13 ms·

There's another right to repair fight brewing in Massachusetts

239 points by aarghh 6y ago

hprotagonist 6y ago
The No side's ads are incredibly scummy. The retired boston police commissioner has done an ad spot for Yes on Right To Repair specifically to slap down the "you will be raped in a parking lot" FUD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bye5DRBSpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bye5DRBSpw The EFF is also strongly in favor, naturally, but i think Ed Davis will pull more weight if anyone's undecided. (when marijuana legalization was on the ballot in 2016, the then-chief of the state police did a similar ad spot whose pitch boiled down to "vote yes so we can stop wasting our time on stupid college students, willya?", which I think had a similarly large impact. )
- nessunodoro 6y ago
  Scummy is a polite word for the advertisements. It's been fascinating to watch them evolve in waves. First wave: POV of a predator in a parking garage approaching a woman. Grave female voiceover: "Sexual predators could track your automobile, and remotely control the vehicle - including unlocking the doors." The female victim turns as the camera descends on her - she screams - "Vote No on Question 1. Don't let sexual predators control YOUR vehicle." Second wave: Russian hackers with pimples nodding with pleasure as they take control of your vehicle, in a "Kremlin-sponsored hacking room" that looks like NCIS by way of Dr. Strangelove. Vote no - don't let Russian hackers control your vehicle. Third wave - Muddy the waters by changing tone entirely to mimic the "Yes on 1" ads which have local, named individuals urging "it's your data, keep control of it." Muddied version - "It's your data, keep it safe. Vote no on 1." Fourth wave - white unnamed men in auto shops with forced-sounding boston accents explaining that if you vote yes on 1, it'll hurt the little guy. The insane $$ being thrown at trying to kill this bill [] tells a story in itself. [] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - godelski 6y ago
    Do you have links to these videos? They sound hilarious.
    - acomjean 6y ago
      Con side https://safeandsecuredata.org/ https://safeandsecuredata.org/ (They have a youtube) https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCGB8blHHwEhHILzENXb1_9g https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCGB8blHHwEhHILzENXb1_9g This is the fear spot shown: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYp2_oiwtIg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYp2_oiwtIg Pro side https://massrighttorepair.org/ https://massrighttorepair.org/ They have a youtube Channel too (which is Massachusetts in a nutshell): https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCYOxd_3siXOYMrUvdJQDMOA https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCYOxd_3siXOYMrUvdJQDMOA They pulled the former police commissioner to rebut some of the fear in a second ad. And this animated one with strong local accents https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pYmViMg5fQI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pYmViMg5fQI
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Ha, as if auto manufacturers all have an org dedicated to monitoring and deterring sexual predators and Russian hackers. Can anyone from one of these companies comment on this? Can I get a discount if I opt out of that at the dealership? I'm a techie, really I'd prefer to install Windows Defender on the car myself, thank you!
    - BostonEnginerd 6y ago
      It wouldn’t be so laughable if the auto manufacturers didn’t already claim your data as their own and sell it to marketers. This tidbit from the Onstar privacy policy made me laugh: “The nature of our products and services means that there may be circumstances where you might let someone else use a product or service that we provide to you (for example, you let someone else drive your OnStar equipped vehicle). It is important that if you do let someone else use one of our products or services that you inform them of this Privacy Statement and of the privacy choices that you have made.“
- Finnucane 6y ago
  The car makers’ ads are probably getting more votes for yes because they are so bad.
- elihu 6y ago
  That Yes ad raises more questions than it answers. What constitutes mechanical data? Does it include timestamps of when the engine was running and for how long? Is location data explicitly excluded? What about data that could be used to infer location, like vibration sensors picking up pothole impacts or gravel roads? It seems simpler to just say: "This bill gives you, the owner of the vehicle, the right to give access to your car's data (that the automobile manufacturers are already collecting with little oversight into how it is used) to a third party mechanic of your choice for a limited time. It does not make this data available to literally anyone who wants it." (The "for a limited time" concept does appear in the actual text of the bill in section 3 [1].) [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    If you are actually a potential rapist there are plenty of easier methods than setting up a fake repair garage and matching vibration sensors with pot holes. The entire idea is ridiculous.
    - elihu 6y ago
      Well sure, but if the larger point you're trying to make is that sensitive data doesn't get into the hands of the wrong people, "the data isn't actually sensitive data" is a weaker argument than "random people can't access your data without your explicit permission, and then only for a limited time." The creepy "no" add is implying that your car's data is just available on some website for anyone to look up. That's a pretty big misconception that should be contradicted.
- jghn 6y ago
  They're incredibly scummy but a super thin veneer. I don't know how anyone buys their BS. On one hand they feature grease monkeys talking about people hacking your car, I'm not sure people should be using their local mechanic for cybersecurity advice. More important, the fine print at the end makes it clear that it's the auto manufacturers sponsoring those ads, and their bias is obvious. I'll lose some faith in humanity if it doesn't pass.
  - ptero 6y ago
    I think it will pass,but I am pretty sure that such ballot initiatives are not binding. It might pass only to be quickly forgotten.
    - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
      There are procedural ways certain bodies can drag their feet but it is binding. Marijuana was legalized for recreational use through the same process.
    - hprotagonist 6y ago
      Depends on the ballot issue. Some are binding, some are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy_in_Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy_in_Massachuse...
    - D-Coder 6y ago
      MA ballot initiatives, if passed, become ordinary laws. The Legislature can modify or delete them, just like any other ordinary law. However since the people voted for it, the Legislature is generally reluctant to do that.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >I don't know how anyone buys their BS. Treat people like they're too stupid to think for themselves long enough and it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. If the people of Massachusetts buy that crap they need only look in the mirror to find who to blame.
- sschueller 6y ago
  It's absolutely disgusting how privacy and the right to repair are being mixed together. We need better privacy but that is a separate topic.
  - gbrown 6y ago
    Control over your device and the data it generates/transmits is fundamental to both. You can choose to care about one or the other, but they’re practically and ideologically closely related.
- technothrasher 6y ago
  The "No" column in the official state voter information booklet is almost criminally scummy. They quote Jane Doe, the Mass coalition against sexual assault and domestic violence, to make it seem like they're against the law. If you go to Jane Doe's website they say they aren't against the law, that the quote wasn't authorized, is out of context, and that they're disgusted that somebody would use battered woman as pawns to further their unrelated political agenda.
- pc86 6y ago
  To be fair, police already had the option to stop wasting their time on stupid college students, it's called discretion.
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    In a city near me, they gave officers the discretion to either write people a ticket, or haul them to jail, for personal amounts of marijuana. After a few months, it was reported that not a single ticket had been written. I don't think most officers know what "discretion" means. Sad state of affairs, that.
    - pc86 6y ago
      A police officer always has the option to do nothing, so I'm not sure that needs to be enumerated.
      - stronglikedan 6y ago
        It's not that cut and dry. Police officers have a duty to uphold the law. They swear an oath to be faithful to that duty. Thankfully, that still means something to most people. However, when given a choice as to how to uphold the law, they often take the low road, unfortunately.
        cheweh 6y ago
        Warren v. District of Columbia held that police have no legal duty to provide police services to citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    The problem with discretion is that it is also a common tool of discrimination. I'm fairly sure I have been given a pass on a few traffic violations that I probably wouldn't have if I weren't white.
geophile 6y ago
The only thing holding me back from a yes vote is the availability of detailed location data to 3rd parties. Can a mechanic sell this data? Can it be subpoenaed by police?
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  would you prefer that only centralized data warehouses like Officially Sanctioned Dealerships have access to this data instead? That seems worse.
  - geophile 6y ago
    I prefer that they don't have it either, but that's not a choice. But if every garage in the state has access to this data, it seems like a much bigger risk.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      I don't know - it seems like you're assuming that authorized dealerships are a lot more trustworthy than general repair shops. That authorization is usually more "expensive" rather than "difficult" to acquire so a lot of the smaller shops have struggled to secure it. I think one way to read the decrease in volume is that - yea it'd sure be nice if six fewer dealerships had access to this information, so why don't we make sure they all get forced to close their doors because the automakers don't want competition - there would be fewer in count, but that doesn't really speak to the security of that data at all (additionally, most of the sensitive data you probably care about doesn't appear to be on the table for this bill - specifically telemetry about driving habits doesn't appear to be under consideration)
    - elihu 6y ago
      The bill only requires the auto manufacturer to make the data available to a third party if they have consent from the vehicle owner to do so. https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
dsr_ 6y ago
Massachusetts sends out a voting guide: Massachusetts Information for Voters. It's the red cover brochure. If you look at the Against side of Question 1, the largest paragraph is from Jane Doe, the MA Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. Jane Doe, Inc. has retracted their support, but it was too late for the brochure to be updated.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  So she wants to get the money and appear as being on the good side? I have no sympathy for her.
- acomjean 6y ago
  The mass voting guide is something to behold. I missed it when I left the state for a few years. It’s online and has a summary of the pro/con argument and the full text of the ballot measure. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf The independent repair shops with the “yes on one” signs I think help more than any sign I’ve seen. As stated by others there have been a lot of ads about this.
zomg 6y ago
MA resident here -- I'm voting yes on this ballot question for the exact reason why farmers seek older farm tractors and machines. The more shops that have access to data, the more competition there will be, which is a good thing.
kibwen 6y ago
