| |
GreggBadichekSecondEssay 8 - 06 Apr 2016 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
| | -- By GreggBadichek - 13 Jan 2016 | |
< < | Introduction
Modern cars use software containing millions of lines of code to measure their emissions, regulate their power input in the case of electric vehicles, and to operate their internal systems.[1] Volkswagen in 2015 showed us that proprietary software can mask a profit-enterprise's deception by preventing regulators and the public from discovering manipulation without rigorous testing and some luck.[2] Closed software also greatly endangers user privacy, increasingly so in the world of "smart" cars.[3]
In the near future, cars will run on electricity and integrate advanced computers, frequently with self-driving capability. Their software will then be even more advanced, and if it remains closed, the ways in which the vehicle uses driver data will remain mysterious, thus harming the consumer. Can environmental law force this software to open before "smart cars" replace dumb ones?
Drivers Will Not Care About Their Privacy, But Drivers Will Care About Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Physical Safety
Convenience will overwhelm any concern most drivers feel about their privacy, as is the case with phones. Additionally the eventual proliferation of smart cars capable of driving themselves will give regulators pause when they consider the possibility of opening software: to them, this will pose more danger than benefit, unless by then it's common practice.
Drivers purchase high fuel economy vehicles specifically for their mileage and environmental benefits. Future cars will not significantly emit greenhouse gases. Should software remain closed when this industry shift occurs, the opportunities to use environmental law techniques to expose privacy risks will be greatly diminished. | | Using Environmental Concerns to Open Software
Proprietary software permitted Volkswagen to deceive its consumers and governmental entities into believing that their “clean diesel” emissions technology had met and surpassed fuel economy standards. Had the software been open, Volkwagen's cheating would have been noticed almost immediately; consumers would have saved billions of dollars, and Volkwagen would have saved its reputation. It is feasible to imagine several ways in which proprietary software harms users' agency beyond GHG emissions specifically, or environmental problems generally. | | [7] 42 U.S. Code § 7404 | |
< < | Why can't the | > > |
1. Why can't the | | references be inline links? Why do we need to preserve the
presentation of links as "footnotes" in the Web? | |
< < | I don't quite understand the genre. This isn't newspaper advocacy | > > |
2. I don't quite understand the genre. This isn't newspaper advocacy | | for free software, where the improbable idea can be presented that
one source of regulatory failure brought on by software secrecy for
one sort of automobile software is going to, or ever could, result | | Nor does the civil procedure involved in using shareholder lawsuits
to force disclosure through discovery, where "trade secrets" are
always produced under seal, and no disclosure ever actually results. | |
< < | So I'm left wondering who the real audience of the draft is. The | > > |
3. So I'm left wondering who the real audience of the draft is. The | | best way to improvement, it seems to me, is to make a real piece of
legal analysis out of it, about one part of the existing widespread
account, and do that work with precision in the short space |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |