14 ms·

Automakers Say You Don’t Really Own Your Car

392 points by nthitz 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Like you don't really own your iPhone? Yes, exactly like that.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Yep, we need legal rooting too.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    It's legal to root your iPhone/etc. However, the manufacturer is in no way obligated to make that easy or even possible.
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      Oh well. We should just have law that states that any device should have its boot keys changeable by its owner. Even if not able to root ios, you will still be able to run your own software on it (and device like iphone will be reversed engineered in days).
      - ctdonath 12y ago
        Why? The device is built and sold in a particular configuration, among other things attempting to ensure the user doesn't do things with the device which the manufacturer didn't intend but will likely get blamed for. (Ex.: user, on recommendation of friend, "jailbreaks" an iPhone and installs new software which is buggy/slow, resulting in user telling others how crappy the iPhone is - even though the problem isn't Apple's fault, and Apple took measures to prevent such changes from happening.) The hardware & software have a symbiotic relationship. Each must function within certain developed parameters to ensure the other can function within its specified parameters. That's how Apple can use lighter-weight & cheaper hardware yet get greater performance: both hardware & software are tuned together for optimized performance. Android, like Windows, is suffering from having to support unknown hardware. You're demanding that, under police power of the state (note that: you're threatening to arrest people for this), Apple explicitly allow/support software which Apple has absolutely no control over yet will get grief for when it sucks. Relevant to the original point: a car manufacturer doesn't want users patching in home-brew software which changes/breaks safety features. While such could be done with hardware, they're increasingly trying to do things to prevent those changes too (model-specific parts, hindering others from making & using inferior components).
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Depends on how broadly you interpret "etc." For example, iPads are not legal to jailbreak. Also, while jailbreaking an iPhone is legal, performing a carrier unlock without the carrier's permission is illegal. (This is all for the US. Other jurisdictions may and certainly do vary.)
      - zyx321 12y ago
        Do you actually own a carrier-locked phone though? It's not like a car that is owned by the bank for a few years until you pay it off, and then you get the title and keep driving it. A phone you buy on a 2 year contract is yours at the end of the contract. Then you get a new phone and give the old one to whoever in your family needs a new one, or just put it on ebay for fifty bux and change.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
kileywm 12y ago
The core automaker message I got out of this is: Automakers want to lock out consumers and unapproved mechanics from tinkering with vehicle software on the grounds that (1) they could purposefully or accidentally make the vehicle non-compliant with safety/emission standards, and (2) they could use the vehicle's computers to infringe copyright (presumably ripping streaming audio?), and (3) closed source = more difficult for malicious hacking of vehicles. There are already laws in place to deter all of the outcomes of these actions. To deter the action that might lead to unlawful action... sigh.
- larrys 12y ago
  "There are already laws in place to deter all of the outcomes of these actions." When have laws ever stopped bad actors? There are laws against breaking and entering, burglary and so on. Does that mean you don't lock your house or install an alarm system?
  - ploxiln 12y ago
    It does mean you don't use technical or legal measures to prevent people from having locksmiths fix or replace their door locks. You also don't outlaw locksmith tools, hammers and saws etc. (DMCA)
    - larrys 12y ago
      "to prevent people from having locksmiths fix or replace their door locks" In some places (quick check here, California as one example) locksmiths are required to be licensed: http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/locksmith_fact.shtml http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/locksmith_fact.shtml Also noting that there is a physical limitation to the harm that can be done if locksmith tools are sold. Both geographic and how the tool (which in not digital and has friction in distribution) is able to spread. Someone using locksmith tools will most certainly operate in one area. They can't work from the comfort of their bedroom and in most cases can't cover their tracks as easily as digital crime can be covered (and done from anywhere in the world).
larrys 12y ago
I strongly disagree with the eff. Safety trumps all and there simply isn't a compelling need (that I can think of) that requires the need to tinker with the auto software. All of the "arguably restricts vehicle inspection, repair, and modification" is just a red herring. "The reach of copyright law has expanded so far that it now threatens people's ability to repair their own cars and protect them against malware. Yesterday, EFF launched a legal campaign to fend off that threat." Can't even think that I have read any stories (so far) about malware having an impact on auto operation. Hard to believe that opening up the software won't result in something bad happening either.
- nickysielicki 12y ago
  Safety doesn't trump all. But that logic still doesn't hold up. If you care about safety you should want as many eyes on your cars code as possible. See the following computer bugs that caused safety problems: * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-10/honda-recalls-175-000-fit-vezel-hybrids-for-control-flaw http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-10/honda-reca... * http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-12b-hiding-deadly-unintended-acceleration/story?id=22972214 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-12b-hiding-deadly-u... there are dozens of other stories. If safety trumps all, we might as well ban people from changing their tires. If you don't use a torque wrench, you might find your wheel coming off on the freeway.
- thinkling 12y ago
