How the Car Industry Has Hidden Its Software Behind the DMCA

Lucas123 writes: The DCMA has allowed carmakers to keep third parties from looking at the code in their electronic control modules. The effect has been that independent researchers are wary of probing vehicle code, which may have lead companies like Volkswagen to get away with cheating emissions tests far longer than necessary. In a July letter to the U.S. Copyright Office, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed its own concern of the protection provided by the DMCA to carmakers, saying it's "difficult for anyone other than the vehicle manufacturer to obtain access to the software." Kit Walsh, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the legal uncertainly created by the DMCA "makes it easier for manufacturers to conceal intentional wrongdoing. The EFF has petitioned the U.S. Copyright Office for an exemption to the DMCA for embedded vehicle code so that independent research can be performed on electronic control modules (ECMs), which run a myriad of systems, including emissions. Eben Moglen was right.

Comments

We need software engineers

[reg]

Professional engineers, not self proclaimed ones. Ones that sign on the dotted line taking personal responsibility for the code they write. With self driving cars, robots, drones, etc. we need to be able to hold coders responsible, the same way we hold held civil and mechanical engineers responsible.

Re:Who Exactly Gets To View a Company's Code?

[Locke2005]

Because they are not selling software, and having the emissions control firmware for a Volkswagen doesn't really help anyone insane enough to try to create their own Volkswagen. Whereas with most software, once you've got the code, that's all you need to recreate your competitor's product.

Re:Who Exactly Gets To View a Company's Code?

[0123456]

Why should "researchers" get to view the code? Here in Silicon Valley I cannot think of any instances where any outsiders routinely get access to a company's code.

Because people die when the programmers screw up.

Read the court documents on Toyota's ECU software sometime, to see what 'researchers' found when they were allowed to look at it.

But... it's less important than gambling

[dbc]

Whenever the topic of allowing government or public access to review source code comes up (like with, oh, say, voting machines) I always think of these guys:
http://gaming.nv.gov/index.asp...
and I realize that not of this is as important as gambling (and the collection of taxes thereon).

At least if you judge by how seriously we take access to the code. Just try to deploy a slot machine in Reno without letting someone at the Nevada State Gaming Control Board review your code. Won't happen.

Re:The Volkswagen scandal is a good thing

[adolf]

So let me get this straight: Because big batteries are dangerous, they shant be sold to mere mortals.

But a mere mortal can go up to the counter and order a set of brake pads, lines, and calipers. A mere mortal can buy a replacement seatbelt. A mere mortal can buy a set of ball joints, suspension bushings, tie rods, and/or control arms.

A bad installation of any of things things can result in death.

What makes batteries so special?

(And before anyone says something about "potential energy," let me remind you that in most states folks are also allowed to pump their own gasoline into their own cars.)

(And nevermind the fact that big/dangerous batteries are widely available ell over the place. Just not, apparently, at the Honda parts counter.)