5 ms·

Selling a car with intentional root access would almost certainly be illegal in the USA, and most places. Cars have government-mandated safety features, and ma

Selling a car with intentional root access would almost certainly be illegal in the USA, and most places. Cars have government-mandated safety features, and manufacturers are forbidden from adding kill switches. Selling a car with (manufacturer-sanctioned) root access would be legally the same as including a kill switch letting the owner disable safety features. If an owner cuts their brake light wires to flee the cops, it's 100% on them. If a manufacturer included a switch for it, they'd be in massive trouble.

mthomasmw 3y ago
Is there a list of "kill switches encoded in law autos can't make" somewhere? I know the vehicle data recorder, and I've heard that LTE radios have to report occupancy, though I can't find a requirement that cars need an LTE radio. There's rumors cars will be mandated to support remote deactivation, but the story is unclear: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fact-check-false-claim-bill-mandates-kill-switch-cars-police-drunk-driving/11066287002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fac... relevant: https://consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/KILL%20SWITCH%20%207-29-19.pdf https://consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/KIL...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
drdaeman 3y ago
It can be argued that root access is not any kind of switch on its own. You have physical access either way - cutting a wire or reprogramming a EEPROM is already a kill switch, root access doesn't add to it, as long as manufacturer doesn't provide a script or otherwise encourages you to `kill -9 safetyprocess` or something. Unless it's mandated by law that there must be anti-circumvention features (components checking system integrity, DRM-like), which root access would actually contradict. But that'd be completely different from prohibition to introduce a kill switch. That'd be a legal requirement that a vehicle or some of its parts mustn't be user-serviceable. Root access is not a way to break stuff, even though it can be (ab)used as such - it's most certainly not its primary use case. It's a maintenance feature, enabling rightful owner to be able to diagnose, maintain and enhance their own vehicle's software without resorting to hacks. I'm sure that most people would use that to tweak their multimedia console (like adding CarPlay support) or get more diagnostic info about some failure they're facing, not hack their engine control module in some illegal way.
- schiffern 3y ago
  You can argue to NHTSA, sure. Good luck. NHTSA forced Tesla to do a recall because the in-car computer allowed the owner to play custom audio on top of ("obscuring") the pedestrian warning tone.[0] If the in-car computer allowed them root access, NHTSA would have an aneurysm. > as long as manufacturer doesn't provide a script or otherwise encourages you to `kill -9 safetyprocess` or something. Doesn't matter. Scripts will be circulating online within days. If Tesla doesn't stop it, now they're knowingly complicit. Headlines will feature sympathetic low-knowledge users who followed directions, reasoning that it's safe because "why would Tesla let me do it otherwise??" Fin. -- A rooted car is a nice dream, but it's just a dream. We'll never be allowed to sell a (fully) rooted car, just like we can't sell a fully-rooted (w baseband) phone. The Wild West is over folks! Last round's on me... :) If we're very lucky, some manufacturer might give root access to a (heavily firewalled / air-gapped) media computer. [0] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCONL-22V235-2686.pdf https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCONL-22V235-2686.pdf
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - garyfirestorm 3y ago
    The issue in this particular case was ability to override pedestrian warning system. It is required to emit certain frequencies so (blind/or a pedestrian who is not visually attentive to their surroundings) can hear the vehicle coming (or going) Tesla made it a feature to allow users to mess with this requirement. However it goes without saying if users could play a tone of their choice in addition to the required noise, no one could have objected to it. The vehicle effectively became non compliant to one[1] of the fmvss rules [1]https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2016-0125-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2016-0125-0001
robbyt 3y ago
Citation needed. By this logic no part of a car would be legally serviceable by the owner.
loceng 3y ago
"If an owner cuts their brake light wires to flee the cops" Is this a tactic that people use to evade police? I can't really think of how this would be advantageous.
- schiffern 3y ago
  Aww, lucky! You're in for a great read. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ff-cannonballrun/ https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ff-cannonballrun/
  - airstrike 3y ago
    I'd read it, but eventually the ads took over the page and I was kicked outside of the paywall
    - speff 3y ago
      Reader mode on Firefox on the initial page load removed the paywall block for me.
dun44 3y ago
If your safety features could be disabled by root on a non-safety critical subsystem, it means your car is already unsafe by design.
123yawaworht456 3y ago
'you vill ovn nothing' went from being a conspiracy theory to reality remarkably quickly.
thejazzman 3y ago
By this logic we shouldn't be allowed to drive them either, considering that enables a user to commit murder if not mass murder ...although I expect that to actually be a law once self driving is figured out and widespread
- freejazz 3y ago
  Driving is a necessary feature of a car, having a switch to turn off the brake light function isn't. You sure it's logic that you are applying?