  I think the key issue is whether tinkering with the software is materially different from tinkering with physical parts of the car like (say) installing new brake pads yourself.
- skj 12y ago
  My manufacturer wants to charge me $400/year to keep the built-in map system updated. It was a $3500 add-on when we bought the car originally. It sure would be nice if I could go in and put Google maps in there.
- Zikes 12y ago
  In the short term, they could easily use this to lock people out of being able to perform certain routine maintenance operations on their vehicles, forcing them to go to authorized dealers and paying exorbitant markups. In the long term, tires, filters, and brake pads could become proprietary in the same way as Keurig's K-Cups are now, though I imagine with more complex DRM.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
"Own" is such an overloaded term. What do you own when you own anything? It's almost always complicated! If you own a music album on compact disc then people say they own that album. But you aren't allowed to make copies of that disc. And you absolutely can't makes copies and then sell the copies. You can't even use that disc whenever and whereever you want. For example you can't play that disc through stadium speakers at a sporting event. Nor can you use host a concert and play parts of that album. You can't do it to mix with other music and you can't even play it directly. So again I say, own is such an overloaded term. I wish people used it far less than they do.
- dikaiosune 12y ago
  I would say instead that "own" is a diluted term. Most of the qualifications that apply to it are mostly the result of legal wrangling and the ambiguous property nature of information vs. physical items.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  You chose an example of copyright, which is the most complicated and controversial example you could have chosen, in order to make a claim about about the general idea of ownership. Why not choose one of the other 99% of things that we purchase? >But you aren't allowed to make copies of that disc. And you absolutely can't makes copies and then sell the copies. You can't even use that disc whenever and whereever you want. For example you can't play that disc through stadium speakers at a sporting event. Nor can you use host a concert and play parts of that album. You can't do it to mix with other music and you can't even play it directly. You can own a knife, but still not be allowed to stab people with it. That's materially different than owning a computer or car and not being able to look at the inside, modify it, or repair it.
- Htsthbjig 12y ago
  You CAN actually do all the things that you write down. But it has consequences depending on the law if you don't have a license to do it. Some of the things you say, like making copies of my own disc is totally legal in countries like Spain. It is illegal to distribute them. In fact, in a democracy if more than 50% per cent of the people consider that they could do something, they can do it, think on the Prohibition. If those in power reject the majority, they could be kicked out.
bane 12y ago
You know, I'd be okay with that if I no longer had to pay property tax, insurance, maintenance, fuel and other costs on the vehicles I no longer owned and instead that burden fell to the automakers.
nhebb 12y ago
Do cars actually run much software? I would think that most of the computing was done via firmware.
- Nursie 12y ago
  Firmware generally is software isn't it?
  - Nursie 12y ago
    On a slightly less sarcastic note - engine control software is pretty common now. Many also have proprietary GPS and entertainment systems built in, and some cars now even have stuff that interacts with android, allowing it to talk to some of the cars systems and function as an external display. Plus, I reckon there's probably a whole bunch of code in a Tesla.
  - nhebb 12y ago
    I think the downvoters are missing my point. By definition, firmware is read-only software, so I was asking sure what (potentially modifiable) software the EFF is referring to.
    - Nursie 12y ago
      Is it? I'm not saying it's not, I haven't even looked up a definition, but I do know I've written firmware update code before... I think the way the term gets used is probably a little blurry... My car, for instance, is a bit old. It has some sort of ARM device in it running a proprietary GPS system. There is an update mechanism that can be triggered when you put a new DVD full of map data into the drive in the trunk. This updates the stuff that runs the ICE as well as the GPS. I would be very concerned if it had anything to do with engine-control I suppose.
      - nhebb 12y ago
        Maybe I'm being myopic as far as the definition of firmware. I've never heard of a firmware update for a car, but if it's not happening already, it'll probably be part of the regularly scheduled maintenance in the future.
stolio 12y ago
I generally agree with the EFF, I'd even say I'm a fan, but I disagree on this one. TL;DR == "tough" Regulations can be bad, they can stifle innovation, enforce inequality, maintain awful power structures, etc. But, they can also save lives. In America there are a million things you can't do because they infringe on the safety of others. At an abstract level, an automobile is 3,000 lbs. of metal holding 10 gallons of gasoline that carries human beings through public spaces at up to ~70mph. It travels through neighborhoods where children live and play at up to 25mph. It's a mixture of chemical, mechanical, computing and electrical systems that an engineer needs about 10 years of study to be able to handle after they get to engineering school. Even then they'll specialize. Car enthusiasts simply don't have the skills to merit carte blanche access to mess around with cars that drive on public roads. In general, they probably don't even have the skills necessary to evaluate their skills which is what makes this so dangerous. Tinkering with a mechanical system like your brakes is very different from tinkering with a computing system that through an electrical system is controlling the mechanical system that is your brakes. That's orders of magnitude of new complexity. Do you really think the average car-guy will understand the bugfix, written in optimized C or assembly, that accounts for how a certain transistor behaves above 200 degrees Fahrenheit? To be clear, these laws aren't to protect anybody from their own stupidity, they protect the rest of us. If you do have the skills to tinker at this level then you're free to use them in race cars that aren't street-legal.
