7 ms·

Massachusetts could probably double down and say “no car can be registered in the state of Massachusetts not in compliance with right-to-repair by 202X”. Then,

by teeray 3y ago

Massachusetts could probably double down and say “no car can be registered in the state of Massachusetts not in compliance with right-to-repair by 202X”. Then, even with federal preemption, the auto manufacturers would be forced to comply.

CoastalCoder 3y ago
It sounds like that would become a game of chicken. For it to work, I'm guessing that additional states would need to join Massachusetts. Unfortunately, as we've seen with New York, that would probably be opposed by significant back-room sleaze.
acranox 3y ago
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/15/business/subaru-buyers-take-hit-mass-right-to-repair-fight/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/15/business/subaru-buyer... “ Subaru and another automaker, Kia, have been especially aggressive in resisting the law. While other companies are counting on a long-running federal lawsuit to overturn the statute, Kia and Subaru opted to shut off the features in their vehicles that are covered by the law.”
- thatguy0900 3y ago
  So in massechutses my car doesn't send any telemetry to the manufactorer or random dealerships, and can't receive remote signals to start, stop brake or turn on its own? Sounds like a pretty good win. Also rich hearing about security concerns coming from Kia at the moment.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> say “no car can be registered in the state of Massachusetts not in compliance with right-to-repair by 202X" I'm not familiar with Massachusetts politics. It's a game of chicken between Boston and the NHTSA (or Congress), not the automakers--they have to comply with the law.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  But the claim is that the federal law preempts the state one, which would be true if it's impossible comply with both at once. But you could comply with both at once by not selling cars in Massachusetts, couldn't you? At which point people are going to notice, and ask why, and when they learn the answer is that the NHTSA is captured by automakers, maybe the NHTSA would like to avoid this hit to their reputation more than the commonwealth of Massachusetts would like to avoid looking like it's standing up to Big Auto.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > you could comply with both at once by not selling cars in Massachusetts Massachussetts would be banning the registration of new cars. Manufacturers wouldn't have a choice because they can't comply with the Massachussetts law. Maybe consumers who don't want to register their cars will still buy, I don't know. It's a high-stakes gamble at pressuring the NHTSA. There are likely better ways to do that than shutting down the state's car business.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Maybe consumers who don't want to register their cars will still buy, I don't know. You know perfectly well that hardly anybody is going to do that. > There are likely better ways to do that than shutting down the state's car business. Like what? You have to do something that gets people to notice enough to put pressure on the captured regulators.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Like what? Get the state's Congressional delegation to introduce a law that would explicitly protect state right to repair laws, taking it out of the regulators hands, moving the debate about cybersecurity claims vs right-to-repair to a different and more visible venue. Obviously, the State gov can't compel that, but if the right-to-repair rule is sufficiently popular with the state electorate, it should be easy to convince the State's representatives in Congress to push on the matter.
rebuilder 3y ago
Assuming A. Federal law takes precedent and B. Federal law indeed requires car manufacturers to keep some things secret, then it seems like they would have to stop selling cars in Massachusetts.
- mook 3y ago
  My understanding was that they can still sell cars without collecting all that data, and still satisfy both. You know, all that data they were hoping to make money on.
dragonwriter 3y ago
No, as long as federal law (including valid regulations ubder federal law) says no, they would be prohibited from complying and Massachusetts would have effectively banned cars from being registered.
- detourdog 3y ago
  I'm sure we could still register are cars we just couldn't leave the commonwealth in our cars.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I'm sure we could still register are cars Not if manufacturers are federally prohibited from complying with the requirements of your registration conditions; there won’t be anything qualified for you to register.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      I think it is a more of interstate commerce issue. We buy the cars make them legal to operate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and never use them outside the Commonwealth.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Wickard v. Fillburn (1942) says that's not how the Interstate Commerce power works.
        detourdog 3y ago
        Tell that to the cannabis is laws.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Tell that to the cannabis is laws. I would, but the US Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) already did; the current state of nonenforcement of federal prohibition agaimst state-authorized use isn't from a Constitutional limit due to the interstate commerce clause, but from a federal law adopted by Congress, specifically, an appropriations rider adopted in each spending bill since 2014 prohibiting DoJ from spending funds to enforce federal marijuana laws against certain acts whetr authorized by state law.
mfer 3y ago
The response from the NHTSA highlights an interesting mismatch... > The NHTSA said a malicious actor "could utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently." Yet, the Mass law is looking for... > allow independent repair shops to access diagnostic data that newer cars can send directly to dealers and manufacturers to allow consumers to seek repairs outside dealerships. It sounds like the same access to get data on the vehicles also allows control. For auto companies to comply with both laws could be possible but that it would require more fine grained access controls. Or, am I missing something?
- cwmma 3y ago
  I'd guess that to get enough access to repair the vehicle you might have to be able to send certain commands to turn off alerts or update part information. Now that would probably only be a problem if the current set up for most car manufactures is a binary is dealer then be able to do anything setup.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    But wouldn't that be trivially solved by only allowing such inputs via a physical interface (like say the physical OBD-II port) instead of Bluetooth or whatever they are using? Or if a physical socket is undesirable, at least a physical switch you have to use to allow such access?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Yes. That's why everyone is calling it regulatory capture. Right now they have a system where automakers granted themselves a dangerous and unreasonable level of remote access to cars that aren't theirs. Now they're claiming that it would be dangerous and unreasonable for third parties to have that level of remote access to cars that aren't theirs. No kidding. But you could easily have a system where a remote access server has to be authorized by the owner, e.g. by having to press a button inside the car while the key is present. And could be revoked by the owner in the same way. Then the car could be repaired by anyone... who is inside the car and has the key. Which is not only completely reasonable, it's more reasonable than the thing they're doing now.
judge2020 3y ago
Forced to not sell cars. Unless Massachusetts tries to play a game of "cars do not need to be certified under the FMVSS to be registered".
generalizations 3y ago
You're assuming Mass is important enough to be worth it. I'd guess it's more likely that Mass is the one that is forced to blink first.
- teeray 3y ago
  It's a good assumption. Massachusetts is part of the Northeast Megalopolis[0] (part of the reason Acela makes economic sense in this area), and almost 25% of the most populous cities comprising that area are in Massachusetts. I don't think the automakers would be quite so willing to sacrifice all those customers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by teeray 3y ago

