> Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it

> All functions of the car must remain permanently operable

I think this needs to be refined a bit. As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.

But conveniently, automakers may find that every feature uses network connections.

Your legislator can disagree and enforce his/her will. Usb c for apple as an example.

Honestly, I see exactly zero features that would require network connection that make sense to be offered by the car maker directly. So let's refine it to "All first-party functions of the car ...", and add some provision to prevent bundling and un-commoditizing third-party networked additions.

LoJack-alike and accident alerting features do make some sense to be offered directly by the car maker. The latter is obviously difficult to retrofit, and the former would likely be easier to defeat if retrofitted.

I don't buy the music and navigation arguments in a smartphone-equipped world, but I think a good case can be made for those two.

Fine. Still, those two could be made as optional features that could be turned on or off at purchase, and/or during visit to a dealership or authorized repair shop. And neither of these should be sending telemetry during normal operation of the vehicle.

In-car Wifi, Spotify on the car radio, OEM maps with traffic.... you see zero?

Yes. In-car WiFi should obviously work even if the network connection break (remember, we're talking about working without Internet, not disallowing Internet at all) - WiFi is a local wireless network protocol, not magic Internet summoner. With actual Internet connection down, it should still maintain the local network for connected devices.

As for the rest, none of those look like they should be first-party features. "Spotify on the car radio" is a third-party integration to a system that should also work off-line, e.g. for playing music off removable storage, casting from your phone (via WiFi, without Internet), or, you know, working as an actual radio. OEM maps with traffic is something hardly anyone wants anyway, because they universally suck relative to some TomTom screen, or even Google Maps.

Colloquially speaking, "In-car Wifi" has come to mean "in-car internet connectivity". I presume this is what the parent meant.

https://www.verizon.com/support/connected-car-wi-fi/

https://www.att.com/plans/in-car-wifi/

https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32814112/cars-with-wi...

It's fine for those functions to be a casualty of the owners choice to turn off the network, just like with a phone. If automakers want to use a cellular connection in your car for non-critical functions, it should come with a legitimate user-uncontrollable off switch, just like airplane mode on a phone.

Right. We're trying to stop the world of heated seat subscriptions with a remote license verification at startup before it gets a foothold.

Right - but as the parent said, the proposed language of "all car features must keep working" isn't compatible with that.

Defining a law that allows those features to be turned off and yet disallows "data is broken, heated seats are disabled" is very difficult. After all, heated seats aren't an essential safety feature.

CarPlay integration is a feature bundled into the infotainment in many cars that requires an "external network connection". It will not work if you disable the "external network connection".

Why on Earth would it need that? It's supposed to enable integrating your car and your phone. Surely that should mean local network connection.

Wifi is a network external to the vehicle. An internal network would be something like CAN.

Whatever the case, my point is that a good solution is probably not quite as simple as phrased above.

A WiFi router built into the car is something I'd classify as internal networking for the purpose of this thread.

Isn't CarPlay only over USB?

And either way -- just keep supporting connection over USB and it's not a problem?

CarPlay supports connection over WiFi, and I think if a law prohibited it, it would be problematic.

> Isn't CarPlay only over USB?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205634

>If your car supports only wireless CarPlay ...

I'd argue in-car LAN is an internal network connection. And garage door control etc. are "local area" networks.

Fair. I'm saying that if these features are 'arguably' legal under a proposed law, that law needs to be refined.

> And garage door control etc. are "local area" networks

What if I want to control (e.g. close) the garage door when I am out of Wifi range?

A lot of it exists to sell your lat/lng and trip information to organizations like Wejo, who then goes on to sell it to gov organizations.

I would definitely want my car to be able to call an ambulance if I run off the road and hit a tree for instance and there are no other people around.

Of course perceived privacy is more important than something like that for many people here which is understandable.

> As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.

Just as planned.

You do see how proposing banning maps with traffic updates tanks the whole concept, right?

Why can't I just use my phone for this?

I think the issue is that some people have different preferences.

I wouldn't want this built into my car. The list thing I want is to pay yet another fee for something I already have. I'll stick to plugging my phone into the vehicle for this feature.

> wouldn't want this built into my car

I wouldn’t either. But I don’t think that means I should mandate my preferences be extended to all by banning the damn thing.

Simpler: mandate a network kill switch that doesn’t unnecessarily compromise functionality. (You would have to be creative about anti-theft tracking functions. But this is solvable.)

