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

EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

supporters.eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#21

Post by tptacek »

tga_d wrote: post #20
jenscow wrote: post #17

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased with the progress - but doesn't this just mean they'll make it harder to crack?

This is just the same old issue of DRM as before: create a system that works when the user is running it like they're supposed to, but doesn't reveal anything when they're not. And it's never worked. Probably can never work. Cory Doctorow talks about it in his talks on eliminating DRM. Basically, at the end of the day, the only real means we have of making DRM "work" is using laws (which, of course, doesn't stop crim…

It worked pretty well for DirecTV, which is a more analogous scenario than normal computer software.

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#22

Post by Azew »

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? 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?

Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.

Inspecting auto software for problems is great, allowing hobbyists to tinker with their software seems problematic.

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#23

Post by binarycrusader »

Azew wrote: post #22

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? 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? Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes…

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.

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#26

Post by redbeard0x0a »

tga_d wrote: post #20
jenscow wrote: post #17

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased with the progress - but doesn't this just mean they'll make it harder to crack?

This is just the same old issue of DRM as before: create a system that works when the user is running it like they're supposed to, but doesn't reveal anything when they're not. And it's never worked. Probably can never work. Cory Doctorow talks about it in his talks on eliminating DRM. Basically, at the end of the day, the only real means we have of making DRM "work" is using laws (which, of course, doesn't stop crim…

> doesn't stop criminals

Or it allows criminals to hide behind the DRM and laws to prevent a 3rd party from discovering their crimes (ala VW).

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#27

Post by BinaryIdiot »

Azew wrote: post #22

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? 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? Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes…

> 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 car so you'd have to consult what their terms are in regards to modifications as plenty of people modify their cars today just not the software. I can't imagine a software change would be radically different to a hardware change in the insurance's eyes unless it's something incredible like an autopilot.

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#29

Post by schoen »

Natanael_L wrote: post #25
yeukhon wrote: post #12

Wow. I didn't expect the Librarian OF Congress would have a say in this case, but he/she does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librarian_of_Congress

Copyright works in mysterious ways...

This is the sixth time this has process has taken place in its current form -- it's not exactly something new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

Re: EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

#30

Post by [deleted] »

Azew wrote: post #22

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? 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? Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN