EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

https://supporters.eff.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=1234

by paulmlewis • 11 years ago

730 107 11 years ago

supporters.eff.org

Karunamon• 11 years ago

They also got an exemption for modifying of abandoned games whose activation systems are long since gone, as well as extending/clarifying the jailbreaking exemption.

mtgx• 11 years ago

That seems like great news for GOG.

thaumasiotes2• 11 years ago

> They also got an exemption for modifying of abandoned games whose activation systems are long since gone

That sounds to me like it would allow you to patch a game you already owned, but not to copy and sell that game. How does it help GOG?

dogma1138• 11 years ago

GOG buys rights to distribute the original works for pennies on the dollar, the exemption EFF got is that you are allowed to reverse engineer and distribute software which can be used to run games that you own for systems that are no longer available, as well as transfer the games from their original media to modern ones in order to preserve them.

It doesn't not however give people the license to sell those games commercially doesn't matter if they are "abandonware" or not.

VonGuard6• 11 years ago

I actually worked on this part of the exemption. It was granted in two parts. First, fans may now reverse engineer and host servers for games that are no longer hosted online. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a perfect example, but there are plenty of others. This is now legal, and considered fair use. MMO's are exempted, and defined as games where the world is persistent reguardless of number of players connected (IE, is the game played in rounds, or is state reset in the world often... more than once a month, for example). It was a crude way to define the differences, but MMO's were a sticking point, so we have to come back to them later.

Second, museums and archives are now permitted to circumvent copy protection in the pursuit of preservation. This means that huge stores of old games that are otherwise unavailable are now legally preservable by institutions like Stanford, The Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment, and Archive.org. Of note is the fact that the Atari ST catalog of software was preserved on pirate disks, and we've yet to find any other way to save some of those pieces of software, aside from just preserving the pirate disks. This does not mean these titles can be redistributed, only that they can be modified for the sake of preservation.

Additionally, this means museums can preserve devices that circumvent copy protection, such as floppy-to-SNES devices, which we have a few of at the MADE. Modded XBoxes can now also be preserved in an institution.

The bits that help museums means a great deal for preservation of digital assets as a whole. This was a lot of work to get done, so a huge thanks goes out to the EFF, Stanford, MIT, Harvard and Archive.org for all their hard work to get this done!

jxcl• 11 years ago

This does not mean these titles can be redistributed, only that they can be modified for the sake of preservation.

But once the copyright expires on the disks, they may then be redistributed?

schoen3• 11 years ago

Hi VonGuard,

and considered fair use

The 1201 exemption process doesn't adjudicate whether things are fair use in a way that's binding on courts, although the Copyright Office does believe that it has to express some opinion about that the uses it approves are noninfringing. But a court doesn't have to agree with that substantive question: if someone sued you for running the server they could argue that it's not a fair use, and the court that they sue you in isn't bound to agree that the Copyright Office was right to view it as noninfringing (or that this is true in the particular circumstances).

oxide• 11 years ago

this is huge! thanks for all the hard work to everyone involved.

xg153• 11 years ago

If I understood the ruling correctly, all exemptions are technically only binding for three years, after which they have to be renewed. So in the (hopefully) hypothetical case that the librarian would not renew the excemption for archives, would that make all exibits stored on grounds of the exemption suddenly illegal? If yes, this doesn't seem like a very practical solution to me.

Shish2k• 11 years ago

I get that MMOs are very different to regular games, but I wonder how that applies in this context - why would an MMO company strongly object to their abandonware being revived while a regular multiplayer company tolerates it?

dang2• 11 years ago

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10459316 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10459113.

paulmlewis4• 11 years ago

Thanks, first time submitting, I didn't spot those ones.

dang2• 11 years ago

Welcome to HN submitting! We hope you'll submit as many intellectually interesting stories as you can find.

The links in my comment above were just to point out related links of interest, not at all to suggest that you shouldn't have posted this one.

Isamu• 11 years ago

“It’s absurd that we have to spend so much time, every three years, filing and defending these petitions to the copyright office. Technologists, artists, and fans should not have to get permission from the government—and rely on the contradictory and often nonsensical rulings—before investigating whether their car is lying to them or using their phone however they want,” said EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry. “But despite this ridiculous system, we are glad for our victories here, and that basic rights to modify, research, and tinker have been protected.”

coldpie• 11 years ago

The system sucks, but it's the system we have, and it costs money to fight these battles. If you like the result here, consider setting up a recurring donation to the EFF.

kapitalx• 11 years ago

Yep. This is a great reminder why we should all donate to EFF [and that I haven't renewed my membership since a few months ago]

Edit: membership now renewed

shkkmo• 11 years ago

My "recurring donation" is to buy every humblebundle and give everything to the EFF.

Overtonwindow• 11 years ago

Will this have any effect on the John Deer issue?

wlesieutre• 11 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, but the EFF mentions tractors in their press release:

We are pleased that analysts will now be able to examine the software in the cars we drive without facing legal threats from car manufacturers, and that the Librarian has acted to promote competition in the vehicle aftermarket and protect the long tradition of vehicle owners tinkering with their cars and tractors.

schoen3• 11 years ago

Indeed, this is the issue on which John Deere weighed in on the other side (trying to prevent this decision from coming out this way).

pjaikumar• 11 years ago

Excellent development!

yeukhon• 11 years ago

Wow. I didn't expect the Librarian OF Congress would have a say in this case, but he/she does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librarian_of_Congress

Natanael_L4• 11 years ago

schoen3• 11 years ago

This is the sixth time this has process has taken place in its current form -- it's not exactly something new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

r3n2o• 11 years ago

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-wins-petition-inspect...

jenscow• 11 years ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased with the progress - but doesn't this just mean they'll make it harder to crack?

tga_d2• 11 years ago

This is just the same old issue of DRM as before: create a system that works when the user is running it like they're supposed to, but doesn't reveal anything when they're not. And it's never worked. Probably can never work. Cory Doctorow talks about it in his talks on eliminating DRM. Basically, at the end of the day, the only real means we have of making DRM "work" is using laws (which, of course, doesn't stop criminals, only people who are trying to do things legally).

tptacek2• 11 years ago

It worked pretty well for DirecTV, which is a more analogous scenario than normal computer software.

redbeard0x0a• 11 years ago

doesn't stop criminals

Or it allows criminals to hide behind the DRM and laws to prevent a 3rd party from discovering their crimes (ala VW).

Natanael_L4• 11 years ago

Harder DRM? They've tried that already

dexterdog• 11 years ago

DRM can be totally baller, but if it has to be shown on a screen and played through speakers you're going to have an awfully hard time stopping anybody from making a DRM-free copy it.

Azew• 11 years ago

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?

Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.

Inspecting auto software for problems is great, allowing hobbyists to tinker with their software seems problematic.

binarycrusader• 11 years ago

Insurance policies already cover this as "after-market modifications" (the terminology I've generally seen used already).

There really is no cause for concern; things that used to be purely mechanical are now electric. Any modifications made mechanically before could be equally disastrous.

Yes, software modifications are easier to hide, but that it is a price worth paying for the greater general freedom of everyone.

nashashmi• 11 years ago

Yes, software modifications are easier to hide

Not if you hash the software and find its been adjusted. In that sense it is easier to detect.

BinaryIdiot• 11 years ago

If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?

The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm?

Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.

The insurance company covers the car so you'd have to consult what their terms are in regards to modifications as plenty of people modify their cars today just not the software. I can't imagine a software change would be radically different to a hardware change in the insurance's eyes unless it's something incredible like an autopilot.

baobabaobab• 11 years ago

The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm?

The hobbyist isn't the one with money. The manufacturer will be sued, and they usually settle because there is probably something they could have done that would have made the failure less likely, injury trials are bad press, and jury sympathy is always on the injured little guy's side.

This is how it plays out with physical products, I don't see why it would be any different with code.

kelvin0• 11 years ago

Shouldn't this be mandatory and be part of the overall safety audition of the car? They have physical crash tests of cars to assess the robustness that match certain criteria.

c3534l• 11 years ago

I was initially happy about this until I saw that the primary reason was the VW scandal. Why are our laws only ever put into check when a controversy like this breaks out? We have to wait for the really bad abuses before anyone ever dials back the bullshit.

dtech• 11 years ago

I wouldn't say that this was the primary reason, as the EFF has lobbied for this before and set the process in motion before that became public. It just provides a well-known recent example.

yasth2• 11 years ago

It should be noted that this is a very limited ruling. Only the owner can modify the car, and you can't go to a mechanic or third party to modify it (or inspect it), which will greatly restrict the application.

