Rendered at 09:00:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
embedding-shape 15 hours ago [-]
> The government says it needs this information to identify and interview witnesses who can testify about how the tools were actually used.
Why start this whole thing, if you don't already have this information and have people willing to help you as witnesses?
Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? Rather than finding every user of the tool, find the users who use the tool in the way you don't approve of, then request the information for those?
Really bananas approach to go for "Every single user of the app" and "Everyone who bought a dongle" when it has very real and legal use cases.
cogman10 15 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I'd HAPPILY report every single truck rolling coal around me if there was a place to report that information.
Hell, I've seen a truck roll coal around cop cars and, obviously, nothing happened.
This is just gross privacy intrusion masquerading as "protecting the environment". We don't need 100% compliance to the law and simple prosecution/ticketing of obvious violations would go a long way towards solving the problem outright. Much like we didn't need our cars emailing prosecutors every time someone drove without a seat belt on. Cops giving out tickets for not wearing a seatbelt was enough.
kstrauser 15 hours ago [-]
I watched a pickup roll coal in the middle of freaking East Bay, literally within site of downtown San Francisco, on a bicyclist. I reported their license to the California Air Resources Board, and not longer after that I saw it up on jacks in a neighborhood auto shop. That made my day. Asshole.
Tangurena2 14 hours ago [-]
California is rather strict on emissions. Other states don't care. I used to work for my state's version of the DMV and the only public facing page where one could report things was to report people who would not register their cars locally (many people who purchase very expensive cars chose to register them in Montana). There used to be a web page to report license plates that were worn and needed replacing (like the reflective coating wore off, or all the paint got scratched off).
kube-system 11 hours ago [-]
Vehicle regulation in the US is piss poor. Here's the full list of states that require all passenger vehicles to be inspected for safety and emissions every year:
* New York
* Massachussets
* Vermont
lacewing 10 hours ago [-]
I used to live in Massachusetts. I'm not sure it's a benchmark to look up to. If buy a brand new car from a dealer, your next stop must be an inspection station - a pointless waste of time and money. But if your car is older than 15 years? You're no longer required to have an annual emissions test. Pretty backwards.
mmh0000 10 hours ago [-]
Utah used to require safety inspections every year, but they eliminated them; there were no noticeable side effects [1].
"Safety Inspections" were generally just a grift for third-party repairshops to collect free money and I couldn't be happier that they are no longer a thing.
Be aware that "safety" and "emissions" are different. Emissions testing is still required biannually for newish vehicles and yearly for older ones.
Why should that be required? Let people do as they will and impose penalties for problematic behavior (including negligence). I lived in a state with safety inspections and AFAICT it was little more than yet another disproportionate speed bump for the poor and a complete waste of time for society at large.
I do see the merit of inspecting larger trailers (such as for boats) once a year given the combined increased likelihood of incompetence and risk to life when things go wrong. But even then I think it doesn't actually accomplish much in practice. The time and effort would be better spent on targeted public education campaigns, possibly mandatory.
For emissions, again who cares. Regulations imposed on the high volume manufacturers broadly solves all the issues that are easy to solve. The rest are either willful violations or collectors. The latter is technological in nature and inevitably gets grandfathered for both safety and emissions everywhere I've lived.
Spooky23 6 hours ago [-]
I’d disagree. It keeps cars with bald tires, faulty brakes and other defects off the road. Poor people who can’t afford these things shouldn’t be driving the cars.
Motor carriers have a totally different regulatory regime that has a direct influence on highway safety. The issues there are due to the varying jurisdictions.
Retric 8 hours ago [-]
For emissions there is often nothing visually wrong with the car. So you’d essentially be giving up on enforcement if you didn’t require everyone to get their car checked at least every few years. Doing it every year is IMO overkill.
As to safety inspections it’s not a very large effect, but they do save lives and the expense is generally rather small. Yes it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point.
fc417fc802 2 hours ago [-]
> So you’d essentially be giving up on enforcement
Yes, that is precisely what I was suggesting. At least in the general case. Spot enforcement of notable cases when witnessed (such as the aforementioned coal rolling) seems like a good idea to me.
It comes down to the cost benefit tradeoff. Most cars will be used as sold, will be kept in good repair, and will eventually be scrapped due to a failure unrelated to the emissions system. I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture.
> it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point.
That's not what I meant. Try getting a safety inspection in a poor neighborhood. The places are booked out and you probably can't afford the time off work even once you do manage to reserve a slot. Or you end up waiting in line for a few hours. At least that was my experience.
On top of that I doubt it catches many worthwhile violations. People are quite good at looking out for their own lives and pocketbooks.
And again there's spot enforcement. I've lived in states without safety inspections and never felt unsafe. The police would issue "fix it" tickets if they saw anything they thought was truly unsafe after which it was on you to sort it out with the court.
Retric 2 hours ago [-]
> I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture.
Only ~95% of cars pass emissions tests last year (it varies by state). As each car is tested several times over its lifespan you’ll find the majority of IC cars eventually need something fixed to reduce smog.
This isn’t some wildly inefficient system it’s actually quite effective at improving air quality.
retatop 8 hours ago [-]
I have never met anyone who properly fixed an emissions problem, and I think that's what GP meant by willful violations. Any car old enough to have emissions problems isn't worth enough to fix properly, so you cheat it by doing things like buying a spacer for the O2 sensor.
Personally I'd be shocked if emissions inspections had a significant effect on total vehicle emissions, and I think that the most effective things are done at the manufacturer
Retric 6 hours ago [-]
I can personally name 3 people who had their catalytic converter replaced to pass an emissions inspection. Trying to cheat the system when they stick a hose on your tailpipe and test the emissions isn’t trivial.
inquist 6 hours ago [-]
I'm just one person, but I replaced the catalytic converters on my FJ Cruiser so it would pass the emissions test
normie3000 4 hours ago [-]
How old was the car? Was the old one faulty? Thinking of getting an FJ but not sure the thought is coming from a sensible place.
ajsnigrutin 8 hours ago [-]
I live in a country with mandatory (mostly-)yearly car inspections (and all other motor vehicles).
Many time you don't even know that there's an issue and they only find it during the inspection. Handbrake works only on one side, normal brakes don't work properly on one of the wheels, there's play in one of the joints or tie rods, etc.
You park, pull the handbrake, you have no idea that if you parked on an incline, your car would roll downhill, but because they noticed it during an inspection, you get that fixed. At the same time, you're forced to replace all the blown lightbulbs etc., even the ones not used daily (fog lights, etc.), since they check those too. Many people don't even notice their brake lights not working.
normie3000 4 hours ago [-]
I was sold incorrect tyres once, picked up in the inspection. Why wouldn't I want to know?
fc417fc802 2 hours ago [-]
And yet somehow in the US states that don't have inspections things keep working. It's not as though we don't have statistics regarding the causes of traffic incidents.
kstrauser 8 hours ago [-]
Safety inspections I’ve dealt with were largely regulatory capture for auto shops. Oh, your fender is rusty? Better replace that, even if this is your fishing wagon!
CA doesn’t require annual smogs, but once your car is a certain age, it’s at least biennial. I just did ours last week.
kortilla 4 hours ago [-]
I wouldn’t say it’s piss poor in the entire US just because it is draconian in those 3 states.
pdntspa 8 hours ago [-]
It's probably a much larger list if you expand it to every other year. Though that won't make for nearly as exciting a post.
That reminds me, I am overdue for a smog check...
cogman10 14 hours ago [-]
I'm in Idaho, so not such resource exists. It would have to be a federal agency that does the enforcement because our cops/prosecutors/lawmakers won't ever make something like that happen.
cyberge99 14 hours ago [-]
You can take temporary comfort knowing that it’s costing them $7 per gallon for that little asshole stunt.
It seems you have to he is especially insecure to intentionally want to burn smoke on someone else.
Especially when Tesla’s have a BioWeapon air filtration setting.
flomo 11 hours ago [-]
Not an obvious google (for me), so here's the link:
I'm in Texas, and I get coal rolled multiple times a year while I'm riding my bike. One asshat actually hit my shoulder with his extended mirror. After that, I started using my GoPro as a dashcam since I wasn't able to get the asshat's license plate number.
forshaper 11 hours ago [-]
Man I got hit so many times as a cyclist in TX and GA. It took me awhile to realize that in GA, it was sometimes intentional. I hadn't realized how much bicyclists were disliked.
Gigachad 4 hours ago [-]
There’s something about driving cars, particularly larger ones which induces extreme violence in people. These same people wouldn’t kill you in a fist fight but would do it with their cars without a thought.
porknubbins 9 hours ago [-]
I don’t known if its the heat or lack of greenery but everything I hear about riding bikes or motocycles in Texas just makes it sounds like there is some deep latent aggression there. I have bicycled in a bunch of states including the Southeast and never encountered anything like the stories people tell about Texas.
tokai 8 hours ago [-]
Open up any kind of cycling content on social media and you see droves of comment literally calling for killing cyclists. Turns out some people are just ontologically evil.
cogman10 8 hours ago [-]
It has basically 0 pedestrian or bike infrastructure (at least where I was at, Irving, was that way). You have to drive everywhere otherwise you are literally in the middle of the got dang road.
The speed limits are also all high. They get up to 50 mph in as many places as possible.
It also doesn't help that they've got some of the worst road marking of any state I've been in. There were a lot of roads where it was simply unclear how many lanes were supposed to exist.
Now imagine throwing a bike into all this.
I don't think it's so much aggression as it is really really terrible infrastructure.
Also, FTR, Texans are actually pretty polite drivers (at least they were circa 2011 in Dallas area).
donkyrf 5 hours ago [-]
> I don't think it's so much aggression as it is really really terrible infrastructure.
These are separate issues. Both are real.
dylan604 8 hours ago [-]
> I don't think it's so much aggression as it is really really terrible infrastructure.
As one that has been hit and coal rolled, I'll stipulate that I have a biased take that would disagree. I get that people in Irving are probably not as used to bicycles, but where I'm at is one the most popular places for biking (white rock lake). So drivers in this area are definitely used to bikes. These people to me are the meme version of the MAGA crowd. They're also the people that have no qualms doing 50mph in a 30mph zone. Infrastructure or not, these people are these people
stingraycharles 3 hours ago [-]
Ok I’m not from the US. Why do people do this?
spike021 12 hours ago [-]
I had a neighbor with a car they clearly wouldn't fix that desperately needed a smog check. reported them also. they moved away shortly after though, so i'm not sure if CARB ever followed through.
tedd4u 12 hours ago [-]
I got a nastygram from CARB once for something like that. I think they follow up.
vasco 7 hours ago [-]
> and not longer after that I saw it up on jacks in a neighborhood auto shop
Things that didn't happen for 200 please
kstrauser 5 hours ago [-]
#NothingEverHappens
In the real world, sometimes grownups have to actively do things to make their worlds nicer. We can’t all just sit around being cynical or nothing ever gets done.
vasco 3 hours ago [-]
In the real world, in a city as big as San Francisco, probabilities say otherwise.
IncreasePosts 12 hours ago [-]
Here in Colorado we have a new anti coal rolling law, with a hotline you can call it in on.
You know what happens when you call it in? The government sends a letter to the registered address of the truck saying, basically "Hey! Your emissions are very wasteful, you should get that checked out!". Glad California seems to have some teeth to the emissions laws.
dylan604 11 hours ago [-]
Seems about as effective as could be though. By the time you see them doing it, it's already cleared up by the time you pull out your phone to video it to use as evidence. So this is pretty much acknowledging that it would be ripe for abuse if it had any actual consequence.
fc417fc802 9 hours ago [-]
Patiently collect multiple (say 3) independent reports of the same plate. Have the police show up for a surprise physical inspection (free of charge naturally). Track the sources and targets of reports to watch for any abuse.
I had a driver in a Ford F-150 do this in front of me last week as he pulled away from a light. The smoke totally blacked out the windshield for 5 seconds while I was in motion. I was totally blinded by this.
I had no idea this was a thing, much less that it was something people did on purpose.
It's very much on purpose. To do it with a modern diesel truck you need to remove the DPF, and reprogram the ECU to run rich and to ignore the missing DPF.
bityard 13 hours ago [-]
I wish they'd go back to just hanging plastic testicles from the trailer hitch, honestly.
Maybe they finally realized that they had been giving their trucks gender affirming care.
mrgoldenbrown 12 hours ago [-]
I think the wikipedia page downplays how often it's used to try to hurt or annoy cyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who looks liberal/foreign. It's not just anti environmentalists who do it, it's a general MAGA thing.
