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

U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

macdailynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#191

Post by jazz9k »

lovich wrote: post #119
cogman10 wrote: post #21

Earlier 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…

With this admin any comment on “protecting the environment” is an obvious lie when they state that climate change doesn’t exist and are opening up every national land then can to resource extraction. Like it’s normally a dubious claim when trying to violate privacy but for them it’s fucking laughable if only it wasn’t so ominous.

Even the so-called experts on climate change, like Bill Gates, have given up on it.

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#192

Post by rootusrootus »

caminante wrote: post #143
rootusrootus wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 releva…

> What is your understanding of the Act and its limitations

They can deny a claim. You can challenge that, they will need to prove the modification caused the defect. They cannot void your warranty, in whole or in part. The most they can do is make a note of your modification and then use that as a reference going forward to deny individual claims as they happen.

You might argue that they are likely to win those claims, because they have the engineer who will show up in court to explain why your modification was the problem. On that I'd agree. But they'll have to do that for every claim they deny (assuming you take them to court).

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#193

Post by robocat »

repiret wrote: post #144
midtake wrote: post #93

This "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 ab…

> Done right, it can be low burden and low cost

The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly).

You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is.

I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked.

However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults.

It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.)

Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome.

Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#194

Post by ryeights »

whalesalad wrote: post #185
ryeights wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? It's anti-social behavior. What thought does the deleted diesel truck driver give to his fellow citizens, whose otherwise reliable respiratory systems are weakened and made more susceptible to failure by toxic fumes and particulates?

I'm realizing a lot of folks in this thread do not understand diesel emissions systems at all and why you might want to delete one.

I understand and I don't care. Your personal interests as a diesel truck driver don't override others' interests in health and clean air

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#195

Post by forshaper »

goolz wrote: post #18
Yaa101 wrote: post #12

Welcome to our brave new digital world, governments and DOJs do this because now they can, I am afraid this is only the beginning.

The saddest part is, most people simply do not care, my parents constantly echo the sentiment that if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear. I would argue this slippery slope came about 20+ years ago during the initial Patriot Act. They normalize the behavior, take a few more freedoms, and keep on trucking. I used to be proud to be American. Now I am just worried.

I used to be a proud patriot. Now I am just owned.

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#196

Post by rootusrootus »

cogman10 wrote: post #83
rootusrootus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm generally pretty libertarian, but I'm all for throwing the book at these guys. To me that seems perfectly in line with being libertarian. One of the legitimate roles of the government is protecting people from violence by other people. Libertarians are not anarchists.

Not to my understanding. Libertarian protections are from my understanding all about the quantifiable damages that were done by any given action. They don't usually go beyond that. That's why most libertarians would be in favor of blowing asbestos insulation with the thought that "well, eventually the mesothelioma victims will sue which will stop the practice". You couldn't preemptively sue, however, as you don't hav…

> environmental protections is one of the weaker aspects

That is probably why we are not on the same page here. I'm thinking in terms of the actual harm. Someone rolling coal near me is causing violence to me. The damage to the environment is more difficult to quantify, and that is not the angle I would approach it from.

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#197

Post by rootusrootus »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #158
rootusrootus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm generally pretty libertarian, but I'm all for throwing the book at these guys. To me that seems perfectly in line with being libertarian. One of the legitimate roles of the government is protecting people from violence by other people. Libertarians are not anarchists.

Libertarians consider anyone doing things they don't like to be anarchists, and anything they do, to be "freedom." You ever notice that areas with very high libertarian numbers tend to have lots of problems with illegal dumping, and lots of people who think registering and insuring their vehicle is optional?

I would say that libertarians come in many flavors. And many of them are not big-L libertarians.

> You ever notice [...]

No. It may be true, but I would like to see evidence rather than conjecture. I have seen plenty of trashy areas that I would not associate with a high concentration of political libertarians.

I would agree that there is an entire flavor of libertarian who, for example, felt like they must not wear masks during the pandemic because they were being told by the government to wear them.

My position on that version of libertarianism is in line with Penn Jillete's. I.e. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/je34ya/penn_ji...

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#198

Post by oofbey »

This app has legitimate uses (custom tune performance on their engines) and also makes it easy to do illegal things. (Defeat emissions controls and roll coal.) The people who are using it to do illegal things are crying “privacy!” People who break the law generally do want less government power, more anonymity, etc. Sometimes they’ll argue the law is wrong and they should be allowed to break it, but I don’t think we’ll find many sympathizers of that here.

It’s a genuinely complicated issue, and relates to a lot of things in tech and software. But IMHO if an app makes it easy to do something illegal which is otherwise difficult, then there’s reason for the government to be interested. If that app could be written in a way that blocks the illegal behavior, and has chosen not to put those restrictions in place, then I think the government is justified in interfering.

That’s what seems to be happening here. I have a hard time believing that it would be difficult for EZ Lynk to distinguish between a “delete tune” that rolls coal or blows past emission regs and a legitimate clean tune. Maybe some things get blurry around the edges, but they’re clearly not even trying. And you know that’s why this app is popular. The clean tunes just don’t change anything much, because the manufacturer already tunes the engine for maximum legal power, or close to it.

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#199

Post by fsniper »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #25
cogman10 wrote: post #21

Earlier 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

What on earth? I can't understand USA at all..

Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app

#200

Post by GeekyBear »

legitster wrote: post #48
embedding-shape wrote: post #3

> The government says it needs this information to identify and interview witnesses who can testify about how the tools were actually used. Why start this whole thing, if you don't already have this information and have people willing to help you as witnesses? Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? Rather than finding every user of th…

> Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? They probably have tons of data and testimony from witnesses who use the product illegally. You can find hundreds of threads online of people telling you how to defeat emissions controls using their products. The case prosecutors want to make is that EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior. If…

> The case prosecutors want to make is that EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior.

We have decades of legal precedent saying that the makers of products with substantial legal uses should not be held responsible for the illegal actions of some of their customers.

Most recently, we have the Supreme Court ruling that ISPs are not liable for customers who use their internet connection for copyright infringement.

Post reply on HN