The other ballot option in MA this year, Question 2, would enable ranked choice voting for state and federal elections. There was a bit of a thread about this the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24561551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24561551 What's weird is that before moving to MA I had never even heard of ballot options. As far as I can tell they just don't exist in PA, so social studies curricula just don't teach them. I'm increasingly a big fan; it seems like a valuable escape hatch for a democratic republic for the citizens to have the power to bypass the legislature if necessary.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s a double edged escape hatch. In practice the vast majority of voters know little to nothing about what’s being decided. On the other hand many third rail political views have a great deal of popular support. So, IMO the trick is to require a very large number of signatures to get on the ballot.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    > It’s a double edged escape hatch. In practice the vast majority of voters know little to nothing about what’s being decided. Neither does the legislature, in many cases. On balance I'd rather have direct democracy for the majority of things. It has worked quite well in Oregon, which has an initiative system.
    - hpkuarg 6y ago
      Direct democracy also leads to dumpster fires of a policy choice like Proposition 13 for your southern neighbors. No guarantees it wouldn't have passed through regular legislative channels, I suppose...
      - JoshTriplett 6y ago
        Given that it's also a third-rail for politicians to try to touch, it sounds like it worked precisely as it should, and gave people what they wanted and voted for. Oregon passed something similar, albeit weaker; I wish we'd passed something much stronger. Not because I'm anti-taxation, but because funding anything via property taxes is an incredibly bad idea and leads to funding and service quality that's correlated with property values.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
While I support right to repair and will be voting accordingly as a born and raised Masshole the whole "centralized platform for service info" thing is a massive red flag to me. Having to go through the government (the proposal as I understand it) to get service literature is only better than having to go through an uncooperative manufacturer. They could have just revoked the exemption for telemetry data without any of this platform nonsense. I don't want to get too off in the weeds here but I have zero expectation that the legislature doesn't have more nefarious things in the works for later. Cracking down on the backyard mechanics who keep the shitboxes of the greater Boston area running and forcing the poors onto the T would be their wet dream. If the goal is to give owners and manufacturers more access then why not just mandate that the OEMs provide the access, why go through the trouble of a platform if it's not part of a bigger picture that you don't want to tell people about just yet?
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Pardon my ignorance: what centralized platform? As far as I can tell, the proposal requires direct two-way communication between the vehicle and end user.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    They were talking about requiring service literature to be available in a standardized format through a government web portal.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Sounds like a great idea.
- swalsh 6y ago
  > Cracking down on the backyard mechanics who keep the shitboxes of the greater Boston area running Don't really have much to add to your point. But I wanted to mention, that on my block (a mixed income neighborhood in Boston) has 1 guy who fixes almost all our cars. He doesn't own a shop, he just brings his tools and fixes your box on the street. Every time he's out there he acquires a new customer. We all love him. His work is great, and his prices are so low my wife has to argue with him to take more. Without him, there's a lot of people where I live who would be in a tough spot.
acomjean 6y ago
The bill is summaraized in the voting guide which also has the full text. I’m voting yes. PDF of Massachusetts guide to the ballot question. It has a nice summmary and the legalease versión too. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf .... Commencing in model year 2022 and thereafter a manufacturer of motor vehicles sold in the Commonwealth, including heavy duty vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds, that utilizes a telematics system shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models. Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform. Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility or a class 1 dealer licensed pursuant to section 58 of chapter 140 limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle. Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair. SECTION 4.........
TeeMassive 6y ago
I'm seeing videos suggested by the YouTube algorithm from time to time about the Right to Repair and nothing is more infuriating then watching those people who basically sold their soul to say things that are not only blatantly baseless but also which are very against the public interest and will have negative impact on the environment for the generations to come.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  I dont even know what side you mean. Right to Repair allows longer product life (environmental plus) at the cost of simplifying modifications that worsen environmental impact (though that can be mitigated with careful regulation). Its all still individual consumption environmentalism, which is the minority of impact.
pithon 6y ago
I filled out my ballot today voting yes for the right to repair!
unholiness 6y ago
MA voter who's genuinely torn here. The thing that bugs me out about this law is that, AFAICT, this data is _already_ required to be available to any 3rd party manufacturer through a physical "non-proprietary interface" (so far, an OBD-II port) after a similar ballot initiative from 2013 [0]. This law essentially just makes the data available wirelessly. I care about security holes and I care about consent. Having a physical interface makes it easy to provide data with consent to repair shops who need while trivially making sure no third party manufacturer or insurance company is leaked a massive database of everyone's driving data. I really don't see how the "wireless" addition gives me more of a right to repair, but I clearly see how it forces manufacturers to significantly increase their surface area of possible data leaks. I'm all for Ben Franklin's liberty/safety argument, but with the 2013 law already in place, I honestly don't see the upside of the 2020 law. [0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2013/Chapter165#:~:text=All%20content%20in%20any%20such,diagnostic%20and%20repair%20information%20system https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2013/Chapter....