KennyBlanken 12 hours ago [-]
"Try" to hurt?
Half-burned diesel particulate is absolutely cancerous, it can enter the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier and they're generating clouds of it, probably thousands of times more than what a modern 18 wheeler puts out in half an hour of driving. And they're doing it to someone breathing hard.
If I sprayed some cancerous chemical in someone's face, I'd be arrested within the hour. I'd be on the regional news, even.
The double standards around motor vehicles never cease to amaze.
kortilla 4 hours ago [-]
> If I sprayed some cancerous chemical in someone's face, I'd be arrested within the hour. I'd be on the regional news, even.
No you wouldn’t. You’ve just described 2nd hand smoke which you can easily get hit with walking down any sidewalk in the US.
stavros 11 hours ago [-]
Wtf people are doing this on purpose? What's wrong with people?
mmh0000 10 hours ago [-]
The "people" doing this are exactly the type of people you'd expect...
Just the first thing that came up in a youtube search, there are thousands more:
Ah, even worse, you can gas people and your engine pollutes normally as well.
I didn't think people would be this shitty, but here we are.
UltraSane 10 hours ago [-]
A nasty combo of sadism and tribalism and stupidity.
curt15 11 hours ago [-]
Chest-thumping
pembrook 4 hours ago [-]
I’m sorry, but while I’m sure there’s a few people on earth who have intentionally done this…to imagine its happening around you all the time vs people being just lazy about issues on their vehicle…is quite frankly lunacy.
It’s always fascinating to run across the MAGA-style conspiracy theories on the far left, they’re ironically very similar.
“I get coal rolled every time in step on my bike!”
pigeons 4 hours ago [-]
Happens to me every time the car rental place gives me a hybrid.
rsync 13 hours ago [-]
... and for those that assume, understandably, that this is strictly a US cultural phenomenon, I must (sadly) report that I saw a very new Ram 1500 dump black exhaust onto a cyclist on the 9 between Saint-Léonard and Crans-Montana. This happened in summer of 2022.
In terms of US cultural exports, for every jazz music and snowboarding I guess there has to be some coal rolling and fake service dogs.
ChoGGi 10 hours ago [-]
I see rolling coal pretty regular in Alberta, Canada. Though not as an intentional act towards bicycles/EVs behind the truck, just people with a rich mixture that like burning money. That and it's legal to do a diesel delete...
Gigachad 4 hours ago [-]
I’ve never seen it in Australia. Rarely you see a rusted out shitbox with bad emissions but I’ve never seen a new vehicle modified like this.
fsniper 11 hours ago [-]
What on earth? I can't understand USA at all..
hedora 10 hours ago [-]
If you want to do something about this, given that we have universal surveillance of license plates anyway:
Demand that your local government installs PM 2.5 / 10 monitors on each of their spy cams. They'll easily pick up out-of-spec emissions systems. Join the emissions spikes with the license plates. Take the cars that are two standard deviations above the norm for PM 2.5 / 10 increases after they're spotted by the camera, and have them come in for an aggressive smog check.
Completely eliminate all other smog check requirements for late model cars because modern tests are just "check the pollution control light on the dash", and "check for tampering". Those checks will only catch honest drivers, since coal-rollers limit themselves to reversible modifications anyway.
If we're going to give up our privacy for some amorphous benefits (which I think is a terrible tradeoff), at least let those benefits include annual paperwork. As a bonus, if the PM 2.5 / 10 data is made public, then we'd have much better air pollution monitoring. There's no way this plan costs more than the current system, where every ICE car driver pays ~ $100 to an inspection station every few years. PM sensors are under $100, and you need orders of magnitude fewer sensors than cars.
Barbing 3 hours ago [-]
>Demand that your local government installs PM 2.5 / 10 monitors on each of their spy cams.
While we're at it can remind 'em Flock politicians don't have our votes
ErroneousBosh 1 hours ago [-]
> Demand that your local government installs PM 2.5 / 10 monitors on each of their spy cams
You don't need that. You can just take a picture of a car with black smoke coming out of the exhaust.
internet_points 46 minutes ago [-]
Had too google "rolling coal".
That is insane.
14 hours ago [-]
kube-system 11 hours ago [-]
> Hell, I've seen a truck roll coal around cop cars and, obviously, nothing happened.
> This is just gross privacy intrusion masquerading as "protecting the environment".
You're conflating two entirely different groups of people working for two different governments with entirely different motivations. It is entirely possible that the cops in the situation you observed didn't have any issue because they didn't think they were breaking any law they enforce. Your local police and EPA Special Agents have different jobs.
The Clean Air Act is a federal law. There are 10 states with laws directly targeting "rolling coal".
hilariously 6 hours ago [-]
How about assault? I have stood in a peaceful protest while truck after truck rolls coal in my face and the cops just watch as I am poisoned. If I sprayed mace in the car windows I would go to jail.
KennyBlanken 12 hours ago [-]
The only masquerading is some basic OBD functions slapped onto an app that is entirely designed for the sole purpose of installing emissions evasion firmware. Most of the reviews brag about it, even.
And do you really think they're HQ'd in the caymans by coincidence? No. It's to avoid any repercussions.
You can get similar basic OBD functions from any of a dozen free apps on iOS or Android that do that all far better and for a few dollars.
FFS they even sell another app for editing (ie falsifying) electronic driver logs.
wahnfrieden 13 hours ago [-]
They are probably owned by off duty police
lovich 13 hours ago [-]
With this admin any comment on “protecting the environment” is an obvious lie when they state that climate change doesn’t exist and are opening up every national land then can to resource extraction.
Like it’s normally a dubious claim when trying to violate privacy but for them it’s fucking laughable if only it wasn’t so ominous.
jazz9k 11 hours ago [-]
Even the so-called experts on climate change, like Bill Gates, have given up on it.
lovich 5 hours ago [-]
Bill Gates is a patron. He’s not a climate scientist.
If you have to point to patrons opinions on science to back your own then I assume you are incapable of a real discussion on the topic and will ask you to bleat like a sheep in other threads.
legitster 14 hours ago [-]
I was on a bike ride with my young kid. We were going up a hill and being passed by a lifted diesel truck. I could tell that the driver was desperately working the throttle to avoid accidentally blowing smoke in my kids' face.
Congratulations, buddy. You've designed your life around being such a massive unlikeable asshole to random strangers. But for a brief moment you understood shame.
I'm generally pretty libertarian, but I'm all for throwing the book at these guys.
rootusrootus 14 hours ago [-]
> I'm generally pretty libertarian, but I'm all for throwing the book at these guys.
To me that seems perfectly in line with being libertarian. One of the legitimate roles of the government is protecting people from violence by other people. Libertarians are not anarchists.
cogman10 14 hours ago [-]
Not to my understanding. Libertarian protections are from my understanding all about the quantifiable damages that were done by any given action. They don't usually go beyond that.
That's why most libertarians would be in favor of blowing asbestos insulation with the thought that "well, eventually the mesothelioma victims will sue which will stop the practice". You couldn't preemptively sue, however, as you don't have any damage you could demonstrate until after the cancer starts.
There might be flavors of libertarians that aren't that way but it's my understanding that environmental protections is one of the weaker aspects of the libertarian mindset. Especially since it simply doesn't account for "all the damage is done and the people that did the damage are now gone".
rootusrootus 11 hours ago [-]
> environmental protections is one of the weaker aspects
That is probably why we are not on the same page here. I'm thinking in terms of the actual harm. Someone rolling coal near me is causing violence to me. The damage to the environment is more difficult to quantify, and that is not the angle I would approach it from.
JoshTriplett 13 hours ago [-]
(Most) libertarians still support addressing externalities.
One common libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things, and convince an actuary that it's safe; the insurance premiums will stop you from taking risks with unproven technologies without appropriate precautions/testing/etc".
cogman10 12 hours ago [-]
> (Most) libertarians still support addressing externalities.
Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role.
> The standard libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things"
No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance. But it also does not address the externalities problem. We have in this thread an example of an externality that doesn't have a solution. Rolling coal does small amounts of damage. An insurance agent would be happy to insure someone with a modded car that rolls coal because there isn't going to be a claim related to it.
The same is true for any CO2 emitting activity. The damage is an externality that builds up with very small individual acts. I know of no way this would be addressed with libertarian philosophy (grant for me that man-made climate change is real and a problem if you want to argue against this).
JoshTriplett 12 hours ago [-]
> Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role.
To a libertarian, a major part of the government's job is to enforce contracts and property rights. Externalities are mass infringements on other people's property rights, that need to either be avoided or appropriately compensated. Emitting CO2 does damage to a common good everyone has an interest in.
> No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance.
I didn't say the government would force them to. (Though some smaller-scale voluntary association might well do so.)
cogman10 12 hours ago [-]
The problem you'll have in a libertarian framework is who can bring a claim against who for CO2 emissions and for how much?
Like, let's say I have a slam dunk case that my $1000 tree died due to climate change. I have the receipts, documentation, everything (unrealistic as it is). How would I go around recovering the damages I'm owed? Who would figure out that "Ted there who drove to work for the last 20 years contributed $0.0001 of your damages. The concrete plant over there contributed $0.001. The coal plant $0.01".
I'll also point out you did not address the rolling coal problem.
JoshTriplett 12 hours ago [-]
It is not impossible, in a libertarian framework, to have appropriate court cases to establish standard collective rates and trading frameworks for CO2 emission limits. And that does solve the problem of individual vehicle emissions, as well.
hedora 10 hours ago [-]
You're describing Corporatist Libertarians.
Traditional Libertarians: No organization (government or otherwise) should be large enough or powerful enough to infringe on anyone's liberties.
Corporatist Libertarians: No government should be powerful enough to infringe on the liberties of corporations.
Corporatism has taken over about 50% of the Democrat, Republican and Libertarian parties. They're what people usually mean when they say "moderate" in the US, and why no branches of the federal government have an approval rating above 33%. It's also why things are going downhill so fast: It doesn't matter which party is in power, even if they've got a filibuster proof majority and all three branches in their pocket. Their corporate faction will still be powerful enough to block progressive and populist legislation.
triceratops 9 hours ago [-]
> Traditional Libertarians: No organization (government or otherwise) should be large enough or powerful enough to infringe on anyone's liberties.
But how?
iamnothere 10 hours ago [-]
You are perhaps confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Ancaps are a subset of libertarians. I think among other right-wing libertarian varieties there is a broader spectrum of beliefs, and left-wing libertarians generally would not support anything that pollutes the commons (although they would disagree about the best means of preventing such pollution).
cogman10 9 hours ago [-]
Left libertarians, while they exist, are definitely a minority opinion.
But I'd say that they also don't have a good solution to this problem as it requires more centralized enforcement to really make a difference. A tribal council shunning the polluter or even ejecting them from the community isn't likely to result in them stopping their behavior. Not unless a huge portion of the world adopts that government (which is unlikely).
iamnothere 7 hours ago [-]
Minarchists (both left and right), Georgists (“geolibertarians”), and centrist Niskanen “liberaltarians” are often given a libertarian label, and none are strictly opposed to a degree of government intervention to defend fundamental rights including the preservation of natural resources. It’s often agreed among these groups that common resources (like clean air and large bodies of water) should be defended against spoilage, as nobody can “own” these resources.
With the exception of the Niskanen group, it’s true that none of these groups have much of an effect on policy in recent decades, but I’d argue that’s more of a consequence of our governmental structure shutting out those with libertarian views except when it’s in the service of increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.
There’s a large segment of the population that desires less control/intervention imposed on the Everyman, versus the Randian view that centers on freedom of action for wealthy industrialists. You can see this group present in any discussion about Flock, or digital ID, or age verification. Or problems related to copyright (an artificial government-granted monopoly). These people just aren’t well-organized and don’t have any political power. Their only representation comes from mavericks like Massie and Wyden, who often get marginalized by their parties, or outsider influencers like Louis Rossman.
The group I just mentioned (libertarian populists, perhaps?) is less likely to care about regulations on big intangible things like corporations, large-scale economic activity, or highways, and more likely to care about regulations that affect average individuals, very small businesses (especially self-employed or contractors), or small groups like hobbyists. They see many regulations as benefiting key Red or Blue donor groups at their expense, and it’s often hard to argue with that!
KennyBlanken 12 hours ago [-]
Libertarians consider anyone doing things they don't like to be anarchists, and anything they do, to be "freedom."
