Feds tell automakers not to comply with Mass. “right to repair” law
The state's right to repair law requires open access to telematics services.
@arstechnica open documentation and open source are not inherently insecure. In fact, if auto makers were compelled to implement an open source system, their code could be audited and improved and rendered significantly more secure much easier. Currently, a completely closed system could have plenty of bugs and loop holes that could be exploited with enough prodding.
@baldwinjed @arstechnica The issue isn't open source, but rather open access.
@kentborg @baldwinjed @arstechnica It may allow you to make access more restricted, but in my experience, literally nothing is "easier" in Linux.
@LouisIngenthron @baldwinjed @arstechnica For a user, probably not, but for an engineer Linux is easier. And I would hope these cars are being designed by engineers
@LouisIngenthron @kentborg @arstechnica horses for courses 🤷♂️
Most of my workflows are easier on Linux, but I’m not an engineer or developer. I just happen to feel at home. Linux isn’t really the point to be made here. Open source software isn’t unrestricted or insecure by definition. Rather, the opposite should be true. Maybe the verbiage of the law was flawed, but that shouldn’t preclude an open approach to documentation or software to enable people to repair their vehicles.
@LouisIngenthron @baldwinjed @arstechnica My Linux computer is open source. It is not open access. Open source makes it *easier* for me to keep it not open access.