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

71–80 of 381 posts

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

#71

Post by computomatic »

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…

My guess: they want to make the case that illegitimate use cases are indeed the primary use case. Their approach is to randomly sample all users and show that the vast majority use it to defeat emissions, undermining the app maker’s defence.

I don’t think that justifies the overreach. As you said, if they don’t have a case already, they shouldn’t be allowed to violate user privacy on speculation that some statistical evidence might hypothetically fall out of the data. But the legal system may disagree.

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

#73

Post by AlexandrB »

EGreg wrote: post #29
ane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just write it yourself? We can all have ChatGPT regurgitate the same information. You're supposed to add value, editorializing isn't enough. Just like I don't want to look at AI art or listen to AI music, I don't want to read AI written blogslop. The web is now full of shit. What a waste.

Writing it myself would mean doing the research myself. How would I do that? ChatGPT can do it faster at scale. Then the summaries are short enough that cutting any particular part wouldn't make sense. I could re-word it, I guess. Why don't you write all your assembly code yourself? Why do you use a compiler? Why do you generate images, when you can draw them yourself? You're supposed to add value. I don't think prep…

You're free to write it using AI, but I'm free not to read it. The fact that it's written by AI is a strong signal that the references can't be trusted anyways.

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

#74

Post by EGreg »

squibonpig wrote: post #62
EGreg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing it myself would mean doing the research myself. How would I do that? ChatGPT can do it faster at scale. Then the summaries are short enough that cutting any particular part wouldn't make sense. I could re-word it, I guess. Why don't you write all your assembly code yourself? Why do you use a compiler? Why do you generate images, when you can draw them yourself? You're supposed to add value. I don't think prep…

The people doing the downvoting are different people from the whiners. I'm one of the whiners. That's kinda fair, like it's still useful to prepare a list, but it's also like if you didn't go research your information yourself why would I start from a position of charitability when I read it? When I research something with LLMs, I know to double-check everything myself before I use it as a basis for my thought or rep…

You might like my new startup, then: https://safebots.ai

I spent way too much time on actually building this — with Claude and double checking everything — so an article I publish can be OK to push out. We aren’t building a bridge for thousands of cars here, it’s an article.

A lot of things are automated and 95% of the time they are correct. The key is knowing whether the last mile is worth fixing, if the consequences are minor.

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

#75

Post by dmitrygr »

There are already proper procedures for doing this. If the users did something illegal, you can go after them. If you prove that somebody actively enabled or encouraged them, you go after them. But even if the app actively enabled or encouraged something (which would still need to be proven) it would be a pretty tall order to prove that Google or Apple actively enabled or encouraged anyone to break the law. Both of them could fight the subpoena, and almost certainly win.

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

#76

Post by rootusrootus »

caminante wrote: post #31
Simulacra wrote: post #19

Sounds like I need to download this app..

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.

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

#77

Post by delecti »

lapetitejort wrote: post #23

I am surprised that a lawsuit started in 2021 about maintaining emission standards survived up to this point. The DOGE search terms must have misspelled "emission"

Alternatively, given who was running the show, lawsuits against ICE cars (non-EVs) might have just been outside the bounds of what they cared about.

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

#78

Post by AlexandrB »

caminante wrote: post #31
Simulacra wrote: post #19

Sounds like I need to download this app..

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...

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

#79

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> 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 it for defeating emissions. Some other number of people buy it for the normal thing. Why does it matter at all whether the other number is 50 or 50 million? Those are the people who aren't relevant. Should the OEM be in trouble if some unrelated third party happens to write the emissions defeat code to require their dongle in particular so they have a high proportion of customers using it for that? Should they get away with promoting it for that if they're a huge company with lots of sales to people not using it for that? None of that should matter. The seller doesn't even control what the users are doing with it, nor should they.

If there is a law against advertising it for defeating emissions then prosecute them for the advertising. That's their crime, what the customers do is third party action.

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

#80

Post by chasd00 »

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…

> EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior.

idk, knife makers are knowingly enabling knife attacks. If there's at least one EZLynk customer who isn't breaking a law then it seems to me the company is in the clear. I would use a gun analogy but, in the US, guns have constitutional protection.

Post reply on HN