12 ms·

Massachusetts voters pass right-to-repair expansion opening up car data

492 points by teruakohatu 6y ago

sschueller 6y ago
This is great news as it will push into other states even if they don't have right to repair. I'm am glad that these scare tactics from the opposition failed.
- hobofan 6y ago
  I don't know why you think it will push into other states. The manufacturers will continue to fight this tooth and nail and will only open this up as much as they are forced to.
  - cosmie 6y ago
    Logistically and operationally speaking, it'd be incredibly difficult to gate it to a single state. People move in/out of state, people split time living between multiple states, students may temporarily move states for the school year, cars are frequently purchased in one state and shipped to another, used vehicles auctions redistribute cars all over the place, people pass in/out/through the state while traveling. All of which ultimately has to be taken into account for the entire lifespan of the vehicle. Even ignoring the cost and complexity of the logistics, the manufacturers will open themselves up to an expensive and drawn out stream of lawsuits litigating every conceivable edge case (such as the above examples). All with little minimal upside for themselves, since right-to-repair primarily harms dealerships and minimally harms manufacturers (since most if not all states make it illegal for auto manufacturers to own dealerships). Plus all of the above leads to higher costs the manufacturers have to bear, which will ultimately get pushed down to dealers/consumers. And isn't limited to just Massachusetts, due to the ripple effect of increasing overall complexity in their manufacturing/distribution/sales processes. Which could decrease sales volume across the entire market if everyone went this route, or result in loss of market share if other manufacturers do implement it nationwide and you can't maintain competitive pricing. At the end of the day, it'll end up going nationwide, because there's no real reason not to. And every reason to go nationwide. Auto manufacturers would love to be able to have direct-to-consumer sales, and starving the primary profit stream of dealerships makes that easier to happen. It's drastically cheaper - every car rolls off the production lane exactly the same, there's no enforcement mechanism to maintain, and no potentially costly class action lawsuits to worry about. All while having a perfectly valid rationale to show they aren't deliberately harming the independent dealership model, and are simply complying with their legal requirements as efficiently as feasible.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Because that's what happened last time: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-share-repair-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-... Massachusetts passed a law, and car manufacturers voluntarily made it a national standard a year later. They aren't going to build different cars for one state, and they aren't going to stop selling cars in one state.
    - asdff 6y ago
      In some cases, they do make different cars for different states if the market is large enough. The fiat 500e for example is only sold in CA and OR.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It is ridiculous to even discuss this but you are correct of course. If one state does it I think there is little choice for the others.
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    Or more likely, the proponents of this will go the federal courts. Doesn't matter how many states say yes if the feds say no.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      No... California has its own stricter emissions laws and car manufacturers build to California standards as a result.
      - TheCraiggers 6y ago
        California is also the worlds fifth largest economy.
      - bluGill 6y ago
        Because the feds allows California - only California - to set stricter standards than the rest of the country. Several other states (5 last I checked but that was 10 years ago) require California standards for all cars in their state. They don't have the option of creating their own standard as the feds haven't given it to them.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      MA already ignores the feds on weed and guns with no apparent ill affects. They could probably do it for cars too without much issue.
vaccinator 6y ago
Will Tesla stop selling in that state?
- guepe 6y ago
  Tesla sells in Mass, despite the first "right to repair" bill. There is quite a bit of money in Boston area, I am pretty sure they will comply like they did for the first bill.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >comply like they did for the first bill Which was grudgingly. I understand they've improved somewhat but their initial implementation was something like you could rent a service manual for some significant fee per hour.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  And if so, will they still charge $30/hour for people that want to rent their car's service manual?
wrkronmiller 6y ago
Reading the text of the proposal, I find it bizarre that the requirement would be for a mobile app versus, say, a serial connection that allows access to the same data that is transmitted OTA. This is better than nothing, but this approach would seem to open the door to issues such as previous owners still having access to the data, OEMs obfuscating the API to access the data, the apps being geo-locked and possibly requiring paid subscriptions, etc...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wffurr 6y ago
  It is extremely likely that the legislature will take up this law in the next session and amend it; to extend the deadline, ensure security for the data, and likely negotiate a compromise with automakers. The 2013 right-to-repair law resulted in a nationwide change to allow OBD access after negotiations with the state legislature.
  - andyzweb 6y ago