> You do see how proposing banning maps with traffic updates tanks the whole concept, right?

You have it on your phone already, the car has no reason to have its own, with its own network connection.

This could still work, just not have data.

Something can be functional but useless

Edit, or rather.. functional but unused

You can turn this off right now with tesla maps.

It's a damn car. Maybe that's how it should be.

You could rephrase it as:

All functions that a consumer could reasonably expect a car to perform without an internet connection must be operable without an internet connection. All features related to driving the vehicle, including but not limited to steering, braking, using traffic signals, starting/stopping, toggling locks or lights, opening or closing doors or compartments, and other standard features of a non-connected car must not require a network connection.

I think it’s probably OK if automakers want to onboard and support network features like maps or outsourced computation/diagnostics, but bricking everything because the company wants to collect user data and they want to opt out is obviously unethical. It’s important for these regulations to include the fact that they cannot be worked around or stapled on by the auto company post-hoc via firmware upgrades or the like.

> All functions that a consumer could reasonably expect a car to perform without an internet connection must be operable without an internet connection.

Welcome to "the law is vague and impossible to implement" shouts from HN

a network connection is required for headlights to function. The car must determine current headlight laws and comply with any city, state or country requirements. Additionally, there may be headlight safety software updates required, and the network connection will be used to download them.

a network connection is required for the windshield wipers to function. (etc)

We don't even need to use the word "reasonable." We already have a list of things that need to function in order for a car to pass annual inspection, so why not base the regulation off of that?

Well, there's a lot of those lists and most states don't test anything other than OBD-II emissions readiness. And I don't really think that the primary concern here is that automakers are going to disable your brakes or legally mandated lights.

If it’s the difference between them getting your $50 per month network subscription you bet they will disable your headlights if given the legal leeway to do so.

The legal environment for motor vehicle torts likely already makes that a losing game to play.

> As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal

I mean, that's not so bad...

> As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.

No, only features that require network connection. Which is exactly the intended outcome.

Speak for yourself. I like being able to lock my car from far away when I've forgotten to. I like being able to remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside for meet in the winter.

Making these sorts of features illegal is unacceptable and short sighted.

What I'd like is to force carmakers to open up the APIs and protocols used to enable these features, and allow me to use my own backend that I run in my own hardware, away from their prying eyes.

> Speak for yourself. I like being able to lock my car from far away when I've forgotten to. I like being able to remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside for meet in the winter.

> Making these sorts of features illegal is unacceptable and short sighted.

Please tell me that this is a parody.

If you think that is parody, you might be in an ideological bubble. These features are popular.

> If you think that is parody, you might be in an ideological bubble.

Ah yes, the famous ideological bubble of “not being a wealthy American”. Talk about filter bubbles…

The topic at stake are freedom and private property: the right to do what you want with your car, and the right to fully own a car without the manufacturer having higher rights than you the owner (including rights to disable features remotely).

If you think that “I'm too lazy to get back to my car to lock it” is a good argument in that context, there's not much I can do for you.

And “popularity” isn't relevant either, since remotely brick-able and non-reparable shit are selling well too.

Telemetry services are hardly an American thing, and they're only a "wealthy" thing as much as buying a new economy car makes someone "wealthy".

https://www.chevrolet.com.br/carros/novo-onix/especificacoes...

Popularity is very relevant when the entire root of this thread is a discussion about law. If you propose laws that ban popular features, you're not going to be a very successful politician.

> Lock my car from far away

LORA or Bluetooth

> remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside

LORA or Bluetooth

And yes, cell fallback would be fine if those two fail.

Can you give an example of a function of a car that should need a network connection.

E.g. navigation. Could still work but say cannot load maps. And it could let you download maps to a usb stick if it was actually decent.

Permanently operable - so, what, the car makers are going to keep 2G wireless going forever for vintage vehicles that have car-talk?

Some delineation between a core function of driving the car and ancillary services is probably warranted, so things like car-talk and sirius aren't the responsibility of the manufacturer. I suspect the devil's in the details for exactly how that delineation is decided though...

Can we also mandate this for a rented car? A rental user must also have the ability to disable all network connections.

this is why i still drive my old corolla. don’t have to deal with smart/network/access features, and it’s easy for shops to fix. hope i dont blow a head gasket now that i’ve said that…

A blown head gasket is one of the easiest things to diagnose and repair. You can do it in your home garage with basic tools. But finding a faulty temp sensor that is throwing a code that in turn disables throttle response ... that requires a cloud-based network solution to properly lookup the deliberately cryptic error code.

if only the car contained a computer for diagnostucs and a high resolution dispkay that xould show an error clearly...

