Automakers want us to stop repairing and tinkering

[BlakJak]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/auto ... r-repairs/

It's a long article but it tells an important story.
We should be really concerned about the ramifications of this.

(Sorry if this has come up elsewhere, I did have a cursory look first...)

[sergei]

Soon everyone will be a pirate

Shiver me timbers!

[Grrrrrrr!]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/
We should be really concerned about the ramifications of this.

Not really, it appears to only be the various ECUs in a car they are talking about. And how many of us on this board, or in NZ in general, have the knowledge & the tools to safely reprogram an ABS/EBD/VSC Ecu? Electric Power Steering? I'm going to guess <100 people in NZ know enough to be trusted to do that to a car that is to be used on public roads.

[BlakJak]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/
We should be really concerned about the ramifications of this.

Not really, it appears to only be the various ECUs in a car they are talking about. And how many of us on this board, or in NZ in general, have the knowledge & the tools to safely reprogram an ABS/EBD/VSC Ecu? Electric Power Steering? I'm going to guess <100 people in NZ know enough to be trusted to do that to a car that is to be used on public roads.

Even obtaining diagnostics from them?

Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics.

What they're saying is that independent mechanics shouldn't access this stuff, you'd have to go to Ford to get work done on a Ford car. Independent mechanical services could become a thing of the past for other than the very basics.

Also, if they succeed in establishing this legal precedent, it will only get worse. We need to retain the right to do with our cars, what we choose (within the realms of legality) and to be able to take personal responsibility for this.

[Ninja25t]

It's clearly protectionism and the safety aspect is not supported by any data so we can only hope common sense will prevail. Plus the precdent it could set beyond the motor industry should discourage the U.S. regulators.

Given my age and the number of times I have purchased a new vehicle (zero) or had a vehicle repaired by an authorised agent (once that I can remember) I feel pretty comfortable that even if the automakers are successful (doubtful) I should be able to work around this for some time yet

On a positive note, presumably it wouldn't be retrospective so the value of our "legally modifiable" vehicles should increase hahahaha

[Grrrrrrr!]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/
We should be really concerned about the ramifications of this.

Not really, it appears to only be the various ECUs in a car they are talking about. And how many of us on this board, or in NZ in general, have the knowledge & the tools to safely reprogram an ABS/EBD/VSC Ecu? Electric Power Steering? I'm going to guess <100 people in NZ know enough to be trusted to do that to a car that is to be used on public roads.

Even obtaining diagnostics from them?

Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics.

Specifically, Autel's DS708 tool contains an unlawfully obtained copy of the FFData file, according to Ford. Autel's tool responds in the same manner as Ford's IDS does when "test" or "dummy" data is entered, which "conclusively demonstrates that Autel copied Ford’s proprietary database because the 'test' or 'dummy' does not correspond to any actual vehicles or parts," lawyers for Ford wrote in the complaint.

They copied a database and installed it in the tools they were selling. That is copyright violation. It wasn't about accessing the diagnostic data stream on a car. I believe there should be an open, read only diagnostic system in all cars, like OBD-II is/was. There should be no write access beyond clearing old error codes for anybody except factory authorised personnel.

What they're saying is that independent mechanics shouldn't access this stuff, you'd have to go to Ford to get work done on a Ford car. Independent mechanical services could become a thing of the past for other than the very basics.

Also, if they succeed in establishing this legal precedent, it will only get worse. We need to retain the right to do with our cars, what we choose (within the realms of legality) and to be able to take personal responsibility for this.

How do you take responsibility for dangerous modifications to safety systems, particularly if they result in the death of another person.. Automatic life sentence? Areas like this are where the Dunning-Kruger effect is bloody scary.

[BlakJak]

I'll take your point about the copyrighted material - at least to a point. Once you own a vehicle you should be able to do diagnostics on it, and not be limited to proprietary means to do so IMHO. A lookup of code-vs-explanation would seem like a fundamental need.

As for taking responsibility, i'm not sure that there should be a presumption that every modification is dangerous. As noted in the article, many mods at ECU level are useful developments. An ECU mod that causes a fatal accident - well if that's the only major contributor then clearly point the finger at the person who carried out the mod and/or continued to use the vehicle on the road despite the mod. Not all that different from installing (say) modified braking systems or some other mechanical change that has a safety impact. As the owner and operator of the vehicle you have a say on what changes get made to your vehicle, if you then continue to use it on the road surely you've made yourself liable for the aftermath of any drama that should ensue.

[sergei]

It takes a moron with a spanner to complete screw up brakes in any car regardless if it has ECU in it or not. All it takes is to open the bleeder on one of the brake callipers and press brake pedal in wrong time.
The safety aspect of the argument is BS.

[Grrrrrrr!]

It takes a moron with a spanner to complete screw up brakes in any car regardless if it has ECU in it or not. All it takes is to open the bleeder on one of the brake callipers and press brake pedal in wrong time.
The safety aspect of the argument is BS.

Except if you do that the brakes are obviously and instantly not working properly, and they will likely crash the car at the bottom of the driveway at slow speed, whereas edge case software bugs are only found in certain situations and may go un-noticed for years. Even the aerospace industry with all its auditing and standards still get its wrong occasionally.

[Grrrrrrr!]

I'll take your point about the copyrighted material - at least to a point. Once you own a vehicle you should be able to do diagnostics on it, and not be limited to proprietary means to do so IMHO. A lookup of code-vs-explanation would seem like a fundamental need.

Thats not what the database in question was... red herring.

As for taking responsibility, i'm not sure that there should be a presumption that every modification is dangerous.

Its already is under NZ law for most mods to turbo-charged vehicles, including ECU mods. If you can't prove the modification is safe, why should we let it on the road?

As noted in the article, many mods at ECU level are useful developments. An ECU mod that causes a fatal accident - well if that's the only major contributor then clearly point the finger at the person who carried out the mod and/or continued to use the vehicle on the road despite the mod.

And when these are two different people? How would you know if the ECU of a second hand car had been modified? And how would you determine whether it was safe or not?

Not all that different from installing (say) modified braking systems or some other mechanical change that has a safety impact. As the owner and operator of the vehicle you have a say on what changes get made to your vehicle, if you then continue to use it on the road surely you've made yourself liable for the aftermath of any drama that should ensue.

And under NZ law if you modify your brakes or steering or any other safety system you have to get your car certified to prove it is safe enough to be on the roads. Basic mechanical changes aren't too hard to determine if it is safe, complex software systems are nearly impossible for a single person to check.

"You've made yourself liable"... Does that mean YOU personally will pay back all the money ACC will have to pay for the Medical & 24/7 carer costs for the guy you cripple? Do you earn several hundred thousand dollars a year to pay those bills? and if its YOU that gets crippled do you agree ACC shouldn't pay out a cent for it? Or are you really saying you will make the rest of us responsible for paying the financial costs of your action?