>> I think you are dangerously wrong on that point. Of course the EFF has an agenda which colours their argument, but right now the DMCA is being used to prevent independent scrutiny of devices that are essential to people's lives.
How so? I think the EFF is going a bit off track here. They seem to imply that source code is required for independent testing. If we assume that's true, who gets to see it? How do they get to use it?
Emissions tests are circumvented by knowing the test conditions and/or sequence and having software behave differently during the test. You can either try to understand the software, or you can just change your testing sequence. Which seems more reasonable?
Now what if China wants to see your code to verify compliance? And Germany, and France, and every country to sell cars in.
>They seem to imply that source code is required for independent testing.
That is most certainly NOT what the EFF is implying. They are asking for an exemption to the DMCA, not access to anyone's original source code. When they say "Automakers argue that it’s unlawful for independent researchers to look at the code that controls vehicles without the manufacturer’s permission," they're not talking about "you should have a legal obligation to give us your human-readable source code," they're talking about "You shouldn't be able to sue us for copyright infringement when we analyze the firmware on our cars." Car manufacturers argue that people don't really own cars, and that any attempt to look at the software that manages them is in violation of the DMCA.You can read more about it here:
The kind of thing the EFF is trying to legally access is already shipped in every vehicle that goes to China (or anywhere), where they don't have the DMCA and probably are already examining it - just not for our benefit.
> If we assume that's true, who gets to see it? How do they get to use it?
Everyone? What would be the harm?
> Now what if China wants to see your code to verify compliance? And Germany, and France, and every country to sell cars in.
Show them the code.
Before cars were run with software, it was possible to buy a car, take it apart, measure every single part, and construct a copy. You could learn everything about a car by examining a car. The fact that this was possible did not prevent the U.S. auto industry from succeeding financially. It did not hurt anyone.
I can't think of a reason that would be different today. The DMCA was enacted to protected creative works, in which the IP represents the entirety of the value. Software that runs hardware is not the same thing and should not be accorded the same protections.
As we learned from Toyota, these protections have enabled absolutely terrible software development practices. Third-party inspection would provide pressure to improve that. Imagine if Consumer Reports had electric engineers and software engineers on staff and their car reviews included scores for code quality and proper safety checks. I think that would be good for everyone, including car companies.
I don't think they're implying that, I think they're saying that searching through the source code could have identified this issue years earlier, which I think is 100% possible, but not guaranteed.
I mean, how do you know the source code for this "cheat" wasn't 100% obvious, such that looking at the code would have revealed itself right away? Obviously, no one can know that right now, since it's protected under DMCA, but what if.....
How so? I think the EFF is going a bit off track here. They seem to imply that source code is required for independent testing. If we assume that's true, who gets to see it? How do they get to use it?
Emissions tests are circumvented by knowing the test conditions and/or sequence and having software behave differently during the test. You can either try to understand the software, or you can just change your testing sequence. Which seems more reasonable?
Now what if China wants to see your code to verify compliance? And Germany, and France, and every country to sell cars in.