You ever notice that areas with very high libertarian numbers tend to have lots of problems with illegal dumping, and lots of people who think registering and insuring their vehicle is optional?
pattrn 10 hours ago [-]
I've lived in the most libertarian state in the country for the majority of my life. I've never noticed any illegal dumping, and I've never heard any libertarians call anyone an anarchist (maybe once?). If anything, it's the non-libertarians that call libertarians anarchists.
On what are you basing your opinions?
rootusrootus 11 hours ago [-]
I would say that libertarians come in many flavors. And many of them are not big-L libertarians.
> You ever notice [...]
No. It may be true, but I would like to see evidence rather than conjecture. I have seen plenty of trashy areas that I would not associate with a high concentration of political libertarians.
I would agree that there is an entire flavor of libertarian who, for example, felt like they must not wear masks during the pandemic because they were being told by the government to wear them.
You're right that's what it should be, as me and my kid's right not to get trampled to death beneath a 2m hood clearly trumps your "right" to drive a 4-ton machine at unsafe speeds wherever you please. But sadly that's not how most "libertarians" think.
redsocksfan45 13 hours ago [-]
Guy tries to drive courtously around you and this is how you take it? You're unhinged.
rectang 12 hours ago [-]
If I understand correctly, the trucker was set up to roll coal on other people, and only made an exception for this specific kid on a bike. It's not "unhinged" to stand up for others who have been targeted even while you were spared — it's just common decency.
pattrn 10 hours ago [-]
Is there some way of knowing a truck is set up to "roll coal"? If not, then this could just be the OP thinking poorly of someone just trying to drive carefully around a family. It would be jumping to a very pessimistic conclusion without evidence.
rectang 9 hours ago [-]
That's possible, and I hedged a bit with an "if I understand correctly" because it was unclear to me how reliable the "coal roller" assessment was.
But if the bike rider's judgement was mistaken, the only consequence seems to have been that a driver of a diesel truck had ill wished upon them from afar. There's no mention of the truck getting reported to the police, and I speculate that the bike rider, as someone capable of recognizing the truck driver's good intent, might be cautious about escalating.
Nevertheless I'm sure that there will be those who continue to see the bike rider as an "unhinged" monster.
IncreasePosts 12 hours ago [-]
But anyone who "rolls coal" doesn't have a truck set up to always do that. They'll have a switch on their console which makes it happen (or something digital). You don't need to try to not roll coal if you don't want to. Probably what happened is the person just drove a normal truck and knows that diesel fumes are stinky and tried to coast by the bikers so there would be the least amount of exhaust near them.
californical 11 hours ago [-]
Not necessarily- many blow out black smoke when the throttle is pressed hard, but not when pressed gently. From what I understand there is a way of tuning the ECU to do this. But also there can just be a switch
ChoGGi 10 hours ago [-]
Diesel fumes always stink, idling or driving. You mash down a throttle on a deleted diesel and it'll blow smoke. It can be a decent cloud depending on the last time you womped it.
legitster 14 hours ago [-]
> Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then?
They probably have tons of data and testimony from witnesses who use the product illegally. You can find hundreds of threads online of people telling you how to defeat emissions controls using their products.
The case prosecutors want to make is that EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior. If they can show that the majority of users are committing crimes with the app, that's a much stronger case than just rounding up a handful of witnesses.
AnthonyMouse 14 hours ago [-]
> If they can show that the majority of users are committing crimes with the app, that's a much stronger case than just rounding up a handful of witnesses.
I still don't understand why this should even be relevant in cases like this. The thing is basically a generic OBD dongle, right? The same thing every DIY and shade tree mechanic uses to read codes and run service procedures.
Suppose 20,000 people buy it and use it for defeating emissions. Some other number of people buy it for the normal thing. Why does it matter at all whether the other number is 50 or 50 million? Those are the people who aren't relevant. Should the OEM be in trouble if some unrelated third party happens to write the emissions defeat code to require their dongle in particular so they have a high proportion of customers using it for that? Should they get away with promoting it for that if they're a huge company with lots of sales to people not using it for that? None of that should matter. The seller doesn't even control what the users are doing with it, nor should they.
If there is a law against advertising it for defeating emissions then prosecute them for the advertising. That's their crime, what the customers do is third party action.
legitster 13 hours ago [-]
> I still don't understand why this should even be relevant in cases like this. The thing is basically a generic OBD dongle, right? The same thing every DIY and shade tree mechanic uses to read codes and run service procedures.
The difference is this company provides a bunch of cloud services to roll out specific tunes at scale.
From the original filing:
> "EZ Lynk worked with/previewed the EZ Lynk System for at least two delete tune creators during development and before launching the EZ Lynk System. Those creators later disseminated delete tunes using the EZ Lynk System. There were numerous social media websites, including the “EZ Lynk Forum,” where third parties discussed using the EZ Lynk System to defeat emission controls. The Forum was run by EZ Lynk and one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development, and it provided contact information for EZ Lynk technical support. EZ Lynk representatives interacted with posts and videos about deleting emission controls and installing delete tunes, including tunes from one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development."
So it does seem like the DOJ is going after them for collaborating on developing and enabling the tunes. I suspect the subpoena is about establishing damages.
AnthonyMouse 12 hours ago [-]
That doesn't address the issue at all. Why should the damages depend on what third parties do?
On top of that, wow, if you're familiar with how humans think and how prosecutors write indictments, that's some weak sauce. Look at this:
> EZ Lynk worked with/previewed the EZ Lynk System for at least two delete tune creators during development and before launching the EZ Lynk System. Those creators later disseminated delete tunes using the EZ Lynk System.
They worked with some developers. No claim that they knew what the developers were planning to produce at the time. Later the same developers published something alleged to be illegal.
> There were numerous social media websites, including the “EZ Lynk Forum,” where third parties discussed using the EZ Lynk System to defeat emission controls. The Forum was run by EZ Lynk and one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development, and it provided contact information for EZ Lynk technical support.
Users posted things on social media. There was a thing called "EZ Lynk Forum" that wasn't even entirely controlled by the company and from what I can tell was actually a Facebook group. The group listed the (presumably publicly known) contact info for their tech support.
> EZ Lynk representatives interacted with posts and videos about deleting emission controls and installing delete tunes, including tunes from one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development.
"Interacted with" as in the company's peons weren't lawyers, so their PR flacks liked posts praising the company and their tech support answered tech support questions, without paying attention to whether the user was doing something they weren't supposed to.
This is looking increasingly like a farce. That kind of stuff is vapid. If a user has a tech support question and mentioning that they want to defeat emissions means the company refuses to answer it then the user just comes back later or with a different account and asks the same question without mentioning their use case, right?
These kinds of prosecutions are the worst. It's punishing a company for saying the wrong things, i.e. having insufficiently aggressive lawyers, even if it has no real effect on what they do. It's a trap for the unwary and a bludgeon against companies insufficiently bureaucratic to have all their employees trained in corporate censorship practices.
Bjartr 12 hours ago [-]
Why are they subpoenaing Apple and Google for this information instead of EZ Lynk for their own records of distribution?
corywadd 13 hours ago [-]
> The same thing every DIY and shade tree mechanic uses to read codes and run service procedures.
Now you have me wondering if this is their real target, to go after people who are defeating CRM on their vehicles so they can repair them themselves or in their small mom-and-pop garage of choice. But right to repair is popular, so they have to claim it's for something else.
13 hours ago [-]
chasd00 14 hours ago [-]
> EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior.
idk, knife makers are knowingly enabling knife attacks. If there's at least one EZLynk customer who isn't breaking a law then it seems to me the company is in the clear. I would use a gun analogy but, in the US, guns have constitutional protection.
legitster 13 hours ago [-]
I think the difference is that a knife is more or less used for what the manufacturer advertises it for.
Something similar has happened with gun manufacturers regularly. It's relatively easy to make a semi-automatic user-convertible into an automatic weapon. But selling your rifle with instructions like "we absolutely DO NOT RECOMMEND cutting this specific notch off of the trigger group with a hacksaw BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL" has not been appreciated by the ATF or our court system.
GeekyBear 11 hours ago [-]
> The case prosecutors want to make is that EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior.
We have decades of legal precedent saying that the makers of products with substantial legal uses should not be held responsible for the illegal actions of some of their customers.
Most recently, we have the Supreme Court ruling that ISPs are not liable for customers who use their internet connection for copyright infringement.
JoBrad 14 hours ago [-]
Then they don’t need to unmask users to get testimony, right?
seemaze 15 hours ago [-]
Why stop there? Why not request the PII of every person who could have plausibly downloaded the app at any point in time?
khazhoux 15 hours ago [-]
It's the only way to be sure. Also, think of the children.
My guess: they want to make the case that illegitimate use cases are indeed the primary use case. Their approach is to randomly sample all users and show that the vast majority use it to defeat emissions, undermining the app maker’s defence.
I don’t think that justifies the overreach. As you said, if they don’t have a case already, they shouldn’t be allowed to violate user privacy on speculation that some statistical evidence might hypothetically fall out of the data. But the legal system may disagree.
bluefirebrand 13 hours ago [-]
I suspect there is a bit of parallel construction going on
They might already know for a fact that illegitimate use cases are the primary use case, they just cannot use any of their evidence in court
So they are seeking a way to legally obtain the information they already have, basically
It's shady but my understanding is it happens kind of a lot in modern policing. They can get illegal information much easier than legal information. So the illegal information sort of forms the justification for the time and money spent pursuing and gathering the same information legally
esseph 13 hours ago [-]
I wonder if they will use this case (depending on how it turns out), for a case against 3d printers.
"You knowingly enabled $XYZ", etc.
Or AI companies, for that matter...
tencentshill 13 hours ago [-]
The supreme court struck that down for the Sony case. It was determined that since ISPs do not offer a service that is used specifically to break the law, they are not liable when their customers do. It would be the same argument here. the app is literally just an ODB tool, like many others on the market.
pc86 15 hours ago [-]
If you've ever seen any body cam footage on YouTube I'd wager that about half of them have a moment where the cop is asking someone for information they're not legally required to provide, and it's framed as "I have to investigate." The smart ones reply with some flavor of "ok, I'm not required to help you investigate."
This seems like a much more invasive, much more expensive version of that. "We have [potentially spurious] evidence that this application is used in way we deem a Bad Thing. We need to violate the privacy of this company and thousands of individuals to gather evidence that we should be required to get before bringing this suit in the first place, but we're the government so we don't have to do that."
CamperBob2 14 hours ago [-]
Next up: expect the same treatment if you've ever downloaded a .gguf from HuggingFace.
LastTrain 10 hours ago [-]
That’s fine. We’re also going to need a list of every user who bought a <name gun accessory here> as well.
hack1312 12 hours ago [-]
Cynical hat: they think they can use this case to establish precedent to later compel unmasking a different set of users.
mothballed 14 hours ago [-]
I've learned never to believe the reasoning provided in DOJ filings. Realize it is written as a calculated manipulative tool to get a particular result. Whether they want it for the purpose stated is almost immaterial. The only thing you can really glean is they want the result is of whatever they're asking for, but no one knows if it is for the reason they state.
nurple 12 hours ago [-]
It's called "parallel construction".
14 hours ago [-]
alsetmusic 9 hours ago [-]
> Why start this whole thing
It's a pretext for when they want to force companies to reveal the names of their political enemies down the road. I'm certain of it.
Why I think so: The rinky-dink panel that Trump formed to address "christian persecution" recommended that the IRS go after pastors who break tax laws by preaching from the pulpit. Sound counterintuitive? It's a pretext to generate cause for a lawsuit that would be challenged right up to the supreme court (the institution does not deserve the respect of being treated as a proper noun at this point). They want to overturn The Johnson Amendment[0] and they have the right justices installed to achieve it.
Nothing these crooks and liars do is for the benefit of anyone but themselves and their cronies. They are open grifters and proven liars. They aim to remake the country into a christian nationalist fascist state.
The DOJ first sued EZ Lynk in 2021, accusing the Cayman Islands-based company of violating the Clean Air Act by marketing and selling “defeat devices.” These tools allegedly allow users to bypass factory emissions controls on diesel vehicles, primarily through the EZ Lynk Auto Agent app paired with an onboard diagnostic (OBD) hardware dongle.
Opponents say “Investigating this claim does not require identifying each person who has used the product,”
That's not a a valid argument. That's just an opinion.
The DOJ obtained a lawful subpoena through the legal system to request this information. The legal case is against EZ Lynk and by interviewing users (how will they know who to interview if they can't get the data? duh!) they can build their case against EZ Lynk and their product if the main usage is violating the Clean Air Act.
How else would the DOJ obtain evidence if they don't know who is buying the product?
embedding-shape 14 hours ago [-]
> (how will they know who to interview if they can't get the data? duh!)