CoastalCoder 3y ago

It sounds like that would become a game of chicken. For it to work, I'm guessing that additional states would need to join Massachusetts. Unfortunately, as we've seen with New York, that would probably be opposed by significant back-room sleaze.

acranox 3y ago

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/15/business/subaru-buyers-take-hit-mass-right-to-repair-fight/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/15/business/subaru-buyer... “ Subaru and another automaker, Kia, have been especially aggressive in resisting the law. While other companies are counting on a long-running federal lawsuit to overturn the statute, Kia and Subaru opted to shut off the features in their vehicles that are covered by the law.”

thatguy0900 3y ago
So in massechutses my car doesn't send any telemetry to the manufactorer or random dealerships, and can't receive remote signals to start, stop brake or turn on its own? Sounds like a pretty good win. Also rich hearing about security concerns coming from Kia at the moment.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> say “no car can be registered in the state of Massachusetts not in compliance with right-to-repair by 202X" I'm not familiar with Massachusetts politics. It's a game of chicken between Boston and the NHTSA (or Congress), not the automakers--they have to comply with the law.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
But the claim is that the federal law preempts the state one, which would be true if it's impossible comply with both at once. But you could comply with both at once by not selling cars in Massachusetts, couldn't you? At which point people are going to notice, and ask why, and when they learn the answer is that the NHTSA is captured by automakers, maybe the NHTSA would like to avoid this hit to their reputation more than the commonwealth of Massachusetts would like to avoid looking like it's standing up to Big Auto.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > you could comply with both at once by not selling cars in Massachusetts Massachussetts would be banning the registration of new cars. Manufacturers wouldn't have a choice because they can't comply with the Massachussetts law. Maybe consumers who don't want to register their cars will still buy, I don't know. It's a high-stakes gamble at pressuring the NHTSA. There are likely better ways to do that than shutting down the state's car business.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Maybe consumers who don't want to register their cars will still buy, I don't know. You know perfectly well that hardly anybody is going to do that. > There are likely better ways to do that than shutting down the state's car business. Like what? You have to do something that gets people to notice enough to put pressure on the captured regulators.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Like what? Get the state's Congressional delegation to introduce a law that would explicitly protect state right to repair laws, taking it out of the regulators hands, moving the debate about cybersecurity claims vs right-to-repair to a different and more visible venue. Obviously, the State gov can't compel that, but if the right-to-repair rule is sufficiently popular with the state electorate, it should be easy to convince the State's representatives in Congress to push on the matter.

rebuilder 3y ago

Assuming A. Federal law takes precedent and B. Federal law indeed requires car manufacturers to keep some things secret, then it seems like they would have to stop selling cars in Massachusetts.

mook 3y ago
My understanding was that they can still sell cars without collecting all that data, and still satisfy both. You know, all that data they were hoping to make money on.

dragonwriter 3y ago

No, as long as federal law (including valid regulations ubder federal law) says no, they would be prohibited from complying and Massachusetts would have effectively banned cars from being registered.

detourdog 3y ago
I'm sure we could still register are cars we just couldn't leave the commonwealth in our cars.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I'm sure we could still register are cars Not if manufacturers are federally prohibited from complying with the requirements of your registration conditions; there won’t be anything qualified for you to register.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    I think it is a more of interstate commerce issue. We buy the cars make them legal to operate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and never use them outside the Commonwealth.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Wickard v. Fillburn (1942) says that's not how the Interstate Commerce power works.
      - detourdog 3y ago
        Tell that to the cannabis is laws.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Tell that to the cannabis is laws. I would, but the US Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) already did; the current state of nonenforcement of federal prohibition agaimst state-authorized use isn't from a Constitutional limit due to the interstate commerce clause, but from a federal law adopted by Congress, specifically, an appropriations rider adopted in each spending bill since 2014 prohibiting DoJ from spending funds to enforce federal marijuana laws against certain acts whetr authorized by state law.

mfer 3y ago

The response from the NHTSA highlights an interesting mismatch... > The NHTSA said a malicious actor "could utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently." Yet, the Mass law is looking for... > allow independent repair shops to access diagnostic data that newer cars can send directly to dealers and manufacturers to allow consumers to seek repairs outside dealerships. It sounds like the same access to get data on the vehicles also allows control. For auto companies to comply with both laws could be possible but that it would require more fine grained access controls. Or, am I missing something?

cwmma 3y ago
I'd guess that to get enough access to repair the vehicle you might have to be able to send certain commands to turn off alerts or update part information. Now that would probably only be a problem if the current set up for most car manufactures is a binary is dealer then be able to do anything setup.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  But wouldn't that be trivially solved by only allowing such inputs via a physical interface (like say the physical OBD-II port) instead of Bluetooth or whatever they are using? Or if a physical socket is undesirable, at least a physical switch you have to use to allow such access?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Yes. That's why everyone is calling it regulatory capture. Right now they have a system where automakers granted themselves a dangerous and unreasonable level of remote access to cars that aren't theirs. Now they're claiming that it would be dangerous and unreasonable for third parties to have that level of remote access to cars that aren't theirs. No kidding. But you could easily have a system where a remote access server has to be authorized by the owner, e.g. by having to press a button inside the car while the key is present. And could be revoked by the owner in the same way. Then the car could be repaired by anyone... who is inside the car and has the key. Which is not only completely reasonable, it's more reasonable than the thing they're doing now.

judge2020 3y ago

Forced to not sell cars. Unless Massachusetts tries to play a game of "cars do not need to be certified under the FMVSS to be registered".

generalizations 3y ago

You're assuming Mass is important enough to be worth it. I'd guess it's more likely that Mass is the one that is forced to blink first.

teeray 3y ago
It's a good assumption. Massachusetts is part of the Northeast Megalopolis[0] (part of the reason Acela makes economic sense in this area), and almost 25% of the most populous cities comprising that area are in Massachusetts. I don't think the automakers would be quite so willing to sacrifice all those customers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]