Hacker News Reader

Comment by jesterpm | Hacker News Reader

But it's not really that straight forward. You push the pedal, the computer runs an algorithm, and then throttle body moves. The algorithm is the part that you can't troubleshoot, mitigate, or fix.

I recently started driving a drive-by-wire vehicle. A while ago I had an issue where the engine dropped to a near-idle (on the freeway) and the pedal was effectively non-operative. The diagnostics said the computer wasn't getting the expected results from moving the throttle body, so it went into some kind of safe mode.

Now, there are plenty of ways that drive-by-cable could fail, but in this case I was slightly resentful because I could have mitigated the computer's loss of senses with my own.

View on HN

The problem there is that the software is proprietary, not that it has an electronic throttle pedal.

A million times this, I'm currently installing a hidden pass-through can-bus logger before I take my car to the dealership because of this insanity. So much of my life is wasted reverse engineering stuff when I could be doing shit that actually contributes to humanity. This is the cost of a broken IP system.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think IP law is to blame. I think it's consumer protection law that is the problem here. Magnuson–Moss should be amended to require warrantors to provide repair information. (edit: and tools)

Yes and no. We absolutely should be amending Magnuson-Moss, but the reason for why we need to legally mandate access to repair manuals is very much downstream of current copyright law. Companies realized that once you put software into a device, they owned the thing that makes the device useful at all, and they could then charge access to that software in the same way one charges access to a scummy mobile game.

Furthermore, because the law surrounding creative works is extremely strict, any repair that might touch something that could be construed to be DRM protecting the manufacturer's software becomes legally dicey. You also can't tell anyone how to break that DRM, no matter how justifiable repair is. So if you somehow figure out how to reserialize new parts onto a locked-down vehicle, you're probably allowed to do that; but you can't legally sell that knowledge onto other repair shops.

> You also can't tell anyone how to break that DRM, no matter how justifiable repair is. So if you somehow figure out how to reserialize new parts onto a locked-down vehicle, you're probably allowed to do that; but you can't legally sell that knowledge onto other repair shops.

Nobody would have to do any of that BS if it was illegal for that DRM to exist under Magnuson-Moss to begin with.

What can't you do? Everytime I dig into this I discover someone wants to violate emissions laws. Sure you can change your throttle response without that, but the only people who want to are trying to break emissions.

I'm still waiting for an example of where DRM stops a normal repair

Well, first off, DMCA 1201 is part of copyright law; it's not a generic prohibition on removing any code that enforces a law. It's only for code or mechanisms that checks if you paid for a creative work. If you want a law that makes it illegal to tell people how to roll coal, pass a separate law that does just that. Bending copyright law to serve every imaginable prosocial benefit has inherent harms to it.

The example of DRM stopping normal repair is serialized parts: lots of vehicles, farm equipment, and phones are designed to refuse to work if you swap certain parts on them. The only way you are supposed to be able to swap parts is to pay the manufacturer's branded repair firms to make the swap for you, and then send some kind of signature to the computer in that vehicle that says the repair was authorized. Bypassing these schemes requires tampering with DRM code, which trips DMCA 1201. Yes, it may be legally unenforceable, but to get there requires a decade's worth of expensive litigation to prove that something that was legal before you put a computer in a car should be legal after you put a computer in a car. And even then you almost certainly can't distribute the tools you made to do what should be a legal repair because those tools might be used by someone else to pirate the ECU firmware or something.

Car owners like that as it means stealing a car for parts isn't worth it

The classic example is anything that's signed by crypto. So, often, pieces of the security systems or infotainment systems on a vehicle. But I was thinking more broadly, about other types of consumer products, once I started talking about Magnuson–Moss above.

IP law is the problem. The anti-circumvention clauses (that kinda make sense for media DRM) are used to criminalize tools that make unofficial repair (or just "repair", because official repair is just swapping entire modules) possible.

Nobody would even need to make circumvention tools if the manufacturers are required to provide you a mechanism for doing what you want to do.

I think there are likely ways to weaken IP law that solve this problem and since I generally tend toward reducing complexity and already want to weaken IP law for a host of other reasons I prefer that approach.

Weakening IP law is the complicated way to do it, because you're touching so many other things that are not just "embedded software in hardware products".

The simple way to protect consumers ability to fix products is to simply require manufacturers to provide the information to do it.

We shouldn't focus on patching stuff when the core of the system is rotten, we need to dig deep, possibly do a rewrite. This is a peripheral thing that may just be fixed for free if we deal with the core.

Regardless of the validity of that statement -- it will never be politically feasible to rewrite a large chunk of IP law on such a niche issue. If we want this to actually happen, we need to propose a solution where there are more people who support it than there are who are concerned about it. Rewriting all of IP law means you're just going to make enemies with all of the major media companies who don't have anything to do with selling hardware devices.