What I don't understand is how they know someone has to be interviewed, but they don't already know who, which makes me question how the investigation got started in the first place?
> How else would the DOJ obtain evidence if they don't know who is buying the product?
The question is, how did the investigation got started, unless they already can see that people are misusing the product? And since they obviously must be able to see that people are misusing it, why don't they instead obtain evidence about those specific users, that they must have observed already?
dcrazy 14 hours ago [-]
Lawful evidence gathering doesn’t require you to know the answer to every question you want to ask someone up front. Nothing would ever get solved if investigators couldn’t act on the perfectly logical conclusion that the suspect must have talked to SOMEONE to get this part of the crime done, and this SOMEONE ELSE knows who that was.
The balance is in tailoring the access that the investigators have to the SOMEONE ELSE. They have to convincingly demonstrate the connection between the questions they want to ask the third party and their ability to legally use that evidence to further their case.
It’s like saying the cops can’t subpoena the taxi dispatcher because the suspect only ever talked with the driver.
ericmay 14 hours ago [-]
The case is against EZLynk, not the folks using the product.
> The question is, how did the investigation got started, unless they already can see that people are misusing the product? And since they obviously must be able to see that people are misusing it, why don't they instead obtain evidence about those specific users, that they must have observed already?
Well you'd have to get into the legal case for the specifics, but I don't think this is an accurate assumption to make. They can just see the product "on the shelf", test it for themselves, realize it can be used to violate the Clean Air Act, and then request the ability to talk to the consumers of the product to see how they use the product or if they've used it to violate the Clean Air Act. You don't have to engage with a specific person at all.
How else do you get what might be illegal products off the shelves? Perhaps the users primarily use it for other purposes and the interviews bear that out? That would inform the DOJ and the court on the merits of the case.
AnthonyMouse 13 hours ago [-]
> How else do you get what might be illegal products off the shelves?
Your premise is that there is a difference in the product.
The product is a piece of hardware that connects your phone/laptop to the car's computer. Are you using it to program the computer to bleed the brakes, or are you using it to program the computer to defeat emissions tests? It's the same hardware dongle either way. A roll of duct tape isn't a different product when it's being used in the commission of a crime.
You can try to prosecute companies that actually ship the thing with software to defeat emissions, but that doesn't really do any good. People would just get the generic hardware from the store and the defeat software from anonymous third parties over the internet.
If you actually want to stop it, try one of these: The old style emissions tests, where they put the car on a dyno with an exhaust probe, have been mostly phased out because the equipment is a lot more expensive. Keep some of it around. Then when someone goes in for their emissions test, roll a D20 and if they get a 1 their vehicle is taking a trip to the full service facility and if the exhaust probe says something different than the car's computer their car gets a free forensic analysis to check for a defeat device. Finding one means jail time.
ericmay 12 hours ago [-]
Your understanding about how this works is incorrect, I think that's the problem.
If a product being sold is primarily being used for a purpose which violates the law and does not otherwise have fair usage the government can and has pursued and won legal cases resulting in the product being banned. That is no different here. The reason for interviewing consumers is to help determine what the product is being used for to help inform the legal case. It may turn out that it's primarily used for fair usage or "practical" purposes which don't violate the law and the DOJ may drop their case. It may turn out everyone is using these to violate the Clean Air Act in which case it will likely and should be banned.
> A roll of duct tape isn't a different product when it's being used in the commission of a crime.
If the vast majority of the time the roll of duct tape was used in the commission of a crime, it absolutely could and likely would be banned.
AnthonyMouse 12 hours ago [-]
> If the vast majority of the time the roll of duct tape was used in the commission of a crime, it absolutely could and likely would be banned.
Which continues to be an absurd premise. So if the original use case for duct tape was kidnappings then it should be forever banned because a sample taken at that time had that statistical distribution, and thereafter no other uses can be adopted because it's banned?
It seems a lot more reasonable to prosecute kidnappers rather than the makers of generic tools.
iamnothere 9 hours ago [-]
> If the vast majority of the time the roll of duct tape was used in the commission of a crime, it absolutely could and likely would be banned.
This is the same argument they use in the UK to ban things like long knives or realistic airsoft guns. We don’t really do that here in the US. Activists often try, but eventually the laws get struck down.
legitster 14 hours ago [-]
It's worth pointing out that EZ Lynk is a sleezy company that originally tried to hide behind a Section 230 protection (lol).
Their more recent legal defense of the product was throwing their own users under the bus: "we can't control if our customers are using the product to break laws". So they are the ones who framed all of the customers as potential criminals.
14 hours ago [-]
midtake 13 hours ago [-]
This "car-tinkering app" is used as a glorified GameShark for deleting factory emissions controls, I don't feel sorry for anyone who uses this to roll coal or whatever. Instead of investigating everyone on the list of users of this app, should the government instead ban diesel engines knowing their emissions controls software will be defeated? Should environmental regulations be relaxed? What is really the solution here?
650REDHAIR 10 hours ago [-]
Or, I don't know, enforce current laws on the books and have cops do their job?
I've watched traffic code enforcement drop to essentially non-existent numbers largely because apathetical agencies and "officer safety" concerns.
I'd rather they go after people actively rolling coal instead of violating the rights of thousands of Americans like me.
chii 56 minutes ago [-]
The enforcement agencies all want easy ways to perform their enforcement duties.
Enforcing it the hard way by catching people in the act, or even spot checking, is difficult, and takes work and budget.
However, in asking such enforcement work to be made easy, the cost is borne by the rest of the innocents in losing their privacy or rights. Individually, each single instance of such loss is minuscule, but collectively it's a huge loss of rights and privacy - not to mention precedence.
gregoriol 30 minutes ago [-]
Maybe they should ban metal grinders as they allow people to steal things?
traderj0e 13 hours ago [-]
They want testimonies to use against the app. The solution they're trying to pursue is to outlaw the app, not investigate its users.
m463 12 hours ago [-]
...via investigating users.
traderj0e 12 hours ago [-]
That would suggest the users are defendants. They supposedly just want witnesses. I had another comment questioning this though.
simulator5g 2 hours ago [-]
"This "web browser" is used as a glorified-"
Don't go down this road.
repiret 12 hours ago [-]
Periodic vehicle inspection for emissions and safety compliance. Many jurisdictions already have this for gas engine emissions, a handful of states already have safety inspections. Done right, it can be low burden and low cost, and basically put an end to Def deletion. Done poorly it's grift to the shops that do the inspections, and an economically external annoyance to vehicle owners, and unnecessarily limits the ability of people to tinker with their own vehicles.
traderj0e 11 hours ago [-]
I don't really care how it affects car modders or people with sports cars. I have a sports car, and yeah the California smog test has been super annoying cause of electrical problems with that are unrelated to its actual emissions, but I knew what I was getting into when I bought something known for unreliability. Fixed it myself. There's a dude across the street with a modded car who always complains he has to bribe the smog guy $500, as if he was forced into driving a track car on the street. I just want regular cars to be drivable without undue burdens, and the enthusiasts can deal with it.
California gasoline tax pisses me off more because it's higher than anywhere else and the money seemingly goes nowhere.
repiret 7 hours ago [-]
I don't care too much about hot-rodders either. California specifically requires the original emissions equipment remain intact. Here's two cases where that fails:
1. Close to 20 years ago I read about someone who converted a car to an EV with an old electric forklift motor, but then couldn't register the car. It was a model year that still required smog checks, but it couldn't pass a smog check because the original emissions equipment wasn't installed anymore.
2. My brother inherited our dad's 1992 pickup, and tries to keep it in running order mostly out of nostalgia. He would like to replace the engine with a newer model that would burn less fuel, produce more power, and correctly installed, no doubt would have lower emissions. But then it wouldn't pass the smog check, because it wouldn't still have the original emissions equipment.
Having said all that, I agree that it disproportionately impacts the poor, because the poor tend to drive older cars that are more likely to need repairs to pass an inspection, and because the inspection fees make a larger impact on the budget of the poor, and because the employment flexibility to be without their car for half a day for the inspection, or longer if repairs are needed, is not as common among the poor. You could subsidize the inspections for low value cars, which would help with the cost aspect, but I don't know a way to solve the other aspects beyond trying to find the minimum amount of inspection that meets the policy goals.
sagarm 6 hours ago [-]
The poor are also more likely to be harmed by air pollution.
emdash 5 hours ago [-]
California's way of doing it is really frustrating and very clearly meant to force older cars off the road and push people into buying new ones in an effort to help out dealers and car manufacturers.
My car is a bit older but its perfectly reliable. It doesn't require a monthly subscription, it doesn't track my location, it doesn't have a remote kill switch, and the title isn't owned by some bank. It would even blow fine on an emissions test. I still couldn't use it in California though because some of the original emissions equipment has failed and original replacements are impossible to find so alternative replacements have had to be used instead.
ryandrake 10 hours ago [-]
I had to sell by beloved modded sports car when I moved to California. It blew clean as a whistle, but since the aftermarket parts were all from out of state (installed over the course of years), the state failed it as “tampered.” What a pile of shit. These guys are somehow driving around rolling coal on cyclists without getting grief, but I have to get rid of my car because it doesn’t have the right CA stamp on the intake system. CA’s system is terrible for home mechanics.
traderj0e 9 hours ago [-]
Sucks, but it's the cost of having different standards. Same thing happens trying to import random cars to the US.
Computer0 10 hours ago [-]
As someone who lives in a state that got rid of emissions testing before I could drive it sounds like a horrifying thing to have to deal with.
paulryanrogers 10 hours ago [-]
Why is it horrifying? I've taken cars in for testing for years. It's pretty quick and painless.
emdash 5 hours ago [-]
My car wouldn't pass, not because it can't pass the emissions test, but because the original equipment that California requires by law failed years ago and replacements are not available. So I would be forced to get rid of my perfectly good car and buy an expensive new one not because it doesn't work, but because the law strictly requires original equipment.
traderj0e 10 hours ago [-]
Was going to say, you only hear stories from the relatively few people who have issues, not the people who go in and out as usual.
eightysixfour 8 hours ago [-]
States, like Texas, are getting rid of this. Although they still collect the fee of course.
robocat 11 hours ago [-]
> Done right, it can be low burden and low cost
The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly).
You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is.
I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked.
However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults.
It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.)
Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome.
Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.
solraph 9 hours ago [-]
From memory (I haven't lived in NZ for a while now), the WoF check could be done at VTNZ stations, which explicitly did not do repairs to avoid this conflict of interest.
Alas, it looks like VTNZ was privatised and the exact outcome you would expect happened.
traderj0e 10 hours ago [-]
New Zealand sounds unreasonable. It's reasonable in like California. They don't mandate yearly checkups, just smog testing which is every 2 years for cars older than 8 years.
whalesalad 12 hours ago [-]
federal and state governments buy and operate diesel vehicles without emissions controls because of how bad they are in critical situations. rules for thee but not for me.
traderj0e 12 hours ago [-]
These drivers aren't in critical situations, and their mods aren't designed for that
emdash 5 hours ago [-]
If my car fails while I'm driving over the mountain in the winter and leaves me stranded outside of cell service in sub zero weather, that would be a critical situation.
If my car fails while I'm driving through the desert and leaves me stranded in 100+ degree heat in the summer, that would be a critical situation.
If my car fails while I'm driving on a busy part of I5, that could be a critical situation.
I get that the rolling coal mods or whatever aren't designed to improve reliability, but things like deleting EGR or modifying the control logic for the DEF system are and can prevent a vehicle from failing in a situation that could be life threatening. Again, the government already knows this which is why they order their vehicles with those exact modifications already done.
whalesalad 11 hours ago [-]
Honestly, how do you know? Regardless, it's completely unfair. The government knows emissions control tech takes one of the most reliable workhorse powerplants in the world and neuters it, weakens it, and makes it more susceptible to failure. A lot of folks delete their diesel trucks not to "roll coal" or own the libs, but because it makes their vehicles more reliable.
traderj0e 11 hours ago [-]
Modern trucks, even with emissions controls, are more powerful than anything older. Engines are more reliable if anything, though there are plenty of pesky non-engine electronics ruining the useful lifespans of modern cars.
