Gregory's Server"Right to repair" in California is coming. Passed 38 to zero.
https://pirg.org/california/media-center/california-senate-passes-right-to-repair-act/
 6 comments
@pyperkub I'm in favor of all progress in that direction, even if it is only small steps at a time. (P.S. There are a few bugs I'd really like to fix in my car's firmware, they are annoying enough I might actually do it if I could.) @J12t @pyperkub getting a car that runs your own custom software approved for use on public roads sounds like a nightmare … I assumed the approval process includes some testing that the software is adequately safe and effective, but now I’m worried that it doesn’t. Especially having recently watched @TechConnectify’s https://youtu.be/U0YW7x9U5TQ @ShadSterling @pyperkub @TechConnectify Big difference between core driving software — like engine control, abs etc — and say, media related software. I wouldn’t be interested in touching the former, but I sure want to stop my car from sometimes randomly (to me)switching on the radio. Probably runs on very different hardware in most cases anyway. @J12t @pyperkub @TechConnectify I’m not sure how clean the separation is; I haven’t driven many cars with integrated touchscreen systems, but the ones I’ve seen have interacted with the core driving software, for things like the backup camera, and changing mode settings. Even if it is running on separate hardware, if it’s insecure it could be hijacked to disrupt driving with settings changes, or hiding obstacles in the backup camera picture, so it should be audited  @J12t @ShadSterling @TechConnectify I think that the end user needs a hardware switch to prevent OTA updates to core driving software AND that it should be open source and auditable at a minimum. |
@J12t it appears to *exclude* John Deere tractors, and, most especially, CARS. Looking forward, we need the ability to run our own software on the car we buy. If not, do you really own it?