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

Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

discuss.grapheneos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 497 posts

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#391

Post by Hnedelin »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #250
bri3d wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? These things directly follow one another: VW are obsessed with letter-of-the-law compliance, so things like end-runs around test routines are obvious solutions. And VW didn't single-handedly destroy the diesel market; economics and physics did. Almost every other manufacturer was also fudging the tests results in some way. But more importantly, building a passenger car diesel that meets NOx targets doesn't work;…

You can have high-mileage diesel cars or low-emissions diesel cars but not both at the same time. VW knew this but lied to customers and told them they could have both. Dieselgate was their attempt to convince everybody the lie was true.

This was official EU policy, based on french reports, as the french and italian manufacturers actually came up with common rail diesels first. The EU then changed regulations to tax based on CO2, which diesels are better at. They also made diesel taxes lower, to offset the higher prices for diesel cars (often 2000+ euros more than the petrol versions). This was all done in the framework of reducing foreign oil imports.

What VW did was to save money from ThinkBlue systems. Not every manufacturer failed the tests, especially the ones who used exhaust gas treatment did pass, and were more economical than petrol engines. After that, the EU changed emission standards and made them more strict, so VW switched to using dual exhaust treatment. Which made the cars more expensive.

What finally killed diesels was the removal of the tax reduction on diesel fuel. Since it is now taxed the same as petrol, there is no more any advantage that can offset the higher purchasing costs of the cars.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#392

Post by tonyedgecombe »

skrebbel wrote: post #388
techpression wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever came up with the idea that the car should beep loudly even close to the speed limit has clearly never driven a car. The best way to silence it is to constantly be over the speed limit or well below.

Wait what brand does that? I need to know what car to not buy.

Every new car sold in the EU. Most make it easy to turn off but it does default to on when you start the car.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#393

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Hnedelin wrote: post #386
steelframe wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volkswagon has no jurisdiction over how I manage my fob, which is the client for the vehicle's unlock and start API. Once you hand a bearer token to me that governs full access to the vehicle, including the accelerator and steering wheel, it's not your job to babysit whether I chose to use it while drunk or hand it over to someone else.

Except it is their job, that is why certain signals on the car are protected from manipulation. Any attempt to circumvent this and succeeding would require direct action from VW. If they cannot prove that they did everything possible to prevent that, then they are legally liable to the authorities. Same way that banking apps don’t care if you could screw up your account anyway, they will ban rooted phones just to avo…

> If they cannot prove that they did everything possible to prevent that, then they are legally liable to the authorities.

Laws mostly don't work like that. The seller of gasoline doesn't have to prove they did everything possible to design the product to prevent anyone from using it for arson, nor should they because that's preposterous.

> Because when something happens, what do you think is more likely? That the customer accepts full responsibility for using a rooted device and says that’s on me? Or that they blame the bank for losing all their savings?

You're making the assumption that rooted phones are more likely to be compromised, but it's entirely the opposite. The stock software on phones regularly goes out of support and has known unpatched vulnerabilities (but will still pass Play Protect) and the only way to get a patched system on that device is to install a newer third party ROM. On top of that, GrapheneOS has better security than stock Android even for the same version.

Moreover, that has nothing to do with liability. When the user with the vendor-supplied firmware still gets pwned and has their account drained, they're still going to go to the bank looking to get their money back. All the bank does by going out of their way to block third party firmware is to make that marginally more likely.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#394

Post by Cider9986 »

jdw64 wrote: post #390

Because I frequently supply to the automotive industry, I fully understand all these issues. No matter how good many open source projects are, companies always have to face lawsuits and liability. That is why, no matter how good Linux servers are, factories use Microsoft servers. Regarding the responsibility for that software, if a problem occurs, the company that signed the contract takes on the liability. Ultimatel…

Grapheneos is compatible with over 99% of android apps. The only apps that don't work either actively block Grapheneos or have bugs caught by Grapheneos exploit protections which can be disabled.

You don't have to do anything extra to support Grapheneos, just don't add in attestation which does nothing for security and limits user freedom.

This is fundamentally different from not choosing to use Linux servers. It's more similar to not letting a customer enter your store because of the color of their skin saying they aren't regular humans. It's pure discrimination because just as the functionality of android doesn't depend on these extra checks, the customer works the same regardless of how they look.

I have 38 apps on my GOS phone and none have had any issues.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#395

Post by virgilp »

frollogaston wrote: post #324
virgilp wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are all these "broken and dangerous"? In my car (Volvo) they work rather well. Perhaps sign detection sometimes misses signs, but so do I so I can't fault it. The others though, I rank them all somewhere between "genuinely useful" and "absolutely awesome"

The auto high beam blinds other drivers when it fails to detect them

So do other drivers that fail to switch to low beams - even my old car was better than me in switching to low beams.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#396

Post by jdw64 »

Cider9986 wrote: post #394
jdw64 wrote: post #390

Because I frequently supply to the automotive industry, I fully understand all these issues. No matter how good many open source projects are, companies always have to face lawsuits and liability. That is why, no matter how good Linux servers are, factories use Microsoft servers. Regarding the responsibility for that software, if a problem occurs, the company that signed the contract takes on the liability. Ultimatel…

Grapheneos is compatible with over 99% of android apps. The only apps that don't work either actively block Grapheneos or have bugs caught by Grapheneos exploit protections which can be disabled. You don't have to do anything extra to support Grapheneos, just don't add in attestation which does nothing for security and limits user freedom. This is fundamentally different from not choosing to use Linux servers. It's m…

GOS may be much more technologically advanced and secure than Android. But that doesn't mean it has official safety certifications that can be submitted to courts and insurance companies in the event of an accident. Because GOS cannot pass hardware-based keystore authentication. I generally think open source is often better. The problem is that there is no entity to take responsibility.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#397

Post by mnw21cam »

Arainach wrote: post #110
mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can regulate emissions without preventing custom tunes

In practice, no, you can't. Certainly not without enormous costs such as mandatory regular vehicle inspections.

I don't think "enormous costs" is a strong argument here. The annual MOT is usually under £50, and that includes a fairly comprehensive roadworthiness check and emissions check. A stronger argument would be that a car owner could change some settings on their car specially to pass the emissions check, and then set them back to dirty afterwards each year.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#399

Post by Hnedelin »

monomial wrote: post #97

Modern cars are such enshittified garbage. I was in a modern Toyota recently and every time you start it, the screen shows a "Guest mode activated" that you need to explicitly dismiss. The only way to disable this is to install some stupid Toyota app which I would never install. Then you dismiss the popup and the home screen is "Experience Drive Connect" which is some stupid Toyota subscription which I would never su…

This is how toyota and VW comply with legal requirements and regulations. Same reason why you cannot disable many Assistent functions permanently, they always come back. Because to get high NCAP scores, the functions must be activated.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#400

Post by Arainach »

mnw21cam wrote: post #397
Arainach wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, no, you can't. Certainly not without enormous costs such as mandatory regular vehicle inspections.

I don't think "enormous costs" is a strong argument here. The annual MOT is usually under £50, and that includes a fairly comprehensive roadworthiness check and emissions check. A stronger argument would be that a car owner could change some settings on their car specially to pass the emissions check, and then set them back to dirty afterwards each year.

An MOT is a cost to every driver every year - significant in money and in time - plus the cost of running the infrastructure to provide the testing. All so that a few people can tune engines? No thanks.
Post reply on HN