There's another right to repair fight brewing in Massachusetts

This. This, this, this.

Worse, it doesn't give you extra value, it detracts value. It's info about you, out of your control, yet unlike gmail, which is free, you've paid cold hard cash to be tracked.

I think what we need is just an "everything" bill. If you pay ANYTHING for the hardware, then you control EVERYTHING.

The full stack. You can't sell it, the code isn't yours, but by rights you get the full dev kit for the entire OS.

This is the only way forward. The only way to stop all spying, show everything malicious being done to end users, and ensure I can repair anything borked down the road.

I filled out my ballot today voting yes for the right to repair!

I don’t understand how engineers can read the actual text of the Question and think this is a good idea...

> shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models.

What is a “platform” in this context? The vehicle is supposed to be equipped with one, so presumably not a cloud server then?

Inter-operable with what? Other manufacturers? Standardized how and by whom? What does “open access” mean in this context?

Does this run on the car? In the cloud? How do you connect to it? Remember this is a legal requirement, not a spec that can just be revised.

> Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform.

So I think this is saying that all mechanical data which is emanating from the vehicle must also be made available by connecting directly to “the platform” but you could read it two or three other ways.

> Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility

As supposed to the ODBII port which is the current standard, now we have a “mobile-based application” which the “owner” of the vehicle uses to directly access the “platform”.

I don’t know how the car is supposed to know who the owner is, let alone the original manufacturer of the car.

But then after somehow authenticating the owner on this mobile based application there’s also going to be a way to authorize your repair shop to do the same?

So perhaps repair shops are registered with this platform and I can select them from a list, or maybe after I’m magically authenticated I send them an email and they open that on their phone and click a link which send a message to an app which... wait what?

> limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle.

Oh yeah and these access tokens are also time limited and revocable.

> Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair.

So I’m just not following at all the level of complexity here and the huge number of red flags on legislation which is trying to spell out a technical solution instead of just spelling out the effect.

We don’t need an open access inter-operable standardized data platform providing direct and delegatable remote control via mobile application to mechanical control systems. We really don’t.

I would be a lot happier if it simply said that manufacturers must provide documented vendor extensions to the ODBII port to cover any new data streams.

My understanding is the motivation for Q1 is that vendors will stop including ODB ports since they can rely on OTA mechanisms [1], thus bypassing the intent of the previously enacted right to repair bill. The Globe editorial [2], despite being in favor of Question 1, acknowledges many of the concerns you've laid out. They suggest, as a possible remedy, that the Legislature amend the law if and when voters approve it, and propose "a compromise that requires all cars, including electric vehicles, to keep their OBD ports — which mechanics can currently plug into to retrieve diagnostics data ."

1: "More than 90% of new cars transmit real-time repair information wirelessly, and independent repair shops will soon have limited or no access." https://massrighttorepair.org/ 2: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/13/opinion/vote-yes-ques...

I'm in the same boat. I don't understand the argument that manufacturers are using telematics as a loophole, since it seems that the 2013 law specifically says that while many uses of telematics are not covered by the law, those that are "necessary to diagnose and repair a customer's vehicle" ARE still covered.

> With the exception of telematics diagnostic and repair information that is provided to dealers, necessary to diagnose and repair a customer’s vehicle and not otherwise available to an independent repair facility [...] nothing in this chapter shall apply to telematics services [...].

So, are manufacturers doing things like including telematics that they claim "aren't necessary" but in reality are pretty important? If so, then independent repair shops are at a disadvantage, but the solution should be to force those signals to be available through the physical port.

Or is it a matter of independent repair shops not being able to compete with the dealerships who can get telematics to do things like email you when it is detected that your oil is low?