MA - "Right to Repair" Question 1 is heating up - (Voting 'Yes')

[3mp_kwh]

Tesla emailed me today, in MA, asking to "Vote No on Question 1". This is the Right to Repair law that last passed with 86%, in 2012. Here, they are joining a cabal of car-makers (below). I don't know if they are $upporting the lobby, but I have also been called and surveyed by a party who wouldn't disclose its sponsor. The survey feigned "non-bias" and went on to ask how I felt about losing privacy, data security and the idea my car would be less safe, if 3rd parties are allowed access to my car.

Small shops, and auto parts stores have raised ~22 million in support of Q 1. Voting 'Yes' seems as obvious to me as it did in 2012, but I've seen what 10's of millions can do to state ballot initiatives. From Ballotpedia:

"As of October 5, 2020, the campaign had raised $25.9 million in contributions. The top donors to the [vote 'No'] committee were General Motors, Toyota Motor North America, Inc, Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc, and Nissan North America Inc. "

From Tesla:
Hello,
As you go to the polls this fall, Tesla asks that you vote no on Question 1. Tesla has long applied an open source philosophy to our patented intellectual property for electric vehicles. In this spirit, we provide public access to our service, parts, and body repair manuals, wiring diagrams, service bulletins, labor codes and times, and other information used to perform mechanical, electrical, and collision repair work on our vehicles.

Question 1 goes well beyond what is necessary to perform this work, and it potentially jeopardizes vehicle and data security. The requirements, pushed by two national auto shop lobbying groups, would make vehicles more vulnerable to cyberattacks and would make successful attacks more harmful. But don’t take our word for it. Here’s what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the federal agency tasked with vehicle safety and security, had to say about Question 1:

• "As this testimony will further elaborate, it is our view that the terms of the ballot initiative would prohibit manufacturers from complying with both existing Federal guidance and cybersecurity hygiene best practices. NHTSA is also concerned about the increased safety-related cybersecurity risks of a requirement for remote, real-time, bi-directional (i.e., read/write capability) access to safety-critical vehicular systems. Given the multi-year automotive product development cycle, the deadline for compliance appears impossible for manufacturers to meet in a responsible manner, risking removal of existing cybersecurity controls over wireless access into vehicles as the ballot initiative directs, which increases the risk of cybersecurity attacks that could jeopardize public safety. Further, the requirement to establish universal and standardized access requirements increases the scale of risks of any potentially successful cybersecurity attack...
• "NHTSA has grave concerns with any proposed policy that would effectively prohibit wireless access controls in motor vehicles sold in the United States. This would raise substantial safety risks for American families. "

Tesla agrees with NHTSA’s assessment of the risk posed by Question 1, and we ask that you vote against it. The full letter from NHTSA can be found here.
Please consider sharing this with your friends and family.
Thank you,
Tesla Policy Team

On some things, yes, but for many more than I've experienced with other makers Tesla's, "we provide public access to our service, parts, and body repair manuals, wiring diagrams, service bulletins" does not ring true.

 

[Ed Freniere]

I agree with Tesla and NHTSA. We already have right to repair in MA. There's a lot of money being spent on both sides, making contradictory claims, resulting in a confusing choice. I have decided to vote no on 1.

 

[robarino]

I vote yes. If the car manufacturers are funding the no argument there’s a reason for that. $$$$$


The only reason Tesla sells us parts in MA is because of right to repair. Hopefully this will force Tesla to not be so draconian with modifying our vehicles.

 

[Warbird]

Thanks for opening the discussion.
I voted YES two days ago by mail!
The email from Tesla arrived today!

I need to learn more.
We should have the right to repair.
Manufacturer's should have the right to protect their IP.
We all need to preserve our privacy and safety.

There is a lot to flesh out in this IOT world.
We will get there.

 

[woof]

The grand concept that I shouldn't need Tesla's permission to access the telematics is great. The ability to redirect the data stream to my own servers, or a third party provider, would be lovely. But the actual details in this proposal, as written, were crap, and as such I voted "no".

I'd love to know where the genesis of this idea came from. Who wanted this, and why?

 

[MP3Mike]

If the car manufacturers are funding the no argument there’s a reason for that.

Of course there is a reason, but it could just be bad legislation...

 

[DrDabbles]

Shame no Tesla for this BS. What an absolute disgrace.

First off, your car is your property and you should have the legal right to do what you want with it. Tesla can already protect their IP- Copyright law still exists, encryption exists, and patents exist. For a company that claims to have opened their patents, the claim of IP protection either proves they haven't blanket opened up their patents (they haven't), or that they're misrepresenting the issue to prevent you from being able to work on your own vehicle.

As for their claims about security? Also complete bullshit. They already allow people to register as security researchers to attempt to exploit the software and hardware in these vehicles. People getting their hands on service material poses absolutely no additional risk. Plain and simple, this is a way for Tesla to guarantee that any work done to your car requires their involvement so they get paid. Need to replace a part that is firmware locked? Got to get Tesla's approval. Tesla won't give you approval? Got to buy a new part from Tesla.

