Automakers Say You Don’t Really Own Your Car and you might pirate music, therefore you should not be able to fix your own car

[Syntaxvgm]

EFF is fighting for vehicle owners’ rights to inspect the code that runs their vehicles and to repair and modify their vehicles, or have a mechanic of their choice do the work. At the moment, the anti-circumvention prohibition in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act arguably restricts vehicle inspection, repair, and modification. If EFF is successful then vehicle owners will be free to inspect and tinker, as long as they don’t run afoul of other regulations, such as those governing vehicle emissions, safety, or copyright law.

 

John Deere even argued that letting people modify car computer systems will result in thempirating music through the on-board entertainment system, which would be one of the more convoluted ways to copy media (and the exemption process doesn’t authorize copyright infringement, anyway).

So short is, well, they say you might screw your car up, or by god think of the children, pirate music as if that doesn't already happen. And you don't own your car apparently. Plus you are not even allowed to look at the code because

 

They say no one should be allowed to even look at the code without the manufacturer's permission because letting the public learn how cars work could help malicious hackers, "third-party software developers" (the horror!), and competitors.

NOW, before you say this is rediculous, remember that george hotz was sued like 65m$ by Sony for siguring out how his own ps3 worked, posting modified code with extra protecitons to prevent game piracy. Since other modders figured out from his findings how to make cfw that allowed game bootlegging, and the PSN got hacked even though that was not related, they sued him for, get this, a TOS violation. 

So I wouldn't blow this off as a stretch, we are talking about the DMCA here, it causes enough damage already. 

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/04/03/2016228/eff-fighting-automakers-over-whether-you-own-your-car

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/automakers-say-you-dont-really-own-your-car

[Totallycasual]

I love technology but sometimes i shake my head at the problems we humans make for ourselves  :lol:

[Unhelpful]

I....

 

What?

[Oberon.Smite]

Solution: Ride a bike

 

In reality, the US court system is broken beyond belief... this is just one example of the loopholes there are...

[Speedyv]

This is hilarious.

Only in America...

[Deli]

"John Deere even argued that letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system."

 

Better than any April fool joke I'd read, ha.

[Syntaxvgm]

"John Deere even argued that letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system."

 

Better than any April fool joke I'd read, ha.

Hey you know how you have that computer you use to put music on that smartphone you plug into the car radio?

Well we're worried that you'll bootleg music using your car.

Now excuse me while I make a shank with a knife

[mr moose]

Intriguing issue.   It's not like car makers have anything to lose really, it's not like people are going to steel the software for a car then go and make their own.  I wonder what the motive is for this?

[Syntaxvgm]

Intriguing issue.   It's not like car makers have anything to lose really, it's not like people are going to steel the software for a car then go and make their own.  I wonder what the motive is for this?

For years auto makers have been trying to force customers to go to dealships to get their car repaired. Every wondered why your battery is so hard to replace? My 15 year old car has it under the left front tire. 

[Sunako]

My view on this if the cars operating system were more open to the public then it would be a safety issue.  Dealers and other mechanics buy systems from licensed and trusted companies. Any dealer, mechanic, or brand of car off the line are held accountable for they car after they have worked on it for a period of time. If  these system were more widely available it would bring in outside partied that could modify the car to an unsafe condition. Outside government regulations for power to weight or emission. They can even allow for safety systems to be bypassed. Or for some one to program in a failure to happen at a later date. Older ecu's can already be reprogrammed Those systems don't have safety or system that can take over control of the care in motion. With cars starting to get self driving modes i would rather see it as a closed system and tampering be a crime. I don't want to be on the road knowing some person with ill intent tinkering away or some young kid trying to make his car go faster to impress the ladies.

[mr moose]

For years auto makers have been trying to force customers to go to dealships to get their car repaired. Every wondered why your battery is so hard to replace? My 15 year old car has it under the left front tire. 

