[HN Gopher] Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Car Right to Repair Law i...
___________________________________________________________________
Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Car Right to Repair Law in Maine
Author : maxwell
Score : 99 points
Date : 2023-11-08 19:20 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.404media.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.404media.co)
| jsight wrote:
| In practice, what does this mean? No more restricted parts? That
| the service tools and software will be available for anyone at a
| fair and reasonable price? And if so, who dictates what is a
| reasonable price for the required software?
| ezfe wrote:
| If you read the article:
|
| > Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize
| on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those
| systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair
| facilities?
|
| It would be clear that this is about on-board
| diagnostics/computer systems
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| OBD is already standardized. For the most part, since 1996.
| There are specific software sets for doing more advanced
| operations, but these all talk over the ODB ports, which is
| done typically by an elm27 on a simple data line. The problem
| is there is standard and non standard commands you can issue
| and get replies for.
|
| The requirement should be "all cars with digital systems will
| come with a on-board diagnostic computer.
|
| The one for saab - pre OBD2 is almost impossible to find.
| It's called an ISAT and I only know of about 5 on the east
| coast.
|
| post ODB2 there's somthing called a "TECH2" that GM used
| across all their lineups. They cost between 400 and 1000
| dollars depending on the addons and such.
|
| Instead, they should just build a tech2 into the car's
| infotainment system.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| OBDII is only a minimal standard, compliance requires only
| reporting that is related to emissions systems and engine
| systems that affect emissions. Basically everything else is
| manufacturer-specific and requires either a manufacturer
| diagnostic computer (every manufacturer has one) or third-
| party software with (usually reverse engineered) support
| for manufacturer diagnostics. Since CANbus became the
| normal implementation for OBDII, much of this is done by
| communicating with individual modules over OBDII using
| message sets proprietary to the manufacturer of that
| module. Newer vehicles incorporate more and more
| functionality into these modules, such that the usefulness
| of the core OBDII set tends to decrease.
|
| OBDII is really quite far from solving the problem -
| unsurprising because it wasn't intended to. It's an
| emissions standard, not a general diagnostics standard.
| Common modern fault points like the brake system and SRS
| are unaddressed by OBDII, and that's without getting into
| infotainment and telematics.
| jsight wrote:
| I did, but it left ambiguities. There are already standards
| here (OBD), but extensions beyond that standard often require
| vendor software. It isn't clear what the actual requirements
| are. I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to
| provide factory manuals and full technical information for
| free, for example.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| In practice, nothing. There have been multiple federal agencies
| telling car manufacturers that compliance with such a statute
| is a criminal act.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I haven't seen anything about this do you have some sources
| for reading about this?
| nradov wrote:
| https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/
| jsight wrote:
| That's what I'm afraid of. TBH, the whole brouhaha over Tesla
| and the so called "Elon mode" highlighted this. The whole
| problem was caused by hackers modifying the system.
|
| The government is threatening to regulate and require more
| advanced firmware security. There've been similar issues with
| emissions devices and security, since modification could
| defeat emissions standards.
|
| It isn't clear to me that the practical impact of these bills
| will automatically lead to the rights that I'd want.
| exabrial wrote:
| The next law I want passed:
|
| The "Cars can't require a network connection" law: Any external
| network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must
| come with instructions how to disable it, (which must be a user
| serviceable physical hardware switch, fuse, jumper, etc). All
| functions of the car must remain permanently operable with no
| nagging of the user to reconnect, other than an optional initial
| prompt to inform the user of the change. 0 repercussions may be
| brought on the user for disabling the network connection, such as
| 'we can't diagnose/fix your steering because it can't connect to
| the network' or 'we can't update your infotainment system with
| your network connection disabled', as those updates could easily
| be done via the OBDII port.
|
| Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums,
| garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Any external network connection must be disclosed to the
| user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it
|
| > All functions of the car must remain permanently operable
|
| I think this needs to be refined a bit. As phrased, you're just
| making any features that use network connections illegal.
| CarVac wrote:
| But conveniently, automakers may find that every feature uses
| network connections.
| asimovfan wrote:
| Your legislator can disagree and enforce his/her will. Usb
| c for apple as an example.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Honestly, I see exactly zero features that would require
| network connection that make sense to be offered by the car
| maker directly. So let's refine it to "All first-party
| functions of the car ...", and add some provision to prevent
| bundling and un-commoditizing third-party networked
| additions.
| Arainach wrote:
| In-car Wifi, Spotify on the car radio, OEM maps with
| traffic.... you see _zero_?
| smolder wrote:
| It's fine for those functions to be a casualty of the
| owners choice to turn off the network, just like with a
| phone. If automakers want to use a cellular connection in
| your car for non-critical functions, it should come with
| a legitimate user-uncontrollable off switch, just like
| airplane mode on a phone.
| brewdad wrote:
| Right. We're trying to stop the world of heated seat
| subscriptions with a remote license verification at
| startup before it gets a foothold.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yes. In-car WiFi should _obviously_ work even if the
| network connection break (remember, we 're talking about
| working without Internet, not disallowing Internet at
| all) - WiFi is a local wireless network protocol, not
| magic Internet summoner. With actual Internet connection
| down, it should still maintain the local network for
| connected devices.
|
| As for the rest, none of those look like they should be
| first-party features. "Spotify on the car radio" is a
| third-party integration to a system that _should_ also
| work off-line, e.g. for playing music off removable
| storage, casting from your phone (via WiFi, without
| Internet), or, you know, _working as an actual radio_.
| OEM maps with traffic is something hardly anyone wants
| anyway, because they universally suck relative to some
| TomTom screen, or even Google Maps.
| amalcon wrote:
| LoJack-alike and accident alerting features do make some
| sense to be offered directly by the car maker. The latter
| is obviously difficult to retrofit, and the former would
| likely be easier to defeat if retrofitted.
|
| I don't buy the music and navigation arguments in a
| smartphone-equipped world, but I think a good case can be
| made for those two.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Fine. Still, those two could be made as optional features
| that could be turned on or off at purchase, and/or during
| visit to a dealership or authorized repair shop. And
| neither of these should be sending telemetry during
| normal operation of the vehicle.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Permanently operable - so, what, the car makers are going to
| keep 2G wireless going forever for vintage vehicles that have
| car-talk?
| kbenson wrote:
| Some delineation between a core function of driving the car
| and ancillary services is probably warranted, so things like
| car-talk and sirius aren't the responsibility of the
| manufacturer. I suspect the devil's in the details for
| exactly how that delineation is decided though...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-08 23:00 UTC)