Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#61

Post by not2b »

chongli wrote: post #52
markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

Wouldn't an insurance company naturally want to avoid the additional liability of personal, unlicensed repairs? What if someone improperly repairs the brakes on their own car and they fail on the road, causing a collision?

People work on their own cars and have done so for at least a hundred years. Using technical means to prevent people from doing their own repairs, or from hiring someone of their choice to do the repair, is a relatively new thing.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#62

Post by the_lego »

tkfu wrote: post #10
technofiend wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "federal regulators claim that malevolent third parties could "utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently." Which really means auto makers built a terribly insecure system and hope to hide the fact behind security as obscurity? If so, that's the real problem. The vulnerabilities described should not be there in the…

It's not about security by obscurity. A better analogy would be the fight over "tivoization". In safety-critical and highly-regulated systems like automotive and health care, there's a meaningful regulatory interest in ensuring that the devices as sold and authorized to be on the road (or in patients' hospital rooms) don't get modified in dangerous ways. That means that the software and firmware running on each of th…

> In safety-critical and highly-regulated systems like automotive and health care, there's a meaningful regulatory interest in ensuring that the devices as sold and authorized to be on the road (or in patients' hospital rooms) don't get modified in dangerous ways.

On the other hand, a Minority Report future where "your" car answers to a different master, or you don't have the right or ability to control your own medical implants and prosthetics, is terrifying. Given that we've lived for almost a century in a world where cars can be modified in unlicensed ways, I'll go with the devil we know.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#63

Post by bityard »

_puk wrote: post #50
ineedtosleep wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on the state. A friend recently was hit and had their car only slightly damaged. They went to insurance car shops that insurance recommended, but they all declined to fix the car. They ended up getting paid out and fixed it themselves since they're already skilled with maintaining vehicles, and they pocketed the rest.

Does this not affect insurance? We have categories of write off, so if insurance has paid out it affects the future value of the car. This would be a category D [0], which makes a big difference on resell. 0: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/what-is-a-catego...

In the US, firstly it is considered unfashionable by many to buy a used car altogether ("you're just buying someone else's problems!") and secondly, the only thing that can reliably affect resale value is if it condemned with a "salvage title." Which can mean a few things but usually means the car suffered more damage than it is economical to fix. But just the fact that a car was in a collision or had a claim against it does not automatically affect the car's future insurance rates or resale value.

We have a company called CarFax that produces vehicle history reports for used cars, but there are many problems with it. Starting with the fact that all reports are voluntary. I have looked at cars that were clearly in floods when you know what to look for and yet the CarFax was squeaky clean.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#64

Post by adrianmonk »

markdeloura wrote: post #18

Insurance companies should get behind Right to Repair. We've so far waited three months and have an $11,0000 price tag to the insurance company on a minor collision that bent our car's front fascia and broke a sensor -- no frame or metal damage. I would have happily repaired on my own if possible just to avoid being without the car for so long. If only I could get those parts and have a decent service manual.

> would have happily repaired on my own if possible

I actually did that once. The claims adjuster was pretty surprised at the request, and she confirmed multiple times that I really wanted them to pay out less money (parts but no labor). Then she was like, "Well, I don't know why you'd want to, but it's your decision, so OK."

The reason: someone stole my stereo and, in the process, they destroyed several pieces of the dashboard. The insurance didn't cover my (aftermarket) stereo, just the dashboard.

I was going to install a replacement stereo myself. I had installed the other one (that was stolen), so I already knew how to do it, and I knew that stereo installation requires removing the same dashboard parts. If I'd let insurance pay a shop to do it, I would have needed to have them install the parts, then take it home and remove the same parts, install the stereo, and then put them back. Buying parts at the dealer is less work and takes less time.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#65

Post by bityard »

RealityVoid wrote: post #4

Current cybersecurity standards enforced in the automotive industry will probably completely kill the possibility of after-market car parts and the usage of used parts in cars. I say this as someone working in this field that has asked a couple of people doing work in this exact direction. I point blank asked them if this will happen, and they just shrugged their shoulders and said... yeah, kinda'.

There are quite a few parts on modern cars already that you cannot just replace on your own car with either a new or used replacement because before they will work, they require a "relearning" procedure that only the dealership computers can initiate and those computers have to be online, connected to the automaker's mothership when they do it.

So basically DRM on car repair/parts is already a thing.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#66

Post by forgetfreeman »

542354234235 wrote: post #43
forgetfreeman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking assist is the very definition of bullshit convenience. In this case apparently it's dangerous as well?

>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 188,000 passenger vehicles were backing in crashes reported to the police in the United States during 2015…The combination of Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist reduced backing crash involvement rates by 42%. When Rear Automatic Braking was added to the Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist, vehicles with all three sy…

You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but we're not talking Michael Bay style 8 lanes of exploding cars here.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#67

Post by forgetfreeman »

aoweijrti wrote: post #38
forgetfreeman wrote: post #6

Here's a hot take: legislate an airgap between operation control and infotainment/convenience horseshit.

Nice in theory but almost impossible in practice, unless you start installing two copies of many things, one for safety-critical purposes and one for infotainment purposes.

I fail to see the problem. Ditch the bullshit or at least corral it into a corner where it can't fuck with anything vital to vehicle operation and safety. ABS systems (for example) worked swimmingly decades before the first net-connected infotainment system was theorized.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#68

Post by COGlory »

Right to repair os starting to reach a boil. The car companies have lost. The combat has changed and they're well on their back foot. The sooner they realize this, the less painful it will be for them. Legal loopholes and dirty tactics will only get them so far now.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#69

Post by 542354234235 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #66
542354234235 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 188,000 passenger vehicles were backing in crashes reported to the police in the United States during 2015…The combination of Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist reduced backing crash involvement rates by 42%. When Rear Automatic Braking was added to the Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist, vehicles with all three sy…

You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but…

I don’t think it needs to be some Michael Bay crash to be significant. Let’s say that all these crashes are minor, as you state. If repairs ranged from $500 to $1,500 evenly, that is about $188 million in property damage a year. That’s not nothing. I agree that systems need to be better designed with infosec in mind.

Re: Automakers try to scuttle Massachusetts ‘right to repair’ law

#70

Post by dsr_ »

dsr_ wrote: post #36
forgetfreeman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they though? I mean if it's there sure people will mess with it but I don't recall any public outcry for either center dash ADHD factories or keyless anything.

In my experience, people like the following remote features: * Where's my car? Press the button, get a honk. * Lock the doors. If they're powered, close themi first. * Unlock the doors. If they're powered, open them afterward. * Warm up the car, it's cold outside. * Cool down the car, it's hot outside. So that's five buttons on a remote, maximum. None of them require connection to infotainment systems.

If I didn't care about discoverability, I could reasonably reduce that to:

* Lock button. Hold it down to get a honk.

* Unlock button. Hold it to get the car started; if the interior temperature of the cabin is outside a set range, warm or cool it appropriately.

Make one button big and round and smooth and bright, and the other one big and square and textured and dark.

Post reply on HN