The solution is not to try to shame or force Volkswagen to support GrapheneOS, the solution is to (legally) force them to allow the car to run a custom CarOS, for which the community can write their own app

▲

Arainach 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's a non-starter in most countries. Since the car software is tied into a number of important safety features and regulated controls, custom operating systems will never be supported.

There are already massive problems with people miswiring head units to play videos while driving and updating their ECU to spew pollution into the air. You're not going to convince any significant number of people that it's a good idea to allow arbitrary code to run and control most of the other systems too.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Since the car software is tied into a number of important safety features and regulated controls, custom operating systems will never be supported.

Then that's a poor design that should go the way of the dodo. Someone hacking the entertainment system should not be able to take over control of the engine. The entertainment system on planes do not allow one to hack into the autopilot. There should be no need for a firewall, they should have no shared wires between them.

▲

Arainach an hour ago | parent [-]

"Safety critical" isn't just the drivetrain. I don't work in automotive and won't pretend to understand all the rules, but off the top of my head, some things that my car uses the head unit for:

* Backup Camera

* Turning traction control on/off

* Turning auto hold (maintaining the brake pedal while stopped) on/off

* Window defrosting

Many cars are even more integrated - are there any physical buttons inside a Tesla or is it all through the touchscreen?

	▲	dylan604 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Many cars are even more integrated - are there any physical buttons inside a Tesla or is it all through the touchscreen? If you're going to use the worst example as the comparison, then we'll get no where fast.

▲

dada216 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those two set of systems are separate and very distinct.

▲

Arainach 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're not. Use any car's heads up display and you can configure an enormous number of things. Even if there was somehow a pure separation, things such as "playing video while the car is moving" are regulated in many jurisdictions and would land firmly in the "UI" layer.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You can detect the car is in motion or not without talking to the engine computer. Just like my phone can tell I'm in motion without connecting to the car at all. You're trying to justify a bad design with bad reasoning

▲

mohamedkoubaa 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People watch videos on their phone while drive and will continue to do so no matter what infotainment OSes allow or don't allow.

	▲	Arainach an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Some people break the law" is not a reason to not have laws. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

▲

Arainach an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Not with the necessary precision. GPS doesn't work in tunnels or parking garages and can be wildly inaccurate in city centers with skyscrapers blocking line of sight, for instance.

	▲	ssl-3 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The built-in, offline mapping in my Honda uses a whole host of local-only sensors to handle these situations where GPS is intermittent. It works rather well at figuring out where the car is on the map, and when it deviates from the prescribed route. It works in tunnels. It works in cities with tall buildings. It works on Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago. Is there some technological limitation that precludes using this data to determine whether or not a movie can be played? (It's not like it's new tech. It's decades-old. Honda started using it over 20 years ago.)

▲

juliangmp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You'd hope so but I fear that many safety critical aspects run on the same system as the infotainment system... And that's a perfect excuse for manufacturers to keep these things completely closed

▲

binary132 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

“Users shouldn’t be same to control their own engines actually” hmm well ok then

▲

Arainach 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One person's "controlling their own engines" is another "spewing nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants into the air, giving cancer to neighbors and destroying the atmosphere". We tried the "don't regulate" path and it ended in a multitude of disasters.

▲

mohamedkoubaa 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You can regulate emissions without preventing custom tunes

	▲	Arainach an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In practice, no, you can't. Certainly not without enormous costs such as mandatory regular vehicle inspections.

▲

subscribed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

May I introduce you to the "rolling coal" morons?

▲

ssl-3 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No need. I've seen them.

In the States, for example: Every state I've looked at has laws that make it illegal to roll coal.

And at least in my own state (Ohio), it's a primary offense. A person can be pulled over and ticketed for this even if they're doing everything else by the book. It's super easy to spot.

It seems that it persists not because of a lack of laws, but because of a lack of enforcement.

	▲	subscribed 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		IMO they exist in spite of the laws (and more broadly "woke" science) and I'd expect much more of them if they became legalised.

▲

binary132 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

do you really think there’s no way to prevent or penalize that behavior without preventing the user from owning and operating their own engine?

also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people?

do you really believe that control of one’s own engine should be removed from all vehicle owners if a few people misuse it?

do you understand that vehicle manufacturers use their proprietary systems that control the vehicle to exploit customers?

	▲	Arainach an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people? Serious health complications, particularly to cyclists and pedestrians. Significant pollution surges: > According to government estimates, the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times. [https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donal...] > AED estimates that the emissions controls have been removed from more than 550,000 diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. As a result ofthis tampering, more than 570,000 tons of excess oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) will be emitted by these tampered trucks over the lifetime of the vehicles. [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diese...]

▲

bdamm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could it be a right-to-repair issue? That seems to be the only legal wrench available for forcing automakers to open up access to anything.

▲

ddalex 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why should they ?! Do you also want to force them to design their cars so the engine is easily replaceable by a Custom Engine OS so that the community can build their own engines ?!?

▲

callc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because laws are (mostly) a reflection of what society wants.

People are growingly concerned with both the car manu and Apple/Google control over their car and related extra software goodies.

Laws are really needed when businesses don’t play nicely. I don’t know the legal specifics, but I’m sure glad I don’t need to buy $1000’s of specialty tools to maintain my vehicle, and sure glad that replacement parts are readily available (and will be for decades).

Just image how much worse society would be if car manus did the same thing as Apple and had ID-paired parts. Sorry! Your AC doesn’t work anymore, please install a genuine Honda oil filter at your nearest Authorized Honda Shop, available for a minimum of $500.

	▲	ddalex 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> People are growingly concerned with both the car manu and Apple/Google control over their car and related extra software goodies. 10 out of random 10 drivers out there don't care about the software running in the car. > Laws are really needed when businesses don’t play nicely. I don’t know the legal specifics, but I’m sure glad I don’t need to buy $1000’s of specialty tools to maintain my vehicle, and sure glad that replacement parts are readily available (and will be for decades). You drive a self-maintained car. Nothing wrong with that, but I would guess 95 out of 100 drivers on the road don't care about the car at all - they just want reliable transportation from A to B and perhaps some confort. > Just image how much worse society would be if car manus did the same thing as Apple and had ID-paired parts. Sorry! Your AC doesn’t work anymore, please install a genuine Honda oil filter at your nearest Authorized Honda Shop, available for a minimum of $500. I don't have to imagine that al all, all premium car manufactures digitally id their components and will not accept 3rd party replacements.

▲

DANmode 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Next thing you know these dirtbags are going to want to choose what wheels and tires to put on these things. The nerve!

(Yes, repairability and standardization are encouraged where feasible.)

	▲	ddalex 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I would guess there are a couple of orders of magnitude difference between the complexity of interfaces comparing the head unit with wheels and tires. Like, the head unit is in control of all that happens on the slow bus of the car, and needs to pass independent safety certifications for a complex system.

▲

bflesch 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's unacceptable, because intelligence needs a way to steer your car into oncoming traffic if required to do so due to confidential national security reasons.