Slashdot Mirror
EFF: DMCA Hinders Exposing More Software Cheats Like Volkswagen's
ideonexus writes: Automakers have argued that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it unlawful for researchers to review the code controlling their vehicles without the manufacturer's permission, making it extremely difficult to expose software cheats like the one Volkswagen used to fake emissions tests. Arguing that this obfuscation of code goes so far as to endanger lives at times, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) maintains that, "When you entrust your health, safety, or privacy to a device, the law shouldn't punish you for trying to understand how that device works and whether it is trustworthy."
The DCMA was a bad law in 1998 and it's still a bad law today. Congress should repeal it, but they won't because those with actual political power like it.
I love it! Volkswagen should just say "We didn't do it." Then sue whoever produces their code for reverse-engineering it. Then they can claim whatever "black-hat hacker" did it added the offending code to frame them. Prove otherwise without breaking the law!
Congress was granted the power to secure copyrights, the right to copy (and sell) to encourage aithors to create by providing income.
You have the natural right to see the copyrighted material if you bought a copy! That's copy rights, not obfuscation rights. Where cometh this additional Congressional power?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
> Automakers have argued that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it unlawful for researchers to review the code controlling their vehicles without the manufacturer's permission, making it extremely difficult to expose software cheats like the one Volkswagen used to fake emissions tests.
So in other words, we could be driving around in potential death traps and not even know it. So the VW debacle is just the tip of the iceberg.
Duh. The industry loves that. If pesky researchers weren't poking around so much, we could all go back to the good old days!
This is by design in the DCMA. Keep people from looking at your code means preventing independent oversight.
But everyone that knows anything about the software industry already knows this.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
If the auto manufacturers want to start treating legitimate researchers like blackhats, they should just start acting like them. I'm sure they could cover their tracks and still publish the research.
Security through obscurity is doomed to fail. Auto makers apparently need to learn this lesson, but it would nice if they didn't have to learn it the hard way given the lives at stake. What really needs to happen is the establishment of a standards body and automotive software being held to a standard just as avionics software is. I get that this increases the price of the software considerably, but clearly it needs to be done.
All of it is doing things that would make us riot in the street if we had insight into its behavior. People need access to every piece of code for every thing they own and should have the right to change it if they deem it necessary. Hardware and Things do not = software and we should have the right to buy the thing but decline or change the software if we don't agree with what it does and how it does it. Change nothing about how we pay for it, people deserve to get paid if they so choose, but they don't deserve to force their backdoors, cheats, anti-consumer behaviors etc on us if we don't want to use their crap.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Still didn't prevent VW from getting nabbed to the tune of 18 billion.
Nothing stops you sampling the exhaust gas as you drive and testing it.
And DMCA is an anti-circumvention for copyright, not for enforcement.
Researchers: Let's see who's REALLY behind your code!
*tears the mask off, and gasps*
Researchers: It's Old Man Withers, the owner of the abandoned amusement park!
Withers: And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling hackers!
I'm just going to throw this out there knowing that a certain type of reader will scoff.
First, the EPA sets two competing requirements: lower emissions and higher mileage. Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible? My guess is not just no but hell no. It's also possible that the EPA can get away with this by playing the evil, greedy corporation card saying, "The car companies don't want to do this because they are greedy," and a certain type of person will believe it. So, if you're a manufacturer trying to sell a product, which of these two requirements is going to sell better? I can pretty much guarantee that the consumer doesn't give a rat's ass about emissions when they could be saving money on gas which may also be artificially expensive.
Second, it's entirely possible that the EPA has created unrealistic if not unattainable requirements for auto manufacturers not because they have any real scientific or engineering expertise that it's possible but in a thinly-veiled long-con attempt to drive these companies out of business. Kafka would say, "Damn, wish I had thought of this." The consumer is never going to pay more money for less product unless they are forced to. Brow-beating them into "saving the planet" doesn't work when it's costing the individual a lot more money.
Maybe it will happen if the US ever get their democracy back.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Right in the feels. No sentence I read this week makes as much sense as: "When you entrust your health, safety, or privacy to a device, the law shouldn't punish you for trying to understand how that device works and whether it is trustworthy." The problem is when laws change name for "Acts" and start benefitting companies over individuals.
I'll make a point of donating to them (for the first time). Thanks for the prod, anonymous fear-monger!
Way too soon.
When people talk about WWII in the same context that we talk about the Roman Empire, then it might be funny.
As you wish. However, you should be mindful of some things, for your own good.
If you like your job, do not donate to the EFF.
If you like your house, do not donate to the EFF.
If you love your family, DO NOT DONATE to the EFF or any such organizations.
This is not fearmongering, it's just... Friendly advice.
This would be fairly simple to implement: make copyright for software contingent on source release. If you sell software, but you don't provide buyers with a copy of the source code, you lose your copyright.
The problem is that the Roman Empire was no more or no less evil than any other empire/country/kingdom/whatever of its time. The same can't be said of Nazi Germany.
