4 ms·

West Virginia Wants to Ban Over-the-Air Updates for Cars

27 points by CarCooler 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago
If a government can't force a software backdoor into vehicles, how are they going to stop the next trucker protest from blocking roads or effecting political change?
- anon9384929 5y ago
  This is a dumb, snarky comment that is a good example of why people have been complaining about the quality of HN posts. You defeat your own argument, by the way, by acknowledging that they did clear the roads without the need for back doors into the car. Please do better.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    They cleared the roads after a lot of expending a lot of political capital by invoking emergency powers, not to mention the time and money wasted. Can't you imagine a government wanting a "cleaner" solution, that prevents the event from happening in the first place and generating any negative headlines? Also, calling a comment "dumb" is not a great contribution to the level of discussion on HN either. Maybe you could take your own advice and try to do better too.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  Who says we want them to stop [an arbitrary protest with presently unknown political stance, but argued using a trigger instance to try to get us to agree and comply with the stance the writer is making]? Freedom is something Americans tend to hold dear; and that does mean “freedom for people that have a stance I don’t like to protest that stance”. Their right to protest keeps me having a right to protest.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > “freedom for people that have a stance I don’t like to protest that stance” Agreed. I'm saddened (and a little disturbed) that many HN users have such a knee-jerk reaction against the truckers protest that they would downvote a comment that was actually arguing against government backdoors.
    - t-writescode 5y ago
      If you're referring to your own comment, I absolutely read that as encouraging government backdoors and I absolutely downvoted it on that reason. If there was sarcasm, it wasn't clearly visible to me.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        Poe's law strikes again. I should have put a "/s" on there, and I apologise if my comment wasn't as clear written down as it was in my head. The fact that my comment appeared to be condemning all political change was meant as a clue that only a dictator would support such a position, though.
Tagbert 5y ago
These efforts are being pushed by car dealership groups who apply pressure on legislatures to block anything that reduces the need to bring cars in for servicing or other efforts for manufacturers to sells directly to customers (aka Tesla).
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  Yes, this is not coming from a place of desire for consumer freedom or protection. It’s yet another attempt at keeping an antiquated and unnecessary model (dealerships) alive and relevant. People absolutely should be able to switch off OTA updates, but there’s absolutely no need for a third party (such as dealerships) to be involved. Dealerships also don’t want you to be able to update your car’s software on your own, which is anti-consumer. So in my mind this legislation shouldn’t be supported. Regulations requiring user control of automotive software should be coming from the angle of right to repair, which benefits buyers instead of dealers.
nickysielicki 5y ago
Your car pinging cell towers makes your car trackable. I have been meaning to fully remove the cell radio in mine.
- gumby 5y ago
  I believe I read that the DoT wants to make that mandatory, as they did with the (short distance) remotely-managed tires.
nwah1 5y ago
Computer networks are rarely hacked. I'm sure exposing millions of computerized drivetrains to remote upgrade will seem like a great idea in retrospect.

27 points by CarCooler 5y ago

If a government can't force a software backdoor into vehicles, how are they going to stop the next trucker protest from blocking roads or effecting political change?

anon9384929 5y ago
This is a dumb, snarky comment that is a good example of why people have been complaining about the quality of HN posts. You defeat your own argument, by the way, by acknowledging that they did clear the roads without the need for back doors into the car. Please do better.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  They cleared the roads after a lot of expending a lot of political capital by invoking emergency powers, not to mention the time and money wasted. Can't you imagine a government wanting a "cleaner" solution, that prevents the event from happening in the first place and generating any negative headlines? Also, calling a comment "dumb" is not a great contribution to the level of discussion on HN either. Maybe you could take your own advice and try to do better too.
t-writescode 5y ago
Who says we want them to stop [an arbitrary protest with presently unknown political stance, but argued using a trigger instance to try to get us to agree and comply with the stance the writer is making]? Freedom is something Americans tend to hold dear; and that does mean “freedom for people that have a stance I don’t like to protest that stance”. Their right to protest keeps me having a right to protest.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > “freedom for people that have a stance I don’t like to protest that stance” Agreed. I'm saddened (and a little disturbed) that many HN users have such a knee-jerk reaction against the truckers protest that they would downvote a comment that was actually arguing against government backdoors.
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    If you're referring to your own comment, I absolutely read that as encouraging government backdoors and I absolutely downvoted it on that reason. If there was sarcasm, it wasn't clearly visible to me.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Poe's law strikes again. I should have put a "/s" on there, and I apologise if my comment wasn't as clear written down as it was in my head. The fact that my comment appeared to be condemning all political change was meant as a clue that only a dictator would support such a position, though.

Tagbert 5y ago

These efforts are being pushed by car dealership groups who apply pressure on legislatures to block anything that reduces the need to bring cars in for servicing or other efforts for manufacturers to sells directly to customers (aka Tesla).

kitsunesoba 5y ago
Yes, this is not coming from a place of desire for consumer freedom or protection. It’s yet another attempt at keeping an antiquated and unnecessary model (dealerships) alive and relevant. People absolutely should be able to switch off OTA updates, but there’s absolutely no need for a third party (such as dealerships) to be involved. Dealerships also don’t want you to be able to update your car’s software on your own, which is anti-consumer. So in my mind this legislation shouldn’t be supported. Regulations requiring user control of automotive software should be coming from the angle of right to repair, which benefits buyers instead of dealers.

nickysielicki 5y ago

Your car pinging cell towers makes your car trackable. I have been meaning to fully remove the cell radio in mine.

gumby 5y ago
I believe I read that the DoT wants to make that mandatory, as they did with the (short distance) remotely-managed tires.

nwah1 5y ago

Computer networks are rarely hacked. I'm sure exposing millions of computerized drivetrains to remote upgrade will seem like a great idea in retrospect.