Also this doesn't apply to Entertainment or Telemetrics portions. So your car could be straight up spying on you, or your manufacturer can leave unpatched security holes in your "Entertainment" system (which has already been used ( http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/syst...) to remotely hack your car), and there is nothing you can legally do. You can't even deeply look into the system to find such vulnerabilities.

I mean a win is a win, but this isn't as big as one would hope.

randyrand• 11 years ago

Fortunateyly the software in your 2015 honda civic is nearly or completely identical to all other 2015 honda civics, though.

I agree that its unfortunate, but being able to inspect the software in your car is nearly as good as being able to inspect other's or have other's inspect yours if you have the same make and year.

yasth2• 11 years ago

Well there is probably a pretty big difference between the normal civic, the hybrid civic, and the natural gas civic, but I don't think there will be lots of per car model/line differences, just that the inability to contract out things means that modification is limited to technical minded people (and no, artful dodges like "The mechanic will set it up, and the owner can push the button" are unlikely to fly).

Also it throws hassles at researchers, some cars have a lot of different combinations of things that might change the ECU software from engine choices to different model lines (Sport models often have different tunings) to even the type of gearbox (Manuals have different tuning than automatics which are different than CVTs, and advanced CVTs actually communicate with the ECU in complex ways that are only activated on the higher trims). No one is going to actually own 8 different Honda Accords just to legally work on all the firmwares. While I have no doubt that a lot of shortcutting will occur (i.e. people will dump the firmware and post it, and if and only if an issue is found will researchers bother to become nominal "owner" of a particular model) it adds a hassle, and a tinge of illegality which is completely unwarranted.

gknoy2• 11 years ago

I wonder if you could sell your car to the inspector, let them inspect it, and then buy it back.

rnovak• 11 years ago

Maybe a "Mechanic's Lien" could work for that[1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanic%27s_lien

bcook• 11 years ago

ECU tweakers are already very popular with diesel vehicles. Something like that seems legal even under these restrictions.

Buy/rent a device to mod your own vehicle.

StavrosK2• 11 years ago

Huh, I've never seen those before, and I own a diesel car. Are they worth it? What do the tweakers do that the entire Mercedes crew couldn't?

jakeogh• 11 years ago

It would be an important case. As you note it's on the same bus and meaningless to "be able" to inspect the car control system without looking at it.

The solution is for people to vote with their buys.

shmerl• 11 years ago

When will DMCA-1201 be repealed for good? This unconstitutional garbage should be abolished.

An interesting read on this: https://web.archive.org/web/20120220014712/http://www.macfer...

csense• 11 years ago

EFF also won an exemption for users who want to play video games after the publisher cuts off support. For example, some players may need to modify an old video game so it doesn’t perform a check with an authentication server that has since been shut down

I think this is the real story for many HN readers.

VonGuard6• 11 years ago

Yep. I can answer questions on this if you'd like. I also clarified what's legal in a comment below.

MichaelGG• 11 years ago

Snarky, but, does "shut down" include when big launch games are overwhelmed or said systems suffer other availability events?

vonklaus• 11 years ago

man, this would be great. my dad is a huge car guy (type of guy that parks way in the back of the parkinglot) I wanted to get him a new key fob for his bday next week, $300 bucks.

now I am trying to mod an old key fob to work with the new one and have no idea how. it would be nice to encourage this sort of thing so there is more info out there. i am not even sure if it is possible to use an mk4 or mk5 key with my mk6 style one. why? no info.

I found a youtube video with the taredown which only exists because a modder sacrificed his $300 key to figure out how to do it properly.

i wish there was more info on how the software worked both for security and modification.

abvdasker• 11 years ago

It seems insane to me that we could allow private corporations to buy and sell data that our government would require a warrant or court order to obtain.

If cell phone service were free that would be one thing, but for these companies to be "double dipping" like this is pretty disgusting.

Umn55• 11 years ago

It seems insane to me that we could allow private corporations to buy and sell data that our government would require a warrant or court order to obtain.

You're not seeing what is going on behind the scenes... they are all in cahoots the money is just a bonus.

You're not seeing what's going down behind the scenes - the spying is for us.

On the NSA/spying...

