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."
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!
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
No, they don't. The RIAA/etc are unhappy with it, because in their mind it doesn't do enough. They want laws that will let them ram eternal unbreakable copyright down our throats, eliminates fair use or any other provisions that don't involve paying them truckloads of money for stuff written before most of us were even born.
They accepted DMCA as what they could get at the time, but don't make the mistake of sleeping on it, because their lobbyists and lawyers will do whatever they can to get it strengthened, whether in congress or in court rulings.
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.
Congress should repeal it, but they won't because those with actual political power like it.
That is the voters' problem. If they don't vote for a congress that will repeal the DMCA, it simply won't happen. Pretty basic, don't you think?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
That is the voters' problem. If they don't vote for a congress that will repeal the DMCA, it simply won't happen.
Voters have a lot of concerns besides DMCA. DMCA was approved by a voice vote, so no one is on record voting either for or against. So who are you going to vote for or against? In general, Democrats tend to be more "pro-IP" because they get big donations from the entertainment industry, and represent almost all the big tech-hubs (Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, NYC, etc.). If you really believe that DMCA is more important than military intervention, inequality, human rights, etc. then I suppose you could vote straight Republican, but I doubt if that would make much difference, since none of them have made "Repeal the DMCA!!!" part of their platform.
Pretty basic, don't you think?
No. Even people that care about this issue have no mechanism for expressing that concern through their votes.
Yes they do. Political parties and gerrymandering, ballot access laws, and voting systems themselves (e.g. "first-past-the-post") -- among other things -- all conspire to force that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Which is why, as a Libertarian, I oppose any extension of Government power on principle alone. We already have too much government interference in our lives.
Queue up the anti Libertarian rants below, starting with "Somalia" in 3 ... 2 ...1
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
The only one, arguably, would be Lincoln in 1860, since at the time the Republican Party was still an insurgent, and was still in the final stages of supplanting the Whig party, but even that one would be a stretch, as they were clearly in the top two (and would remain firmly ensconced to this day as such).
And more importantly, we haven't had an actual supplanting of either of the two parties in the 155 years since then, despite it happening twice in the preceding 50 or so years. Instead, the two parties are so thoroughly entrenched that the more successful tactic has been to infiltrate and take over one of the two parties from within. Both parties have changed noticeably on a number of issues, to the point that they're almost unrecognizable when compared with their original versions (and, more ironically, are arguably closer to the OTHER one's original beliefs/constituencies).