If you're talking about black smoke out of the exhaust, no it doesn't help reliability. If you just mean tuning to optimize not for emissions, yeah it can help if you know exactly what you're doing or screw it up if you don't, either way you'll only find out later. Doesn't seem to matter because most professionals already make their living without messing with their trucks.
idk who downvoted you, that's not appropriate, so +1'd you to avoid comment death
ryeights 11 hours ago [-]
So what? It's anti-social behavior. What thought does the deleted diesel truck driver give to his fellow citizens, whose otherwise reliable respiratory systems are weakened and made more susceptible to failure by toxic fumes and particulates?
whalesalad 11 hours ago [-]
I'm realizing a lot of folks in this thread do not understand diesel emissions systems at all and why you might want to delete one.
traderj0e 11 hours ago [-]
Maybe they don't, but I get it. Optimizing for lower emission doesn't mean highest reliability, or even necessarily highest fuel economy. Emissions parts can fail and be expensive to replace. That doesn't mean people should be allowed to delete emissions. Last time I had my cats fail, the cheapest option was to saw them off, I didn't do that.
ryeights 11 hours ago [-]
I understand and I don't care. Your personal interests as a diesel truck driver don't override others' interests in health and clean air
emdash 5 hours ago [-]
Refusing to understand something and are making an uninformed decision as a result isn't a great thing to brag about.
The fact is, emissions regulations in many ways have nothing to do with health or clean air. I don't drive a diesel truck myself so its not like I'm trying to defend my own behavior or anything. I'm a former automotive engineer who is unfortunately very familiar with the regulations and how nonsensical they are.
ryandrake 9 hours ago [-]
Site full of hackers who would fight to the death over open source and their ability to run their computers the way they want to, but when it’s about car enthusiasts instead of computer enthusiasts, suddenly nobody cares.
traderj0e 9 hours ago [-]
Idk if this makes it better or worse, but I won't fight to the death over open source/hardware, I've got Apple stuff. It's also not the same thing because computers don't pollute like cars.
AdmiralAsshat 13 hours ago [-]
It will start with subpoenaing this information against people who modified their car to do "bad" things. But once they have the precedent, I would predict that it will very quickly be used at the behest of car manufacturers to go after people who modify their cars to, say, disable GPS tracking.
newsclues 13 hours ago [-]
Then go after the people that modify their console, fridge or your phone.
Slippery slope is fully lubed
emdash 5 hours ago [-]
Sony already sent people to prison for developing a way to let users jailbreak their PS3's. And the jailbreak was just to re-enable features that Sony advertised at launch then took away after people bought the consoles.
codedokode 15 hours ago [-]
That's why you should be downloading from F-Droid anonymously.
tencentshill 14 hours ago [-]
Any device with Google services installed has all apps scanned at least once per day.
>Real-time protections for non-Play installs
Google Play Protect offers protection for apps that are installed from sources outside of Google Play. When a user tries to install an app, Play Protect conducts a real-time check of the app against known harmful or malicious samples that Google Play Protect has cataloged.
They will also go further for apks with novel signatures - take a copy, upload it to google to decompile and scan, and then if you have their express permission, allow you to install it.
gruez 14 hours ago [-]
>Any device with Google services installed has all apps scanned at least once per day.
You can turn it off, so it's not "any". At best it's "most".
tylerchilds 13 hours ago [-]
Also I daily drive graphene and that has no Google play services
bornfreddy 13 hours ago [-]
Unless you want push notifications.
tylerchilds 5 hours ago [-]
I get signal notifications. Anyone I want to talk to uses signal.
nabakin 12 hours ago [-]
Then you can sandbox
bornfreddy 4 hours ago [-]
Their app is still running all the time. I do not know what exactly it is collecting, but I'm sure it sends a lot of information to Google. Even just the fact that Google knows my IP (which is otherwise dynamically assigned) at any time is too much.
On the other hand, if you try selectively enabling and disabling the service, the push notifications stop working. LineageOS + MicroG is a much better solution if you only need them occasionally and if you prefer an app which does not actively (try to) spy on you.
password4321 14 hours ago [-]
99% sure Google would still know the app was run associated with other identifiers, but probably won't be turned over with the list of users downloading from the Play Store.
EvanAnderson 15 hours ago [-]
For sure. Another demonstration of why "side loading" software is better.
logicchains 15 hours ago [-]
That's why F-Droid eventually won't work on new Android phones.
nathanmills 15 hours ago [-]
No, it will continue to work just fine. The restrictions are being added to Google Play Services, not Android itself. I and many others do not run closed source software like Google Play Services on our devices.
xp84 13 hours ago [-]
And how long do you think that window will remain open? I expect anyone not running a closed system (hardware attestation) is going to not only be locked out of things like banking apps, government apps, etc., but also if Google has its way, you’ll be prevented from accessing those things on the web as well, maybe even from your desktop. We just saw that story a few days ago with them replacing CAPTCHA tech with “prove you have an unmodified locked-down Google or Apple phone.”
Clearly there is a single driving agenda, which Google and the government are largely in harmony on, to try to approach 100% real-identity-tying to every activity done online.
Where once, “online” meant generally greater anonymity than “IRL” activities, since most things could be signed up for with an arbitrary throwaway email address and no proof of identity. It is now or shortly will be the opposite.
nathanmills 13 hours ago [-]
Forever, honestly. I don't see things actually becoming as closed as you predict. I will avoid banks that require me to do any of that (I already don't use any that report to credit agencies, avoiding ones that don't work on the web browser is much easier). There is about 1 site I use that uses the google captcha and that is archive.today, I will swiftly stop using it if I can't use it with open software, and I doubt they would keep it around in that case anyway.
JacobKfromIRC 7 hours ago [-]
What software do you use for the reCAPTCHA on archive.today? I use a fork of hacktcha [1] but I had to modify the software myself to get it to work conveniently [2], so I'm curious how other people do it.
This is very SaaS optimal. I never use these types of services on a "smartphone" device. I honestly think my OS (derived from AOSP) is more secure than googles "trust." Every android device is not an identity tied to a account. Many phones exist with no accounts whatsoever.
VLM 14 hours ago [-]
We're going to have two phones, the big brother phone you usually leave at home for banking apps and tax filing and boring stuff like that, locked down and nanny up, and the "real phone" from aliexpress or whatever that is purchased rooted and you actually live your real life upon.
I would not be surprised to see double sided phone cases so we can carry our big brother phone with our real phone.
There is some prior art in people being forced to carry a "work phone" and a "personal phone" at the same time.
There will be strange product marketing effects. If you only carry one phone, you can currently talk people into spending over $1K on a high tier big brother phone. But if you only use a big brother phone for bank apps and only at home, a $1K phone from Apple or Samsung is a hard sell, I'd be more likely to spend $1K on a really nice anti big brother phone on ali express or whatever.
Denatonium 13 hours ago [-]
Some of us are already doing this. My main phone is a Google Pixel 8 running LineageOS 23.2 with F-Droid, microG, and Aurora Store installed.
For things requiring Play Integrity, I picked up a $20 burner carrier-locked Motorola phone at Walmart for $30. It's WiFi-only, given that I'm never going to pay for service on it, but I can also tether it to my main phone. It's also useful for writing one-star reviews on apps that require Play Integrity to function, which is something everyone should be doing.
ashirviskas 13 hours ago [-]
>For things requiring Play Integrity, I picked up a $20 burner carrier-locked Motorola phone at Walmart for $30.`
So it's a $30 burner phone, not $20?
bornfreddy 13 hours ago [-]
Doesn't matter, it's still just $40.
red-iron-pine 12 hours ago [-]
this is basically what I do now.
gmail and a "work-ish" phone. official stuff like DMV or banks use this. my work requires MFA and auth apps and they live here too. no SIM card and mostly lives at my desk.
my main phone for doin stuff is a different phone with a custom ROM and nothin but f-droid.
gruez 14 hours ago [-]
>and the "real phone" from aliexpress or whatever that is purchased rooted and you actually live your real life upon.
Ironically the phones with best third party rom support are google pixels. Good luck getting lineageos support or even unlocked bootloader on a random aliexpress phone. You might be able to sideload without restriction, but the ROM is probably gimped, won't receive updates, and has random privileged apps possibly spying on you.
bigyabai 15 hours ago [-]
It works right now, though.
curt15 14 hours ago [-]
This is a classic cautionary tale for the over-centralization of app distribution.
neilv 12 hours ago [-]
> It has already submitted forum posts and social media evidence showing some users employing the system to disable emissions controls.
Is right-to-repair going to get scrod by illegal activity, like everyone got scrod by media piracy?
We knew we'd get scrod back when MP3 piracy started, and many people were warned what would happen, but they still did it, and it played out just like was warned.
Illegal activity creates both reason and pretext for forcibly taking away what should be rights. And those rights will be forcibly taken away, for both reasons. Often by crappy people, because you either forced their hand, or you handed the pretext to them on a silver platter.
This is one reason for tech freedom advocates to fully appreciate that they're operating in a political context, so that they're a sustainable positive force, not a counterproductive one.
paulryanrogers 10 hours ago [-]
scrod?
closetohome 8 hours ago [-]
Was the terrible consequence of pirating MP3s that music is now cheap and widely available because media outlets had to compete with Napster?
isodev 3 hours ago [-]
Now can we agree that App Stores as only means of getting software and call home components you can’t disable or replace are a bad idea?
We’re slowly normalising that everything happens on whats is effectively a device managed by either Apple or Google.
dec0dedab0de 13 hours ago [-]
This is outrageous, especially since there are many other ways that you could violate emissions laws.
If they really cared they could equip federal agents, and state/local police with testing equipment. It is easy to see/hear vehicles that are likely to be violating these rules. Heck, make a hotline, I would rat them out all day. Just incorporate it with rate-limiting how often each vehicle could get pulled over for it, so it doesn't get abused.
This really comes down to corporations and the government colluding to make us not actually own anything. The fact that they would refer to a tool for making modifications to your car a "defeat device" is so telling. Coupled with phones not allowing side loading is really fucked up.
Everything is awful, and it's been getting worse for as long as I can remember. I think I'm going to lose it and just cut ties with the internet, and computers in general very soon. The power, and freedom I used to feel has been replaced with oppression disguised as convenience. One Token Ring to rule them all.
chris_explicare 1 hours ago [-]
What's missing here is the extraterritorial angle. The Cloud Act lets US authorities compel Apple and Google to hand over user data worldwide, including EU residents who assumed GDPR covers them. It doesn't. Apple and Google are US companies, and GDPR Article 48's restrictions on foreign court orders don't apply to them. Those 100k users almost certianly include Europeans with no idea their download history was reachable by the DOJ.
lapetitejort 15 hours ago [-]
I am surprised that a lawsuit started in 2021 about maintaining emission standards survived up to this point. The DOGE search terms must have misspelled "emission"
delecti 14 hours ago [-]
Alternatively, given who was running the show, lawsuits against ICE cars (non-EVs) might have just been outside the bounds of what they cared about.
lotsofpulp 13 hours ago [-]
The president's MO is to wait for bribes to whatever coin and then pardon/drop investigation. It's the art of the deal, you have something someone wants, don't give it away for free.
wavemode 12 hours ago [-]
I had the same thought. I suspect this lawsuit will be dropped once they notice.
Probably if the appmaker donates to the Trump foundation it will be withdrawn within the day.
numpad0 14 hours ago [-]
> These tools allegedly allow users to bypass factory emissions controls on diesel vehicles
Oh so AdBlue shortage is about to hit the US too?
tedk-42 47 minutes ago [-]
'Cyclists sue bolt cutter manufacturer over recent surge in bicycle theft'
traderj0e 13 hours ago [-]
So if someone used this app to do something illegal with his car (rolling coal or otherwise), is he really going to testify in court that he did this? The lawsuit is only against EZ Lynk, but it's conceivable that he could face his own consequences later.
motbus3 14 hours ago [-]
Will this turn into be a blow to anyone who gains access to the hardware paid with own money?
traderj0e 13 hours ago [-]
Certain car mods have already been illegal for a long time
motbus3 2 hours ago [-]
Not exactly. You are supposed to be emitting certain pollution rates, certain speed limits, keep your car in order. All the rest is the brand convincing you that you need to pay them more for things you already paid, like heated seats. Don't tell me you believe you could've paid less because the heat was off
Danox 15 hours ago [-]
Get a warrant…
1vuio0pswjnm7 13 hours ago [-]
There are HN commenters ("developers") that want readers to believe that telemetry should be on by default. Maybe some readers, e.g., other "developers", think, "Yeah, that sounds reasonable" so long as the telemetry collecter is a random "developer" and not the government. But they probably fail to consider that this collected data is just a subpoena away from going to the government
Corporate mobile operating systems suck. Including "apps" to run on them, generally
There are some that do not require corporate approval and do not try to phone home but it's a relatively small fraction
hedora 10 hours ago [-]
I was concerned because I'm about to spend a few coffees on OBD-II scanning apps, but since this particular app is an emissions defeat device, good.