- mkhcodes 6y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I don't understand the argument that manufacturers are using telematics as a loophole, since it seems that the 2013 law specifically says that while many uses of telematics are not covered by the law, those that are "necessary to diagnose and repair a customer's vehicle" ARE still covered. > With the exception of telematics diagnostic and repair information that is provided to dealers, necessary to diagnose and repair a customer’s vehicle and not otherwise available to an independent repair facility [...] nothing in this chapter shall apply to telematics services [...]. So, are manufacturers doing things like including telematics that they claim "aren't necessary" but in reality are pretty important? If so, then independent repair shops are at a disadvantage, but the solution should be to force those signals to be available through the physical port. Or is it a matter of independent repair shops not being able to compete with the dealerships who can get telematics to do things like email you when it is detected that your oil is low?
  - bzbarsky 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, the 2013 law doesn't actually define "telematics" or "telematics data". This intiative does define the latter to be data that the car collects and phones home, and which the car itself may not store at all (but the "remote receiving point", as the law calls it, does store). It seems to me that you can't reasonably require access via the physical port on the car to data that is not actually present in the car's systems. Or am I missing something?
zaroth 6y ago
I don’t understand how engineers can read the actual text of the Question and think this is a good idea... > shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models. What is a “platform” in this context? The vehicle is supposed to be equipped with one, so presumably not a cloud server then? Inter-operable with what? Other manufacturers? Standardized how and by whom? What does “open access” mean in this context? Does this run on the car? In the cloud? How do you connect to it? Remember this is a legal requirement, not a spec that can just be revised. > Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform. So I think this is saying that all mechanical data which is emanating from the vehicle must also be made available by connecting directly to “the platform” but you could read it two or three other ways. > Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility As supposed to the ODBII port which is the current standard, now we have a “mobile-based application” which the “owner” of the vehicle uses to directly access the “platform”. I don’t know how the car is supposed to know who the owner is, let alone the original manufacturer of the car. But then after somehow authenticating the owner on this mobile based application there’s also going to be a way to authorize your repair shop to do the same? So perhaps repair shops are registered with this platform and I can select them from a list, or maybe after I’m magically authenticated I send them an email and they open that on their phone and click a link which send a message to an app which... wait what? > limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle. Oh yeah and these access tokens are also time limited and revocable. > Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair. So I’m just not following at all the level of complexity here and the huge number of red flags on legislation which is trying to spell out a technical solution instead of just spelling out the effect. We don’t need an open access inter-operable standardized data platform providing direct and delegatable remote control via mobile application to mechanical control systems. We really don’t. I would be a lot happier if it simply said that manufacturers must provide documented vendor extensions to the ODBII port to cover any new data streams.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
OliverJones 6y ago
On the positive side of this: My local repair shop has sent a couple of email blasts explaining how they'll be able to use this data safely to help us, and respectfully asking us, their customers, to vote Yes On 1. I'm all for it. And I do infosec for a living.
crispyambulance 6y ago
I have to say, the linked Voter Information document in the article does a great job of describing the intent of question and the consequences for a "yes" or "no" vote. I wish all ballot questions had such a clear explanation. These ballot questions are typically bizarrely phrased in legalistic and often deliberately misleading language. Someone entering a voting booth unprepared to read a dense confusing paragraph about a topic they may have never thought of is vulnerable to the whims of whatever politics are in play behind the rhetoric of the ballot question.
rurcliped 6y ago
The ballot question is actually about the "Right to WebApp Development Competency." Voting yes means you believe that, after a "Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle" law passes, webapp developers will MAGICALLY gain the competency needed to rapidly deploy a life-or-death-critical service for access by millions of unsecured client endpoints, and deploy it with no security-relevant design or implementation flaws. There's at least some hope of delivering a secure service to dealerships. (I don't know whether this has succeeded.) There's also some hope of delivering a secure service to registered endpoints at independent shops that can be audited for client security practices. This is the correct next step. With the state of webapp security today, there is NO HOPE AT ALL of delivering a secure service to the general public.
ljw1001 6y ago
I would vote yes if they Excluded location data. The language of the propositions doesn’t do that. This suggests to me that it’s as much a Silicon Valley style big data-play as a simple “right to repair” issue, which I would happily support

