5 ms·
The recall aligns with an ongoing software distribution that insulates connected vehicles from remote manipulation, which, if unauthorized, constitutes criminal
by tantalor 11y ago
The recall aligns with an ongoing software distribution that insulates connected vehicles from remote manipulation, which, if unauthorized, constitutes criminal action.
The WIRED story's hackers presumably were authorized by the vehicle's owner or operator, so the demo did not "constitute criminal action."
- latortuga 11y agoIf there are protection measures in place it could be a violation of DMCA, whether or not they had the owner's permission.
- privong 11y ago> The WIRED story's hackers presumably were authorized by the vehicle's owner or operator, so the demo did not "constitute criminal action." They were probably authorized by the driver, but car companies have argued that the driver does not "own" the software in the car, so I assume their claim of unauthorized access is predicated on the assumption that the car company still owns the software and that the car company did not authorize the access. I do not agree with the car company's stance on ownership, but that may be the origin of their claim.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe car company isn't claiming that the Wired hack was unauthorized. That paragraph is there to make it clear that the tampering is a significant action to take.
- tantalor 11y agoWIRED has another story about this question, http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ Supposedly the US Copyright Office will decide this month.
- justizin 11y agoI'm pretty sure it was /their/ Jeep.
- protomyth 11y agoDid the WIRED story demonstration take place on a public road with other cars around? [edit: viewing the video - yes they did - they should be charged with endangerment - someone could have been hurt rear ending the jeep]