________________________________________________________________________________
I'm super excited for this! It's a small step, but an important one.
The whole premise of this, as I read it, was that while OBD ports are fair game (and any protocol over them), there is other data that is (often) necessary to diagnose and repair cars that is not available from OBD and is phoned-home. That's simple enough.
What I think is superb is that the law requires data to go _directly to consumers_ as in, car makers would be required to change immediate locations of outbound telemetry such that they can't get it. This is key as I, first, don't want data leaving my car at all, and second, if it does, I don't want the automaker or insurance company to get to it.
I'm sure automakers (Tesla especially, since they pioneered brutally connected cars and data capture) aren't thrilled about this, but I am optimistic to see where it goes. Maybe I'll be able to buy a new car that doesn't phone home (or only phones home to a service I personally own). I can dream.
I would be _much_ more likely to buy a car from an overreaching data-hungry corporation if I could turn it off.
or just be able to say no.
these company fear the data loss, but honestly I think most people will leave it going.
This would also promote competition or new sources of data.
What if startup automobile tech companies or mapping companies could offer you money for your video feed or navigation data?
Or you could give it all to open street maps or new things like open traffic or open weather or whatever.
It could - at your discretion - democratize the mobile data your car collects.
Refuse to buy a car with an internet connection that can't be permanently disabled. Do not do it.
All cars have a way of doing this. For the tesla, you can disconnect the two cellular antennas and the wifi antenna.
IIRC don’t some auto insurance companies already offer this, where you can give them location/cam data for lower rates?
Yes, metromile being one. Saved me a bunch of money since I seldom drive.
This is incredibly important! Lobby your legislators in your state for similar laws! We want to expand this to include heavy equipment too.
I _love_ my Tesla and I even like the features enabled by remote telemetry - keyless drop-off for service, remote diagnosis, automatic update, etc. - but I really wish I had a _hardware_ on-off switch, so that I could prevent all the "connected car" features when I don't want them on.
Can you just pull the SIM card?
I think it’s behind the dash somewhere.
Isn't it totally useless if it doesn't prevent serialization of parts? For example, I'm pretty sure my dad can't replace the infotainment system on his truck because it's married to the VIN somehow and requires special programming upon replacement.
So even though I think it's awesome to give people more diagnostic data, I don't think it goes far enough if that info is along the lines of "Unauthorized tires detected. Your vehicle must be serviced by an authorized repair shop."
Every incremental step of changing the status quo moves the whole process closer to the long term goal of unlocking all repair issues and gaining the user ability to control data flow.
Every step counts.
> Isn't it totally useless
No, it clearly isn't totally useless. The case you point out means that there is an argument for stronger protections also.
That's like saying gdb is "totally useless" because it doesn't fix your code for you.
This is a very useful step in the right direction.
Oh, you _really_ want to read Cory Doctorow's, "Unauthorized Bread". First story in the four-part book, "Radicalized".
And if you buy it directly from him, the ebook version is DRM-free.
> What I think is superb is that the law requires data to go _directly to consumers_ as in, car makers would be required to change immediate locations of outbound telemetry such that they can't get it.
What an amazing idea. There is no problem with telemetry if the user owns and controls the data it produces. They should make this law cover more classes of products and software.
A now-inaccessible but archived page on the automaker-backed Coalition for Safe and Secure Data page said
“It will allow these people to access very detailed
information, including how, when and where a person
drives. From this information, a third party, such as
a sexual predator, could stalk and/or harm victims by
exploiting insecure transmissions of vehicle
information.”
There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it.
Instead of spending millions of dollars campaigning against this quite sensible proposal, why not spend the money developing secure transmission of information? Or better yet, transmitting as little information as possible in the first place?
Why do telematics companies need to know _where_ you are? I'm aware that car insurance telematics companies provide location tracking for cases of vehicle theft (I had such a device in my car for my previous insurance provider), but that doesn't have to be actively-transmitting location data at all times; it could instead do so only after a secure request to the device _from_ the telematics company _after_ a theft is reported.
> There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it.
I've found that industries irrationally oppose reasonable legislation on principle. Do you remember cell phone number portability? (In the US?) Cell phone carriers vocally opposed it, and then the day it was passed they all put up signs saying you could keep your number if you switched today.
why is it irrational? They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be.
> _They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be._
There comes a point where the public's best interest outweighs a corporation's best interest.
I personally believe that "point" is unconditional. This may or may not be a popular opinion on a website built around glorifying corporations, but corporations - try as their lobbyists might to insist otherwise - are not people. Their "rights" and best interests are, in my opinion, _always_ secondary to the rights and best interests of, you know, actual people. Any inversion of that is corporatist tyranny.