239 points by aarghh 6y ago

The No side's ads are incredibly scummy. The retired boston police commissioner has done an ad spot for Yes on Right To Repair specifically to slap down the "you will be raped in a parking lot" FUD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bye5DRBSpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bye5DRBSpw The EFF is also strongly in favor, naturally, but i think Ed Davis will pull more weight if anyone's undecided. (when marijuana legalization was on the ballot in 2016, the then-chief of the state police did a similar ad spot whose pitch boiled down to "vote yes so we can stop wasting our time on stupid college students, willya?", which I think had a similarly large impact. )

nessunodoro 6y ago
Scummy is a polite word for the advertisements. It's been fascinating to watch them evolve in waves. First wave: POV of a predator in a parking garage approaching a woman. Grave female voiceover: "Sexual predators could track your automobile, and remotely control the vehicle - including unlocking the doors." The female victim turns as the camera descends on her - she screams - "Vote No on Question 1. Don't let sexual predators control YOUR vehicle." Second wave: Russian hackers with pimples nodding with pleasure as they take control of your vehicle, in a "Kremlin-sponsored hacking room" that looks like NCIS by way of Dr. Strangelove. Vote no - don't let Russian hackers control your vehicle. Third wave - Muddy the waters by changing tone entirely to mimic the "Yes on 1" ads which have local, named individuals urging "it's your data, keep control of it." Muddied version - "It's your data, keep it safe. Vote no on 1." Fourth wave - white unnamed men in auto shops with forced-sounding boston accents explaining that if you vote yes on 1, it'll hurt the little guy. The insane $$ being thrown at trying to kill this bill [] tells a story in itself. [] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 6y ago
  Do you have links to these videos? They sound hilarious.
  - acomjean 6y ago
    Con side https://safeandsecuredata.org/ https://safeandsecuredata.org/ (They have a youtube) https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCGB8blHHwEhHILzENXb1_9g https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCGB8blHHwEhHILzENXb1_9g This is the fear spot shown: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYp2_oiwtIg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYp2_oiwtIg Pro side https://massrighttorepair.org/ https://massrighttorepair.org/ They have a youtube Channel too (which is Massachusetts in a nutshell): https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCYOxd_3siXOYMrUvdJQDMOA https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCYOxd_3siXOYMrUvdJQDMOA They pulled the former police commissioner to rebut some of the fear in a second ad. And this animated one with strong local accents https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pYmViMg5fQI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pYmViMg5fQI
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Ha, as if auto manufacturers all have an org dedicated to monitoring and deterring sexual predators and Russian hackers. Can anyone from one of these companies comment on this? Can I get a discount if I opt out of that at the dealership? I'm a techie, really I'd prefer to install Windows Defender on the car myself, thank you!
  - BostonEnginerd 6y ago
    It wouldn’t be so laughable if the auto manufacturers didn’t already claim your data as their own and sell it to marketers. This tidbit from the Onstar privacy policy made me laugh: “The nature of our products and services means that there may be circumstances where you might let someone else use a product or service that we provide to you (for example, you let someone else drive your OnStar equipped vehicle). It is important that if you do let someone else use one of our products or services that you inform them of this Privacy Statement and of the privacy choices that you have made.“
Finnucane 6y ago
The car makers’ ads are probably getting more votes for yes because they are so bad.
elihu 6y ago
That Yes ad raises more questions than it answers. What constitutes mechanical data? Does it include timestamps of when the engine was running and for how long? Is location data explicitly excluded? What about data that could be used to infer location, like vibration sensors picking up pothole impacts or gravel roads? It seems simpler to just say: "This bill gives you, the owner of the vehicle, the right to give access to your car's data (that the automobile manufacturers are already collecting with little oversight into how it is used) to a third party mechanic of your choice for a limited time. It does not make this data available to literally anyone who wants it." (The "for a limited time" concept does appear in the actual text of the bill in section 3 [1].) [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  If you are actually a potential rapist there are plenty of easier methods than setting up a fake repair garage and matching vibration sensors with pot holes. The entire idea is ridiculous.
  - elihu 6y ago
    Well sure, but if the larger point you're trying to make is that sensitive data doesn't get into the hands of the wrong people, "the data isn't actually sensitive data" is a weaker argument than "random people can't access your data without your explicit permission, and then only for a limited time." The creepy "no" add is implying that your car's data is just available on some website for anyone to look up. That's a pretty big misconception that should be contradicted.
jghn 6y ago
They're incredibly scummy but a super thin veneer. I don't know how anyone buys their BS. On one hand they feature grease monkeys talking about people hacking your car, I'm not sure people should be using their local mechanic for cybersecurity advice. More important, the fine print at the end makes it clear that it's the auto manufacturers sponsoring those ads, and their bias is obvious. I'll lose some faith in humanity if it doesn't pass.
- ptero 6y ago
  I think it will pass,but I am pretty sure that such ballot initiatives are not binding. It might pass only to be quickly forgotten.
  - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
    There are procedural ways certain bodies can drag their feet but it is binding. Marijuana was legalized for recreational use through the same process.
  - hprotagonist 6y ago
    Depends on the ballot issue. Some are binding, some are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy_in_Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy_in_Massachuse...
  - D-Coder 6y ago
    MA ballot initiatives, if passed, become ordinary laws. The Legislature can modify or delete them, just like any other ordinary law. However since the people voted for it, the Legislature is generally reluctant to do that.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >I don't know how anyone buys their BS. Treat people like they're too stupid to think for themselves long enough and it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. If the people of Massachusetts buy that crap they need only look in the mirror to find who to blame.
sschueller 6y ago
It's absolutely disgusting how privacy and the right to repair are being mixed together. We need better privacy but that is a separate topic.
- gbrown 6y ago
  Control over your device and the data it generates/transmits is fundamental to both. You can choose to care about one or the other, but they’re practically and ideologically closely related.
technothrasher 6y ago
The "No" column in the official state voter information booklet is almost criminally scummy. They quote Jane Doe, the Mass coalition against sexual assault and domestic violence, to make it seem like they're against the law. If you go to Jane Doe's website they say they aren't against the law, that the quote wasn't authorized, is out of context, and that they're disgusted that somebody would use battered woman as pawns to further their unrelated political agenda.
pc86 6y ago
To be fair, police already had the option to stop wasting their time on stupid college students, it's called discretion.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  In a city near me, they gave officers the discretion to either write people a ticket, or haul them to jail, for personal amounts of marijuana. After a few months, it was reported that not a single ticket had been written. I don't think most officers know what "discretion" means. Sad state of affairs, that.
  - pc86 6y ago
    A police officer always has the option to do nothing, so I'm not sure that needs to be enumerated.
    - stronglikedan 6y ago
      It's not that cut and dry. Police officers have a duty to uphold the law. They swear an oath to be faithful to that duty. Thankfully, that still means something to most people. However, when given a choice as to how to uphold the law, they often take the low road, unfortunately.
      - cheweh 6y ago
        Warren v. District of Columbia held that police have no legal duty to provide police services to citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  The problem with discretion is that it is also a common tool of discrimination. I'm fairly sure I have been given a pass on a few traffic violations that I probably wouldn't have if I weren't white.