Your faulty temp sensor shouldn't need any cloud-based solution.

The SAE J1979 standard (or your part of the world's equivalent) already provides for a way to get that diagnostic data which is mandated by law.

Yeah but how would the car manufacturers make any money /S

accurate only if you don't warp the head badly enough that it needs to be machined or replaced outright. Even so, crate motors are surprisingly affordable.

Love it but then how will the government follow you or engage the kill switch?

You just legislated remove keyless entry, start, software controlled driving assistance anything, and center console infotainment displays out of existence. I applaud your bold vision and anxiously await an opportunity to support it at the polls.

Those huge center screens are massive visual distractions, and tempt designers to put more and more in them (such as AC controls). They tempt your eyes away from the road.

Every single car I've driven recently (about 20 different models) had a different way of adjusting the brightness and changing the night/day mode. I drove a new, high-spec BMW recently and it wasn't possible to reduce the brightness manually - the German manufacturer knows better than you, supposedly.

Driving assistance such as emergency braking and auto high beam has caused me more problems than not. The UK has narrow streets and many parked cars - the car often thinks you're going to crash in to a parked car. The auto high beams turn off when I don't want them to, and don't come on when I do.

Keyless entry was (is?) a total boon for thieves (hello, Jaguar Land Rover)

It's understandable that you have a specific set of personal preferences, nothing wrong about that. Wanting to impose them on everyone else, well, you know..

Oddly enough, based on my limited research, OP’s personal preferences aren’t even an option these days.

In my limited research, I wasn’t able to find a new vehicle that didn’t include infotainment / advanced safety features, etc. I assume this is what the market desires but I personally would just like to have the option to buy a new car that has creature comforts limited to a basic radio, heating and AC. It was a bit mind boggling that the cheapest base model cars come with an 8” touch screen and all kinds of advanced safety features these days.

You seemingly can’t buy just a car these days, it has to be a car with everything added on (whether you want it or not). Kind of like televisions these days, you can’t buy a television that just has inputs, speakers and a tuner.

Again maybe this is what the market desires and I’m just an oddball outlier.?

This is a good point. When there is no option (except not buying a new/new ish car) it becomes less credible to keep claiming “this is what the market wants”

There is a parallel with low cost flying. Almost every airline in Europe is a low cost one now (and business, class often 2-6x the cost of economy isn’t much of a difference). Why should I be counted as validating their business model when there’s is barely any choice now?

My car is 15 years old. I have to go to the dealership to get the infotainment maps updated because the car has no network connection. I agree with you in general but I have no problem with map updates requiring an external wifi connection.

The only reason you have to do that is because the automaker made it so. Literally no one was stopping them from being able to update maps from a USB stick.

Sure. It actually has that capability to load MP3s. But as a navigation UX it sucks. I’d rather park my car every night and have the latest maps. Banning network connectivity as a feature does a disservice to users.

I too, want a simple minimalistic car with minimum fancy technogizmodoodats.

However that is not what the general market wants.

>However that is not what the general market wants.

Not sure that's the case. You're seeing enshitification here. We keep pretending demand has a lot to blame but when you see voters opinions like this, it seems a lot more like supply side market manipulation. Now one might argue Maine is an exception to the market and blah blah but frankly I've grown tired of the invisible hand of the market argument.

If truly a lot of privatized policy and practice comes to fruition because it's what the market demands then I'm not entirely sure market economics is a great model for humans. There so much consumer hostility and exploitation anymore that I for one am not a fan.

> We keep pretending demand has a lot to blame but when you see voters opinions like this, it seems a lot more like supply side market manipulation

Want incentives do car manufacturers have in doing that if it's not something that most consumers want?

I doubt "collecting/selling user data" is the reason if you could charge a $1k+ premium for a "enshitified" car.

I disagree in that while I myself don’t like all these technogizmodoodats, I can certainly see how many more people can and do want these features. They do make life a lot easier.

Heck, a lot of them I would love too, but not at the cost of over complicating my car.

Also remember this is HN. What people often want here is not what the average person wants, whether it be cars, phones, laptops, or many other items.

The article is referencing the entire state of Maine, and their preferences, not HN.

I’m referring to the original comment in this thread, not the article.

