4 ms·
> It might be quite trivial to modify parameters, but verifying that the software still works reliably might require a whole testing department. That responsib
by wtbob 10y ago
> It might be quite trivial to modify parameters, but verifying that the software still works reliably might require a whole testing department.
That responsibility (for running full tests, or being responsible for damages caused by not running full tests) lies squarely on the modifier/owner. We don't need to erect a whole new set of laws because somebody could make his engine run poorly.
> Yes, software can be checked for modifications via hash codes, but how do you expect a cop to run a hash sum on the vehicle software?
I don't. Why should a cop care what software I'm running, any more than he cares what brand of brake light I buy?
It's the owner's car. If he modifies it to be unsafe, then he's responsible for the damages he causes. If he doesn't, he's not. Checksumming may be useful in a court case to prove modifications (although diffing would work just as well).
- _ph_ 10y agoA malfunctioning car might endanger its passengers and other people. For that reason, car makers have to get certification for any new model they want to bring to the market and later modifications have to be done with either parts certified for that car or new certification has to be obtained. (At least here in Europe). Finally, it has to made sure, that after the modifications, it still complies to the emission standards. So there are already popular modifications done to cars by their owners, which do get checked by cops for their certification, and often enough people do not have the necessary paperwork. Simple example: some people install custom wheels which are the wrong size for that car. This poses a danger as the drivability might suffer. If you are modifying any software required for the safe operation of the car, there is quite a potential causing harm to others, and there is where the officials have to take notion of it.