Comment by bloomingeek
1 year ago
Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue! I paid my money, so I own the product. [IF] I own the vehicle it should be my right to say what software runs in the background.
Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it." If I want to keep up with the latest safety upgrades to my vehicle to protect myself and all car companies have the same tracking software, my only option is to look for a "dumb" vehicle. This is blatantly unsafe and irresponsible. So, they're saying that my safety comes with a price other than the $40K I shelled out?
> Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them?
It's even worse. Your car acts as a blackbox against you. A 1990's car? I can do whatever the fuck I want to, I can drive it offroad, I can speed, I can even be near a bank robbery or whatever.
A modern car? Someone robs a bank a few hundred meters from where I am, and now the police will come knock on my door because the IMEI of my car was near the bank when the robbery happened. I speed a little bit to overtake some dumbass driving 20 km/h below the limit, the police makes a dragnet subpoena against my insurance / the data processor from the manufacturer, and issues me a ticket.
> Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it."
Honestly I'm pretty tired of that "our way or the high way" nonsense. Society needs to make it so they actually can't say that. Make respecting us a precondition for their continued existence. As in they literally get liquidated if they say that even once.
That's how we deal with sociopaths leveraging these non-negotiable "terms" against us. They have zero empathy, they view us like cattle to be marked and monitored and turned into cash flow. So there is no reason to empathize with their nonsense viewpoints either. Just make whatever they're doing illegal. Doesn't matter how much money they lose.
> who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue
Ownership is a bad framework for this issue—it’s too ambiguous. You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter.
> You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter.
Sure it does.
This entire attitude is what's scary about software, actually. See, back in the ye olden days, no one disputed your right to remove the catalytic converter on a vehicle you purchased.
It was no longer legal to drive and if you were caught you could get fined. But you absolutely had the right to do it.
But now with software, there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle. And you're defending it as right.
> there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle
Your key term here is control. When discussing a new rule, that is what you focus on. Use the word ownership when selling the rule, sure. My point is rules drafted starting from ownership tend to be trivial to circumvent. Because they presume ownership is a natural state when it is a social construct.
8 replies →
I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud.
You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. You should also be able to turn on or off any tracking. There are just consequences for some of the things you might want to do.
> should own your car
Ownership is a legal concept. What it means, what that package of rights tied to a piece of property entails, is entirely dependent on the law. Using ownership as a guideline for rule-making is bad form because it’s tautology; I can justify and condemn anything on the basis of my or adjoining persons’ purported ownership rights.
The machine languages of ownership are control and possession. That’s what we’re delineating, and unfortunately it generally must be done piecemeal. In this case, the pieces are the data cars beam home. Currently, the manufacturer controls it. You and I agree—I think—that it should be the user, which we—by this conjecture—make its owner. The ownership flows from control, not the other way.
(The problem is trebled with cars given they’re typically driven on roads the driver doesn’t own nor control.)
7 replies →
>I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud.
For a long time this was just a fact of buying any car that lived long enough. I have bought several cars where the transaction went something like: "so the odometer has rolled over twice; so there's actually 376,000 miles on the frame... but only 118,000 of those are on this motor and I swapped the transmission with a reman 76,000 miles ago."
Of course we've added a few significant figures to odometers since then, and in the era of digital odometers I imagine "rolling over" behaves very differently. (Will the chassis survive 4 billion miles? Seems unlikely. Do the display and storage have different bit resolutions? Is it a saturating counter internally? Externally?)
You can do whatever you want to it, you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore. You are forgetting about all the use cases which aren't general public transit.
>you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore
Varies by state.
But.. it really does. As most states don't require annual inspection, you are free to smash up your odometer and sell your cat to the scrapyard. It hurts the resale value, but it's not illegal to do this at all.
It does however give you a right to download any data that is being collected. I wonder if that's covered by GDPR.