Submitted by lurker_registered t3_yertok in boston
Comments
bitpushr t1_iu0jwbj wrote
Can.. can you be somewhat crestfallen? Feels like you're either crestfallen or you're not.
DocPsychosis t1_iu0k6sm wrote
Their crests are dangling precariously but not on the ground yet.
Shufflebuzz t1_iu2akjw wrote
The Crests of Damocles
Old_Travel8423 t1_iu3xer8 wrote
Damocleez nuts
mrlolloran t1_iu0fnmt wrote
Me too and I got my car fixed up a month ago. Guess I’m just ugly :/
Jer_Cough t1_itzqlgk wrote
MA: Do a thing!
Automakers: no
MA:
Automakers: We done?
DocPsychosis t1_iu0kf7q wrote
It's jammed up in federal court which is a glacial process, what is it you think the state should be doing?
Snoo_97625 t1_iu0mxap wrote
If this is contingent on selling cars then car sales should stopped until requirements are met
Prestigious_Bobcat29 t1_iu0q3ac wrote
Right to repair as radical environmental policy, I dig it
Jer_Cough t1_iu0wtsz wrote
This has been legislated before and nothing came of it. See: John Deere
lurker_registered OP t1_itzi4yb wrote
The automotive right-to-repair law that won overwhelming approval from Massachusetts voters in a referendum nearly two years ago is still propped up on jacks in Boston federal court. And based on documents submitted to the court last week by two major automakers, it’ll be there for quite a while.
Cybersecurity executives for General Motors and Stellantis, the company that owns carmaker Chrysler, told the court that they’ve done nothing to prepare for complying with the law, because they can’t. Kevin Tierney, vice president of global cybersecurity for GM, said that “it remains my considered judgment that it is simply impossible to comply with the Data Access Law safely.”
The right-to-repair law requires that automakers who sell their cars in Massachusetts provide consumers and independent repair shops with wireless access to the car’s “telematics” — the digital data governing every aspect of how the vehicle works. This way, independent mechanics can repair these vehicles as readily as authorized dealers.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey contends that the carmakers are deliberately misreading the law to falsely argue that it contradicts federal auto safety regulations and to claim that obeying the law is technically impractical. “None of that is true,” said a filing from Healey’s office.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the international car manufacturers association, filed suit to halt enforcement of the law almost as soon as it passed in late 2020. The auto companies contend that only the federal government, not the states, may pass such a law. They also argue that the law makes it much harder to secure digital automotive data against malicious hackers. And they note that the law originally took effect with the 2022 model year, giving car companies far too little time to comply.
In September, US District Judge Douglas Woodlock ordered the carmakers alliance to reveal what steps they’ve taken to comply with the law, in case he decides to uphold it. Speaking for the alliance, the GM and Stellantis executives said that until they receive further guidance from the court, they can’t even begin to comply.
For instance, they noted that the law requires the establishment of an independent company that would provide car mechanics with access to telematic data from all carmakers. The companies said no one has created such an entity and claimed it would be illegal for the manufacturers to do so themselves, because it would not be independent.
“We’re close to the two-year anniversary, it’s sort of a sad anniversary, and the car companies have admittedly done nothing to comply with the will of the voters,” said Justin Rzepka, executive director of the CAR Coalition, a Washington-based group that represents independent car repair shops.
Rzepka called for the court to uphold the Massachusetts law and for the passage of similar legislation at the federal level.
hoopbag33 t1_itzq9va wrote
Try doing a consequence
Maxpowr9 t1_itzr8lo wrote
Laws without consequences are just mere suggestions.
BostonBopper t1_itzt3ro wrote
In theory, the state AG could sue to obtain a declaratory judgment ordering the car companies to comply with the law. The AG would presumably have to hire experts to rebut the companies' assertion that compliance is not feasible.
But the BG comments section lays out a number of reasonable measures that the companies could take to comply.
In the end, it is just a big FU to consumers because it was and always will be about the money.
AceyAceyAcey t1_itzhwxr wrote
This is my shocked face: 🫥
willzyx01 t1_itzs59k wrote
Just shows how spineless politicians are against giant corporations. A small business not complying to laws would be forced to close and fined to the tits.
Nobel6skull t1_iu0fy1y wrote
It’s being fought in court, it won’t be enforced unit that’s resolved.
Shufflebuzz t1_iu2fzcq wrote
A small business wouldn't have the money to fight in court.
RelativeMotion1 t1_iu0gumo wrote
As an engineer in the auto industry who is very familiar with these systems, I can say that while I do support the spirit of this law, it is absolutely more complex than is being acknowledged, and a risk to user safety.
Automakers have spent the last few years trying to secure the embedded modems and software to protect customers. Creating a back door to these systems is counter to that effort. AND it doesn’t really give independent repair shops an advantage. They can already access all the data and functions of the vehicle modules with factory software that is already available to them (for a fee).
This sounds good in theory to the layman, but is less useful and less practical than is being touted.
IphtashuFitz t1_iu0hd9y wrote
> They can already access all the data and functions of the vehicle modules with factory software that is already available to them (for a fee).
