On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 08:57:22AM -0700, Matt Ivie wrote: > On Sat, 2023-05-06 at 16:58 +0300, Lars Noodén wrote: > > Recent news¹ reminds us that back in 2015 a whistleblower exposed the > > VW/Audi emissions scandal, which I guess had been going on since > > 1999. > > The companies executives used closed source, proprietary software in > > the > > vehicles to hide the fact that the vehicles were emitting 40 times > > the > > allowed NOx when actually out on the roads and not in the testing > > centers. Even with fines and prison sentences, there is no way to be > > sure the companies are not working on more of the same -- unless the > > development is done out in the open. > > > > Clearly we see both physical and economic harm from neglecting to > > require FOSS even in embedded computers, such as the 100+ now found > > in > > each new car. because these companies have already shown that the > > closed source model *cannot* be trusted such style of development > > should > > not be allowed any more in regards to vehicles. Surely a FOSS-based > > workflow can be figured out. > > > > Perhaps it is a timely and appropriate topic for institutions like > > FSF, > > OSI, EFFI, and so on to address that publicly? Even a short > > statement > > in passing would at least raise awareness and provide an opportunity > > to > > ratchet things forward in regard to Software Freedom. > > > > /Lars > > > > remember this scandal very well. There is a large incentive for car > companies not to use Free Software on their embedded controllers. The > emissions problem you highlight actually has a reverse effect if ANYONE > can change or modify those programs. The intention of using Free > Software on the controller to allow everyone to see what the code is > telling the vehicle to do is good but given the ability for anyone to > change the code and install their changes opens the door for those that > don't care about emissions to tune their engine for performance instead > of emissions. It could be argued that there are ways to avoid that, and > I'm sure there are but how complex does that become? >
One way may be to have the software in question be a fully reproducible build. The state (or whoever) maintains a list of approved hashes from known reproducible builds that people can install on their own cars, and there is a mechanism by which people can submit modified builds "upstream" for approval. Then cars in order to be street legal have a single "proprietary" box (possibly this function could be performed with no modifiable software at all) with a single responsibility of reporting the hashes of software installed elsewhere in the car. This enables spot checks. -john _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
