I recently put a turbo on my van since I live high in the mountains where the atmospheric pressure is low and the performance loss is noticeable. Of course the ECU needs adjustments to the fuelling tables (you need to run rich under boost to prevent detonation), spark timing tables, as well as a patch to the OS to allow the use of a different manifold pressure sensor (default OS doesn't recognise press above 100kpa).…
EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
101–110 of 112 posts
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you can repair your car's mechanical brakes yourself now. If you disable them (accidentally or otherwise) and render the car unsafe, the results of that are your responsibility. Is there a reason why software modifications can't be handled the same way?
The point of having cars inspected for safety every year or every other year is that their saftey can't be the individuals responsibility only. If you drive without brakes you are dangerous to others. The simple ocular/mechanical inspection that is used in most places catch obvious problems like rusty brake pipes or bad brake effect. They don't test software issues like whether the stability system is disabled in fif…
My cars are old (1998) Nissan Skylines, who's ECUs are pretty basic, asides from killing the engine there's not much you can do to cause more issue than a mechanical modification like adding a larger turbo, or maintenance neglect. The ABS and traction control are handled by physically separate ECUs, though I imagine things are more integrated in the main drive train ECU in modern cars.
While I haven't modified the existing or written my own firmware to load on the ECU that mostly due to lack of time, one of them came from Japan with a Piggy Back ECU installed which intercepts the inputs / outputs to override the mapping of the OEM ECU to tune for other mechanical modifications. An alternative is to buy an aftermarket ECU or build a custom one, those tend to have less integrated safety features (stability control, etc.) than the OEM ones and integrate less well with the car's other systems, I'd expect them to cause more issues overall than relatively simple modifications of the OEM firmware.
I'm sure there are extremes where people may cause problems, but this kind of thing has been happening since cars have had computers so I doubt there's any great calamity around the corner.
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. This is a great reminder why we should all donate to EFF [and that I haven't renewed my membership since a few months ago] Edit: membership now renewed
Also, if you shop at Amazon, use smile.amazon.com for purchases, after hooking it up to EFF. It's the "Give % of sales to non-profit of your choice" option in Amazon.
That's the reason I've not started using it. Online stores use all kinds of indicators (user agent, OS, number of searches for similar items, etc) to jack up prices when they think they can get away with it, and I suspect this metric is very relevant in that context.
I just donate to EFF and others directly.
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do the tweakers do that the entire Mercedes crew couldn't? Openly flout emissions standards.
I'm sure there's some irony in that sentiment ;-) Aside from the VW thing I think pretty much all diesels are above emissions standards in open road testing.
Popular among a subset of diesel pickup truck owners.
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you can repair your car's mechanical brakes yourself now. If you disable them (accidentally or otherwise) and render the car unsafe, the results of that are your responsibility. Is there a reason why software modifications can't be handled the same way?
Well, the whole point of car inspections is that "your responsibility" is not enough. It's possible that you as the owner of a modded vehicle are perfectly fine with the risk of an accident, but the other potential participants of such an accident might not. I think the question has a point: Modified ECUs are different from modified brakes, because the modifications could likely not be found in an inspection - in fac…
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
$5 is still $5 if you buy a game after the fact. I don't see how joining early purchasers helps game developers more than otherwise.
If games sell well early into their release, the devs would be elated and motivated. Also they would get more money at the time they are hoping to get it.
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#107They also got an exemption for modifying of abandoned games whose activation systems are long since gone, as well as extending/clarifying the jailbreaking exemption.
I actually worked on this part of the exemption. It was granted in two parts. First, fans may now reverse engineer and host servers for games that are no longer hosted online. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a perfect example, but there are plenty of others. This is now legal, and considered fair use. MMO's are exempted, and defined as games where the world is persistent reguardless of number of players connected (IE, is the g…
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insurance policies already cover this as "after-market modifications" (the terminology I've generally seen used already). There really is no cause for concern; things that used to be purely mechanical are now electric. Any modifications made mechanically before could be equally disastrous. Yes, software modifications are easier to hide, but that it is a price worth paying for the greater general freedom of everyone.
> Yes, software modifications are easier to hide Not if you hash the software and find its been adjusted. In that sense it is easier to detect.
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable? The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm? > Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability. The insurance company covers…
>The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm? The hobbyist isn't the one with money. The manufacturer will be sued, and they usually settle because there is probably something they could have done that would have made the failure less likely, injury trials are bad press, and jury sympathy is always on the injured little guy's side. This is how it plays out…
Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of having cars inspected for safety every year or every other year is that their saftey can't be the individuals responsibility only. If you drive without brakes you are dangerous to others. The simple ocular/mechanical inspection that is used in most places catch obvious problems like rusty brake pipes or bad brake effect. They don't test software issues like whether the stability system is disabled in fif…
I think the majority of modifications are simply adjusting the calibration or lookup tables for things like fuel maps, enabling / disabling things like key left in ignition buzzers and the like, mostly data items rather than code modifications. There may be more adventurous modifications like adding launch control to a performance cars, but that may just be enabling existing code rather than adding new code. My cars…