This is the... *checking notes* ... second thing this administration has done that seems reasonable, or at least not overtly evil.
bigyabai 2 hours ago [-]
This is still evil. The ultimate motive is to ratchet up the abuse of centralized control, and this absolutely sets us down that path.
Yaa101 15 hours ago [-]
Welcome to our brave new digital world, governments and DOJs do this because now they can, I am afraid this is only the beginning.
goolz 15 hours ago [-]
The saddest part is, most people simply do not care, my parents constantly echo the sentiment that if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear. I would argue this slippery slope came about 20+ years ago during the initial Patriot Act. They normalize the behavior, take a few more freedoms, and keep on trucking. I used to be proud to be American. Now I am just worried.
2OEH8eoCRo0 15 hours ago [-]
I understand why they don't care and I don't fault them. The truth is that this doesn't affect most people in their daily lives. It sounds entitled to say that this demands their attention.
goolz 14 hours ago [-]
A totally fair point, and I think you are correct, wish I knew a solid answer. Because their indifference is watering down all of our rights.
bigyabai 13 hours ago [-]
It affects everyone, the question is whether or not they're held to account. Some people think of themselves as low-risk until they're detained at the border for a Facebook post they made.
forshaper 11 hours ago [-]
I used to be a proud patriot. Now I am just owned.
jayers 14 hours ago [-]
How is this, in principle, any different from the DOJ using a subpoena to get customer records from an adult store that was allegedly selling illegal explicit material?
Just because you use the internet to commit the crime doesn't make it not a crime.
xp84 13 hours ago [-]
I’d say a big difference is that in your example the thing that was supposedly sold was entirely illegal to possess for any reason.
The case being discussed is one where someone might be able to use the product to break the law.
So it’s more like demanding that Home Depot, Walmart, Amazon give the names of every American who’s ever bought a crowbar because the DOJ has heard that some people are breaking into buildings with crowbars.
It has been alleged that the government doesn’t want to prosecute these people who are the ones committing the crimes, they “just want to talk” in order to prosecute the company. Not sure I’d trust that without a signed immunity agreement. If I were forced to speak to these goons, I certainly wouldn’t say a word unless they gave me one of those - regardless of what I was using the gadget for.
basilgohar 15 hours ago [-]
Tyranny comes and goes, and sometimes just changes shape and serves some more than others, and that gives the illusion to those it serves that it's gone. It's always been around in some form or another.
shimman 15 hours ago [-]
Democratic governments can be held accountable, corporations cannot.
pc86 15 hours ago [-]
Even if this was correct (it's not), it seems irrelevant to the point.
sneak 13 hours ago [-]
> Democratic governments can be held accountable
Please explain to me how ICE (part of the nominally democratic USG) can be held accountable for summarily executing citizens.
tamimio 12 hours ago [-]
I somehow suspect this is a pretext to ban OBD monitoring/control tools. I have two in my car, one to monitor everything and log the performance, the other to control the gas intake accurately and safely as opposed to non-obd ones. I hope obd won’t become like radar detectors.
oceanplexian 13 hours ago [-]
These vehicle emissions laws are almost always fake compliance theater and were dreamed up by idiots. They are a huge drag on the economy and achieve absolutely nothing.
For example, the reason we don’t have super efficient turbodiesel subcompacts that are perfectly legal in the EU is thanks to the so called “Clean” air act. Since the law is based on vehicle weight I can go buy a 8,000 pound truck and commute to work alone in it and pollute all I want. But if I want a super clean 80MPG diesel subcompact that’s 1/4 the gross weight supposedly bad for the environment.
But it gets worse in all sorts of ways, the law grandfathers coal plants from all these emissions standards. One coal plant can emit more pollution than millions of trucks. Guess which polluter the government is aggressively pursuing and violating the rights of? You guessed it, car enthusiasts who downloaded an app. Give me a break.
emdash 5 hours ago [-]
A lot of the regulations to do with vehicles in the US are compliance theater.
We have regulations that make cars take more damage in low speed impacts to make them safer for pedestrians, but pickup trucks with a hood line higher than an average adults head are legal.
In many countries in the EU, vehicles will flash either the brake lights or the signal lights when the ABS system activates to help warn the driver behind them. This has been proven to reduce the rate of multi vehicle accidents. That type of system is still illegal for car makers to use in the US.
Other countries had adaptive headlights that reduced glare for oncoming vehicles for years before the US finally allowed it.
12 hours ago [-]
traderj0e 13 hours ago [-]
I don't buy that those are actually clean. EU has always had majority high-MPG non-diesel cars that you also don't see here as often, simply because gas is cheap in the US. People complain that it's expensive but then 2/3 times go buy a truck or SUV anyway.
AngryData 13 hours ago [-]
How much of the new car market is represented by the average person though? If 70% of the population wants fuel economy but only 10% of the population can afford new cars it is easy to see how the wealthier new car buyers can shape what cars are even available to the average person. Buying a user car in the US gives limited offers for super and turbo charged vehicles, and many turbo cars will want turbo maintence when they hit the used market with lower availability of turbo experienced mechanics.
traderj0e 12 hours ago [-]
That's a good point, but it looks like the top-selling used cars are trucks and SUVs too. It's possible on the face of it that this is just because they retain less value than efficient cars and buyers are weighing that vs the cost of gas, but doesn't seem like it from the pricing I've seen.
cucumber3732842 12 hours ago [-]
Having run a ram ecodiesel inside a garage I believe it.
opengrass 13 hours ago [-]
That's why you use Aurora and F-Droid.
yieldcrv 5 hours ago [-]
I think everyone here is playing their part
But I don’t see this as absurd, intermediaries are always loose ends
The only news here is if the intermediaries complied or not
If the idea of “being on a list” actually guides your behavior, then argue that chilling effect in federal court. I mean if you have the rights as a naturalized-since-birth citizen, since others might not be able to reach a federal court before being kidnapped and renditioned
Downloading an app isn't a crime, you can still have TSA-precheck and run for office just because the government knows you downloaded an app or have the tor browser or something
jmyeet 15 hours ago [-]
These companies will likely comply too [1]. Defenders will say "they have to comply with the law" but there's compliance and then there's compliance. For example, an adminstrative subpoena has no power. Companies can and should force the government to go to court and get a court-issued subpoena.
This isn't really anything terribly new either. The government regardless of who the current president is will routinely go after individuals for (allaegedly) hurting coprorate profits. We saw it in the Napster/Limewire era, in the BitTorrent era and even with physical products far earlier than that. There's a ban on importing cars less than 25 years old because Mercedes-Benz dealerships lobbied for a law in the 1980s because too many people were importing them directly from Germany at a lower cost [2].
Heck, 60 years of Cuban embargoes and sanctions as well as the 1954 Guatemala coup were US efforts at the behest of the United Fruit Company. Same thing for oil and the 1953 Iranian coup.
> Defenders will say "they have to comply with the law" but there's compliance and then there's compliance.
More importantly, there's not spying on the user in the first place. The law doesn't force Google to spy, nor does it force Apple to lock consumers (for sure not "owners") out of their phones, so that they're left helpless when the CCP bans VPN and protest apps [1] (not to imply spying from Google alone isn't bad, before any other actors get involved).
Are there any good open source implementations of these kinds of tools? They really are useful for things other than def deletes (though I support that too)
tehjoker 15 hours ago [-]
This does seem like a fishing expedition though there is a facially legitimate purpose.
Fortunately, we have more powerful policy tools to clean the air than attacking individual gearheads... convert America to an electric car system. You need to attack these problems at the point of production. Consumption side approaches are petty and not very effective.
Simulacra 15 hours ago [-]
Sounds like I need to download this app..
caminante 15 hours ago [-]
If you start tuning, then make sure you turn it off before bringing your car to the dealership.
It'll void any warranty.
rootusrootus 14 hours ago [-]
> It'll void any warranty.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act disagrees with you.
caminante 12 hours ago [-]
What is your understanding of the Act and its limitations [0]?
Here's a legal view that explains it further [1].
Basically, they can deny warranty service if you make modifications, and they can tie it to a failure. You can add 100s of HP to your engine profile with these things, and why would it be reasonable to expect a manufacturer to warrant related component repairs if they're pushed beyond spec?
Here are relevant quotes, and []'s are mine.
> The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act requires manufacturers to honor their warranties and auto manufacturers only warrant their vehicles against manufacturing defects. Your claim here could be denied because the failure was not due to a defect in a factory component. It was caused by something added to the car[...] That system caused a non-defective part to fail. Your mod did not void the [entire] warranty. It’s just that the failure was not caused by a factory defect.
> Obviously, an aftermarket camshaft or a hopped up ECU won’t void the entire warranty on your car. The master cylinder failed? The blue tooth quit working? Unless there is a logical connection between the mod and the part or system that failed, you should be good to go.
> What is your understanding of the Act and its limitations
They can deny a claim. You can challenge that, they will need to prove the modification caused the defect. They cannot void your warranty, in whole or in part. The most they can do is make a note of your modification and then use that as a reference going forward to deny individual claims as they happen.
You might argue that they are likely to win those claims, because they have the engineer who will show up in court to explain why your modification was the problem. On that I'd agree. But they'll have to do that for every claim they deny (assuming you take them to court).
caminante 9 hours ago [-]
> They cannot void your warranty, in whole or in part.
I understand what you're saying, but your core beef seems really pedantic in context.
Yes, the warranty terms aren't abandoned, but...
..."voided" isn't a defined term, it's not used anywhere in the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (from my scan),
I sourced an attorney using "voiding" in a more casual sense,
and you even acknowledge that in practice, you're screwed if you tune your car, get caught by the dealer/manufacturer, and have issues with relevant components.
AlexandrB 14 hours ago [-]
Consumer rights are in a dire state. Reminds me of Toyota claiming someone voided their warranty by driving their racecar too fast[1].
It would be more concise and the analysis section at the end would be more useful. I still read it I just hate reading articles online knowing I could have run a chatgpt deep research to the same effect.
EGreg 15 hours ago [-]
Can you tell me what you would cut, in this article, specifically, that would make it more meaningfully concise?
The point isn't that you can't run the deep research. Everyone now has more capabilities, and if you want to waste time and tokens you can do it. The point is someone has done the work compiling these, and made it available once, for everyone to read. Think "caching". It has the exact amount of information needed to show the details of every attack. There is a lot. Sadly making it "concise" will remove information -- there is that much.
I do usually make edits to an article after I get it from an AI, as an editor would do when a writer submits something. I hate having AI shibboleths like "It's not X. It's Y". So I make it more humanized. But at the end of the day, the article does what it's supposed to do: make people aware of things in one place, rather than have to research it themselves every time.
ane 15 hours ago [-]
Why not just write it yourself? We can all have ChatGPT regurgitate the same information. You're supposed to add value, editorializing isn't enough.
Just like I don't want to look at AI art or listen to AI music, I don't want to read AI written blogslop.
The web is now full of shit. What a waste.
EGreg 15 hours ago [-]
Writing it myself would mean doing the research myself. How would I do that? ChatGPT can do it faster at scale. Then the summaries are short enough that cutting any particular part wouldn't make sense. I could re-word it, I guess.
Why don't you write all your assembly code yourself? Why do you use a compiler? Why do you generate images, when you can draw them yourself? You're supposed to add value.
I don't think preparing a list of all the threats, editing it and publishing it for others is a "waste". I'm not publishing random stuff, this is important and in line with what I want people to know.
Some people on HN downvote any criticism of AI, other people complain that things are written by AI. If you're such big fans of AI being used more and more, then accept the consequences!
ane 15 minutes ago [-]
Do the research yourself, the old fashioned way? Search things, write them down, summarize?
The problem with LLMs outputting English is that they're very good at bullshit and it can be really hard to see through the nonsense. The output can be skewed by the model parameters and this can be really hard to spot.
The compiler analogy doesn't work: compilers are (mostly) deterministic and I can verify their output if I wanted to, just ask the compiler to output assembly.
With code generation I can also more or less instantly see if the code is correct or not, because code has less words than human language. The same would apply to images: it would take even less time to see if a generated image is correct or not. That said, I don't use AI for image generation, since I have no use for it.
NietzscheanNull 14 hours ago [-]
How can you be certain that the ChatGPT "research" you cite is a faithful representation of facts? How do you know that OpenAI/Anthropic/Google haven't introduced RLHF to subtly steer model output on specific topics to align with their political/economic interests?
