[Azew]

While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?

Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.

Inspecting auto software for problems is great, allowing hobbyists to tinker with their software seems problematic.

[binarycrusader]

Insurance policies already cover this as "after-market modifications" (the terminology I've generally seen used already).

There really is no cause for concern; things that used to be purely mechanical are now electric. Any modifications made mechanically before could be equally disastrous.

Yes, software modifications are easier to hide, but that it is a price worth paying for the greater general freedom of everyone.

[nashashmi]

> Yes, software modifications are easier to hide

Not if you hash the software and find its been adjusted. In that sense it is easier to detect.

[Qwertious]

What happens if the user modifies the software, the modified software causes a malfunction, the user resets the software to the factory version, then takes it in to a shop while claiming they never modified the software in the first place?

[BinaryIdiot]

> If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?

The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm?

> Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.

The insurance company covers the car so you'd have to consult what their terms are in regards to modifications as plenty of people modify their cars today just not the software. I can't imagine a software change would be radically different to a hardware change in the insurance's eyes unless it's something incredible like an autopilot.

[baobabaobab]

>The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm?

The hobbyist isn't the one with money. The manufacturer will be sued, and they usually settle because there is probably something they could have done that would have made the failure less likely, injury trials are bad press, and jury sympathy is always on the injured little guy's side.

This is how it plays out with physical products, I don't see why it would be any different with code.

[Qwertious]

That's not what happens if a hobbyist modifies e.g. the brakes, then the brakes break and the car crashes - if you modified the thing, you're responsible for the issues your modifications cause.