I somehow suspect this is a pretext to ban OBD monitoring/control tools. I have two in my car, one to monitor everything and log the performance, the other to control the gas intake accurately and safely as opposed to non-obd ones. I hope obd won’t become like radar detectors.
U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
141–150 of 381 posts
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#142These vehicle emissions laws are almost always fake compliance theater and were dreamed up by idiots. They are a huge drag on the economy and achieve absolutely nothing. For example, the reason we don’t have super efficient turbodiesel subcompacts that are perfectly legal in the EU is thanks to the so called “Clean” air act. Since the law is based on vehicle weight I can go buy a 8,000 pound truck and commute to work…
I don't buy that those are actually clean. EU has always had majority high-MPG non-diesel cars that you also don't see here as often, simply because gas is cheap in the US. People complain that it's expensive but then 2/3 times go buy a truck or SUV anyway.
Having run a ram ecodiesel inside a garage I believe it.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you start tuning, then make sure you turn it off before bringing your car to the dealership. It'll void any warranty.
> It'll void any warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act disagrees with you.
What is your understanding of the Act and its limitations [0]?
Here's a legal view that explains it further [1].
Basically, they can deny warranty service if you make modifications, and they can tie it to a failure. You can add 100s of HP to your engine profile with these things, and why would it be reasonable to expect a manufacturer to warrant related component repairs if they're pushed beyond spec?
Here are relevant quotes, and []'s are mine.
> The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act requires manufacturers to honor their warranties and auto manufacturers only warrant their vehicles against manufacturing defects. Your claim here could be denied because the failure was not due to a defect in a factory component. It was caused by something added to the car[...] That system caused a non-defective part to fail. Your mod did not void the [entire] warranty. It’s just that the failure was not caused by a factory defect.
> Obviously, an aftermarket camshaft or a hopped up ECU won’t void the entire warranty on your car. The master cylinder failed? The blue tooth quit working? Unless there is a logical connection between the mod and the part or system that failed, you should be good to go.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
[1] https://lehtoslaw.com/will-modifications-void-new-car-warran...
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#144This "car-tinkering app" is used as a glorified GameShark for deleting factory emissions controls, I don't feel sorry for anyone who uses this to roll coal or whatever. Instead of investigating everyone on the list of users of this app, should the government instead ban diesel engines knowing their emissions controls software will be defeated? Should environmental regulations be relaxed? What is really the solution h…
Periodic vehicle inspection for emissions and safety compliance. Many jurisdictions already have this for gas engine emissions, a handful of states already have safety inspections. Done right, it can be low burden and low cost, and basically put an end to Def deletion. Done poorly it's grift to the shops that do the inspections, and an economically external annoyance to vehicle owners, and unnecessarily limits the ability of people to tinker with their own vehicles.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'd HAPPILY report every single truck rolling coal around me if there was a place to report that information. Hell, I've seen a truck roll coal around cop cars and, obviously, nothing happened. This is just gross privacy intrusion masquerading as "protecting the environment". We don't need 100% compliance to the law and simple prosecution/ticketing of obvious violations would go a long way towards solving the p…
For those, like me, who aren't familiar with the term "rolling coal": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
I think the wikipedia page downplays how often it's used to try to hurt or annoy cyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who looks liberal/foreign. It's not just anti environmentalists who do it, it's a general MAGA thing.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'd HAPPILY report every single truck rolling coal around me if there was a place to report that information. Hell, I've seen a truck roll coal around cop cars and, obviously, nothing happened. This is just gross privacy intrusion masquerading as "protecting the environment". We don't need 100% compliance to the law and simple prosecution/ticketing of obvious violations would go a long way towards solving the p…
I watched a pickup roll coal in the middle of freaking East Bay, literally within site of downtown San Francisco, on a bicyclist. I reported their license to the California Air Resources Board, and not longer after that I saw it up on jacks in a neighborhood auto shop. That made my day. Asshole.