- mubhij 12y ago
  I don't think that tinkering with mechanical systems and electrical systems is that much different. If you don't understand how the brakes work, you probably shouldn't tinker with them anyways. The same goes for any other system of the car including electrical systems. There is potential for fraud, however, by playing with the odometer etc. But that potential has existed ever since odometers began their use and they have actually become more secure. That being said, this should be firmware anyways and very hard to modify for the average or even above average person.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  The EFF isn't against regulations on cars. They're against companies using the DMCA to restrict access. There are no regulations - that's precisely the point of the article.
miander 12y ago
My honest opinion here is that almost everyone is completely missing a crucial point. Nearly all of the reasons given for locking people out of modifying their cars apply equally to cars without computers. Changing the odometer? It's far easier to do that on a car with a mechanical odometer. Making the vehicle non-emissions compliant? Nobody used the DMCA to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to remove their catalytic converters. All of this has been fought for far longer than computers have existed. People have been successfully fooled into thinking that this is a new situation, when technology is only being used to prop up an ancient ideology. Very frustrating indeed!
- stolio 12y ago
  The new artificial boundaries are only recreating the natural boundaries from before. If you wanted to boost your fuel/air ratio in 1965 you had to open your hood and take apart your carburetor, that keeps most people out of it. Now we're talking about downloading iPhone apps that promise 10% more speed and the only technical challenge is aligning your car's USB plug with your phone. And then hitting the big green button labeled "GO FASTER!"
  - Gracana 12y ago
    > Now we're talking about downloading iPhone apps that promise 10% more speed That doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard of. Many manufacturers require expensive subscriptions to access service manuals and programming software.[1] The average person (and even a lot of small-time mechanics) doesn't have access to those resources. [1] http://www.nastf.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3291 http://www.nastf.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3291
    - stolio 12y ago
      You haven't heard of it because it's too stupid and dangerous to allow to happen. But it's a natural consequence of car ownership including read-write access to its computers.
      - 12y ago
diminoten 12y ago
And its titles and articles like this which prevent me from send a dime to the EFF. Automakers aren't trying to take ownership of my car away from me. This is linkbait... no, it's donationbait, and as long as the EFF keeps this up, they get nothing from me, and they should get nothing from you, either.
- bhayden 12y ago
  This is a little overly black and white in my opinion. Yes, the EFF is not flawless in their articles and writing. They have written questionable things before and I don't always agree with what they say. Regardless, they are a huge force for the rights of every day Americans and I think our rights would be tremendously eroded without them. This is why I donate.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    The ACLU is a better/bigger force, I would argue. The EFF actively misrepresents and lies about issues to convince folks to give them money. It's just too blatant, and they represent themselves as technically savvy, so even if it's unintentional, I can't forgive them for those kinds of errors.
sgustard 12y ago
When we have self-driving cars will we still expect to hack on the software? I really feel my pedestrian avoidance is too sensitive, let's tighten that up a little. And I want to win all four-way stops!
- tdaltonc 12y ago
  I think that you should be allowed to hack your self driving car. But you should have to submit the compiled code to the NHTSA and your insurance agent so that they can run it through a bunch of black box simulations to determine if it's street legal and how much to charge you per mile.
  - wstrange 12y ago
    This sounds possible in theory, but difficult in practice. Designing a test suite that catches all possible life-critical errors is near impossible. The cost of testing and certification will probably be quite high, well outside the reach of amateurs. Just as we advise people not to write their own crypto (its easy to get wrong), I think the same will hold for safety critical software. All that being said, I think it is very important that this software is open source.
    - juliangregorian 12y ago
      I'd love for it to be open source (and I do believe that would be the safest for all), but you know as well as I do that's not the world we live in. The safety code is going to become a feature/price differentiator/trade secret that car companies live and die by.
seccess 12y ago
"They warn that owners with the freedom to inspect and modify code will be capable of violating a wide range of laws and harming themselves and others." This argument is a bit silly, given how many laws can be broken and how much harm can be done by anyone behind the wheel of an automobile, regardless of how it has been modified.
- bougiefever 12y ago
  Fear mongering is what it is. If average people who don't know how to read code can be frightened into submission, they can do whatever they want.
cakeface 12y ago
Who is going to start publishing open source car firmware? I imagine that putting something together that would run some of the newer cars would actually be quite difficult. I'm guessing that writing enough software to just get a Tesla to turn on safely and pull out of the garage will be quite an undertaking. I can see a huge benefit from having FOSS versions of car firmware in the future. It could be especially important if you don't agree with your manufacturers choice of ethics for automatic driving (See the AI Tunnel Problem). http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-kill-who-should-pick-the-victim/ http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-k...
- greglindahl 12y ago
  People write html5/JavaScript code that runs on the web browser in the Tesla entertainment 17" touchscreen. Much simpler than actual firmware, of course, but that's the situation today.
