“I’m predicting a situation...”
Well, you can predict all you like I guess. I don’t see any reason to get worked up about someone’s prediction.
“Reading fault codes is not a ‘hack’. The fault codes are there to assist the mechanic in diagnosing the car’s problems. It is output only....I can’t modify the software with a code reader.”
Then this case is not really about anything you are talking about. This case is about people who want the courts to declare that they have a right to hack into the software and modify it, not about people who want to read the fault codes.
I read one line in the article which gave me great pause...it was some nonsense from the automakers indicating that allowing somebody to even see their code could open the door to hackers taking over somebody else’s vehicle.
This is the part that worries me the most. Its no longer a copyright issue...it’s allegedly a safety issue. And just like all the things we do ‘for the children’, my prediction is that automakers will use this argument to make all of their code encrypted, even fault codes.
Let me ask you this. Now that ‘safety’ has been interjected, when all the dust settles, do you think the government would even allow me to make an ‘open source’ car? One where all the code could be seen, and yes hot rodders could make faster and climate denialists could make run dirtier, and innovators could make better. Would I even be able to build such cars? I doubt it - after all, that would be too dangerous.
Thus my original comment - Camel’s nose under the tent.