    can you provide any insight / links about what happened with the 2013 law? I remember very little and feel a little ashamed about that.
    - wffurr 6y ago
      Ballotpedia has a nice write-up: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020)#Massachusetts_2013_.22Right_to_Repair_Law.22 https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
- sokoloff 6y ago
  A serial connection to what, though? Some of the data that is intended to be covered by Question 1 is data that was transmitted to the OEM last week. MA already has a right-to-repair law that covers the wired/OBD2 interface (which is a CAN bus interface at this point).
swiley 6y ago
Holy cow the ads against this where something else. Most of them were saying something along the lines of "if users have access to the data it will be used to rape you." The correct response to this is to make the data opt in with a strong warning about how it could be abused, not make it only abusable by corporations.
- klysm 6y ago
  Really happy to see this go through in Mass. sadly we didn't pass ranked choice voting though :(
- bluGill 6y ago
  The correct response is to change the wording on the ballot so if collected information is used for a crime the organization who leaked it is liable - even if the leak is unintentional (that the leak happened through a zero-day exploit doesn't isn't a defense against the leak)
willis936 6y ago
Perhaps this will highlight the massive security concerns from irresponsible automobile engineers and management. You can’t just have a key that basically reinvented RFID but throwing away every possible security choice. You can’t just have a public piece of equipment capable of exchanging information wirelessly. What were these people thinking? Were they thinking? Something’s got to change.
aaronmdjones 6y ago
> A now-inaccessible but archived page on the automaker-backed Coalition for Safe and Secure Data page said “It will allow these people to access very detailed information, including how, when and where a person drives. From this information, a third party, such as a sexual predator, could stalk and/or harm victims by exploiting insecure transmissions of vehicle information.” There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. Instead of spending millions of dollars campaigning against this quite sensible proposal, why not spend the money developing secure transmission of information? Or better yet, transmitting as little information as possible in the first place? Why do telematics companies need to know where you are? I'm aware that car insurance telematics companies provide location tracking for cases of vehicle theft (I had such a device in my car for my previous insurance provider), but that doesn't have to be actively-transmitting location data at all times; it could instead do so only after a secure request to the device from the telematics company after a theft is reported.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  > There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. I've found that industries irrationally oppose reasonable legislation on principle. Do you remember cell phone number portability? (In the US?) Cell phone carriers vocally opposed it, and then the day it was passed they all put up signs saying you could keep your number if you switched today.
  - smabie 6y ago
    why is it irrational? They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be. There comes a point where the public's best interest outweighs a corporation's best interest.
chrisweekly 6y ago
w00t! MA voter here. Today / this week I'll take any good news I can get.
blackaspen 6y ago
I'm super excited for this! It's a small step, but an important one. The whole premise of this, as I read it, was that while OBD ports are fair game (and any protocol over them), there is other data that is (often) necessary to diagnose and repair cars that is not available from OBD and is phoned-home. That's simple enough. What I think is superb is that the law requires data to go _directly to consumers_ as in, car makers would be required to change immediate locations of outbound telemetry such that they can't get it. This is key as I, first, don't want data leaving my car at all, and second, if it does, I don't want the automaker or insurance company to get to it. I'm sure automakers (Tesla especially, since they pioneered brutally connected cars and data capture) aren't thrilled about this, but I am optimistic to see where it goes. Maybe I'll be able to buy a new car that doesn't phone home (or only phones home to a service I personally own). I can dream.
- silexia 6y ago
  This is incredibly important! Lobby your legislators in your state for similar laws! We want to expand this to include heavy equipment too.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  Isn't it totally useless if it doesn't prevent serialization of parts? For example, I'm pretty sure my dad can't replace the infotainment system on his truck because it's married to the VIN somehow and requires special programming upon replacement. So even though I think it's awesome to give people more diagnostic data, I don't think it goes far enough if that info is along the lines of "Unauthorized tires detected. Your vehicle must be serviced by an authorized repair shop."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    Every incremental step of changing the status quo moves the whole process closer to the long term goal of unlocking all repair issues and gaining the user ability to control data flow. Every step counts.
caymanjim 6y ago
This is great, but it's unfortunate that they didn't also include the right to disable any data collection. My car's data should be available to me and me alone, full stop. If I choose to share it with my mechanic or the manufacturer, that's my business. The manufacturer shouldn't have any access without an explicit opt-in from me, and refusing to opt-in should not affect the sale. I should also be able to control what data they can see if I choose to share it. The manufacturer has a legitimate concern about certain operational parameters if I'm asking them to perform a repair under warranty (did I redline the engine?), but they have absolutely no legitimate use, ever, for location data.