- CHY872 12y ago
  Probably never. The amount of software that your car runs will easily stretch into the millions of lines of code, it's incredibly complicated and the combined efforts of thousands of programmers. Then, insurers wouldn't insure you on some software, which would mean that you'd be illegal to drive your car in many countries.
EliRivers 12y ago
I recall that it's common to make one kind of processor, and deliberately cripple them to varying degrees to ensure you can sell to every price point without having to go through the extra expense of making a range of processors. The analogy with car engines, I presume, is to make one kind of car engine, and to use the electronic control system to present a range of performances to the consumer market, without having to go to the expense of actually making different engines. Does this already happen, or is it yet to come?
- Zak 12y ago
  It's not common yet. Usually, the higher-performance version has hardware differences involving either more expensive materials, a more expensive manufacturing process or greater mechanical complexity. I did notice a possible example though: the Volkswagen Crafter, a full-size van popular in Europe has 5-cylinder turbocharged diesel engines in several different power ratings. I'm fairly confident they're mechanically identical and just have different maximum boost settings for the turbocharger, though they may have different sizes of turbocharger.
- aunty_helen 12y ago
  As Zak mentioned it does happen to some degree in the Euro market. There's little difference (sometimes only ECU configuration) between some of the high end and performance Volvos. It is a difficult thing to do though because high performance parts often come at the cost of price, fuel economy, reliability and usability. Using the performance variant turbocharger across a line of cars and setting the ECU to a lower boost would result in the lower spec ones having overly expensive parts that boost at the wrong rev range resulting in worse fuel economy and engine response.
cynus_a 12y ago
Well, if they're interested in selling more cars, I'm in the market for a car that I can diagnose, repair and customize via a usb connection to my laptop. There's an aversion to transparency in a lot of software stuff because you can't prevent people from stealing your hard-earned work, but in giving your customers more accessibility you'll have an immediate edge in the car market, which, after all, is how you make money.
Zigurd 12y ago
Before you go down the path of "Would you want people altering the way their autonomous vehicle works?" consider that it's already too late. There is open source software for a variety of autonomous self-propelled robots, land vehicles, and aircraft. Why hasn't a problem manifested already, when I can build a drone, download software for it, and tweak it all I want? It's because very few people do that. And vanishingly few do it will ill intent. I'm sure that 15 years form now there will be a true crime show about someone who programmed their car to run over their spouse. (It's always the spouse.) But that shouldn't be an excuse to stifle the thousands of beneficial results from hacking automotive systems that will come about from people satisfying their curiosity about what's on the CAN bus.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
solomatov 12y ago
IMO, we should separate two things: * Ability to modify firmware of your own car. * Ability to inspect and review code in the car. The first one is dangerous, imagine someone who wanted to improve ABS but didn't do testings, and this led to a crash. Or, if we consider, more intelligent self driving cars, possibilities for abuse, etc, are enormous. The second one is discussable. On one hand, we want to make cars as safe as possible, and there's no better way for this, than inspecting code. On the other hand, the company wants to protect their intellectual properties from competitors.
jordigh 12y ago
Hahaha, remember when we always made car analogies about how we could use or modify software? https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-car-analogy https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-car-analogy They're no longer analogies! They're the literal truth! This is very sadly funny. :-( :-/ :-)
spiritplumber 12y ago
So do I get to bill them for parking fees on my property?
lizzard 12y ago
This applies as well to mobility devices like powerchairs and scooters and other things like motorized beds that change your position. Without the service manuals, it can be very hard to fix these.
robgibbons 12y ago
As much as I am pro-FOSS, don't vehicle manufacturers have a right to copyright protection too? Why should vehicle computers be somehow different from other computers, which we allow to run proprietary code? I guess my point is that, even being a FOSS advocate and pro-DIY, I don't see why car makers should be compelled to hand over their code, unless of course they're already using GPLed or similar OSS code. Troubleshooting diagrams would be reasonable to ask for, or perhaps some documentation of the protocols used. But demanding that a company release their source code because you essentially feel entitled to it is pushing the buck if you ask me.
zz1 12y ago
We don't have cars anymore; we have computers we ride in. […] So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests. Cory Doctorow, http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sehugg 12y ago
"Right to Repair" laws have been in the works (and opposed by the auto industry) for at least 15 years and recently passed by Massachusetts. One goal is to level the playing field between dealers and independent shops by forcing manufacturers to give up technical info, part of that being the interface with computer systems. I'm not sure if the law mentions software modification at all, but it sounds like a court battle waiting to happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_to_Repair_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_t...
sebastianconcpt 12y ago
Is not that I don't like smart cars, the problem is that they allow a transfer of control from who's supposed to be the owner to institutions and hackers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jstaBeXgAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jstaBeXgAs Lets say that by a surreal act of good software engineering, you get rid of the hackers problem, what are the odds of getting rid of corruptible institutions?