The only car I've ever encountered that is hard to work on due to electrics are the late model land rovers, those things have security codes on everything and the second you disconnect the battery you have to go through an elaborate reprogramming and code entry sequence to get everything running again.  Stupid shit like if the alarm goes of you have to turn the ignition on then put the key in the door and turn to the left 15 times then to the right 4 times then turn on and off the interior light 3 times before the fucking thing will start again.    Everything else is not an issue.  

[deficitdisorder]

This idea that I do not own the physical property that I bought and paid for in full is ridiculous. You made the good and I bought it. Your ownership of it is done. Period. If I want to resale or modify the product then it is my right as a consumer. I can understand the argument for intellectual property but this is not the same thing. The IP is the idea that went into making it, the product being sold is the end result. You still have the secret recipe but if I buy the end result then that product is mine to fuck with.  

[Virus__]

I wonder what the motive is for this?

Probably the usual, money & greed. 

[Syntaxvgm]

The only car I've ever encountered that is hard to work on due to electrics are the late model land rovers, those things have security codes on everything and the second you disconnect the battery you have to go through an elaborate reprogramming and code entry sequence to get everything running again.  Stupid shit like if the alarm goes of you have to turn the ignition on then put the key in the door and turn to the left 15 times then to the right 4 times then turn on and off the interior light 3 times before the fucking thing will start again.    Everything else is not an issue.  

I'm afraid if I buy  new car, and clean my floor mats, I'll trip a  floor mat sensor and have to use some odb2 thing to clear it. 

[Speedyv]

My view on this if the cars operating system were more open to the public then it would be a safety issue.  Dealers and other mechanics buy systems from licensed and trusted companies. Any dealer, mechanic, or brand of car off the line are held accountable for they car after they have worked on it for a period of time. If  these system were more widely available it would bring in outside partied that could modify the car to an unsafe condition. Outside government regulations for power to weight or emission. They can even allow for safety systems to be bypassed. Or for some one to program in a failure to happen at a later date. Older ecu's can already be reprogrammed Those systems don't have safety or system that can take over control of the care in motion. With cars starting to get self driving modes i would rather see it as a closed system and tampering be a crime. I don't want to be on the road knowing some person with ill intent tinkering away or some young kid trying to make his car go faster to impress the ladies.

 

Ok?

So the government should have control over all cars people drive?The government doesn't decide how powerful a car is or how it's built beyond safety and emissions. People can buy aftermarket ECU's if they so pleased and many tuned cars do have aftermarket ECU's that allow for tunes that control air to fuel ratios and so on. Then why isn't having a fast car straight up outlawed as it's a safety issue? You are on the road with other humans. And guess what, that's what usually makes something go wrong. Not the cars themselves. Fact is there are no self driving cars on the road and people should be able to do as they please for the most part.

[sirtoby]

My view on this if the cars operating system were more open to the public then it would be a safety issue.  Dealers and other mechanics buy systems from licensed and trusted companies. Any dealer, mechanic, or brand of car off the line are held accountable for they car after they have worked on it for a period of time. If  these system were more widely available it would bring in outside partied that could modify the car to an unsafe condition. Outside government regulations for power to weight or emission. They can even allow for safety systems to be bypassed. Or for some one to program in a failure to happen at a later date. Older ecu's can already be reprogrammed Those systems don't have safety or system that can take over control of the care in motion. With cars starting to get self driving modes i would rather see it as a closed system and tampering be a crime. I don't want to be on the road knowing some person with ill intent tinkering away or some young kid trying to make his car go faster to impress the ladies.

You're right, but the thing you're missing here, is that car companies are full of idiots, wearing suits, and stating that the cost of support is too high. This will result in what already happened with android phones. The support of older models will end, and that is the point where you have to rely on the community to supply security updates.This wasn't an issue so far, since the only way to hack a car was by the obs port. Now though, that most cars have Bluetooth, and even a web server for in car entertainment and android powered on-board entertainment systems, a car suddenly has a lot more vulnerabilities. But in this case it is more severe than a hacked phone. A hacked car is something that mustn't happen. To keep this from happening, we either have to force car makers to supply at least 10-15 years of security updates, or force them to open their systems.