This is a pathetic move from them, and I only hope someone brings proper attention to Elon or someone with a clue so it can be addressed publicly. If this is policy from the top, have the guts to get on Twitter and be roasted by the public for the lies and disinformation. If it's from Legal, then let the executives roast them for the lies and disinformation and apologize to owners.

 

[mswlogo]

I voted No after reading the Tesla Letter. My wife voted Yes. So we canceled each other out. Ugh.

 

[DrDabbles]

Your wife is smart. Listen to her more.

 

[Warbird]

Shame no Tesla for this BS. What an absolute disgrace.

Your smartphone is locked down. If you root it, your on your own. If you modify the firmware, or try to hack into there network, they will block you, for good reason.

In this case, the car could kill people with hacked/incompatible code, and who would be responsible? We do not give people the right to 'do what you want with' a car and drive it on public roads.

There is a line, we just have to find it.

Can we have a discussion. Using words like 'absolute disgrace', 'pathetic', 'bullshit', and accusations implying 'lies and disinformation'...is not a discussion.

How about a specific informative example, like should be able to install a used compatible MCU, but not an FSD computer? Educate us.

 

[HVM]

 

[mswlogo]

I had to give Tesla credit for sending the email and at least make me think about the other side. I was always formerly in favor of the more open path. But when I read their email, it made me think.

Think of how closed Apple is vs Android. I think Apple has HUGE advantages that I enjoy because of how closed they are.

To be honest I can't imagine any 3rd party shops doing anything safe to my car, except brakes and tires. And I felt that way about prior non Tesla cars as well. If some 3rd party does go hacking in there and breaks something, causes a problem, then Tesla gets blamed. Tesla have enough on their plate to not have to worry about hackers.

What's good for Tesla is good for me.

 

[HVM]

This is not about hackers, it never was. Good thing that your wife is not as easily scared. I know that you can still go to the Tesla Service and Genius Bar even if there are third party repair choice.

 

[JWardell]

I was very disappointed to receive the email from Tesla, but not surprised on their stance.

First of all, this year's right to repair question is about requiring automakers adhering to standard diagnostic communications and requiring to publish that data for you or your chosen mechanic to diagnose your car.

This has already existed for decades with ODB-II, but that only covered the basics of a gasoline engine. It needs to be updated for the much more complex an in-depth data in today's modern cars, especially for EVs. In fact, the Model 3 is the only car made this millennium that doesn't have an OBD port.

It has NOTHING to do with your personal data, nothing to do with allowing hackers access to it, or to control your vehicle. That misinformation is entirely from the scare tactics published by the deep-pocketed car manufacturers, who make a large portion of their profits from servicing their vehicles.

Tesla has historically been particularly un-supportive of anyone but their closest shops servicing their vehicles, or even buying parts. Anyone who watches Rich Rebuilds knows the craziness he's had to deal with.

The reality is that international standards now require software encryption especially with personal data, and Tesla is at the forefront of well thought out locked-down system. They won't even allow carplay/android auto so they have full control of their software. And that's GREAT, I have more confidence that Tesla's can't be easily hacked than any other brand. They obviously have the smartest software engineers in the industry.

So this is no actual threat to the safety of you or your Tesla at all. This is simply a threat to manufacturer's deep pockets for cornering their service profits.

Instead I have spent years of my time reverse engineering the data, and continuous effort keeping up to date, so I can view diagnostics information in my 3 (and display the fun stuff on my dash). It sure would save me a TON of time if tesla just published the decoder ring for some of it. Not just for me, but for anyone trying to figure out what is wrong with the car they own when something goes wrong.

PLEASE VOTE YES.

 

[DrDabbles]

Your smartphone is locked down. If you root it, your on your own. If you modify the firmware, or try to hack into there network, they will block you, for good reason.

...what?

First off, I can still get a warranty on a jailbroken phone. Second of all, I don't buy locked phones because there's no need to. Finally, at the point you're loading custom firmware onto your phone, the network isn't going to "block you" because they don't care. The worst that will happen is you can get a warranty claim denied, and even that is dubious at best.

I have absolutely no idea what this example has to do with this horse *sugar* letter from Tesla and the outright lies they're telling.

In this case, the car could kill people with hacked/incompatible code, and who would be responsible? We do not give people the right to 'do what you want with' a car and drive it on public roads.

WTF are you talking about? The car can kill people when you drive unsafe. You, the operator, are responsible. If you modify your car, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER MODIFIED CAR IN HISTORY, you are responsible. You're so far off base here that I feel like you're a shill for the "vote no" liars.

Can we have a discussion. Using words like 'absolute disgrace', 'pathetic', 'bullshit', and accusations implying 'lies and disinformation'...is not a discussion.

It literally is a discussion. Discussions often times involve one person saying something (for example Tesla is spreading misinformation). Just because you don't like what someone is saying doesn't mean it's not a discussion. But again, your wording and position makes me think you're probably not being genuine here anyway.