392 points by nthitz 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Like you don't really own your iPhone? Yes, exactly like that.

venomsnake 12y ago
Yep, we need legal rooting too.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  It's legal to root your iPhone/etc. However, the manufacturer is in no way obligated to make that easy or even possible.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Oh well. We should just have law that states that any device should have its boot keys changeable by its owner. Even if not able to root ios, you will still be able to run your own software on it (and device like iphone will be reversed engineered in days).
    - ctdonath 12y ago
      Why? The device is built and sold in a particular configuration, among other things attempting to ensure the user doesn't do things with the device which the manufacturer didn't intend but will likely get blamed for. (Ex.: user, on recommendation of friend, "jailbreaks" an iPhone and installs new software which is buggy/slow, resulting in user telling others how crappy the iPhone is - even though the problem isn't Apple's fault, and Apple took measures to prevent such changes from happening.) The hardware & software have a symbiotic relationship. Each must function within certain developed parameters to ensure the other can function within its specified parameters. That's how Apple can use lighter-weight & cheaper hardware yet get greater performance: both hardware & software are tuned together for optimized performance. Android, like Windows, is suffering from having to support unknown hardware. You're demanding that, under police power of the state (note that: you're threatening to arrest people for this), Apple explicitly allow/support software which Apple has absolutely no control over yet will get grief for when it sucks. Relevant to the original point: a car manufacturer doesn't want users patching in home-brew software which changes/breaks safety features. While such could be done with hardware, they're increasingly trying to do things to prevent those changes too (model-specific parts, hindering others from making & using inferior components).
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Depends on how broadly you interpret "etc." For example, iPads are not legal to jailbreak. Also, while jailbreaking an iPhone is legal, performing a carrier unlock without the carrier's permission is illegal. (This is all for the US. Other jurisdictions may and certainly do vary.)
    - zyx321 12y ago
      Do you actually own a carrier-locked phone though? It's not like a car that is owned by the bank for a few years until you pay it off, and then you get the title and keep driving it. A phone you buy on a 2 year contract is yours at the end of the contract. Then you get a new phone and give the old one to whoever in your family needs a new one, or just put it on ebay for fifty bux and change.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

kileywm 12y ago

The core automaker message I got out of this is: Automakers want to lock out consumers and unapproved mechanics from tinkering with vehicle software on the grounds that (1) they could purposefully or accidentally make the vehicle non-compliant with safety/emission standards, and (2) they could use the vehicle's computers to infringe copyright (presumably ripping streaming audio?), and (3) closed source = more difficult for malicious hacking of vehicles. There are already laws in place to deter all of the outcomes of these actions. To deter the action that might lead to unlawful action... sigh.

larrys 12y ago
"There are already laws in place to deter all of the outcomes of these actions." When have laws ever stopped bad actors? There are laws against breaking and entering, burglary and so on. Does that mean you don't lock your house or install an alarm system?
- ploxiln 12y ago
  It does mean you don't use technical or legal measures to prevent people from having locksmiths fix or replace their door locks. You also don't outlaw locksmith tools, hammers and saws etc. (DMCA)
  - larrys 12y ago
    "to prevent people from having locksmiths fix or replace their door locks" In some places (quick check here, California as one example) locksmiths are required to be licensed: http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/locksmith_fact.shtml http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/locksmith_fact.shtml Also noting that there is a physical limitation to the harm that can be done if locksmith tools are sold. Both geographic and how the tool (which in not digital and has friction in distribution) is able to spread. Someone using locksmith tools will most certainly operate in one area. They can't work from the comfort of their bedroom and in most cases can't cover their tracks as easily as digital crime can be covered (and done from anywhere in the world).

larrys 12y ago

I strongly disagree with the eff. Safety trumps all and there simply isn't a compelling need (that I can think of) that requires the need to tinker with the auto software. All of the "arguably restricts vehicle inspection, repair, and modification" is just a red herring. "The reach of copyright law has expanded so far that it now threatens people's ability to repair their own cars and protect them against malware. Yesterday, EFF launched a legal campaign to fend off that threat." Can't even think that I have read any stories (so far) about malware having an impact on auto operation. Hard to believe that opening up the software won't result in something bad happening either.

nickysielicki 12y ago
Safety doesn't trump all. But that logic still doesn't hold up. If you care about safety you should want as many eyes on your cars code as possible. See the following computer bugs that caused safety problems: * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-10/honda-recalls-175-000-fit-vezel-hybrids-for-control-flaw http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-10/honda-reca... * http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-12b-hiding-deadly-unintended-acceleration/story?id=22972214 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-12b-hiding-deadly-u... there are dozens of other stories. If safety trumps all, we might as well ban people from changing their tires. If you don't use a torque wrench, you might find your wheel coming off on the freeway.
thinkling 12y ago
I think the key issue is whether tinkering with the software is materially different from tinkering with physical parts of the car like (say) installing new brake pads yourself.
skj 12y ago
My manufacturer wants to charge me $400/year to keep the built-in map system updated. It was a $3500 add-on when we bought the car originally. It sure would be nice if I could go in and put Google maps in there.
Zikes 12y ago
In the short term, they could easily use this to lock people out of being able to perform certain routine maintenance operations on their vehicles, forcing them to go to authorized dealers and paying exorbitant markups. In the long term, tires, filters, and brake pads could become proprietary in the same way as Keurig's K-Cups are now, though I imagine with more complex DRM.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