frankfrankfrank 6y ago
I hope this leads to things like being able to update or change the horrific UIs of the entertainment centers. One ridiculous example from just the other day when I rented a 2020 Jeep Cherokee: The toggle for turning on the backup camera is in the audio settings for some inexplicable reason. No, that is not a typo. There are forums full of people discussing how to buy after market doohickies to turn on/have a backup cam on while driving to, e.g., monitor a trailer hitch … while the toggle is in the audio settings, at least in the 2020. This is a huge, global, multi-billion dollar company that did that … handicapping basic functionality of the $30,000+ vehicle. Just think about that for a second.
abnry 6y ago
The ballot questions were what really motivated me to show up to the polls. I predicted that RtR would pass. I expected Ranked Choice voting to be close and probably not pass. Still, I am disappointed MA residents didn't choose to use ranked choice voting.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  In my jurisdiction, we had an additional question asking if the state representative should support legislation that treats police officers murdering unarmed and restrained citizens as first degree murder. The result in my town was an emphatic "yes".
  - abnry 6y ago
    To me, that's a strange question. First degree murder means premeditated intent, and almost all police shootings aren't premeditated. Do you mean that police murdering someone was voted to be treated with the same consequences as first degree murder, but not necessarily classified as first degree murder? In my area we had a ballot question about committing to 100% renewable energy in 20 years.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The actual text of the question in its entirety: "Shall the representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that penalizes officers on duty for the murder of unarmed and restrained citizens similarly to the penalty of first-degree murder?"
    - tpxl 6y ago
      >unarmed and _restrained_ citizens You probably missed the restrained part. Shooting a restrained person is nothing but 1st degree murder.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Targeting and shooting a restrained person? Yes. Crossfire or negligent discharge? Probably not.
nwsm 6y ago
Glad we got this passed. Still more work to be done nationwide on this and similar issues. As someone else mentioned, the auto industry ran disgusting ads claiming local mechanics will get your address from your car data, follow you home, and rape you. Here's a Vice article on it [0]; I can't find online videos of the ads anymore. I wish we'd also passed ranked choice voting, but it did alright at 45% yes (93% reporting). [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-claim-right-to-repair-benefits-sexual-predators https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-...
- lsllc 6y ago
  I know tons of people who voted no for RCV simply because they didn't understand it or thought it was too complex. Sadly when I have explained it to them, they usually change their mind over it. Just need better voter education next time I guess.
  - cure 6y ago
    Yes. It's much harder for a complicated subject like RCV. The right-to-repair question was simple and very clear. It explained the ballot initiative within the question: > A "yes" vote supported requiring manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application. Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...): > A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and certain county offices beginning in 2022. Both ballot initiative questions were preceded by a wall of text explaining the details, of course. But I bet most people didn't read those paragraphs.
    - btilly 6y ago
      Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...) Here is a reasonable try. Everyone lists candidates in the order that they like them, then candidates get knocked out one by one with votes always being for the remaining candidate that the voter liked best. Don't ask me to explain any Condorcet method in one sentence though. :-)
aitchnyu 6y ago
Not an American. Could anybody explain who is behind this campaign and how this issue was put up for popular vote?
- mcescalante 6y ago
  This type of question is called a "Ballot measure." 26/50 states have initiative or veto referendum processes, which means Citizens can collect signatures to place a law on the ballot. A coalition containing unions (i.e. service & tire) and others were able to collect 103,604 signatures in support of this law which was more than the required 80,239 to have the question appear on the Massachusetts ballot. They submitted this all in late 2019 and there was some back and forth with the legislature and they were required to collect some more signatures which they did successfully (skipping some legal stuff). After all the signatures were verified, it was certified for the November 2020 ballot (in MA). If you are curious for more detail, Ballotpedia has a good overview of information in their "path to the ballot" section: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020)#Path_to_the_ballot https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Mr. Rossmann has a nice clip of his retort in the committee meeting for this: https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI?t=234 https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI?t=234
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bubsolow 6y ago
great news! i hope this sets a precedent and extends to technology (looking at you Apple)
mrfusion 6y ago
Why don’t the most open, repairable products simply win in the market place? Who wouldn’t want to most open product?

