today in dc

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 09:49 AM 7/30/02 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
>Actually, this clicks neatly onto cp debates over open vs closed
>systems, TCPA, DRM, and 'freedom to hack'.
>
>Most modern cars are substantially computerized. Diagnosing a
>problem usually involves hooking up a PC to a port on the car's
>engine management system, and studying the readouts.
>
>The 'problem' that the congresscritters are trying to 'solve' is
>that some car manufacturers are now closing this interface -
>they are refusing to document the protocols, and/or encrypting
>the data.

Yes, a note about this appeared on this list a few weeks
ago, along with a Blacknet Automotive Division request
for these diag codes.

\begin{ethicsrant}
It is perfectly within the rights of an individual (or corp) to
retain trade secrets.  It is also within the rights of others to
reverse engineer these secrets particularly for interoperability
reasons.  These observations are not only based on
libertarian-ethical principles but US law history.
\end{ethicsrant}

>As a result, the manufacturers are able to restrict who has
>access to this diagnostic data, and are using this power to
>shut out independent repair shops and other competition to
>their own dealerships. The meeting is going to discuss
>whether 'something should be done'. I have no idea what will
>happen, if anything.
>
>So, let's see:
>
>* The manufacturers are using DRM technology, including crypto,
>to restrict access to the data.

That's fine.

>* If you reverse-engineered the system, the DMCA could get
>involved (not sure on this one).

Were that true, that would NOT be fine.  It is not acceptable to
abuse the violence of the state (ie law) in this way --to deny
the ability to reverse engineer.

>* The manufacturers are closing the system to outside inspection,
>and actively working to make it impossible for owners to tinker with
>or modify their own cars.

(As a hacker) Regrettable but fine.  "Potting the fucker in epoxy"
is their right.

>* There is absolutely no benefit to the car's owner - this is simply
>large corporationsfiguring out another way to get more revenue.

So what?  Buy a car from someone else then.  The GNUmobile project?

>This is essentially 'Palladium for cars'.

The carmakers say this is for safety.  Perhaps this is as lame as the
political powergrabs justified fnord in the name of "national security".

Clearly, as engineers, we know that IFF the carmakers
documented what their employees know, then third-parties could
do as good a job.  But there is no obligation to document what you
sell.  Or make it easy for others to fix your stuff ---those stupid
proprietary screws used on some equiptment to keep you out
are not illegal.  But neither is defeating them.  Modulo your
warrantee, which is fair.

Of course, the State might well use the "safety" lever to open
the codes; or it might simply extend a tentacle of fascism
and require it for the nominal benefit of the sheeple.  Consider
if this behavior were applied more generally.

Anyway, PT is right on, this is right up our alley.