I'm seeing increasing numbers of people credulously citing ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini output as ground-truth fact. Many more are increasingly lulled into a false sense of security by the citations models append (to the point of neglecting even a bare-minimum skim of the cited sources, much less critically evaluating/contextualizing the nature of the sources themselves). My fear is that most people are blissfully ignorant at the new paradigms of propaganda that AI could enable; most of us here wouldn't be taken by the "slop" image-gen deepfakes (right now), but can you say the same about a couple of citations taken out of context?
We already know how trivial it is to win over a sizeable chunk of society by introducing red-herrings, misrepresenting statistical data, etc. -- oil companies perfected that art, and now as a result a huge number of voters in the US believe that climate change (doesn't exist|isn't man-made|is unavoidable). And that effort was "fully manual" and carried out without the aid of extensive psychological profiling at the individual level via an ad-surveillance complex. Today, society is almost completely defenseless against the extreme granularity/subtlety of manipulation that ownership of frontier AI models enables, especially when it's armed with even a fraction of the torrent of personal data that's being collected on each of us every day.
squibonpig 14 hours ago [-]
The people doing the downvoting are different people from the whiners. I'm one of the whiners.
That's kinda fair, like it's still useful to prepare a list, but it's also like if you didn't go research your information yourself why would I start from a position of charitability when I read it? When I research something with LLMs, I know to double-check everything myself before I use it as a basis for my thought or repeat it to other people. Knowing an article is AI written forces me to doubt every sentence. Or maybe it's worse, I have to assume nobody cared about the sentence. The old format was a guarantee that someone gave enough shits to put the article together. Relevance comes implicitly bundled in each sentence. It's like someone talking to you in public in that there's often a reason to pay attention.
It's not as though that person is going to say something correct, or ethical, but I've had a lifetime of dealing with human kinds of wrongness. When stuff is wrong, I'll know it's wrong because the article is slanted or wrong because the author was lazy etc., which will let me discount it selectively and still get value from it when, e.g., a slanted author contradicts themselves. Reading an LLM article I have no clue whether the person who put it up even read the whole thing, so when I read sentences, I have no guarantee that the sentence communicates something worth paying attention to. I dislike that ambiguity and would prefer to guarantee that the text is slop by asking a bot myself. Then I know its worth upfront. I'd be fine with it if these sites included a direct statement in bold at the top: HEY THIS IS AI SLOP IF YOU DONT WANT THAT LEAVE. Then I know exactly how to parse it.
I spent way too much time on actually building this — with Claude and double checking everything — so an article I publish can be OK to push out. We aren’t building a bridge for thousands of cars here, it’s an article.
A lot of things are automated and 95% of the time they are correct. The key is knowing whether the last mile is worth fixing, if the consequences are minor.
squibonpig 13 hours ago [-]
I read through your presentation but I still feel pretty confused about what ur startup does. Could you explain it?
shimman 13 hours ago [-]
The purpose is to try to catch a sliver of all that fun money flying around in the current VC money.
squibonpig 12 hours ago [-]
I wanna give him a shot at explaining it
EGreg 12 hours ago [-]
Shimman is wrong.
The goal is much bigger, and almost the opposite of what he thinks. It's trying to solve the problem of people chasing "slivers" of money and selling out, which happened in Web2 and Web3: https://safebots.ai/singularity.pdf
What the startup does is make a verifiably trusted, zero-configuration, turnkey environment for businesses to move their data into and run AI workloads on, without worrying about their data being stolen, or some Agents doing unpredictable things. The environment is super-secured, with no ssh. It's an appliance, with over-the-air M of N updates. Think more "Tesla car" and less "OpenClaw". That's the foundation.
That environment then builds everything around a graph database, for people, organizations, and even code. We have Grokers that can ingest a codebase statically once, and then present the graph databases as a far better "RAG" than cosine similarity and pinecone vector databases.
At its most basic level: Agents can't be trusted. We want predictable Workflows, not agents. They can do 99% of everything Agents can, if done properly, and the remaining 1% are the dangerous parts https://safebots.ai/agents.html
It's a lot of innovations at once, including:
Collaborative Bots that are safer than agents.
Workflows and tools that can read, reason and propose actions.
Policies that must be satisfied before actions can be taken.
Logging of everything. Verifiable security and audits for SOC2 compliance etc. etc.
Everything is configurable and designed for serious businesses, not a grandma that finished a Chinese course on how to install OpenClaw on her terminal and not get pwned
nickthegreek 13 hours ago [-]
> Writing it myself would mean doing the research myself. How would I do that?
This is why you should write things yourself. There is no way an AI would write something so insane in response to that question. Since I can now read your true understanding of the world, I know not to waste my time on your ai slop. I have no reason to believe you fact checked the 'research' done using AI if you cant even understand how the research should have been done in the first place. You want to waste the time of others but arent even willing to sacrifice a bit yourself.
AlexandrB 14 hours ago [-]
You're free to write it using AI, but I'm free not to read it. The fact that it's written by AI is a strong signal that the references can't be trusted anyways.
> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.
verall 14 hours ago [-]
It's poorly structured. I think a better split between technical vs social measures and how they interact would result in a much better article. It also doesn't seem to even mention DPI or great firewall of China as prior art.
oofbey 11 hours ago [-]
This app has legitimate uses (custom tune performance on their engines) and also makes it easy to do illegal things. (Defeat emissions controls and roll coal.) The people who are using it to do illegal things are crying “privacy!” People who break the law generally do want less government power, more anonymity, etc. Sometimes they’ll argue the law is wrong and they should be allowed to break it, but I don’t think we’ll find many sympathizers of that here.
It’s a genuinely complicated issue, and relates to a lot of things in tech and software. But IMHO if an app makes it easy to do something illegal which is otherwise difficult, then there’s reason for the government to be interested. If that app could be written in a way that blocks the illegal behavior, and has chosen not to put those restrictions in place, then I think the government is justified in interfering.
That’s what seems to be happening here. I have a hard time believing that it would be difficult for EZ Lynk to distinguish between a “delete tune” that rolls coal or blows past emission regs and a legitimate clean tune. Maybe some things get blurry around the edges, but they’re clearly not even trying. And you know that’s why this app is popular. The clean tunes just don’t change anything much, because the manufacturer already tunes the engine for maximum legal power, or close to it.
15 hours ago [-]
Razengan 10 hours ago [-]
...
Americans: How did you let it get this way?
selectively 13 hours ago [-]
Lunatic, likely AI generated comments here.
This is an app for deliberately causing pollution. The users of that app should be criminally prosecuted and lose their license/spend a few months in prison. The price differential between this device/app and a generic ODB dongle you can buy on Amazon for ~$10 is entirely made up by the criminal features EZ Lynk offers.
The app being software versus hardware doesn't change the legal or moral situation involving it. Much like the DOJ would demand identities of people importing PlayStation 1 modchips back in the 90s, the users of this equally criminal application will be provided to the DOJ.
dmitrygr 14 hours ago [-]
There are already proper procedures for doing this. If the users did something illegal, you can go after them. If you prove that somebody actively enabled or encouraged them, you go after them. But even if the app actively enabled or encouraged something (which would still need to be proven) it would be a pretty tall order to prove that Google or Apple actively enabled or encouraged anyone to break the law. Both of them could fight the subpoena, and almost certainly win.
bethekidyouwant 14 hours ago [-]
The Department of justice needs witnesses because they’re trying to prove that ez lynk is profiting from the distribution of “emission disabling software” They are not going after any of these individual users.
Tldr: they’re trying to get the mod taken off the market.
jjk166 14 hours ago [-]
That's the narrative. In reality, you don't need a list of every user to find a handful of witnesses. This is very clearly a power play - the feds can't make their case so they're making distributing the app a major PR headache for the platforms distributing the app. Apple and google will quietly change their user agreements to not permit these sorts of apps on their stores. The company's leadership will likely escape prosecution but their business will be crippled if not destroyed despite not being proved guilty of violating any law.
jadbox 8 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
analogpixel 15 hours ago [-]
Hopefully they hand it over, and all of these people lose their licenses. I'm sick of breathing in their exhaust on the way to work.
I think people should have the freedom to do what they want; if you want to have a truck that has horrible exhaust, fine, but we'll have it piped back into your cab for you to breathe instead of the people behind you, and if you want a car that sounds like a thousand go-carts racing down the street fine, but it'll be through headphones destroying your hearing every time you hit the gas.
roughly 14 hours ago [-]
> I think people should have the freedom to do what they want; if you want to have a truck that has horrible exhaust, fine, but we'll have it piped back into your cab for you to breathe instead of the people behind you, and if you want a car that sounds like a thousand go-carts racing down the street fine, but it'll be through headphones destroying your hearing every time you hit the gas.
Hey congrats, you discovered Society! This is what all those rules and shit are all about - your impact on other people, and their impact on you! It turns out that just saying “people should be able to do what they want” doesn’t actually solve anything, because other people also exist, and some of them are you!
Terr_ 13 hours ago [-]
An I missing some context here? That seems unnecessarily hostile for something that seems like just agreement with the parent poster.
toss1 14 hours ago [-]
Yeah
I also absolutely loath the coal-rollers and everything about what they do, and if I could snap my fingers and have them lose both their trucks and their licenses to drive with no other consequences beyond their frustration, I'd do it.
Nevertheless, we cannot allow this good reason for which be both agree to be used as a wedge to let the state just wholesale collect data for whatever reason they want.
Very soon, the reason the state wants to wholesale collect data will be for a reason we entirely disagree. That is not an "IF", it is a "WHEN".
So, no, this isn't a justification.
Very soon, that ca
riversflow 11 hours ago [-]
Collecting crime data is already in their purview. Thats literally what this is. If this was an app that primarily facilitated contract murder, this would be obviously justifiable. Seems to me you and many others here just don’t actually believe in the states regulatory authority of digital things, like the computer in your car.
bethekidyouwant 14 hours ago [-]
But this isn’t actually to throw the coal rollers in jail and take away their trucks it’s to get witnesses so they can build a case to get this mod taken off the market
xp84 13 hours ago [-]
Yes. Supposedly they aren’t going to prosecute those people, though if I were them, I wouldn’t trust that promise.
But if they get this thing taken off the market, that’s a huge loss for all of us because there are a ton of things this type of tool enables, many of them things people like us would be very interested in. Such as disabling privacy-invasive telematics, or disabling features like stop start, which I can personally attest has caused significant repair issues with the engine on my last car.
Having access to a tool like this is to a car what having an administrator account is on a PC. Without it, you are merely a guest, not an owner of the system.
sneak 13 hours ago [-]
This is a lie. This is a way to get Apple and Google to not resist handing over bulk user data. Next it will be protest apps, or end-to-end encrypted messaging apps that aren't backdoored like iMessage is (e.g. Signal).
CommenterPerson 14 hours ago [-]
Missing key points:
Why is this administration, which is all for coal, oil, and against environmental policies pursuing THIS?
This DOJ is all about pursuing cases for retribution. It could be, they already know someone they want to punish, and already found they're using the device. Or, use it as a source for finding people they want to punish.
JoBrad 14 hours ago [-]
It’s not about this administration. The lawsuit was filed in 2021.
15155 14 hours ago [-]
US Attorneys aren't forced to toe the party line on every issue.
This issue is just not directly politically important enough to get the "don't touch" treatment.
Donors and party power brokers aren't rolling coal.
tencentshill 14 hours ago [-]
Also strange as it would disproportionately affect modified diesel trucks, who are overwhelmingly Trump supporters.
Why start this whole thing, if you don't already have this information and have people willing to help you as witnesses?
Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? Rather than finding every user of the tool, find the users who use the tool in the way you don't approve of, then request the information for those?
Really bananas approach to go for "Every single user of the app" and "Everyone who bought a dongle" when it has very real and legal use cases.
Hell, I've seen a truck roll coal around cop cars and, obviously, nothing happened.
This is just gross privacy intrusion masquerading as "protecting the environment". We don't need 100% compliance to the law and simple prosecution/ticketing of obvious violations would go a long way towards solving the problem outright. Much like we didn't need our cars emailing prosecutors every time someone drove without a seat belt on. Cops giving out tickets for not wearing a seatbelt was enough.
* New York
* Massachussets
* Vermont
"Safety Inspections" were generally just a grift for third-party repairshops to collect free money and I couldn't be happier that they are no longer a thing.
Be aware that "safety" and "emissions" are different. Emissions testing is still required biannually for newish vehicles and yearly for older ones.
[1] https://www.deseret.com/2017/3/9/20607904/lawmakers-remove-r...