geophile 6y ago

The only thing holding me back from a yes vote is the availability of detailed location data to 3rd parties. Can a mechanic sell this data? Can it be subpoenaed by police?

hprotagonist 6y ago
would you prefer that only centralized data warehouses like Officially Sanctioned Dealerships have access to this data instead? That seems worse.
- geophile 6y ago
  I prefer that they don't have it either, but that's not a choice. But if every garage in the state has access to this data, it seems like a much bigger risk.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    I don't know - it seems like you're assuming that authorized dealerships are a lot more trustworthy than general repair shops. That authorization is usually more "expensive" rather than "difficult" to acquire so a lot of the smaller shops have struggled to secure it. I think one way to read the decrease in volume is that - yea it'd sure be nice if six fewer dealerships had access to this information, so why don't we make sure they all get forced to close their doors because the automakers don't want competition - there would be fewer in count, but that doesn't really speak to the security of that data at all (additionally, most of the sensitive data you probably care about doesn't appear to be on the table for this bill - specifically telemetry about driving habits doesn't appear to be under consideration)
  - elihu 6y ago
    The bill only requires the auto manufacturer to make the data available to a third party if they have consent from the vehicle owner to do so. https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...

dsr_ 6y ago

Massachusetts sends out a voting guide: Massachusetts Information for Voters. It's the red cover brochure. If you look at the Against side of Question 1, the largest paragraph is from Jane Doe, the MA Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. Jane Doe, Inc. has retracted their support, but it was too late for the brochure to be updated.

NeutronStar 6y ago
So she wants to get the money and appear as being on the good side? I have no sympathy for her.
acomjean 6y ago
The mass voting guide is something to behold. I missed it when I left the state for a few years. It’s online and has a summary of the pro/con argument and the full text of the ballot measure. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf The independent repair shops with the “yes on one” signs I think help more than any sign I’ve seen. As stated by others there have been a lot of ads about this.

zomg 6y ago

MA resident here -- I'm voting yes on this ballot question for the exact reason why farmers seek older farm tractors and machines. The more shops that have access to data, the more competition there will be, which is a good thing.

kibwen 6y ago

The other ballot option in MA this year, Question 2, would enable ranked choice voting for state and federal elections. There was a bit of a thread about this the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24561551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24561551 What's weird is that before moving to MA I had never even heard of ballot options. As far as I can tell they just don't exist in PA, so social studies curricula just don't teach them. I'm increasingly a big fan; it seems like a valuable escape hatch for a democratic republic for the citizens to have the power to bypass the legislature if necessary.