492 points by teruakohatu 6y ago

This is great news as it will push into other states even if they don't have right to repair. I'm am glad that these scare tactics from the opposition failed.

hobofan 6y ago
I don't know why you think it will push into other states. The manufacturers will continue to fight this tooth and nail and will only open this up as much as they are forced to.
- cosmie 6y ago
  Logistically and operationally speaking, it'd be incredibly difficult to gate it to a single state. People move in/out of state, people split time living between multiple states, students may temporarily move states for the school year, cars are frequently purchased in one state and shipped to another, used vehicles auctions redistribute cars all over the place, people pass in/out/through the state while traveling. All of which ultimately has to be taken into account for the entire lifespan of the vehicle. Even ignoring the cost and complexity of the logistics, the manufacturers will open themselves up to an expensive and drawn out stream of lawsuits litigating every conceivable edge case (such as the above examples). All with little minimal upside for themselves, since right-to-repair primarily harms dealerships and minimally harms manufacturers (since most if not all states make it illegal for auto manufacturers to own dealerships). Plus all of the above leads to higher costs the manufacturers have to bear, which will ultimately get pushed down to dealers/consumers. And isn't limited to just Massachusetts, due to the ripple effect of increasing overall complexity in their manufacturing/distribution/sales processes. Which could decrease sales volume across the entire market if everyone went this route, or result in loss of market share if other manufacturers do implement it nationwide and you can't maintain competitive pricing. At the end of the day, it'll end up going nationwide, because there's no real reason not to. And every reason to go nationwide. Auto manufacturers would love to be able to have direct-to-consumer sales, and starving the primary profit stream of dealerships makes that easier to happen. It's drastically cheaper - every car rolls off the production lane exactly the same, there's no enforcement mechanism to maintain, and no potentially costly class action lawsuits to worry about. All while having a perfectly valid rationale to show they aren't deliberately harming the independent dealership model, and are simply complying with their legal requirements as efficiently as feasible.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Because that's what happened last time: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-share-repair-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-... Massachusetts passed a law, and car manufacturers voluntarily made it a national standard a year later. They aren't going to build different cars for one state, and they aren't going to stop selling cars in one state.
  - asdff 6y ago
    In some cases, they do make different cars for different states if the market is large enough. The fiat 500e for example is only sold in CA and OR.
raxxorrax 6y ago
It is ridiculous to even discuss this but you are correct of course. If one state does it I think there is little choice for the others.
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  Or more likely, the proponents of this will go the federal courts. Doesn't matter how many states say yes if the feds say no.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    No... California has its own stricter emissions laws and car manufacturers build to California standards as a result.
    - TheCraiggers 6y ago
      California is also the worlds fifth largest economy.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Because the feds allows California - only California - to set stricter standards than the rest of the country. Several other states (5 last I checked but that was 10 years ago) require California standards for all cars in their state. They don't have the option of creating their own standard as the feds haven't given it to them.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    MA already ignores the feds on weed and guns with no apparent ill affects. They could probably do it for cars too without much issue.

vaccinator 6y ago

Will Tesla stop selling in that state?

guepe 6y ago
Tesla sells in Mass, despite the first "right to repair" bill. There is quite a bit of money in Boston area, I am pretty sure they will comply like they did for the first bill.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >comply like they did for the first bill Which was grudgingly. I understand they've improved somewhat but their initial implementation was something like you could rent a service manual for some significant fee per hour.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
And if so, will they still charge $30/hour for people that want to rent their car's service manual?

wrkronmiller 6y ago

Reading the text of the proposal, I find it bizarre that the requirement would be for a mobile app versus, say, a serial connection that allows access to the same data that is transmitted OTA. This is better than nothing, but this approach would seem to open the door to issues such as previous owners still having access to the data, OEMs obfuscating the API to access the data, the apps being geo-locked and possibly requiring paid subscriptions, etc...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wffurr 6y ago
It is extremely likely that the legislature will take up this law in the next session and amend it; to extend the deadline, ensure security for the data, and likely negotiate a compromise with automakers. The 2013 right-to-repair law resulted in a nationwide change to allow OBD access after negotiations with the state legislature.
- andyzweb 6y ago
  can you provide any insight / links about what happened with the 2013 law? I remember very little and feel a little ashamed about that.
  - wffurr 6y ago
    Ballotpedia has a nice write-up: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020)#Massachusetts_2013_.22Right_to_Repair_Law.22 https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
sokoloff 6y ago
A serial connection to what, though? Some of the data that is intended to be covered by Question 1 is data that was transmitted to the OEM last week. MA already has a right-to-repair law that covers the wired/OBD2 interface (which is a CAN bus interface at this point).