[mr moose]

I'm afraid if I buy  new car, and clean my floor mats, I'll trip a  floor mat sensor and have to use some odb2 thing to clear it. 

 

I have a scanner for my car, it tells me all the codes stored in the ECU, lets me clear those and the CEL. I can also monitor all the sensors live.   Are new cars not allowing this anymore?

[Serin]

This is something my father ran into when he was running an R&D company that was looking into converting prime movers to run on LNG here in Aus.
Mitsubishi refused to even open up their processors to the modifications that needed to be made. So basically the IT guys had to hack through a bunch of shit and rewrite the firmware to get it even close to working with the physical modifications.

[Michael McAllister]

The only car I've ever encountered that is hard to work on due to electrics are the late model land rovers, those things have security codes on everything and the second you disconnect the battery you have to go through an elaborate reprogramming and code entry sequence to get everything running again.  Stupid shit like if the alarm goes of you have to turn the ignition on then put the key in the door and turn to the left 15 times then to the right 4 times then turn on and off the interior light 3 times before the fucking thing will start again.    Everything else is not an issue.  

 

Well, the alarm issue makes some sense from a security standpoint.  If your car is actually being broken into, having to do that will give you more time to either scare away the criminal and/or notify the police.

 

Reconnecting the battery should not force the driver to enter a monolithic password in order to get the car started again.  That, I agree, is stupid.

[jecho]

There should be better protection laws saying that things you buy from a company become your property so long as you are not reselling said product to make money.Pirating music is no different than letting your friends borrow your CDs or DVDs. Companies should not be licensing products to consumers the same way that software or any other non physical good is used.If I buy a car that cost $36,000 I should be able to do with it as I please. If I void the warranty then that is on me.

[bob345]

this is why stupid people should not be given power.

[mr moose]

 

Well, the alarm issue makes some sense from a security standpoint.  If your car is actually being broken into, having to do that will give you more time to either scare away the criminal and/or notify the police.

 

Reconnecting the battery should not force the driver to enter a monolithic password in order to get the car started again.  That, I agree, is stupid.

 

 

The reason I was given was that there is a high rate of car theft in England so land rover went over the top with securing the electrics.  I don't know how true this is, but I do know the thing is complicated.  I never want to work on one again (unless it was made in the 70's )

[Syntaxvgm]

The reason I was given was that there is a high rate of car theft in England so land rover went over the top with securing the electrics.  I don't know how true this is, but I do know the thing is complicated.  I never want to work on one again (unless it was made in the 70's )

if I pull the corner of my door with a wedge, and stick a rod in, I can hit my power locks. You can do that on a lot of cars. 

I mean, if you want my tape deck, go ahead. 

[Sharkyx1]

Remember that george hotz was sued like 65m$ by Sony for siguring out how his own ps3 worked, posting modified code with extra protecitons to prevent game piracy. Since other modders figured out from his findings how to make cfw that allowed game bootlegging, and the PSN got hacked even though that was not related, they sued him for, get this, a TOS violation.

Hotz opened up the PS3 to others who had more malicious intent, Sony stood to loose a lot of money going forward at the time. I think its valid to say he damaged sony security and profits with his actions. In the end they didn't get 65m$ from him but he stopped hacking sony products and thats what they were looking to do, stop him and dissuade people from doing it in the future.

 

On Topic, to me this seems like Automakers trying to protect themselves from any awry situations, if someone modifies their car and crashes it or hurts people or damages something people will critisize the automaker in question for not being able to stop the modification and not the person who did it and caused the incident. 

 

You could point at the "no independent shops" line and say thats them trying to strongarm independants out of the market but if people are doing half as jobs on electric cars and its out of the automakers control it could be very damaging to their future in the market.

 

Just look at Fisker for what bad press can do to destroy a companies future, of course that was Fisker's fault in the first place, but i preferred their car to Tesla.

[techguru]

hotz didn't hack the ps3...and the hack he did do ..was very basic..

the group that released the level 0 keys were the real ones...hotz then took that and ran with it