Retric 6y ago
It’s a double edged escape hatch. In practice the vast majority of voters know little to nothing about what’s being decided. On the other hand many third rail political views have a great deal of popular support. So, IMO the trick is to require a very large number of signatures to get on the ballot.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > It’s a double edged escape hatch. In practice the vast majority of voters know little to nothing about what’s being decided. Neither does the legislature, in many cases. On balance I'd rather have direct democracy for the majority of things. It has worked quite well in Oregon, which has an initiative system.
  - hpkuarg 6y ago
    Direct democracy also leads to dumpster fires of a policy choice like Proposition 13 for your southern neighbors. No guarantees it wouldn't have passed through regular legislative channels, I suppose...
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      Given that it's also a third-rail for politicians to try to touch, it sounds like it worked precisely as it should, and gave people what they wanted and voted for. Oregon passed something similar, albeit weaker; I wish we'd passed something much stronger. Not because I'm anti-taxation, but because funding anything via property taxes is an incredibly bad idea and leads to funding and service quality that's correlated with property values.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

While I support right to repair and will be voting accordingly as a born and raised Masshole the whole "centralized platform for service info" thing is a massive red flag to me. Having to go through the government (the proposal as I understand it) to get service literature is only better than having to go through an uncooperative manufacturer. They could have just revoked the exemption for telemetry data without any of this platform nonsense. I don't want to get too off in the weeds here but I have zero expectation that the legislature doesn't have more nefarious things in the works for later. Cracking down on the backyard mechanics who keep the shitboxes of the greater Boston area running and forcing the poors onto the T would be their wet dream. If the goal is to give owners and manufacturers more access then why not just mandate that the OEMs provide the access, why go through the trouble of a platform if it's not part of a bigger picture that you don't want to tell people about just yet?

nerdponx 6y ago
Pardon my ignorance: what centralized platform? As far as I can tell, the proposal requires direct two-way communication between the vehicle and end user.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  They were talking about requiring service literature to be available in a standardized format through a government web portal.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Sounds like a great idea.
swalsh 6y ago
> Cracking down on the backyard mechanics who keep the shitboxes of the greater Boston area running Don't really have much to add to your point. But I wanted to mention, that on my block (a mixed income neighborhood in Boston) has 1 guy who fixes almost all our cars. He doesn't own a shop, he just brings his tools and fixes your box on the street. Every time he's out there he acquires a new customer. We all love him. His work is great, and his prices are so low my wife has to argue with him to take more. Without him, there's a lot of people where I live who would be in a tough spot.

acomjean 6y ago

The bill is summaraized in the voting guide which also has the full text. I’m voting yes. PDF of Massachusetts guide to the ballot question. It has a nice summmary and the legalease versión too. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf .... Commencing in model year 2022 and thereafter a manufacturer of motor vehicles sold in the Commonwealth, including heavy duty vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds, that utilizes a telematics system shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models. Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform. Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility or a class 1 dealer licensed pursuant to section 58 of chapter 140 limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle. Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair. SECTION 4.........

TeeMassive 6y ago

I'm seeing videos suggested by the YouTube algorithm from time to time about the Right to Repair and nothing is more infuriating then watching those people who basically sold their soul to say things that are not only blatantly baseless but also which are very against the public interest and will have negative impact on the environment for the generations to come.

kazagistar 6y ago
I dont even know what side you mean. Right to Repair allows longer product life (environmental plus) at the cost of simplifying modifications that worsen environmental impact (though that can be mitigated with careful regulation). Its all still individual consumption environmentalism, which is the minority of impact.

pithon 6y ago

I filled out my ballot today voting yes for the right to repair!

unholiness 6y ago

MA voter who's genuinely torn here. The thing that bugs me out about this law is that, AFAICT, this data is _already_ required to be available to any 3rd party manufacturer through a physical "non-proprietary interface" (so far, an OBD-II port) after a similar ballot initiative from 2013 [0]. This law essentially just makes the data available wirelessly. I care about security holes and I care about consent. Having a physical interface makes it easy to provide data with consent to repair shops who need while trivially making sure no third party manufacturer or insurance company is leaked a massive database of everyone's driving data. I really don't see how the "wireless" addition gives me more of a right to repair, but I clearly see how it forces manufacturers to significantly increase their surface area of possible data leaks. I'm all for Ben Franklin's liberty/safety argument, but with the 2013 law already in place, I honestly don't see the upside of the 2020 law. [0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2013/Chapter165#:~:text=All%20content%20in%20any%20such,diagnostic%20and%20repair%20information%20system https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2013/Chapter....