swiley 6y ago

Holy cow the ads against this where something else. Most of them were saying something along the lines of "if users have access to the data it will be used to rape you." The correct response to this is to make the data opt in with a strong warning about how it could be abused, not make it only abusable by corporations.

klysm 6y ago
Really happy to see this go through in Mass. sadly we didn't pass ranked choice voting though :(
bluGill 6y ago
The correct response is to change the wording on the ballot so if collected information is used for a crime the organization who leaked it is liable - even if the leak is unintentional (that the leak happened through a zero-day exploit doesn't isn't a defense against the leak)

willis936 6y ago

Perhaps this will highlight the massive security concerns from irresponsible automobile engineers and management. You can’t just have a key that basically reinvented RFID but throwing away every possible security choice. You can’t just have a public piece of equipment capable of exchanging information wirelessly. What were these people thinking? Were they thinking? Something’s got to change.

aaronmdjones 6y ago

> A now-inaccessible but archived page on the automaker-backed Coalition for Safe and Secure Data page said “It will allow these people to access very detailed information, including how, when and where a person drives. From this information, a third party, such as a sexual predator, could stalk and/or harm victims by exploiting insecure transmissions of vehicle information.” There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. Instead of spending millions of dollars campaigning against this quite sensible proposal, why not spend the money developing secure transmission of information? Or better yet, transmitting as little information as possible in the first place? Why do telematics companies need to know where you are? I'm aware that car insurance telematics companies provide location tracking for cases of vehicle theft (I had such a device in my car for my previous insurance provider), but that doesn't have to be actively-transmitting location data at all times; it could instead do so only after a secure request to the device from the telematics company after a theft is reported.

gwbas1c 6y ago
> There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. I've found that industries irrationally oppose reasonable legislation on principle. Do you remember cell phone number portability? (In the US?) Cell phone carriers vocally opposed it, and then the day it was passed they all put up signs saying you could keep your number if you switched today.
- smabie 6y ago
  why is it irrational? They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be. There comes a point where the public's best interest outweighs a corporation's best interest.

chrisweekly 6y ago

w00t! MA voter here. Today / this week I'll take any good news I can get.

blackaspen 6y ago

I'm super excited for this! It's a small step, but an important one. The whole premise of this, as I read it, was that while OBD ports are fair game (and any protocol over them), there is other data that is (often) necessary to diagnose and repair cars that is not available from OBD and is phoned-home. That's simple enough. What I think is superb is that the law requires data to go _directly to consumers_ as in, car makers would be required to change immediate locations of outbound telemetry such that they can't get it. This is key as I, first, don't want data leaving my car at all, and second, if it does, I don't want the automaker or insurance company to get to it. I'm sure automakers (Tesla especially, since they pioneered brutally connected cars and data capture) aren't thrilled about this, but I am optimistic to see where it goes. Maybe I'll be able to buy a new car that doesn't phone home (or only phones home to a service I personally own). I can dream.

silexia 6y ago
This is incredibly important! Lobby your legislators in your state for similar laws! We want to expand this to include heavy equipment too.
donmcronald 6y ago
Isn't it totally useless if it doesn't prevent serialization of parts? For example, I'm pretty sure my dad can't replace the infotainment system on his truck because it's married to the VIN somehow and requires special programming upon replacement. So even though I think it's awesome to give people more diagnostic data, I don't think it goes far enough if that info is along the lines of "Unauthorized tires detected. Your vehicle must be serviced by an authorized repair shop."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zentiggr 6y ago
  Every incremental step of changing the status quo moves the whole process closer to the long term goal of unlocking all repair issues and gaining the user ability to control data flow. Every step counts.

caymanjim 6y ago

This is great, but it's unfortunate that they didn't also include the right to disable any data collection. My car's data should be available to me and me alone, full stop. If I choose to share it with my mechanic or the manufacturer, that's my business. The manufacturer shouldn't have any access without an explicit opt-in from me, and refusing to opt-in should not affect the sale. I should also be able to control what data they can see if I choose to share it. The manufacturer has a legitimate concern about certain operational parameters if I'm asking them to perform a repair under warranty (did I redline the engine?), but they have absolutely no legitimate use, ever, for location data.

