"Patrick Nichols" (pnichols)
10/21/2015 at 15:21 • Filed to: None
0
11|
"Patrick Nichols" (pnichols)
10/21/2015 at 15:21 • Filed to: None | 0
| 11 |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
So !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! will probably never go through, but I thought it would be interesting to see all the useful things this would ban:
Tunes
Code Readers
Track data recorders
On the plus side it might outlaw those awful Progressive Nanny devices...
Any other thoughts?
TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 15:26 |
|
Not surprising as congress has about as much combined brain power of a developmentally disabled Mekak...
BKosher84
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 15:26 |
|
Wow.. Talk about overreaching and overreacting to a situation.
RallyWrench
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 15:30 |
|
Because hackers obey laws. I’m not sure there’s ever been a more inept governing body in the history of democracy (“democracy”).
Sam
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 15:33 |
|
I’m sure all these guys with modded ECUs are running federally-legal stock exhausts and suspensions as well. I really don’t think it’ll change much. Without inspections, how on earth would they ever catch you doing it?
|
Patrick Nichols
> Sam
10/21/2015 at 15:37 |
|
The thing I would hate to see it affect is the industry that produces these tunes and aftermarket hardware to access your car. They’d essentially be forced out of business with this logic.
jariten1781
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 15:46 |
|
The language doesn’t really read that way. It says no one may access ...blah blah blah... without authorization. The person who has COG to give authorization is the owner of the vehicle...previous sellers cannot control your personal property. Looks like intent is to prevent people from downloading your GPS track or disabling your throttle wirelessly; not to allow the manufacturers to control a vehicle after sale. There’s another effort the manufacturers are pushing via DCMA that I think the author is conflating with this bill.
Not that I want any language like that in law since then courts can bastardize their interpretation.
|
Patrick Nichols
> jariten1781
10/21/2015 at 15:52 |
|
I read it as no one other than the OEM could access it because blah blah blah safety blah blah hackers. Let’s crack down on the people cheating emissions while we’re at it and give more power to the dealers and make it harder for Tesla. But I could very well be wrong.
|
jariten1781
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 16:00 |
|
It doesn’t define who can give authorization explicitly so it would default to standard property rights. OEM’s have no rights over personal property after sale...that's been fought in the courts before. IP is a different story though: hence the DCMA fight.
|
Patrick Nichols
> jariten1781
10/21/2015 at 16:08 |
|
Would this make Tesla’s wireless updates/recalls illegal or has the owner signed away that right when they buy the car?
|
jariten1781
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 16:13 |
|
I don’t know how they do it, no Tesla in my garage, but I imagine they make you tap download and/or accept to cause it to run. Either that or you tick a box that says "Allow automatic updates". That'd be tacit or explicate authorization.
R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
> Patrick Nichols
10/21/2015 at 16:46 |
|
\lol\