I think it's important to be clear, the "rights" of corporations are the rights of their owners/shareholders. It's jaded, but it's best to assume that a "corporation's best interest" equates to what makes them the most money; nothing more, nothing less. And of course, it's to make more money for ownership that already has money.
I don't think that the point of corporate vs public best interest is "unconditional", but we skew way too far to the corporate side than is good for our society
_I think it's important to be clear, the "rights" of corporations are the rights of their owners/shareholders._
To some extent, an organization is a host for emergent behavior. An organization (like an ant colony) may behave in ways that are counter to the best interests of, and incomprehensible by, any given isolated individual in that organization.
I'd nitpick and say a corporations best self-interest is achieving what it's charter states as its purpose. Or it should be. If that's purely making money, fine. Though often pursuing financial gains first and foremost in the long term loses on actual value produced and therefore ultimately lowers it's lifelong monetary value too. E.g. SpaceX looks to be a very valuable company, but it's primary goal is to make it to the moon.
As members of the public the interests of the owners are already being counted when you look at the ‘public interest’.
In effect, your suggesting they be double counted as both the owners and members of the public.
You're completely right, but I'm not really suggesting it; they are being "double counted".
That being said, an individual's share of the "public interest" is incredibly miniscule, and there's relatively few owners, so it's not like it's equal on both sides. In fact, that's ultimately the problem; that we constantly bend due to "corporate interests" that are subject to the whims of an incredibly small fraction of society that is, in general, massively disconnected from the norms of society.
Add on to that, generally having a large amount of money and privilege means that most of the things that are in the "public interest" aren't really of significant concern to you because you can simply buy your way into a completely different system (see public vs private education)
Where double counting is most noticeable is economic arguments. Framing the debate around what maximizes GDP lets the RIAA for example make arguments like “good for the economy and good for musicians.”
Would love to hear at which point you think that is? Like, in which cases do you feel a corporations best interest outweighs the publics? Do you have some examples?
janpot, I think you maybe reacting to a strawman. It's clearly never in the public's interest to favor ANYTHING over the public's interest. There _are_, however, many cases when it is in the public's _global_ interest for a corporation's _local_ interests to outweigh individuals' _local_ interests. Most arguments people make in support of corporation's rights can be reduced to 1) identifying the anti-corporate interest as a local one, 2) identifying the public benefit created/maintained by supporting a corporation's rights, and 3) say 2)>1).
An extreme example I expect you'd agree with to illustrate the structure:
* Individuals shouldn't just be able to take corporations' property without compensation. Individuals' being able to obtain a TV just by taking it from Best Buy would undoubtedly be a benefit. However, it would mean no sane retailer would stay in business. Having a functioning retail economy is more important to me than getting a free TV.
The equivalent argument here is:
* Developing cars is hard, expensive work that benefits the public (improved safety, reduced emissions, etc.). If retail car prices were just a bit lower, many more people could afford them, allowing them to access jobs and escape poverty. One way to lower retail car prices is to allow manufacturers to sell telemetry data from cars. They'll still need to compete on price for customers, but since they'll have this new data revenue stream, they'll be able to lower consumer prices further while still covering their costs. If you care more about poverty than you do about data privacy, you should support letting manufacturers sell usage data.
I happen not to buy that argument and voted Yes on this measure, but I hope it clarifies how conceptually, people can be for corporations on issues where giving corporations more or fewer rights is at issue.
I understand you don’t agree with the cheaper cars argument, and I don’t either.
To the people that would seriously make this argument though, I ask them this:
If the location or other telemetry data is so valuable that the manufacturer selling it can have a real impact on the purchase price of the car, then doesn’t that value have to come from somewhere? Other companies wouldn’t buy that data if they didn’t think they could use it to make more money than the data is worth. That money the data buyers then are hoping to make would come from the very people that the data did, in most cases, right? So the consumer has ended up with less money compared to if they didn’t have their data sold, even if they got some trinkets in return.
>then doesn’t that value have to come from somewhere?
It's not necessarily zero-sum. The trinkets may well be worth more to people than the privacy benefit. In fact, if the car owner saves $100 and buys a trinket, they presumably think the trinket IS worth more than $100. Many might happily trade vehicle telemetry for a properly autonomous vehicle that means they could sleep during their commute time.
Moreover, for the general public, money flow is good, even if we think car owner #75834 got duped in how he spent his $100. Buying an extra trinket creates trinket-making jobs, who eat at restaurants, which hire cooks, etc. Estimates vary, but suggest $100 of flow generates an additional $50-$250 in economic activity [0].
