4 ms·

This was my immediate reaction as well. I'm quite sure that their primary motivation (service fees aside) is avoiding the litigation minefield created by permit

by w4 12y ago

This was my immediate reaction as well. I'm quite sure that their primary motivation (service fees aside) is avoiding the litigation minefield created by permitting people to hack their cars and potentially make them unsafe.

aluhut 12y ago
Which you can do already without electronics. The whole justice system is broken if we have to take the stupidity of ridiculous cases in account to tame down technological progress.
- pyre 12y ago
  > Which you can do already without electronics. As is stated elsewhere, it's easier to determine that a physical part failed, and that it was not automaker-issued than to do the same with (e.g.) modified firmware. It's not like people are above attempting to hide the fact that they modified the firmware in order to win a lawsuit.
  - aluhut 12y ago
    But aren't they innocent until proven otherwise?
    - alricb 12y ago
      Not in civil trials, no. Well, they aren't "innocent", they are either liable or not, depending on the preponderance of evidence.
      - aluhut 12y ago
        I don't really understand that. How can you sue your car maker for some software fault, if you don't know it was one?
        pyre 12y ago
        You can sue anyone for anything. A judge can throw it out before an actual trial if there isn't enough evidence to even go to trial though.
        aluhut 12y ago
        So in the end you would have to come up with clear evidence for the failure.