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Zizzle• 11 years ago

I recently put a turbo on my van since I live high in the mountains where the atmospheric pressure is low and the performance loss is noticeable.

Of course the ECU needs adjustments to the fuelling tables (you need to run rich under boost to prevent detonation), spark timing tables, as well as a patch to the OS to allow the use of a different manifold pressure sensor (default OS doesn't recognise press above 100kpa).

I guess this was illegal.

I have heard rumblings from the professional engine tuners that the OEMs are already starting to lock down ECUs. Not only via DRM, but by having enough checks in the code that modifying parameters to up performance results in error codes and limp home mode. They expect to be having to go to after market ECUs soon.

Some of them would have cost more than my whole project:

https://www.holley.com/products/fuel_systems/fuel_injection/...

Fortunately there are more DIY friendly set ups:

http://megasquirt.info/products/diy-kits/

But it seems a waste to have to throw away a perfectly good ECU because the OEM (or gov) decided to lock it down.

driverdan• 11 years ago

You can modify your ECU all you want so long as it doesn't have any DRM-like protections.

crxgames• 11 years ago

I'm a dealer for Holley ECU products. They're fantastic! But you are correct, people in my industry are now forced to tell the modern hot rodder that step one (for the most part) is purchasing a $1200+ computer replacement plus rewiring their car in order to do anything.

jgardner7289• 11 years ago

This is really good news. Wow.

alkonaut4• 11 years ago

While I agree with the idea that you should be able to inspect most anything, and not be prohibited from fiddling with anything thats yours, I don't understand how security would be handled?

The software of the car is a component of the car just like any other, and while I can certainly mechanically disable the brakes on my car, it won't be safe for road use if I do (It would never pass an inspection). Since no one could be expected to debug/inspect my software modifications for errors, one would have to assume that any car whose software doesn't match the official one, may be unsafe for road use, and thus can't be allowed on the road?

Also: isn't firmware of this kind pretty hard to read without having access to encryption keys? The petition just wants it to be legal not for the manufacturers to be forced to make it easy?

robryk2• 11 years ago

Well, you can repair your car's mechanical brakes yourself now. If you disable them (accidentally or otherwise) and render the car unsafe, the results of that are your responsibility. Is there a reason why software modifications can't be handled the same way?

alkonaut4• 11 years ago

The point of having cars inspected for safety every year or every other year is that their saftey can't be the individuals responsibility only. If you drive without brakes you are dangerous to others.

The simple ocular/mechanical inspection that is used in most places catch obvious problems like rusty brake pipes or bad brake effect. They don't test software issues like whether the stability system is disabled in fifth gear over 50mph due to a buffer overflow.

So while there are similarities between me trying to fix my brakes and me trying to hack the software (Make a change to a car component, if it passes the yearly safety tests it's OK) the software is much harder, or impossible, to test by "external" black box testing that needs to be completed in say 30 minutes by a non software expert.

xg153• 11 years ago

Well, the whole point of car inspections is that "your responsibility" is not enough. It's possible that you as the owner of a modded vehicle are perfectly fine with the risk of an accident, but the other potential participants of such an accident might not.

I think the question has a point: Modified ECUs are different from modified brakes, because the modifications could likely not be found in an inspection - in fact, according to the exemption, it would be illegal for inspectors to check the ECU. So I wonder how that problem is handled.

xg153• 11 years ago

Three interesting tidbits from the Wikipedia article about the Librarian of Congress:

There is no official term limit for the Librarian of Congress, but in the 20th century a precedent was established that Librarians of Congress are appointed for life.
There is very little legislation for the Librarian of Congress or rules regarding who should be selected for the position. In 1989, Representative Major R Owens (D–NY) proposed a bill in Congress that would set stricter requirements for who may be appointed. (...) This bill did not pass.
James H. Billington has served as Librarian of Congress since 1987, and announced plans to retire from that post in 2015.

This sounds to me as if the position hadn't really been designed for the amount of power that it has been given now by the DMCA. With a vacancy apparently right ahead, wouldn't that make it the next prime target for lobby efforts or corruption?

goorpyguy• 11 years ago

Has there been an analysis done as to how the LOC exemptions with interplay with the TPP anti-circumvention requirements?

Will the LOC still be able to grant these? If not, the year-long delay may be just long enough that there is actually never an open window.

EFF Wins Petition to Inspect and Modify Car Software

Related Stories