[bertil]

I’m generally not a fan of that kind of fig-leaf (say “we are not sharing weapons, just information” when encouraging people to print a gun-shaped bobby trap that is more likely to blow your hand than change anyone’s mind about gun control) but in this case, the veneer of technical engagement seems to filter for, or encourage people who are excited enough by self-driving that they actually pay attention and send feedback.

[robbedpeter]

It's very likely a deliberate and precise execution of the legal requirements to shield themselves from legal liability, under the advice of lawyers. At each step, from the coding to the hardware development to installation and configuration the responsibility is clear.

The installer of both hardware and software ends up being responsible for the use of the system in a way that is much more legally clear than other automation systems or even consumer software. Deliberate and informed choices are made by entities completely outside the plausible influence of developers.

It could get tricky in cases where the installer is not the end user.

[bertil]

> deliberate and precise execution of the legal requirements

I really want to agree with you, all evidence says you are right — but then I see any 30 seconds of geohot, speaking a mile a minute and saying about 40 things that would give any lawyer a heart attack, assertively antagonising _everyone_ and piling on the least politically correct way of seeing things. Either he’s the Top-Gun of walking the fine legal line, or he’s incredibly lucky. Inexplicably, lucky seems more likely.

[seniorivn]

that wasn't an original plan, but they were prohibited to sell selfdriving kits, this is the workaround that works