I don’t understand how engineers can read the actual text of the Question and think this is a good idea...
> shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models.
What is a “platform” in this context? The vehicle is supposed to be equipped with one, so presumably not a cloud server then?
Inter-operable with what? Other manufacturers? Standardized how and by whom? What does “open access” mean in this context?
Does this run on the car? In the cloud? How do you connect to it? Remember this is a legal requirement, not a spec that can just be revised.
> Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform.
So I think this is saying that all mechanical data which is emanating from the vehicle must also be made available by connecting directly to “the platform” but you could read it two or three other ways.
> Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility
As supposed to the ODBII port which is the current standard, now we have a “mobile-based application” which the “owner” of the vehicle uses to directly access the “platform”.
I don’t know how the car is supposed to know who the owner is, let alone the original manufacturer of the car.
But then after somehow authenticating the owner on this mobile based application there’s also going to be a way to authorize your repair shop to do the same?
So perhaps repair shops are registered with this platform and I can select them from a list, or maybe after I’m magically authenticated I send them an email and they open that on their phone and click a link which send a message to an app which... wait what?
> limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle.
Oh yeah and these access tokens are also time limited and revocable.
> Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair.
So I’m just not following at all the level of complexity here and the huge number of red flags on legislation which is trying to spell out a technical solution instead of just spelling out the effect.
We don’t need an open access inter-operable standardized data platform providing direct and delegatable remote control via mobile application to mechanical control systems. We really don’t.
I would be a lot happier if it simply said that manufacturers must provide documented vendor extensions to the ODBII port to cover any new data streams.
My understanding is the motivation for Q1 is that vendors will stop including ODB ports since they can rely on OTA mechanisms [1], thus bypassing the intent of the previously enacted right to repair bill. The Globe editorial [2], despite being in favor of Question 1, acknowledges many of the concerns you've laid out. They suggest, as a possible remedy, that the Legislature amend the law if and when voters approve it, and propose "a compromise that requires all cars, including electric vehicles, to keep their OBD ports — which mechanics can currently plug into to retrieve diagnostics data ."
> I don’t understand how engineers can read the actual text of the Question and think this is a good idea...
Because engineers are generally capable of understanding that law is law, and not a computer program.
> Remember this is a legal requirement, not a spec
Yes, this is a basic principle of how laws are written. You've supplied the rebuttal to the rest of your comment. All the terms that you singled out and put scare quotes around are meant to be applied by the courts to ongoing industry practices - the point is to avoid needing future revision based on details. If the lack of specificity offends your engineer sensibilities, then you need to work on developing other modes of thinking.
It's not a lack of specificity that I'm worried about - quite the opposite, I think this text is far too over-specified while managing to use fluff terms that are mostly meaningless.
Meaning a court will have to somehow divine meaning from all those scare-quoted terms when the inevitable lawsuits commence.
> shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models.
What is a “platform” in this context? The vehicle is supposed to be equipped with one, so presumably not a cloud server then?
Inter-operable with what? Other manufacturers? Standardized how and by whom? What does “open access” mean in this context?
Does this run on the car? In the cloud? How do you connect to it? Remember this is a legal requirement, not a spec that can just be revised.
> Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform.
So I think this is saying that all mechanical data which is emanating from the vehicle must also be made available by connecting directly to “the platform” but you could read it two or three other ways.
> Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility
As supposed to the ODBII port which is the current standard, now we have a “mobile-based application” which the “owner” of the vehicle uses to directly access the “platform”.
I don’t know how the car is supposed to know who the owner is, let alone the original manufacturer of the car.
But then after somehow authenticating the owner on this mobile based application there’s also going to be a way to authorize your repair shop to do the same?
So perhaps repair shops are registered with this platform and I can select them from a list, or maybe after I’m magically authenticated I send them an email and they open that on their phone and click a link which send a message to an app which... wait what?
> limited to the time to complete the repair or for a period of time agreed to by the vehicle owner for the purposes of maintaining, diagnosing and repairing the motor vehicle.
Oh yeah and these access tokens are also time limited and revocable.
> Access shall include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components if needed for purposes of maintenance, diagnostics and repair.
So I’m just not following at all the level of complexity here and the huge number of red flags on legislation which is trying to spell out a technical solution instead of just spelling out the effect.
We don’t need an open access inter-operable standardized data platform providing direct and delegatable remote control via mobile application to mechanical control systems. We really don’t.
I would be a lot happier if it simply said that manufacturers must provide documented vendor extensions to the ODBII port to cover any new data streams.