"Own" is such an overloaded term. What do you own when you own anything? It's almost always complicated! If you own a music album on compact disc then people say they own that album. But you aren't allowed to make copies of that disc. And you absolutely can't makes copies and then sell the copies. You can't even use that disc whenever and whereever you want. For example you can't play that disc through stadium speakers at a sporting event. Nor can you use host a concert and play parts of that album. You can't do it to mix with other music and you can't even play it directly. So again I say, own is such an overloaded term. I wish people used it far less than they do.

dikaiosune 12y ago
I would say instead that "own" is a diluted term. Most of the qualifications that apply to it are mostly the result of legal wrangling and the ambiguous property nature of information vs. physical items.
pessimizer 12y ago
You chose an example of copyright, which is the most complicated and controversial example you could have chosen, in order to make a claim about about the general idea of ownership. Why not choose one of the other 99% of things that we purchase? >But you aren't allowed to make copies of that disc. And you absolutely can't makes copies and then sell the copies. You can't even use that disc whenever and whereever you want. For example you can't play that disc through stadium speakers at a sporting event. Nor can you use host a concert and play parts of that album. You can't do it to mix with other music and you can't even play it directly. You can own a knife, but still not be allowed to stab people with it. That's materially different than owning a computer or car and not being able to look at the inside, modify it, or repair it.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
You CAN actually do all the things that you write down. But it has consequences depending on the law if you don't have a license to do it. Some of the things you say, like making copies of my own disc is totally legal in countries like Spain. It is illegal to distribute them. In fact, in a democracy if more than 50% per cent of the people consider that they could do something, they can do it, think on the Prohibition. If those in power reject the majority, they could be kicked out.

bane 12y ago

You know, I'd be okay with that if I no longer had to pay property tax, insurance, maintenance, fuel and other costs on the vehicles I no longer owned and instead that burden fell to the automakers.

nhebb 12y ago

Do cars actually run much software? I would think that most of the computing was done via firmware.

Nursie 12y ago
Firmware generally is software isn't it?
- Nursie 12y ago
  On a slightly less sarcastic note - engine control software is pretty common now. Many also have proprietary GPS and entertainment systems built in, and some cars now even have stuff that interacts with android, allowing it to talk to some of the cars systems and function as an external display. Plus, I reckon there's probably a whole bunch of code in a Tesla.
- nhebb 12y ago
  I think the downvoters are missing my point. By definition, firmware is read-only software, so I was asking sure what (potentially modifiable) software the EFF is referring to.
  - Nursie 12y ago
    Is it? I'm not saying it's not, I haven't even looked up a definition, but I do know I've written firmware update code before... I think the way the term gets used is probably a little blurry... My car, for instance, is a bit old. It has some sort of ARM device in it running a proprietary GPS system. There is an update mechanism that can be triggered when you put a new DVD full of map data into the drive in the trunk. This updates the stuff that runs the ICE as well as the GPS. I would be very concerned if it had anything to do with engine-control I suppose.
    - nhebb 12y ago
      Maybe I'm being myopic as far as the definition of firmware. I've never heard of a firmware update for a car, but if it's not happening already, it'll probably be part of the regularly scheduled maintenance in the future.

stolio 12y ago

I generally agree with the EFF, I'd even say I'm a fan, but I disagree on this one. TL;DR == "tough" Regulations can be bad, they can stifle innovation, enforce inequality, maintain awful power structures, etc. But, they can also save lives. In America there are a million things you can't do because they infringe on the safety of others. At an abstract level, an automobile is 3,000 lbs. of metal holding 10 gallons of gasoline that carries human beings through public spaces at up to ~70mph. It travels through neighborhoods where children live and play at up to 25mph. It's a mixture of chemical, mechanical, computing and electrical systems that an engineer needs about 10 years of study to be able to handle after they get to engineering school. Even then they'll specialize. Car enthusiasts simply don't have the skills to merit carte blanche access to mess around with cars that drive on public roads. In general, they probably don't even have the skills necessary to evaluate their skills which is what makes this so dangerous. Tinkering with a mechanical system like your brakes is very different from tinkering with a computing system that through an electrical system is controlling the mechanical system that is your brakes. That's orders of magnitude of new complexity. Do you really think the average car-guy will understand the bugfix, written in optimized C or assembly, that accounts for how a certain transistor behaves above 200 degrees Fahrenheit? To be clear, these laws aren't to protect anybody from their own stupidity, they protect the rest of us. If you do have the skills to tinker at this level then you're free to use them in race cars that aren't street-legal.

mubhij 12y ago
I don't think that tinkering with mechanical systems and electrical systems is that much different. If you don't understand how the brakes work, you probably shouldn't tinker with them anyways. The same goes for any other system of the car including electrical systems. There is potential for fraud, however, by playing with the odometer etc. But that potential has existed ever since odometers began their use and they have actually become more secure. That being said, this should be firmware anyways and very hard to modify for the average or even above average person.
MichaelGG 12y ago
The EFF isn't against regulations on cars. They're against companies using the DMCA to restrict access. There are no regulations - that's precisely the point of the article.

miander 12y ago

My honest opinion here is that almost everyone is completely missing a crucial point. Nearly all of the reasons given for locking people out of modifying their cars apply equally to cars without computers. Changing the odometer? It's far easier to do that on a car with a mechanical odometer. Making the vehicle non-emissions compliant? Nobody used the DMCA to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to remove their catalytic converters. All of this has been fought for far longer than computers have existed. People have been successfully fooled into thinking that this is a new situation, when technology is only being used to prop up an ancient ideology. Very frustrating indeed!

stolio 12y ago
The new artificial boundaries are only recreating the natural boundaries from before. If you wanted to boost your fuel/air ratio in 1965 you had to open your hood and take apart your carburetor, that keeps most people out of it. Now we're talking about downloading iPhone apps that promise 10% more speed and the only technical challenge is aligning your car's USB plug with your phone. And then hitting the big green button labeled "GO FASTER!"
- Gracana 12y ago
  > Now we're talking about downloading iPhone apps that promise 10% more speed That doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard of. Many manufacturers require expensive subscriptions to access service manuals and programming software.[1] The average person (and even a lot of small-time mechanics) doesn't have access to those resources. [1] http://www.nastf.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3291 http://www.nastf.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3291
  - stolio 12y ago
    You haven't heard of it because it's too stupid and dangerous to allow to happen. But it's a natural consequence of car ownership including read-write access to its computers.
    - 12y ago

diminoten 12y ago

And its titles and articles like this which prevent me from send a dime to the EFF. Automakers aren't trying to take ownership of my car away from me. This is linkbait... no, it's donationbait, and as long as the EFF keeps this up, they get nothing from me, and they should get nothing from you, either.

bhayden 12y ago
This is a little overly black and white in my opinion. Yes, the EFF is not flawless in their articles and writing. They have written questionable things before and I don't always agree with what they say. Regardless, they are a huge force for the rights of every day Americans and I think our rights would be tremendously eroded without them. This is why I donate.
- diminoten 12y ago
  The ACLU is a better/bigger force, I would argue. The EFF actively misrepresents and lies about issues to convince folks to give them money. It's just too blatant, and they represent themselves as technically savvy, so even if it's unintentional, I can't forgive them for those kinds of errors.

sgustard 12y ago

When we have self-driving cars will we still expect to hack on the software? I really feel my pedestrian avoidance is too sensitive, let's tighten that up a little. And I want to win all four-way stops!

tdaltonc 12y ago
I think that you should be allowed to hack your self driving car. But you should have to submit the compiled code to the NHTSA and your insurance agent so that they can run it through a bunch of black box simulations to determine if it's street legal and how much to charge you per mile.
- wstrange 12y ago
  This sounds possible in theory, but difficult in practice. Designing a test suite that catches all possible life-critical errors is near impossible. The cost of testing and certification will probably be quite high, well outside the reach of amateurs. Just as we advise people not to write their own crypto (its easy to get wrong), I think the same will hold for safety critical software. All that being said, I think it is very important that this software is open source.
  - juliangregorian 12y ago
    I'd love for it to be open source (and I do believe that would be the safest for all), but you know as well as I do that's not the world we live in. The safety code is going to become a feature/price differentiator/trade secret that car companies live and die by.

seccess 12y ago

"They warn that owners with the freedom to inspect and modify code will be capable of violating a wide range of laws and harming themselves and others." This argument is a bit silly, given how many laws can be broken and how much harm can be done by anyone behind the wheel of an automobile, regardless of how it has been modified.

bougiefever 12y ago
Fear mongering is what it is. If average people who don't know how to read code can be frightened into submission, they can do whatever they want.

cakeface 12y ago

Who is going to start publishing open source car firmware? I imagine that putting something together that would run some of the newer cars would actually be quite difficult. I'm guessing that writing enough software to just get a Tesla to turn on safely and pull out of the garage will be quite an undertaking. I can see a huge benefit from having FOSS versions of car firmware in the future. It could be especially important if you don't agree with your manufacturers choice of ethics for automatic driving (See the AI Tunnel Problem). http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-kill-who-should-pick-the-victim/ http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-k...

greglindahl 12y ago
People write html5/JavaScript code that runs on the web browser in the Tesla entertainment 17" touchscreen. Much simpler than actual firmware, of course, but that's the situation today.
CHY872 12y ago
Probably never. The amount of software that your car runs will easily stretch into the millions of lines of code, it's incredibly complicated and the combined efforts of thousands of programmers. Then, insurers wouldn't insure you on some software, which would mean that you'd be illegal to drive your car in many countries.

EliRivers 12y ago

I recall that it's common to make one kind of processor, and deliberately cripple them to varying degrees to ensure you can sell to every price point without having to go through the extra expense of making a range of processors. The analogy with car engines, I presume, is to make one kind of car engine, and to use the electronic control system to present a range of performances to the consumer market, without having to go to the expense of actually making different engines. Does this already happen, or is it yet to come?

Zak 12y ago
It's not common yet. Usually, the higher-performance version has hardware differences involving either more expensive materials, a more expensive manufacturing process or greater mechanical complexity. I did notice a possible example though: the Volkswagen Crafter, a full-size van popular in Europe has 5-cylinder turbocharged diesel engines in several different power ratings. I'm fairly confident they're mechanically identical and just have different maximum boost settings for the turbocharger, though they may have different sizes of turbocharger.
aunty_helen 12y ago
As Zak mentioned it does happen to some degree in the Euro market. There's little difference (sometimes only ECU configuration) between some of the high end and performance Volvos. It is a difficult thing to do though because high performance parts often come at the cost of price, fuel economy, reliability and usability. Using the performance variant turbocharger across a line of cars and setting the ECU to a lower boost would result in the lower spec ones having overly expensive parts that boost at the wrong rev range resulting in worse fuel economy and engine response.

cynus_a 12y ago

Well, if they're interested in selling more cars, I'm in the market for a car that I can diagnose, repair and customize via a usb connection to my laptop. There's an aversion to transparency in a lot of software stuff because you can't prevent people from stealing your hard-earned work, but in giving your customers more accessibility you'll have an immediate edge in the car market, which, after all, is how you make money.

Zigurd 12y ago

Before you go down the path of "Would you want people altering the way their autonomous vehicle works?" consider that it's already too late. There is open source software for a variety of autonomous self-propelled robots, land vehicles, and aircraft. Why hasn't a problem manifested already, when I can build a drone, download software for it, and tweak it all I want? It's because very few people do that. And vanishingly few do it will ill intent. I'm sure that 15 years form now there will be a true crime show about someone who programmed their car to run over their spouse. (It's always the spouse.) But that shouldn't be an excuse to stifle the thousands of beneficial results from hacking automotive systems that will come about from people satisfying their curiosity about what's on the CAN bus.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

solomatov 12y ago

IMO, we should separate two things: * Ability to modify firmware of your own car. * Ability to inspect and review code in the car. The first one is dangerous, imagine someone who wanted to improve ABS but didn't do testings, and this led to a crash. Or, if we consider, more intelligent self driving cars, possibilities for abuse, etc, are enormous. The second one is discussable. On one hand, we want to make cars as safe as possible, and there's no better way for this, than inspecting code. On the other hand, the company wants to protect their intellectual properties from competitors.

jordigh 12y ago

Hahaha, remember when we always made car analogies about how we could use or modify software? https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-car-analogy https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-car-analogy They're no longer analogies! They're the literal truth! This is very sadly funny. :-( :-/ :-)

spiritplumber 12y ago

So do I get to bill them for parking fees on my property?

lizzard 12y ago

This applies as well to mobility devices like powerchairs and scooters and other things like motorized beds that change your position. Without the service manuals, it can be very hard to fix these.

robgibbons 12y ago

As much as I am pro-FOSS, don't vehicle manufacturers have a right to copyright protection too? Why should vehicle computers be somehow different from other computers, which we allow to run proprietary code? I guess my point is that, even being a FOSS advocate and pro-DIY, I don't see why car makers should be compelled to hand over their code, unless of course they're already using GPLed or similar OSS code. Troubleshooting diagrams would be reasonable to ask for, or perhaps some documentation of the protocols used. But demanding that a company release their source code because you essentially feel entitled to it is pushing the buck if you ask me.

zz1 12y ago

We don't have cars anymore; we have computers we ride in. […] So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests. Cory Doctorow, http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sehugg 12y ago

"Right to Repair" laws have been in the works (and opposed by the auto industry) for at least 15 years and recently passed by Massachusetts. One goal is to level the playing field between dealers and independent shops by forcing manufacturers to give up technical info, part of that being the interface with computer systems. I'm not sure if the law mentions software modification at all, but it sounds like a court battle waiting to happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_to_Repair_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicle_Owners%27_Right_t...

sebastianconcpt 12y ago

Is not that I don't like smart cars, the problem is that they allow a transfer of control from who's supposed to be the owner to institutions and hackers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jstaBeXgAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jstaBeXgAs Lets say that by a surreal act of good software engineering, you get rid of the hackers problem, what are the odds of getting rid of corruptible institutions?