today in dc

[Albion Zeglin]

There are consumer protection laws that may be used to open this up.
Manufacturers are required to provide for repair parts for a minimum 
amount of time.  Being able to take your car to an independent repair
services has in the past been defined as an owner's right.

Data pertaining to the specific car will probablly be required to be
available.   Data only used to build aggregate fleet data might still
be protected.  

Being able to modify the parameters might impair the manufacturers "Fleet"
air quality/fuel efficiency averages, without a exeption which may be
part of the final law.
 
An owner could of course replace the entire control system with a retrofit.

This practice of encryption might also be to protect the market for 
computerized tools sold to repair shops.  At $5000 apiece per car make per
repair shop that's a lot of money.

If safety is really the issue then tamper evident seals on the systems
might be able to absolve the manufacturers, unless the ability to hack
the systems is considered an "Attractive Nusiance".  Consumer Protection
laws are pretty harsh in the country, remember computers don't usually kill
people when they fail,  cars certainly can.

And all this is just the complexity that I can think of.  Imagine a team
of lobbyists and their presenations.

Albion.


Quoting "Major Variola (ret)" <mv at cdc.gov>:

> 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.