[0]See Table 1...
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...
.
Genuinely curious - how does one begin to answer such a broad question? The parent comment is reasonable. It is easy for carriers to let users keep their number. It isn’t going to eat into their profits, so why not do it? Especially when bank accounts, two factor authentication and a bunch of other stuff are tied to your phone number.
Or are you of the opinion that profits matter over everything else?
It's irrational because a) they have no real argument against the legislation, so making farcical arguments makes them look nefarious and is bad PR, and b) those arguments are unconvincing on the merits, so the only way you're going to convince anybody with them is in combination with some kind of underhanded shenanigans, but in that case you don't really need the argument, do you?
>They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be.
I'm struggling to understand why this should be the case. I understand this is how it works now, but this seems like a flaw, not a desirable aspect of life.
Edit: To clarify, I meant I don't understand why it's a good thing we expect corporations to look out for their best interests while ignoring the best interests of society/individuals.
If a number isn't portable, you're more locked in to their system. Sure, other people are locked out, but by their math, they're able to keep people from leaving, which may be more desirable.
Apologies, I think my comment was unclear so I just edited it. What I meant was it's unclear to me why it's a good thing that corporations look out for their best interests instead of the best interests of society/customers/people.
If an individual does it, their known for being selfish, egotistical, maybe even narcissistic. There's a natural push back from society to this behavior.
Corporations should be disincentivized from doing this as well. Society would benefit as a whole. The fact that people expect selfishness out of corporations and see it as a good thing is concerning.
Their best interests are not aligned with those of their customers, and from the perspective of people using their products, are irrational.
The ads and claims that “X will rape your children if this law passes” were so ridiculously over-the-top that it isn’t worth drawing any conclusions from the statements. It was a desperate attempt at instilling fear, and it didn’t work. It had no basis in reality, and the tactics were probably chosen by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the industry anyway.
The worst part of the ads was the testimonial by a former state government official with her title below her name leading the viewers to believe that the state was endorsing these crazy statements that letting your local mechanic be able to work on your car is somehow enabling domestic assault. I'm glad the ads will be off the air now that the election is over.
unless a thief finds and disables it first
Holy cow the ads against this where something else. Most of them were saying something along the lines of "if users have access to the data it will be used to rape you."
The correct response to this is to make the data opt in with a strong warning about how it could be abused, not make it only abusable by corporations.
Really happy to see this go through in Mass. sadly we didn't pass ranked choice voting though :(
The correct response is to change the wording on the ballot so if collected information is used for a crime the organization who leaked it is liable - even if the leak is unintentional (that the leak happened through a zero-day exploit doesn't isn't a defense against the leak)
Glad we got this passed. Still more work to be done nationwide on this and similar issues. As someone else mentioned, the auto industry ran disgusting ads claiming local mechanics will get your address from your car data, follow you home, and rape you. Here's a Vice article on it [0]; I can't find online videos of the ads anymore.
I wish we'd also passed ranked choice voting, but it did alright at 45% yes (93% reporting).
[0]
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-...
I know tons of people who voted no for RCV simply because they didn't understand it or thought it was too complex.
Sadly when I have explained it to them, they usually change their mind over it. Just need better voter education next time I guess.
Yes. It's much harder for a complicated subject like RCV.
The right-to-repair question was simple and very clear. It explained the ballot initiative within the question:
> A "yes" vote supported requiring manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application.
Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...):
> A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and certain county offices beginning in 2022.
Both ballot initiative questions were preceded by a wall of text explaining the details, of course. But I bet most people didn't read those paragraphs.
_Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...)_
Here is a reasonable try.
Everyone lists candidates in the order that they like them, then candidates get knocked out one by one with votes always being for the remaining candidate that the voter liked best.
Don't ask me to explain any Condorcet method in one sentence though. :-)
So my example to friends & family was if you wanted to vote Green but didn't want to "spoil" the vote for Biden, you could vote for Howie Hawkins as #1, then Biden as #2. If Howie didn't win, then your vote for Biden would be counted. The usual response is "ahhh ... that's cool".
The problem in US politics is that it's polarizing (by design?) and always boils down to either voting for the least-worst candidate (rather than the candidate you actually like), or voting for someone you hate simply because there's a key issue that aligns with your thinking.
Reading the text of the proposal, I find it bizarre that the requirement would be for a mobile app versus, say, a serial connection that allows access to the same data that is transmitted OTA.