But, I still don't think this is an IP law issue. IP law should not be a weapon used to prevent you from repairing your devices -- but neither should anything else. If you only change IP law, companies are just going to find a different way to prevent you from mucking with their stuff.

There's a reason we call this "right to repair" and not "right to make an attempt to do hacky DRM workarounds"

I don't think this is a niche issue though.

The current discussion is about fixing cars. But the right to repair is a problem for everything with a computer in it.

You could take the title of this article and replace "an electric vehicle" just about any electronic device most people would own.

It's not a niche issue to anyone on this forum -- politically, it's a niche issue.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...

cant you just pay the mechanic to take care if it for you while you are doing your important humanity saving work?

Do you want to debug your own throttle software? Download 3rd-party firmware for your car?

> Download 3rd-party firmware for your car?

I imagine insurance companies will eventually have clauses that prevent this.

They don't prevent me from modifying my car now. In fact, they'll explicitly give me coverage for aftermarket equipment upon request.

"Evenutally". There's little reason now, with 99.99% of cars being human driven, where a dropped Twinky has a higher chance of causing an accident than some slightly modified ECU curves.

> I was slightly resentful because I could have mitigated the computer's loss of senses with my own.

For me this is the crux of the matter. As the person in the driver's seat, I demand that I be the ultimate arbiter of what the motor(s) and wheels ought to do, regardless of what any set of sensors and/or set of computer programs thinks is going on.

I once had a car refuse to release the emergency brakes when it was time to disembark a ferry because the firmware misinterpreted the natural rocking of the vessel (and hence the car itself) as some kind of suspension fault. It left me more than "slightly resentful." I was absolutely furious at being stuck in a really rotten situation where my car was actively causing problems for those around me (people behind me had to drive off the ferry) and wouldn't even let itself go into a mode where it could be pushed off. The dealership's service center simply said, "Uh, sorry. Your brakes are locked. You can't override it. You need to get it towed in."

I don't care if the car thinks it's keeping you from rolling off a 500-foot cliff. If I say, "No, release the brakes, I mean it," the car had better do exactly as I tell it.

> But it's not really that straight forward. You push the pedal, the computer runs an algorithm, and then throttle body moves. The algorithm is the part that you can't troubleshoot, mitigate, or fix.

You can, actually, and its fairly commonly done[0]. Mapping pedal to throttle position is trivial, as is intercepting and modifying the pedal output signal. Its also not that hard to rip out the throttle body and replace it with a programmable unit. Imo new cars aren't so much harder to fix and modify as they are different to fix and modify.[1]

As Socrates rise from his grave and say: “The cars now love luxury; they have bad throttle control, contempt for steering; they show disrespect for elders and love economy in place of horsepower. Cars are now tyrants, not the servants of their drivers. They no longer rise when the key turns. They contradict their owners, turn off at stoplights, gobble up electricity at the plug, beep incessantly, and tyrannize their seatbelts.”

[0]Pedal boosters or pedal tuners. [1]Not excusing the myriad of insipid design choices, of course.

You feel slightly resentful, but if there was an incipient failure of the actuator and the next step might've been a stuck-open throttle then you should probably be a bit grateful too, right?

Been there. Done that. Not nearly as eventful as internet commenters make it out to be.

It was such a large inconvenience the replacement cable is still sitting in the box behind the seat.

Would it have even failed if it wasn't drive by wire though?

Obviously not in the same way. Overall system failure rates comparing cable vs digital throttle control - I have no idea.

I do know that I can’t remember the last time I drove a car with a bad idle, which is much more than anyone who lived in 80s can say.

Also: throttle by wire permits simpler cruise control integrations, better fuel economy and also facilitates the operation of safety systems like traction/stability control - so it’s not exactly a like-for-like comparison.

This is a nit, but idle control was automated well before drive-by-wire took over. Idle could be on closed loop control, but if the idle solenoid failed, it was less catastrophic than losing throttle control.

Heh, I think 50% of my experience working on 90s cars was cleaning IACVs

Throttles linkages are a regular maintenance item on vehicles with mechanical throttle linkages. And all (non-antique) engines with mechanical throttle linkages have return springs as a safety backup for when/if they do fail. Some of them also have redundant linkages on top of this. It is not uncommon for throttle cables to have their maintenance neglected, and eventually, they will wear out and break.

Throttle's did fail before drive by wire but I have no data to compare.

That you can't troubleshoot/mitigate/fix that is not an inherent property of such a throttle, but a choice by the manufacturer to not let you.

Not so fast. It is emissions regulations that dictate it. I like driving cars fast, but locking down emissions to the chagrin of every car guy scratching their head online saying "why did it used to be better?" makes me happy.

It's a small victory for the future of the species.

I am also a fan of emission regs. But, emissions regulations require that you leave emissions equipment intact, it does not require automakers to prevent you from touching those systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com