The reason VW was allowed to sell vehicles wasn't about examining the code that drove the ECU, but a failure to actually test the vehicle in real world conditions independently. That means you don't trust the ECU, you test using separate instrumentation to verify that it operates within parameters under actual road conditions; not in a lab, not on a dyno and use random samples available from dealers after it goes on sale. The EPA shouldn't rely on the ECU OBD information, use information from the tailpipe.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
You could at least explain why. Right now your post looks like fear mongering.
Nobody "sells" you software. At most, they license it to you.
Because as long as we're talking about opening up proprietary code for inspection, we might want to take a look at the voting machines.
It went as follows: . . .
"Surprisingly, the EPA wrote in [PDF] to the Copyright Office to oppose the exemptions we’re seeking. In doing this, the EPA is asking the Copyright Office to leave copyright law in place as a barrier to a wide range of activities that are perfectly legal under environmental regulations: ecomodding that actually improves emissions and fuel economy, modification of vehicles for off-road racing, or activities that have nothing to do with pollution. "
I don't think "Suprisingly" is a word is a word I would use to describe what the EPA did there. I realize many people think they are the champions of the common man trying to give us a clean environment but their actions are always consistently protectionist for large corporations. Many who have followed their history have commented on how they seem to protect large corporations who pollute from big lawsuits and replace them with a slap on the wrist fine. Smaller competitors, on the other hand, get crippling business requirements with ever increasing regulations. That's our government. :-)
This was unforeseen by me. I had always assumed in matters of
public health, that those responsible agencies had carte blanche.
This is an amazingly (Republican) way to get-out-of-jail free for
product manufacturers - heart machine kills a patient? N.P.,
DMCA's got you covered.
Taser kills somebody 'cause it's out of calibration?
DMCA's got yo' back!
Speeding tickets, the possibilities are pretty limitless. We've already
seen this nonsense with voting machines.
CAP == 'counting'
You can edit all the software that you own. At least all the software that I know of. I can't think of any software that you own that you can't edit it. In fact, that's one of the key pieces of ownership.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The best way to test the emissions software, and the best from an engineering validation perspective, is to compare the Volkswagen software readings against direct measurements of the emissions (out of the tailpipe). This is a much more accurate method of regulation, and would have prevented this Volkswagen fiasco from the beginning. Regulators should test it this way rather than assume a vehicle manufacturer wrote software correctly, or even deliberately miswrote it. Access to software source code becomes unnecessary.
You really think that someone was going to Get the VW code (DCMA in every county it is sold in?)
Reverse engineer it and find the issue?
The simply looked at the operation of the Car!
Go effort on using a current news story as a talking doing to get what you really want.
First, the EPA sets two competing requirements: lower emissions and higher mileage. Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible?
It's already been done so yes it is demonstrably possible. And yes the EPA has access to engineers and scientists who can provide reasoned opinions about what is actually possible. Second, lower emissions and higher mileage are NOT diametrically opposed. Cars that are lighter and get higher fuel economy also have lower emissions in part because they burn less fuel. Vehicle emissions are in part a direct function of the amount of fuel burned. Burn less and you emit less by definition.
It's also possible that the EPA can get away with this by playing the evil, greedy corporation card saying, "The car companies don't want to do this because they are greedy,"
That argument about car companies would mostly be correct albeit crude. The car companies don't want to do it because it costs money to develop the technology and the products to meet the more stringent emissions standards.
I can pretty much guarantee that the consumer doesn't give a rat's ass about emissions when they could be saving money on gas which may also be artificially expensive.
First off there CLEARLY is a group of consumers that cares very much about emissions. See Prius owners and Leaf owners among others. Second, cars that save on gas also tend to be the same ones with lower emissions.
Of course, some software you never really "own"... you just license it. Windows and Photoshop come to mind....
Look, as I said: do as you wish.
If what the EFF stands for is really that important to you, go ahead. Get yourself engaged. Donate money. Do whatever you want.
Just keep in mind that everything has consequences and you will have to deal with them. Just sayin'.
Interesting. Kinda reminds me of the source code for breathalyzers....can't look at that and vet it for accuracy either. The one time I was asked to take one, I refused and asked to be transported to a local hospital where a proper blood test would be taken at my expense to be used to test.
Amazingly enough, the one beer with dinner an hour earlier suddenly wasn't a problem and I was let on my way.
Just donated $100 dollars.
Even if the software source code isn't necessary for the emissions testing out of the tailpipe it is necessary for car owners to make the car do what they want. This is an opportunity for the public to get the car that is completely under their control. There's plenty of other fraudulent behavior that is under the control of the car software which can't be fixed except by changing the software (radio emissions and input via car remote controls, for example). Car owners deserve to be able to control their owned objects completely while complying with reasonable laws. Therefore we need strongly copylefted free software to achieve this in order to grant and secure the necessary freedoms for the foreseeable future.
Digital Citizen
Yeah, right, well I heard that if you donate to the EFF the black helicopters will come and take you away and then nuke your home town, and the country it's in, and.. and.. and.. trigger the domesday device at the heart of the sun and blow up the entire universe! And stomp on the bits!
When you buy something the law shouldn't punish you for trying to understand how it works.
I'll give you that. I simply meant the time frame.
The DMCA is only valid in the USA.
Do the reverse assembly elsewhere.