[blackaspen]

I'm super excited for this! It's a small step, but an important one.

The whole premise of this, as I read it, was that while OBD ports are fair game (and any protocol over them), there is other data that is (often) necessary to diagnose and repair cars that is not available from OBD and is phoned-home. That's simple enough.

What I think is superb is that the law requires data to go _directly to consumers_ as in, car makers would be required to change immediate locations of outbound telemetry such that they can't get it. This is key as I, first, don't want data leaving my car at all, and second, if it does, I don't want the automaker or insurance company to get to it.

I'm sure automakers (Tesla especially, since they pioneered brutally connected cars and data capture) aren't thrilled about this, but I am optimistic to see where it goes. Maybe I'll be able to buy a new car that doesn't phone home (or only phones home to a service I personally own). I can dream.

[m463]

I would be much more likely to buy a car from an overreaching data-hungry corporation if I could turn it off.

or just be able to say no.

these company fear the data loss, but honestly I think most people will leave it going.

This would also promote competition or new sources of data.

What if startup automobile tech companies or mapping companies could offer you money for your video feed or navigation data?

Or you could give it all to open street maps or new things like open traffic or open weather or whatever.

It could - at your discretion - democratize the mobile data your car collects.

[bobthepanda]

IIRC don’t some auto insurance companies already offer this, where you can give them location/cam data for lower rates?

[driverdan]

Refuse to buy a car with an internet connection that can't be permanently disabled. Do not do it.

[silexia]

This is incredibly important! Lobby your legislators in your state for similar laws! We want to expand this to include heavy equipment too.

[efitz]

I love my Tesla and I even like the features enabled by remote telemetry - keyless drop-off for service, remote diagnosis, automatic update, etc. - but I really wish I had a hardware on-off switch, so that I could prevent all the "connected car" features when I don't want them on.

[mrfusion]

Can you just pull the SIM card?

[donmcronald]

Isn't it totally useless if it doesn't prevent serialization of parts? For example, I'm pretty sure my dad can't replace the infotainment system on his truck because it's married to the VIN somehow and requires special programming upon replacement.

So even though I think it's awesome to give people more diagnostic data, I don't think it goes far enough if that info is along the lines of "Unauthorized tires detected. Your vehicle must be serviced by an authorized repair shop."

[zentiggr]

Every incremental step of changing the status quo moves the whole process closer to the long term goal of unlocking all repair issues and gaining the user ability to control data flow.

Every step counts.

[ska]

> Isn't it totally useless

No, it clearly isn't totally useless. The case you point out means that there is an argument for stronger protections also.

[dahfizz]

That's like saying gdb is "totally useless" because it doesn't fix your code for you.

This is a very useful step in the right direction.

[tlavoie]

Oh, you _really_ want to read Cory Doctorow's, "Unauthorized Bread". First story in the four-part book, "Radicalized".

And if you buy it directly from him, the ebook version is DRM-free.

[matheusmoreira]

> What I think is superb is that the law requires data to go _directly to consumers_ as in, car makers would be required to change immediate locations of outbound telemetry such that they can't get it.

What an amazing idea. There is no problem with telemetry if the user owns and controls the data it produces. They should make this law cover more classes of products and software.