation.

and when your car's breaks fail

[publiclurker]

because you tried to code them to let you drift and impress your friends, I'm sure that you will somehow manage to bring them back to life. Unless you are able to prove to the same degree as the real engineers that you know what you are doing, I don't want any hacked up critical systems out on the public streets.

and would your answer to drunk dirvers be

[publiclurker]

to have everyone drive tanks so the big bad government doesn't intrude on you so called right to get plastered and drive home?

Re:and would your answer to drunk dirvers be

[Pentium100]

Actually, no. The reason being that anybody drives bad when they are drunk and there are no drunk-licenses that would allow you to drive drunk. So, everybody is equal.

However, repairing a car is not rocket science. A lot of people can do it and in the USSR it was expected the owner of the car to do some work himself (unlike now when there are drivers who do not know how to change a wheel or even check the oil level). While at this moment I do not know how to repair the brakes of my car, I believe I could learn if I needed to, just like I learned how to take a carburetor apart, clean it, lube it (where needed) and put it back together.

Requiring a license to work on brakes (any other parts of the car you want to add to the list?) means that all mechanics would have to get the license, paying the government money (resulting in higher prices), but the license would not automatically mean that the mechanic is any good (he could have bribed somebody). It would also prevent people who know from fixing their own brakes without breaking the law and yet, people who wanted to do it would be able to do it (it's not like it would be possible to easily find out if an unlicensed person worked on the brakes).

So, requiring a brake license would be useless and would serve only to increase the prices. Also, reinforcing the back of my car would help in the cases where the car with bad brakes was not repaired by the owner (or anyone at all, the brakes failed and the owner didn't care).

Grow up son

[publiclurker]

simply repeating the same BS over and over does not make it true. I know that young children like to repeat themselves, but you probably want to have people actually consider what you have to say.

Well, for one thing...

[publiclurker]

people preparing food in their own home cant sell to the public without, guess what, a lot of rules and regulations. If you were planning on keeping you car in your garage you could modify the heck out of it and nobody would care. If you plan on driving on public streets, then the public has the right and duty to stop you from putting everyone else in danger due to your over inflated sense of self-importance.

i.e. I'm so special

[publiclurker]

that I should be able to do whatever I want and expect the grownups to clean up my mess with a smile.

Re:Mechanics' Oath

[BronsCon]

Your entire post is rendered moot by the parenthetical in my first sentence. Here it is again, since you apparently missed it:

(a professional, not some kid that boosted cars on the weekends)

Having known a number of pros, I can tell you they are selective about what they steal (only what they have buyers lined up for already) and minimize damage to whatever extent they can. A team of 4 guys can strip the average car to the frame in 15 minutes without breaking anything more than a few trim clips. I know this because the guys I knew ran a paint shop, where that was a useful skill, and I've witnessed it firsthand.

But I'm sure your thoughts on "most car thieves" (which I don't disagree with, mind you) far outweigh my firsthand experience, right?

Re:They do have a point...

[Pentium100]

My car never had the catalytic converter, so I do not have that problem.

Re:That car behind you...

[stoatwblr]

"As an aside, why the fuck are there drum brakes any more?"

For some applications, they work better. (and they're cheaper)

A lot of it has to do...

[WeeBit]

With the security in the car. Regardless of what they tell you all new cars have GPS, record your every move, and record the care you take to keep up the car (for warranty and engine service needs) . If they call you crazy when they tell you they don't do this.... think again. This is why they don't want you tinkering under the hood. Chances are it would be the first things disabled.