frankfrankfrank 6y ago

I hope this leads to things like being able to update or change the horrific UIs of the entertainment centers. One ridiculous example from just the other day when I rented a 2020 Jeep Cherokee: The toggle for turning on the backup camera is in the audio settings for some inexplicable reason. No, that is not a typo. There are forums full of people discussing how to buy after market doohickies to turn on/have a backup cam on while driving to, e.g., monitor a trailer hitch … while the toggle is in the audio settings, at least in the 2020. This is a huge, global, multi-billion dollar company that did that … handicapping basic functionality of the $30,000+ vehicle. Just think about that for a second.

abnry 6y ago

The ballot questions were what really motivated me to show up to the polls. I predicted that RtR would pass. I expected Ranked Choice voting to be close and probably not pass. Still, I am disappointed MA residents didn't choose to use ranked choice voting.

jcranmer 6y ago
In my jurisdiction, we had an additional question asking if the state representative should support legislation that treats police officers murdering unarmed and restrained citizens as first degree murder. The result in my town was an emphatic "yes".
- abnry 6y ago
  To me, that's a strange question. First degree murder means premeditated intent, and almost all police shootings aren't premeditated. Do you mean that police murdering someone was voted to be treated with the same consequences as first degree murder, but not necessarily classified as first degree murder? In my area we had a ballot question about committing to 100% renewable energy in 20 years.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The actual text of the question in its entirety: "Shall the representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that penalizes officers on duty for the murder of unarmed and restrained citizens similarly to the penalty of first-degree murder?"
  - tpxl 6y ago
    >unarmed and _restrained_ citizens You probably missed the restrained part. Shooting a restrained person is nothing but 1st degree murder.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Targeting and shooting a restrained person? Yes. Crossfire or negligent discharge? Probably not.

nwsm 6y ago

Glad we got this passed. Still more work to be done nationwide on this and similar issues. As someone else mentioned, the auto industry ran disgusting ads claiming local mechanics will get your address from your car data, follow you home, and rape you. Here's a Vice article on it [0]; I can't find online videos of the ads anymore. I wish we'd also passed ranked choice voting, but it did alright at 45% yes (93% reporting). [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-claim-right-to-repair-benefits-sexual-predators https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-...

lsllc 6y ago
I know tons of people who voted no for RCV simply because they didn't understand it or thought it was too complex. Sadly when I have explained it to them, they usually change their mind over it. Just need better voter education next time I guess.
- cure 6y ago
  Yes. It's much harder for a complicated subject like RCV. The right-to-repair question was simple and very clear. It explained the ballot initiative within the question: > A "yes" vote supported requiring manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application. Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...): > A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and certain county offices beginning in 2022. Both ballot initiative questions were preceded by a wall of text explaining the details, of course. But I bet most people didn't read those paragraphs.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...) Here is a reasonable try. Everyone lists candidates in the order that they like them, then candidates get knocked out one by one with votes always being for the remaining candidate that the voter liked best. Don't ask me to explain any Condorcet method in one sentence though. :-)

aitchnyu 6y ago

Not an American. Could anybody explain who is behind this campaign and how this issue was put up for popular vote?

mcescalante 6y ago
This type of question is called a "Ballot measure." 26/50 states have initiative or veto referendum processes, which means Citizens can collect signatures to place a law on the ballot. A coalition containing unions (i.e. service & tire) and others were able to collect 103,604 signatures in support of this law which was more than the required 80,239 to have the question appear on the Massachusetts ballot. They submitted this all in late 2019 and there was some back and forth with the legislature and they were required to collect some more signatures which they did successfully (skipping some legal stuff). After all the signatures were verified, it was certified for the November 2020 ballot (in MA). If you are curious for more detail, Ballotpedia has a good overview of information in their "path to the ballot" section: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_to_Repair_Law%22_Vehicle_Data_Access_Requirement_Initiative_(2020)#Path_to_the_ballot https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

Mr. Rossmann has a nice clip of his retort in the committee meeting for this: https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI?t=234 https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI?t=234

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bubsolow 6y ago

great news! i hope this sets a precedent and extends to technology (looking at you Apple)

mrfusion 6y ago

Why don’t the most open, repairable products simply win in the market place? Who wouldn’t want to most open product?