"Bairclaw" (bairclaw03)
10/21/2015 at 21:35 • Filed to: None
0
6|
"Bairclaw" (bairclaw03)
10/21/2015 at 21:35 • Filed to: None | 0
| 6 |
Did anyone else read this? Shared on Jalopnik, I might just be too dumbfounded but I don't fully understand. Congress is going to make it illegal to go into a cars computer and read the codes? Now the first thing I think of is tuning a car, or using something like an accessport and changing a map, but to go even further than that, I think about check engine lights. I always work on my own cars or family/friends cars, I use my scan to too obviously check the code a car is throwing. Is it illegal for me to check that code? What about clear it? Am I breaking the law?!?!
BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest.
> Bairclaw
10/21/2015 at 21:43 |
|
Not yet, no legislation has been passed. Automotive companies are lobbying for that to be the case though.
Gamecat235
> Bairclaw
10/21/2015 at 21:50 |
|
There have been mutterings and posturing leading to this for the last couple of years. Jalopnik and Wired have both talked about it extensively in the past. Looks like it’s about to gain some legislative strength.
Also, it’s utter BS, but that’s the world we live in where companies have more say in our politics than the public (something something decline of voter turnout and voter apathy...
...
#oldmanyellsatclouds)
Blondude
> Bairclaw
10/21/2015 at 21:53 |
|
There’s no way it’s going to pass.
Sneaky Pete
> Bairclaw
10/21/2015 at 22:02 |
|
Congress can suck it, and so can any auto manufacturer who’s pushing for this steaming pile of legislation.
jariten1781
> Gamecat235
10/22/2015 at 07:13 |
|
Nah, people are conflating this with the OEM attempts to claim IP rights to vehicles after purchase via DCMA. They’re different. This law is attempting to prevent an individual or group from accessing an owner’s car’s software without permission. It’s clear from the title and the other clauses that the intent is to prevent people from stealing driving data (GPS tracks, etc.) and disabling systems of unsuspecting owners, not an attempt to prevent owners from reading their trouble codes.
They do have the language too broad right now...it says something akin to:
“
No person may access...without authorization”
That’s pretty standard boilerplate language meaning the owner of whatever it is must give permission...not some random company or agency. To be clear, so no rogue judge interprets it too broadly, they should change it to something like:
“
No person may access...without authorization of the owner or their authorized agent”.
Granted, I’d still rather not have it passed because it’s real easy for them to slip in a small change to the law in the future unnoticed as a rider to some random bill. Something like:
“ Car Hacking Illegal
Remove last sentence Section XXX replace with “No person may access...without authorization of the DOT”
I’m not sure that SEMA/AAA/whoever has the critical mass of lobbyists to catch something like that.
DipodomysDeserti
> Bairclaw
10/22/2015 at 07:20 |
|
It's technically already illegal to alter maps. It's a violation of the Clean Air Act to alter emissions control devices, and the ECU is considered an emissions control device.