But the point is that this article shows that this is real people’s preferences, not just some wacky hackers with an axe to grind.

Having grown up and lived in Maine for over 40 years has awakened me to an interesting thought semi-recently:

The "Maine mindset" of solve the task at hand, oftentimes even if it does not look pretty or seem an 'official' fix is basically the hacker mindset.

Having not many people in a rather large rural area that gets "all the seasons", combined with generally far lower incomes than many areas tends to put "survival" on the table quite frequently.

Making things work, modifying things to work in the use case you need something to work in, kludges and contraptions is seen across every aspect of living in this state.

Reuse and re-purposing of items (and saving everything under the sun just in case it may be needed -- you should see our yards!) Seems to be THE core mindset.

The weather is... Often less than ideal, but the people and this mindset make living here a pretty unique experience it feels like.

It's not surprising at all that over 85% of the voting population aligned with "yeah, people should be able to fix their own shit" -- because for so many of us "mariners" (edit: Mainers), it's how we make the ends meet and survive until the next Spring.

Also of note, basically the entire state is 100% dependent on car travels. We travel distances for.. everything. In weather.

If your car breaks, etc, you immediately are in a position that needs to be rectified real quickly...

The network connection is an excellent point, yesterday Optus, a large telecommunications and Internet provider, suffered a nationwide outage that affected at least 10 million Australians.

Imagine if millions of cars failed to function properly because they were linked to network. If there was a natural disaster, this may have terrible consequences.

I miss home. Is Australia still laughing at itself because Eastern Europe has better internet than it

https://youtu.be/amllg7iHT-o?feature=shared

> Imagine

Imagine if that happened to payments.

Maybe they might make a Black Mirror episode titled "The Day The Earth Stood Still"

> Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.

This a hundred times. With electronics and connectivity becoming cheaper and cheaper over time, the temptation to stick it to every possible device in order to take control of it and make it obsolete at will just by turning off a necessary service, or simply collect user data is simply too tempting. I see a sad future in which a technology will be invented with the sole purpose of having every possible object, from shoes to glasses, dentures, bags, umbrellas, walking canes, bicycles, hammers, etc. connected and constantly transmitting something somewhere, outside of any control by the user.

> Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.

"Any home device shall not require an internet connection without loss of functionality"

A “No network required” insignia is in order.

I would go even further, if car model is sold more than 100k times and more than 5 years (a.k.a reaches "significant" portion of population) car manufacturer (or any other equipment manufacturer) must do following:

1. Wiring diagrams, service documentation, working diagnostic software, firmware blobs must be provided to national archive institution (think archive.org) - and how information is shared is in discretion of this institution

2. In case there are theft prevention or "genuine check" systems (requires keys, codes or whatever) - keys and procedures are given to police (it they job anyway to prevent stealing)

3 Car road worthiness is tested using open (or opened) hardware/computer blocks - car must pass all safety rules and excepted functionality cannot deviate more than 20%. The manufacturer must provide documentation, SDK and calibration procedures, safety tests, but it is illegal to lock functionality by requiring special hardware (if it is secret sauce - provide schematic for alternative hardware which good at least 80% as special). Obvious, it can have proprietary software - it need provide open source alternative implementation.

4. if car is sold, user need to be informed about open hardware and software.

I support forcing all documentation to be released, but be careful of overly invasive laws that help big companies execute regulatory capture because the new guy can not meet the regulatory requirements.

You make a very good point in general, but at this point cars are already so absurdly over-regulated, it's basically impossible for the "new guy" to break into the market at all.

Everyone has wire diagrams they just need to release them

> I would go even further, if car model is sold more than 100k times and more than 5 years

This will just result in a "new" model every year similarly to how (not car) retailers who supposedly offer price matching will often ask manufactures to supply whem with "unique" models of various devices.

I want that kind of law for more than cars. I want it for everything. The problem with that law for cars is the Federal Kill Switch Law that might go into effect in 2026.

A bipartisan bill confirming our right to also repair our personal electronic devices will be considered in the Maine Senate in January.

https://twitter.com/miketipping/status/1722101497683382286

I note that the opposite applies in the EU under "eCall", a remarkably under-discussed piece of legislation. This mandates that your car automatically call the emergency services if involved in a collision.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/ecall-in-...

There should be basically an off switch, no GPS, no antenna, no internet connection. I don't care if it's opt in or opt out, I just want a kill switch.