mthomasmw 3y ago

Is there a list of "kill switches encoded in law autos can't make" somewhere? I know the vehicle data recorder, and I've heard that LTE radios have to report occupancy, though I can't find a requirement that cars need an LTE radio. There's rumors cars will be mandated to support remote deactivation, but the story is unclear: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fact-check-false-claim-bill-mandates-kill-switch-cars-police-drunk-driving/11066287002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/19/fac... relevant: https://consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/KILL%20SWITCH%20%207-29-19.pdf https://consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/KIL...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

drdaeman 3y ago

It can be argued that root access is not any kind of switch on its own. You have physical access either way - cutting a wire or reprogramming a EEPROM is already a kill switch, root access doesn't add to it, as long as manufacturer doesn't provide a script or otherwise encourages you to `kill -9 safetyprocess` or something. Unless it's mandated by law that there must be anti-circumvention features (components checking system integrity, DRM-like), which root access would actually contradict. But that'd be completely different from prohibition to introduce a kill switch. That'd be a legal requirement that a vehicle or some of its parts mustn't be user-serviceable. Root access is not a way to break stuff, even though it can be (ab)used as such - it's most certainly not its primary use case. It's a maintenance feature, enabling rightful owner to be able to diagnose, maintain and enhance their own vehicle's software without resorting to hacks. I'm sure that most people would use that to tweak their multimedia console (like adding CarPlay support) or get more diagnostic info about some failure they're facing, not hack their engine control module in some illegal way.

schiffern 3y ago
You can argue to NHTSA, sure. Good luck. NHTSA forced Tesla to do a recall because the in-car computer allowed the owner to play custom audio on top of ("obscuring") the pedestrian warning tone.[0] If the in-car computer allowed them root access, NHTSA would have an aneurysm. > as long as manufacturer doesn't provide a script or otherwise encourages you to `kill -9 safetyprocess` or something. Doesn't matter. Scripts will be circulating online within days. If Tesla doesn't stop it, now they're knowingly complicit. Headlines will feature sympathetic low-knowledge users who followed directions, reasoning that it's safe because "why would Tesla let me do it otherwise??" Fin. -- A rooted car is a nice dream, but it's just a dream. We'll never be allowed to sell a (fully) rooted car, just like we can't sell a fully-rooted (w baseband) phone. The Wild West is over folks! Last round's on me... :) If we're very lucky, some manufacturer might give root access to a (heavily firewalled / air-gapped) media computer. [0] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCONL-22V235-2686.pdf https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCONL-22V235-2686.pdf
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- garyfirestorm 3y ago
  The issue in this particular case was ability to override pedestrian warning system. It is required to emit certain frequencies so (blind/or a pedestrian who is not visually attentive to their surroundings) can hear the vehicle coming (or going) Tesla made it a feature to allow users to mess with this requirement. However it goes without saying if users could play a tone of their choice in addition to the required noise, no one could have objected to it. The vehicle effectively became non compliant to one[1] of the fmvss rules [1]https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2016-0125-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2016-0125-0001

robbyt 3y ago

Citation needed. By this logic no part of a car would be legally serviceable by the owner.

loceng 3y ago

"If an owner cuts their brake light wires to flee the cops" Is this a tactic that people use to evade police? I can't really think of how this would be advantageous.

schiffern 3y ago
Aww, lucky! You're in for a great read. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ff-cannonballrun/ https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ff-cannonballrun/
- airstrike 3y ago
  I'd read it, but eventually the ads took over the page and I was kicked outside of the paywall
  - speff 3y ago
    Reader mode on Firefox on the initial page load removed the paywall block for me.

dun44 3y ago

If your safety features could be disabled by root on a non-safety critical subsystem, it means your car is already unsafe by design.

123yawaworht456 3y ago

'you vill ovn nothing' went from being a conspiracy theory to reality remarkably quickly.

thejazzman 3y ago

By this logic we shouldn't be allowed to drive them either, considering that enables a user to commit murder if not mass murder ...although I expect that to actually be a law once self driving is figured out and widespread

freejazz 3y ago
Driving is a necessary feature of a car, having a switch to turn off the brake light function isn't. You sure it's logic that you are applying?