mkhcodes 6y ago
I'm in the same boat. I don't understand the argument that manufacturers are using telematics as a loophole, since it seems that the 2013 law specifically says that while many uses of telematics are not covered by the law, those that are "necessary to diagnose and repair a customer's vehicle" ARE still covered. > With the exception of telematics diagnostic and repair information that is provided to dealers, necessary to diagnose and repair a customer’s vehicle and not otherwise available to an independent repair facility [...] nothing in this chapter shall apply to telematics services [...]. So, are manufacturers doing things like including telematics that they claim "aren't necessary" but in reality are pretty important? If so, then independent repair shops are at a disadvantage, but the solution should be to force those signals to be available through the physical port. Or is it a matter of independent repair shops not being able to compete with the dealerships who can get telematics to do things like email you when it is detected that your oil is low?
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, the 2013 law doesn't actually define "telematics" or "telematics data". This intiative does define the latter to be data that the car collects and phones home, and which the car itself may not store at all (but the "remote receiving point", as the law calls it, does store). It seems to me that you can't reasonably require access via the physical port on the car to data that is not actually present in the car's systems. Or am I missing something?

zaroth 6y ago

I don’t understand how engineers can read the actual text of the Question and think this is a good idea... > shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models. What is a “platform” in this context? The vehicle is supposed to be equipped with one, so presumably not a cloud server then? Inter-operable with what? Other manufacturers? Standardized how and by whom? What does “open access” mean in this context? Does this run on the car? In the cloud? How do you connect to it? Remember this is a legal requirement, not a spec that can just be revised. > Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform. So I think this is saying that all mechanical data which is emanating from the vehicle must also be made available by connecting directly to “the platform” but you could read it two or three other ways. > Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility As supposed to the ODBII port which is the current standard, now we have a “mobile-based application” which the “owner” of the vehicle uses to directly access the “platform”. I don’t know how the car is supposed to know who the owner is, let alone the original manufacturer of the car. But then after somehow authenticating the owner on this mobile based application there’s also going to be a way to authorize your repair shop to do the same? So perhaps repair shops are registered with this platform and I can select them from a list, or maybe after I’m magically authenticated I send them an email and they open that on their phone and click a link which send a message to an app which... wait what? > limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle. Oh yeah and these access tokens are also time limited and revocable. > Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair. So I’m just not following at all the level of complexity here and the huge number of red flags on legislation which is trying to spell out a technical solution instead of just spelling out the effect. We don’t need an open access inter-operable standardized data platform providing direct and delegatable remote control via mobile application to mechanical control systems. We really don’t. I would be a lot happier if it simply said that manufacturers must provide documented vendor extensions to the ODBII port to cover any new data streams.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

OliverJones 6y ago

On the positive side of this: My local repair shop has sent a couple of email blasts explaining how they'll be able to use this data safely to help us, and respectfully asking us, their customers, to vote Yes On 1. I'm all for it. And I do infosec for a living.

crispyambulance 6y ago

I have to say, the linked Voter Information document in the article does a great job of describing the intent of question and the consequences for a "yes" or "no" vote. I wish all ballot questions had such a clear explanation. These ballot questions are typically bizarrely phrased in legalistic and often deliberately misleading language. Someone entering a voting booth unprepared to read a dense confusing paragraph about a topic they may have never thought of is vulnerable to the whims of whatever politics are in play behind the rhetoric of the ballot question.

rurcliped 6y ago

The ballot question is actually about the "Right to WebApp Development Competency." Voting yes means you believe that, after a "Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle" law passes, webapp developers will MAGICALLY gain the competency needed to rapidly deploy a life-or-death-critical service for access by millions of unsecured client endpoints, and deploy it with no security-relevant design or implementation flaws. There's at least some hope of delivering a secure service to dealerships. (I don't know whether this has succeeded.) There's also some hope of delivering a secure service to registered endpoints at independent shops that can be audited for client security practices. This is the correct next step. With the state of webapp security today, there is NO HOPE AT ALL of delivering a secure service to the general public.

ljw1001 6y ago

I would vote yes if they Excluded location data. The language of the propositions doesn’t do that. This suggests to me that it’s as much a Silicon Valley style big data-play as a simple “right to repair” issue, which I would happily support