I'd say the incorrect words in the title are "mandatory" and "backdoor".

Once legislated, and two years after published, it will be mandatory for manufacturers to comply.

This functionality is not requested and is working against the user (and it is pretty unlikely for such a feature to be done completely locally on the car, and even if it was, it will almost certain have Over-The-Air updates creating what is colloqially referred to as a backdoor.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

If this is a backdoor, then any functionality that can be updated by the manufacturer is a backdoor. Fine, but it's nice when words mean something.

And it's not mandatory. It may become mandatory in several-to-many years. The law is about exploring the possibility, just like OP said. This article is Facebook garbage that somehow made it's way onto HN.

That's correct. Any functionality that can be updated and change how the system works at the whim of a third party (not the user) is essentially a backdoor.

What would you propose as the definition of a backdoor that does not include the above?

automatic updates without the user's consent are the very definition of a 'backdoor.' just because a new name for it "update" has been commercially normalized doesn't mean the original name has lost its meaning.

Alright, then everything is a backdoor. Snaps are backdoors. Windows is a backdoor. MacOS is a backdoor. Watches are backdoors. Every cell phone is a backdoor. Thermostats and headphones and book readers are backdoors. Every car currently sold new is a backdoor. 90% of every device we interact with is a backdoor. So why put that in the title? It means nothing.

Very close. 90% of the computerized devices we interact with have backdoors. But then you jump to "backdoors must not be a problem" instead of "we have a severe problem all around us."

Not everything is a backdoor, but Windows absolutely is and that's part of why people dislike Windows and voluntarily use the older versions. MacOS, and some cell phone OS's, at least let the user choose if/when to update in which case they're not backdoors.

> I don't want that in my car

You are free not to buy.

> I don't want my car thinking because it can't see the fucking lines on the road

If you drive outside of "safe drive envelope" it does not matter if you're drunk or road conditions are dangerous. Safety systems should prevent accident in both cases.

The expanse of road environments where it's totally reasonable and safe to drive with which there are no lines is pretty large. Driving an unsealed country road could look to the cars metrics like I am driving drunk for example.

The "you are free to not buy" argument is not valid if it's a regulation for all new cars. Eventually all viable road legal car stock will contain the regulated device.

> could look to the cars metrics like I am driving drunk

Same as sudden acceleration or breaking. Don't buy car like this.

It's the same problem as the 737MAX MCAS, features shoehorned in, probably with bugs, poorly advertised, lack of training, misfeatures sold as default, leading to fatal pilot/driver confusion.

My elderly parent has bought a car with some of these features second hand, it will be great fun figuring out what is working as designed when a heavy vehicle has lost control and is lurching towards us at high speed.

https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/vulnerable-r...

https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/driver-atten...

https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/lane-keep-as...

> Don't buy car like this

So how exactly would that work, given that there will be no options?

Don't use car at all, for example.

For some people that is not an option.

That is the root cause of why this is being introduced and why there's a fight. As a society, the US absolutely refuses to prioritize safe driving over access to driving. We accept road deaths as the cost of business for our suburban sprawl and car-only infrastructure. Cars are the only option because so many places don't even have sidewalks, forget buses and bike lanes. Hell, in red states, you'll be terrorized by drivers simply for being on a bicycle.

You can pay someone, who has no objections to implemented safety measures, to provide you with transportation services.

You are being unempathetic and dismissive to the issues it raises, that is not a solution to the problem raised, nor is "Just don't drive". This isn't about the specific safety measure in question, the issue is invasive technology mandates in personal vehicles potentially excluding people from driving due to a desire to not be tracked by technology companies and government services. Imagine if they mandated the same thing on your smartphone. The answer could be "Don't use a smartphone", but that's obviously not an inclusive option. "Be tracked or exclude yourself from the modern world" is simply not a fair way to approach issues like this.

Consider as well that the US has built a society heavily based around personal car usage, towns and cities are built around it, jobs and education expect it of you. So you are born into a car-first society, but then given the ultimatum of tracking and monitoring or reduced freedom of movement.

> potentially excluding people from driving

Apparently here we have different understanding. Everyone by default is excluded from driving. Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, granted only to those who are willing to receive training, are able to pass test and are ready to operate vehicle that conforms to regulations.

If vehicle is not within regulations limit it may not leave private property.

I don't believe driving a vehicle is a right. I agree with you on all points in this comment. I do believe everyone should have equal opportunity to prove they can drive a road legal vehicle safely, and a they should be able to do that without the metrics of their journeys forever after being recorded by technology companies, and the safe operation of their car being decided by technology devices watching them drive. I think you just don't agree with that.

Just imagine it. Machine learning algorithms deciding whether you're drunk or not, and stopping your car from moving if it thinks you are. What could possibly go wrong?

> What could possibly go wrong?

Car would stop in the middle of the Death Valley and will refuse to start or to open the doors.

In more realistic scenario, the system would notify the driver and the police which have an option to send someone to actually check the driver condition. This allows to deal with stuck driving and to improve algorithm accuracy.

> So you are born

You can vote or you can leave.

I don't think the average person has much agency here, telling them to leave the country is callous, and a bit misunderstanding.

As a person, who twice moved countries in the last decade for political reasons I don't relate to this.

Well I admire your tenacity. Most people wouldn't do that.

> You are free not to buy

There do already exist pieces of legislation that cripple the acceptability not of one vehicle, but whole categories of vehicles (and practically potentially all of them). One such is the "E-call" in Europe.

> You are free not to buy.

Hardly. It's a mandate for the car manufacturers.