This is better than nothing, but this approach would seem to open the door to issues such as previous owners still having access to the data, OEMs obfuscating the API to access the data, the apps being geo-locked and possibly requiring paid subscriptions, etc...
This is why I'm always nervous about these ballot initiatives. They always have a vaguely "homework assignment done the night before the deadline" feel.
The ideas are great but the implementation can be shoddy.
For instance, I think the first thing should have been the ability to _easily disable_ collection, not get an app to watch your privacy be invaded.
It is extremely likely that the legislature will take up this law in the next session and amend it; to extend the deadline, ensure security for the data, and likely negotiate a compromise with automakers.
The 2013 right-to-repair law resulted in a nationwide change to allow OBD access after negotiations with the state legislature.
can you provide any insight / links about what happened with the 2013 law? I remember very little and feel a little ashamed about that.
Ballotpedia has a nice write-up:
https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
A serial connection to what, though?
Some of the data that is intended to be covered by Question 1 is data that was transmitted to the OEM _last week_. MA already has a right-to-repair law that covers the wired/OBD2 interface (which is a CAN bus interface at this point).
I'm not familiar with the existing law covering OBD2/CAN bus, but I'm pretty sure even when the OBD2 port gives you the ability to communicate with all networks (D-CAN, K-CAN, etc...), it's currently up to the community to reverse engineer the commands etc...
As for data that was transmitted "last week" I'd rather my car not transmit data continuously, and if I wanted to monitor it continuously I could just plug in a scanner with an embedded computer. There are already a multitude of such devices for OBD, both that pair with your phone and which run as independent devices.
The point of the ballot initiative though was to put independent repair shops on the same level as manufacturer-owned service centers with respect to mechanical data which was transmitted wirelessly.
In other words, the prior question covered wired connections, but wireless telematics was a "loophole" of sorts. If I were an OEM and wanted to sell in MA, I had an easy way to get data that would be able to stay proprietary to me and my network of dealers so long as I transmitted that data wirelessly.
I probably agree with you on the continuous data transmission point wrt desirability overall, but given that your car is going to do it anyway, I want that data to not be locked in the OEM garden. This removes that major advantage to using wireless transmission to work around this.
Ah, I see. That makes sense, thanks!
This is great, but it's unfortunate that they didn't also include the right to disable any data collection. My car's data should be available to me and me alone, full stop. If I choose to share it with my mechanic or the manufacturer, that's my business. The manufacturer shouldn't have any access without an explicit opt-in from me, and refusing to opt-in should not affect the sale. I should also be able to control what data they can see if I choose to share it. The manufacturer has a legitimate concern about certain operational parameters if I'm asking them to perform a repair under warranty (did I redline the engine?), but they have absolutely no legitimate use, ever, for location data.
This is great news as it will push into other states even if they don't have right to repair.
I'm am glad that these scare tactics from the opposition failed.
It is ridiculous to even discuss this but you are correct of course. If one state does it I think there is little choice for the others.
Or more likely, the proponents of this will go the federal courts. Doesn't matter how many states say yes if the feds say no.
No...
California has its own stricter emissions laws and car manufacturers build to California standards as a result.
Because the feds allows California - only California - to set stricter standards than the rest of the country. Several other states (5 last I checked but that was 10 years ago) require California standards for all cars in their state. They don't have the option of creating their own standard as the feds haven't given it to them.
California is also the _worlds fifth largest economy_.
MA already ignores the feds on weed and guns with no apparent ill affects. They could probably do it for cars too without much issue.
I don't know why you think it will push into other states.
The manufacturers will continue to fight this tooth and nail and will only open this up as much as they are forced to.
Because that's what happened last time:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-...
Massachusetts passed a law, and car manufacturers voluntarily made it a national standard a year later.
They aren't going to build different cars for one state, and they aren't going to stop selling cars in one state.
In some cases, they do make different cars for different states if the market is large enough. The fiat 500e for example is only sold in CA and OR.
Logistically and operationally speaking, it'd be incredibly difficult to gate it to a single state. People move in/out of state, people split time living between multiple states, students may temporarily move states for the school year, cars are frequently purchased in one state and shipped to another, used vehicles auctions redistribute cars all over the place, people pass in/out/through the state while traveling. All of which ultimately has to be taken into account for the entire lifespan of the vehicle.
Even ignoring the cost and complexity of the logistics, the manufacturers will open themselves up to an expensive and drawn out stream of lawsuits litigating every conceivable edge case (such as the above examples). All with little minimal upside for themselves, since right-to-repair primarily harms dealerships and minimally harms manufacturers (since most if not all states make it illegal for auto manufacturers _to_ own dealerships).
Plus all of the above leads to higher costs the manufacturers have to bear, which will ultimately get pushed down to dealers/consumers. And isn't limited to just Massachusetts, due to the ripple effect of increasing overall complexity in their manufacturing/distribution/sales processes. Which could decrease sales volume across the entire market if everyone went this route, or result in loss of market share if other manufacturers _do_ implement it nationwide and you can't maintain competitive pricing.
At the end of the day, it'll end up going nationwide, because there's no real reason not to. And every reason _to_ go nationwide. Auto manufacturers would love to be able to have direct-to-consumer sales, and starving the primary profit stream of dealerships makes that easier to happen. It's drastically cheaper - every car rolls off the production lane exactly the same, there's no enforcement mechanism to maintain, and no potentially costly class action lawsuits to worry about.
All while having a perfectly valid rationale to show they aren't deliberately harming the independent dealership model, and are simply complying with their legal requirements as efficiently as feasible.
The ballot questions were what really motivated me to show up to the polls. I predicted that RtR would pass. I expected Ranked Choice voting to be close and probably not pass. Still, I am disappointed MA residents didn't choose to use ranked choice voting.
In my jurisdiction, we had an additional question asking if the state representative should support legislation that treats police officers murdering unarmed and restrained citizens as first degree murder.
The result in my town was an emphatic "yes".
To me, that's a strange question. First degree murder means premeditated intent, and almost all police shootings aren't premeditated. Do you mean that police murdering someone was voted to be treated with the same consequences as first degree murder, but not necessarily classified as first degree murder?
In my area we had a ballot question about committing to 100% renewable energy in 20 years.
The actual text of the question in its entirety:
"Shall the representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that penalizes officers on duty for the murder of unarmed and restrained citizens similarly to the penalty of first-degree murder?"
>unarmed and _restrained_ citizens
You probably missed the restrained part. Shooting a restrained person is nothing but 1st degree murder.
_Targeting_ and shooting a restrained person? Yes.
Crossfire or negligent discharge? Probably not.
I give police power to do things in an emergency that are required. I then put them in a position where they are the most likely person to be there (respond) when such an emergency happens. In return I expect them to be highly trained and not kill people just because they can.
Not an American. Could anybody explain who is behind this campaign and how this issue was put up for popular vote?
This type of question is called a "Ballot measure." 26/50 states have initiative or veto referendum processes, which means Citizens can collect signatures to place a law on the ballot. A coalition containing unions (i.e. service & tire) and others were able to collect 103,604 signatures in support of this law which was more than the required 80,239 to have the question appear on the Massachusetts ballot. They submitted this all in late 2019 and there was some back and forth with the legislature and they were required to collect some more signatures which they did successfully (skipping some legal stuff). After all the signatures were verified, it was certified for the November 2020 ballot (in MA).
If you are curious for more detail, Ballotpedia has a good overview of information in their "path to the ballot" section:
https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_%22Right_t...
Perhaps this will highlight the massive security concerns from irresponsible automobile engineers and management. You can’t just have a key that basically reinvented RFID but throwing away every possible security choice. You can’t just have a public piece of equipment capable of exchanging information wirelessly. What were these people thinking? Were they thinking? Something’s got to change.
I hope this leads to things like being able to update or change the horrific UIs of the entertainment centers.
One ridiculous example from just the other day when I rented a 2020 Jeep Cherokee: The toggle for turning on the backup camera is in the audio settings for some inexplicable reason. No, that is not a typo.
There are forums full of people discussing how to buy after market doohickies to turn on/have a backup cam on while driving to, e.g., monitor a trailer hitch … while the toggle is in the audio settings, at least in the 2020.
This is a huge, global, multi-billion dollar company that did that … handicapping basic functionality of the $30,000+ vehicle. Just think about that for a second.
Mr. Rossmann has a nice clip of his retort in the committee meeting for this:
https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI?t=234
w00t!
MA voter here. Today / this week I'll take any good news I can get.
Why don’t the most open, repairable products simply win in the market place? Who wouldn’t want to most open product?
Will Tesla stop selling in that state?
Tesla sells in Mass, despite the first "right to repair" bill. There is quite a bit of money in Boston area, I am pretty sure they will comply like they did for the first bill.
>comply like they did for the first bill
Which was grudgingly. I understand they've improved somewhat but their initial implementation was something like you could rent a service manual for some significant fee per hour.
And if so, will they still charge $30/hour for people that want to rent their car's service manual?
great news! i hope this sets a precedent and extends to technology (looking at you Apple)