Let me guess. Those fees are way higher than a small independent shop can afford to pay, especially when it's one fee to Toyota, another fee to Ford, yet another fee to Honda, and so on.
RelativeMotion1 t1_iu0hxeg wrote
I can only speak to certain manufacturers, but it’s generally not that exorbitant. A few thousand a year, which can easily be offset by performing lucrative services like key programming which are often done by dealers.
And IMO, that was the thing to target with legislation. Make the manufacturers offer the software for free or for a lower fixed cost. That would be far, far more effective for the shop and beneficial for the customer.
abhikavi t1_iu1dyt7 wrote
> A few thousand a year
...per manufacturer?
The mechanic I use is a one-man shop, and generally works on European imports. I could easy see him refusing to take my Honda if he had to pay a few thousand a year just to work on Hondas.
>Make the manufacturers offer the software for free or for a lower fixed cost.
Yeah, I'd be happy with that.
RelativeMotion1 t1_iu1p7gm wrote
Yeah, for a one-man shop, it’s not ideal. It’s worth mentioning that the “scan tool subscription” has been the case for over 20 years, long before embedded modems came along. It helps the manufacturers pay for development of the tool (millions of dollars in cost, often to a supplier like Bosch), and eventually becomes another profit center. Don’t take that as my endorsement, just relaying the facts.
There are also generic diagnostic tools that have 9/10 of the capability for less investment. That’s how smaller independent shops usually do it. One universal tool for most things, and possibly a few manufacturer tools for their most commonly serviced brands. However, with the increasing software complexity and increasing frequency of module updates, I expect they’ll raise prices as well.
It will take years for the independent service environment to adapt to all the changes we’re seeing, from this to electrification to autonomy. Almost none of the independent shops are equipped to service modern technology, and those that don’t invest soon will be relegated to replacing basic parts like suspension and brakes. And as oil changes become a thing of the past, businesses will close. The industry is in for quite a ride between now and 2030.
Bostonosaurus t1_iu0loaf wrote
What does "protect" customers mean? Like someone hacks into the car and floors it into an intersection or Mark Zuckerberg just knows where I am all the time?
RelativeMotion1 t1_iu0muj9 wrote
The module that they’re requesting access to is an embedded modem that essentially allows remote access to all of the vehicle modules. Including those that provide anti-theft/security functions, and all of the modules that operate every feature in the vehicle including the powertrain and airbags.
It’s not going to be very helpful in the diagnostic realm, relative to the diagnostic tool that the dealership would use and is available to the independent shops.
If they can find a way to do this without making the cars vulnerable to theft or interference from bad actors, then sure, have at it. But it’s almost never going to help them repair the vehicle, and they’ll still need a diagnostic computer to do much of anything with the data. That’s my point. The legislation is trying to solve the wrong issue, and in doing so potentially creates a security risk.
synthdrunk t1_iu1adwq wrote
So glad my vehicle has a cell modem, network stack.
Protect consumers by ending corpus collection from vehicles.
Bostonosaurus t1_iu8c9sk wrote
They need this data for my protection.
fendent t1_iu41n7o wrote
Security is about controlling risks in your threat model. There is nothing particularly complex about what they’re doing that isn’t already being done. It simply requires more effort and will be costly to retrofit them properly if they need any hardware changes on the device side. The fact that they can’t open up access to other authorized parties actually shows how poor of a job they’ve done and susceptible to compromise they are. The AG’s complaint actually details multiple AuthN/AuthZ models that the EFF helped them describe in their amicus brief! They’re simply putting up a fight because it’ll be expensive.
endlesscartwheels t1_iu4p3w0 wrote
> They can already access all the data and functions of the vehicle modules with factory software that is already available to them (for a fee).
Perhaps the solution is a law requiring that for a car to be sold in Massachusetts, its manufacturer must make that software available to Massachusetts mechanics for free.
Victor_Korchnoi t1_iu31pq3 wrote
I took my Chevy to a shop to have my brakes worked on. The shop couldn’t replace my brake pads because their computer wasn’t able to talk to the brakes. They told me I need to take it a Chevy dealer. This is the exact bullshit that right-to-repair is meant to stop.
HNL2BOS t1_iu4q0qy wrote
What model Chevy so I know to avoid it?
damnitnickfoles t1_iu73lqz wrote
Most modern vehicles have electronic parking brakes. If you’re doing the rear brakes you usually need a scan tool to place the brakes into a “service mode” or to retract the calipers. Kind of annoying, but honestly any shop with a decent scan tool should be able to do it. Some vehicles (Mazda for one) have a manual procedure you can do that requires no scan tool at all. It definitely doesn’t have to go to a dealer, but at least another shop with the proper equipment.
UltravioletClearance t1_iu28609 wrote
Reminds me of the Massachusetts non-compete law. After politicians patted themselves on the backs for passing it, companies changed one word in their contracts and nothing changed.
AutoModerator t1_itzhmcy wrote
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles here.
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iu1g25f wrote
[removed]
DanieXJ t1_iu2roio wrote
Shocked, I'm shocked..........
TywinShitsGold t1_itzv2z1 wrote
My mechanic still hasn’t broken into my bedroom to assault me yet, so I’m somewhat crestfallen.