I had a neighbor with a car they clearly wouldn't fix that desperately needed a smog check. reported them also. they moved away shortly after though, so i'm not sure if CARB ever followed through.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Most) libertarians still support addressing externalities. One common libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things, and convince an actuary that it's safe; the insurance premiums will stop you from taking risks with unproven technologies without appropriate precautions/testing/etc".
> (Most) libertarians still support addressing externalities. Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role. > The standard libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things" No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance. But it also does not address the externalities probl…
> Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role.
To a libertarian, a major part of the government's job is to enforce contracts and property rights. Externalities are mass infringements on other people's property rights, that need to either be avoided or appropriately compensated. Emitting CO2 does damage to a common good everyone has an interest in.
> No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance.
I didn't say the government would force them to. (Though some smaller-scale voluntary association might well do so.)
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you start tuning, then make sure you turn it off before bringing your car to the dealership. It'll void any warranty.
Consumer rights are in a dire state. Reminds me of Toyota claiming someone voided their warranty by driving their racecar too fast[1]. [1] https://www.motor1.com/news/729265/toyota-gr-corolla-warrant...
Damn. You get a complimentary track day, but Toyota said going 114 MPH is abuse. Both cars were just serviced.
Adding insult, one guy had his comprehensive insurance coverage lapse right before!
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read through your presentation but I still feel pretty confused about what ur startup does. Could you explain it?
The purpose is to try to catch a sliver of all that fun money flying around in the current VC money.
I wanna give him a shot at explaining it
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they can show that the majority of users are committing crimes with the app, that's a much stronger case than just rounding up a handful of witnesses. I still don't understand why this should even be relevant in cases like this. The thing is basically a generic OBD dongle, right? The same thing every DIY and shade tree mechanic uses to read codes and run service procedures. Suppose 20,000 people buy it and use i…
> I still don't understand why this should even be relevant in cases like this. The thing is basically a generic OBD dongle, right? The same thing every DIY and shade tree mechanic uses to read codes and run service procedures. The difference is this company provides a bunch of cloud services to roll out specific tunes at scale. From the original filing: > "EZ Lynk worked with/previewed the EZ Lynk System for at leas…
That doesn't address the issue at all. Why should the damages depend on what third parties do?
On top of that, wow, if you're familiar with how humans think and how prosecutors write indictments, that's some weak sauce. Look at this:
> EZ Lynk worked with/previewed the EZ Lynk System for at least two delete tune creators during development and before launching the EZ Lynk System. Those creators later disseminated delete tunes using the EZ Lynk System.
They worked with some developers. No claim that they knew what the developers were planning to produce at the time. Later the same developers published something alleged to be illegal.
> There were numerous social media websites, including the “EZ Lynk Forum,” where third parties discussed using the EZ Lynk System to defeat emission controls. The Forum was run by EZ Lynk and one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development, and it provided contact information for EZ Lynk technical support.
Users posted things on social media. There was a thing called "EZ Lynk Forum" that wasn't even entirely controlled by the company and from what I can tell was actually a Facebook group. The group listed the (presumably publicly known) contact info for their tech support.
> EZ Lynk representatives interacted with posts and videos about deleting emission controls and installing delete tunes, including tunes from one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development.
"Interacted with" as in the company's peons weren't lawyers, so their PR flacks liked posts praising the company and their tech support answered tech support questions, without paying attention to whether the user was doing something they weren't supposed to.
This is looking increasingly like a farce. That kind of stuff is vapid. If a user has a tech support question and mentioning that they want to defeat emissions means the company refuses to answer it then the user just comes back later or with a different account and asks the same question without mentioning their use case, right?
These kinds of prosecutions are the worst. It's punishing a company for saying the wrong things, i.e. having insufficiently aggressive lawyers, even if it has no real effect on what they do. It's a trap for the unwary and a bludgeon against companies insufficiently bureaucratic to have all their employees trained in corporate censorship practices.