Besides the questionable defense you're attempting to level here, this has nothing to do with "hacking" firmware. The fact that someone would even say those words given the legislation proposed is absurd on its face, and leads me to believe that you're at best a totally uninformed person here to defend tesla against anything right or wrong, and more likely just shilling for something ridiculous.

How about a specific informative example, like should be able to install a used compatible MCU, but not an FSD computer? Educate us.

Here's a specific example. I should be able to use a diagnostic tool on my car to read error codes just like I can with every single other car on the market. Specific enough for you? And why shouldn't I be able to install a legally obtained MCU or FSD computer? The hell is wrong with that, exactly? After all, "reuse" is part of the reduce / reuse / recycle pyramid. And if Elon actually cared about the environment he'd want equipment reused.

I had to give Tesla credit for sending the email and at least make me think about the other side.

I don't usually give credit to companies spreading lies. Feels like the wrong kind of incentive to give.

Think of how closed Apple is vs Android. I think Apple has HUGE advantages that I enjoy because of how closed they are.

They're both equally closed, and this argument is unrelated in every single way.

To be honest I can't imagine any 3rd party shops doing anything safe to my car, except brakes and tires.

Then go spend your money at Tesla's shops. But that's not a reason an independent shop should be legally forbidden from servicing a Tesla. This is a truly terrible argument. Independent shops service cars all the time with zero issue. *sugar*, Rich Benoit started Electrified Garage. He even hired former Tesla employees. But I guess because you don't want to have them work on your car, nobody else should either.

And I felt that way about prior non Tesla cars as well. If some 3rd party does go hacking in there and breaks something, causes a problem, then Tesla gets blamed. Tesla have enough on their plate to not have to worry about hackers.

This planet is doomed and probably not worth saving, TBH. Giant Comet 2020.

What's good for Tesla is good for me.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I hope this was an attempt at dry humor. Because if not, you're going to be taught a harsh lesson that history has taught countless others.

 

[mswlogo]

...what?

This planet is doomed and probably not worth saving, TBH. Giant Comet 2020.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I hope this was an attempt at dry humor. Because if not, you're going to be taught a harsh lesson that history has taught countless others.

Already bought extended Warranty so I don't have to think about who to go too

Doesn't look like a lie to me. Now perhaps if the new proposal addressed NHTSA's concerns they would have no issue with the proposal. Just because someone is against a bill doesn't mean they oppose the underlying intent. They just want a better bill.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.d...ponse_to_ma_committee_letter_july_20_2020.pdf

 

[DrDabbles]

Doesn't look like a lie to me.

And that's the problem.

 

[3mp_kwh]

This has already existed for decades with ODB-II, but that only covered the basics of a gasoline engine. It needs to be updated for the much more complex an in-depth data in today's modern cars, especially for EVs. In fact, the Model 3 is the only car made this millennium that doesn't have an OBD port..

Teslas don't need the OBD to tell you how to pass inspection, so you can keep a car on the road. The equivalent they lack, however even with OBD, is consumer provided drive train diagnostics. The message I once got, "Car may not restart" if shut off, ended up being a drive unit. That's all it said, and sure enough I needed a flat bed. On board, you know there are sensor results to show what's up. I don't believe those results, or OBD-II similar outputs, were ever given to Massachusetts owners. How I know, as a MA resident, is by gaining access to the service manual through Tesla and finding nothing in relation to drive line components; no torque specs, or procedures for almost any of them. Most other items (struts, brakes, sunroof, exhaustive stuff on the air suspension, etc.) got covered.

EVs are relatively simple, and the community used to look forward to the potential longevity they offer. Now, what was hoped for has run into the "what's good for Tesla is good for me" rally cry. I broke away from that long ago, believing eyes on road are safer than touchscreens.

It has NOTHING to do with your personal data, nothing to do with allowing hackers access to it, or to control your vehicle. That misinformation is entirely from the scare tactics published by the deep-pocketed car manufacturers, who make a large portion of their profits from servicing their vehicles..

When I saw the negative ad of the woman headed to her car, I thought of the location app tesla gives us. Each user of the app knows the location of the car(s), and therefore a potential victim. Question 1, in MA, won't change this scenario, where domestic issues involved authorized users. In the other instance, the hacker who gained access, and could do Summon, etc (?) raises an issue easiest addressed, in my view, by giving customers the option to keep their vehicles in the state they were delivered. In other words, shut off Over The Air (OTA) access, but keep providing GPS and the simpler access points.

Many find dropping OTA crude, but is it? There are plenty who have questioned OTA related changes to their cars. Some are good, some bad. The point is, if a material security argument exists to need a 'No' on Question 1, than maybe service delivered recalls (flashes, etc) are a better way to go than shutting out your customers and their chosen mechanics. Past that, what I think JWardell is saying is it doesn't matter what the law says, if a hacker can still gain control. This is why it gets hard to conclude Question 1 is about more than what Massachusetts calls it, "Right to Repair".

 

[David.85D]

I found this thread by accident and wasn’t sure what the status was, so checked the result and posted it below for future reference.

This initiative (the second right to repair law in MA - 2020) passed by a 3:1 margin (75% for, 25% against)

Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org