Very good initiative Lars.
It is possible (but very difficult in practice) to create a device, as
"simple" as a open source open hardware counter, as "simple" as that,
embedded in every sensor or controller, that counts how many times it
was re-configured. Again, proprietary controllers modified through a
backdoor (defective by design concept), could circumvent that counter.
Emission control should be done for a certain representative sample of
a certain model year or generation, not for all, nor for one. The
representative sample should be taken from the geography of the world
and from the year/month.
And then, emission control should be done randomly on the street ...
And then there could be more "job" for some corrupt policeman from
certain cities of some countries stopping people and asking for money
because they "do not comply with emissions". Other policeman will sell
that info to a law firm that sues the car manufacturer and get some
money from them in in a out-of-court settlement or ... exposes the
manufacturer to the public opinion.
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 11:24, Matt Ivie <[1]m0dese...@mykolab.com>
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?
The car manufacturers also have a business model setup for repair
of
vehicles so allowing just anyone to tinker with the way their ECM
works
destroys their "control". While Free Software advocates realize the
benefits of having Free Software, it will take a lot of effort to
get a
corporation to give up one of their revenue streams. Look at John
Deere
(
[2]https://stallman.org/archives/2022-nov-feb.html#18_January_2023_(
Right_to_repair,_John_Deere) )
for example.
Back in the day, before ECMs and computer control, one could tune
their
engine any way they chose. If you needed to pass an emissions test
you
would make sure your engine was setup to do just that, but then you
could change it back after the test was passed. The inaccurate fuel
and
air metering that allowed that just isn't efficient enough to even
make
a car reliable without constant tuning let alone allow accurate
emissions controls. Computer control was really the only way to get
the
job done. If we want control of those computers through Free
Software
we have a long battle ahead. I think there are solutions to be
talked
about. The next frontier though, is electric. With Electric has come
the concept of "subscription features" and self driving. I think we
need to address those issues every bit as much as we would need to
regulate the management of software on ICE (Internal Combustion
Engine)