I do see the merit of inspecting larger trailers (such as for boats) once a year given the combined increased likelihood of incompetence and risk to life when things go wrong. But even then I think it doesn't actually accomplish much in practice. The time and effort would be better spent on targeted public education campaigns, possibly mandatory.
For emissions, again who cares. Regulations imposed on the high volume manufacturers broadly solves all the issues that are easy to solve. The rest are either willful violations or collectors. The latter is technological in nature and inevitably gets grandfathered for both safety and emissions everywhere I've lived.
Motor carriers have a totally different regulatory regime that has a direct influence on highway safety. The issues there are due to the varying jurisdictions.
As to safety inspections it’s not a very large effect, but they do save lives and the expense is generally rather small. Yes it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point.
Yes, that is precisely what I was suggesting. At least in the general case. Spot enforcement of notable cases when witnessed (such as the aforementioned coal rolling) seems like a good idea to me.
It comes down to the cost benefit tradeoff. Most cars will be used as sold, will be kept in good repair, and will eventually be scrapped due to a failure unrelated to the emissions system. I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture.
> it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point.
That's not what I meant. Try getting a safety inspection in a poor neighborhood. The places are booked out and you probably can't afford the time off work even once you do manage to reserve a slot. Or you end up waiting in line for a few hours. At least that was my experience.
On top of that I doubt it catches many worthwhile violations. People are quite good at looking out for their own lives and pocketbooks.
And again there's spot enforcement. I've lived in states without safety inspections and never felt unsafe. The police would issue "fix it" tickets if they saw anything they thought was truly unsafe after which it was on you to sort it out with the court.
Only ~95% of cars pass emissions tests last year (it varies by state). As each car is tested several times over its lifespan you’ll find the majority of IC cars eventually need something fixed to reduce smog.
This isn’t some wildly inefficient system it’s actually quite effective at improving air quality.
Many time you don't even know that there's an issue and they only find it during the inspection. Handbrake works only on one side, normal brakes don't work properly on one of the wheels, there's play in one of the joints or tie rods, etc.
You park, pull the handbrake, you have no idea that if you parked on an incline, your car would roll downhill, but because they noticed it during an inspection, you get that fixed. At the same time, you're forced to replace all the blown lightbulbs etc., even the ones not used daily (fog lights, etc.), since they check those too. Many people don't even notice their brake lights not working.
CA doesn’t require annual smogs, but once your car is a certain age, it’s at least biennial. I just did ours last week.
That reminds me, I am overdue for a smog check...
https://air.arb.ca.gov/Forms/VehicleComplaint/SmokingVehicle
The speed limits are also all high. They get up to 50 mph in as many places as possible.
It also doesn't help that they've got some of the worst road marking of any state I've been in. There were a lot of roads where it was simply unclear how many lanes were supposed to exist.
Now imagine throwing a bike into all this.
I don't think it's so much aggression as it is really really terrible infrastructure.
Also, FTR, Texans are actually pretty polite drivers (at least they were circa 2011 in Dallas area).
These are separate issues. Both are real.
As one that has been hit and coal rolled, I'll stipulate that I have a biased take that would disagree. I get that people in Irving are probably not as used to bicycles, but where I'm at is one the most popular places for biking (white rock lake). So drivers in this area are definitely used to bikes. These people to me are the meme version of the MAGA crowd. They're also the people that have no qualms doing 50mph in a 30mph zone. Infrastructure or not, these people are these people
Things that didn't happen for 200 please
In the real world, sometimes grownups have to actively do things to make their worlds nicer. We can’t all just sit around being cynical or nothing ever gets done.
You know what happens when you call it in? The government sends a letter to the registered address of the truck saying, basically "Hey! Your emissions are very wasteful, you should get that checked out!". Glad California seems to have some teeth to the emissions laws.
I had no idea this was a thing, much less that it was something people did on purpose.
Many more:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/search/?q=coal&restric...
Half-burned diesel particulate is absolutely cancerous, it can enter the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier and they're generating clouds of it, probably thousands of times more than what a modern 18 wheeler puts out in half an hour of driving. And they're doing it to someone breathing hard.
If I sprayed some cancerous chemical in someone's face, I'd be arrested within the hour. I'd be on the regional news, even.
The double standards around motor vehicles never cease to amaze.
No you wouldn’t. You’ve just described 2nd hand smoke which you can easily get hit with walking down any sidewalk in the US.
Just the first thing that came up in a youtube search, there are thousands more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY
I thought this was some shitty way of being "special", like a loud exhaust, but being able to turn it on and off to gas people is downright evil.
It's a purposely poorly-turned engine + accelerator control.
TL;DR: poor turning, and floor it (high RPM).
This video gives a pretty good overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miTnnJ7xMv8
I didn't think people would be this shitty, but here we are.
It’s always fascinating to run across the MAGA-style conspiracy theories on the far left, they’re ironically very similar.
“I get coal rolled every time in step on my bike!”
In terms of US cultural exports, for every jazz music and snowboarding I guess there has to be some coal rolling and fake service dogs.
Demand that your local government installs PM 2.5 / 10 monitors on each of their spy cams. They'll easily pick up out-of-spec emissions systems. Join the emissions spikes with the license plates. Take the cars that are two standard deviations above the norm for PM 2.5 / 10 increases after they're spotted by the camera, and have them come in for an aggressive smog check.
Completely eliminate all other smog check requirements for late model cars because modern tests are just "check the pollution control light on the dash", and "check for tampering". Those checks will only catch honest drivers, since coal-rollers limit themselves to reversible modifications anyway.
If we're going to give up our privacy for some amorphous benefits (which I think is a terrible tradeoff), at least let those benefits include annual paperwork. As a bonus, if the PM 2.5 / 10 data is made public, then we'd have much better air pollution monitoring. There's no way this plan costs more than the current system, where every ICE car driver pays ~ $100 to an inspection station every few years. PM sensors are under $100, and you need orders of magnitude fewer sensors than cars.
While we're at it can remind 'em Flock politicians don't have our votes
You don't need that. You can just take a picture of a car with black smoke coming out of the exhaust.
That is insane.
> This is just gross privacy intrusion masquerading as "protecting the environment".
You're conflating two entirely different groups of people working for two different governments with entirely different motivations. It is entirely possible that the cops in the situation you observed didn't have any issue because they didn't think they were breaking any law they enforce. Your local police and EPA Special Agents have different jobs.
The Clean Air Act is a federal law. There are 10 states with laws directly targeting "rolling coal".
And do you really think they're HQ'd in the caymans by coincidence? No. It's to avoid any repercussions.
You can get similar basic OBD functions from any of a dozen free apps on iOS or Android that do that all far better and for a few dollars.
FFS they even sell another app for editing (ie falsifying) electronic driver logs.
Like it’s normally a dubious claim when trying to violate privacy but for them it’s fucking laughable if only it wasn’t so ominous.
If you have to point to patrons opinions on science to back your own then I assume you are incapable of a real discussion on the topic and will ask you to bleat like a sheep in other threads.
Congratulations, buddy. You've designed your life around being such a massive unlikeable asshole to random strangers. But for a brief moment you understood shame.
I'm generally pretty libertarian, but I'm all for throwing the book at these guys.
To me that seems perfectly in line with being libertarian. One of the legitimate roles of the government is protecting people from violence by other people. Libertarians are not anarchists.
That's why most libertarians would be in favor of blowing asbestos insulation with the thought that "well, eventually the mesothelioma victims will sue which will stop the practice". You couldn't preemptively sue, however, as you don't have any damage you could demonstrate until after the cancer starts.
There might be flavors of libertarians that aren't that way but it's my understanding that environmental protections is one of the weaker aspects of the libertarian mindset. Especially since it simply doesn't account for "all the damage is done and the people that did the damage are now gone".
That is probably why we are not on the same page here. I'm thinking in terms of the actual harm. Someone rolling coal near me is causing violence to me. The damage to the environment is more difficult to quantify, and that is not the angle I would approach it from.
One common libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things, and convince an actuary that it's safe; the insurance premiums will stop you from taking risks with unproven technologies without appropriate precautions/testing/etc".
Not really. They support it in terms of individual responsibility and not as a government role.
> The standard libertarian solution for something unproven would be "it's your job to purchase insurance for this new way of doing things"
No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance. But it also does not address the externalities problem. We have in this thread an example of an externality that doesn't have a solution. Rolling coal does small amounts of damage. An insurance agent would be happy to insure someone with a modded car that rolls coal because there isn't going to be a claim related to it.
The same is true for any CO2 emitting activity. The damage is an externality that builds up with very small individual acts. I know of no way this would be addressed with libertarian philosophy (grant for me that man-made climate change is real and a problem if you want to argue against this).
To a libertarian, a major part of the government's job is to enforce contracts and property rights. Externalities are mass infringements on other people's property rights, that need to either be avoided or appropriately compensated. Emitting CO2 does damage to a common good everyone has an interest in.
> No libertarian I'm aware of would force someone to purchase insurance.
I didn't say the government would force them to. (Though some smaller-scale voluntary association might well do so.)
Like, let's say I have a slam dunk case that my $1000 tree died due to climate change. I have the receipts, documentation, everything (unrealistic as it is). How would I go around recovering the damages I'm owed? Who would figure out that "Ted there who drove to work for the last 20 years contributed $0.0001 of your damages. The concrete plant over there contributed $0.001. The coal plant $0.01".
I'll also point out you did not address the rolling coal problem.
Traditional Libertarians: No organization (government or otherwise) should be large enough or powerful enough to infringe on anyone's liberties.
Corporatist Libertarians: No government should be powerful enough to infringe on the liberties of corporations.
Corporatism has taken over about 50% of the Democrat, Republican and Libertarian parties. They're what people usually mean when they say "moderate" in the US, and why no branches of the federal government have an approval rating above 33%. It's also why things are going downhill so fast: It doesn't matter which party is in power, even if they've got a filibuster proof majority and all three branches in their pocket. Their corporate faction will still be powerful enough to block progressive and populist legislation.
But how?
But I'd say that they also don't have a good solution to this problem as it requires more centralized enforcement to really make a difference. A tribal council shunning the polluter or even ejecting them from the community isn't likely to result in them stopping their behavior. Not unless a huge portion of the world adopts that government (which is unlikely).
With the exception of the Niskanen group, it’s true that none of these groups have much of an effect on policy in recent decades, but I’d argue that’s more of a consequence of our governmental structure shutting out those with libertarian views except when it’s in the service of increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.
There’s a large segment of the population that desires less control/intervention imposed on the Everyman, versus the Randian view that centers on freedom of action for wealthy industrialists. You can see this group present in any discussion about Flock, or digital ID, or age verification. Or problems related to copyright (an artificial government-granted monopoly). These people just aren’t well-organized and don’t have any political power. Their only representation comes from mavericks like Massie and Wyden, who often get marginalized by their parties, or outsider influencers like Louis Rossman.
The group I just mentioned (libertarian populists, perhaps?) is less likely to care about regulations on big intangible things like corporations, large-scale economic activity, or highways, and more likely to care about regulations that affect average individuals, very small businesses (especially self-employed or contractors), or small groups like hobbyists. They see many regulations as benefiting key Red or Blue donor groups at their expense, and it’s often hard to argue with that!
You ever notice that areas with very high libertarian numbers tend to have lots of problems with illegal dumping, and lots of people who think registering and insuring their vehicle is optional?
On what are you basing your opinions?
> You ever notice [...]
No. It may be true, but I would like to see evidence rather than conjecture. I have seen plenty of trashy areas that I would not associate with a high concentration of political libertarians.
I would agree that there is an entire flavor of libertarian who, for example, felt like they must not wear masks during the pandemic because they were being told by the government to wear them.
My position on that version of libertarianism is in line with Penn Jillete's. I.e. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/je34ya/penn_ji...
But if the bike rider's judgement was mistaken, the only consequence seems to have been that a driver of a diesel truck had ill wished upon them from afar. There's no mention of the truck getting reported to the police, and I speculate that the bike rider, as someone capable of recognizing the truck driver's good intent, might be cautious about escalating.
Nevertheless I'm sure that there will be those who continue to see the bike rider as an "unhinged" monster.
They probably have tons of data and testimony from witnesses who use the product illegally. You can find hundreds of threads online of people telling you how to defeat emissions controls using their products.
The case prosecutors want to make is that EZ Lynk knowingly enables this behavior. If they can show that the majority of users are committing crimes with the app, that's a much stronger case than just rounding up a handful of witnesses.
I still don't understand why this should even be relevant in cases like this. The thing is basically a generic OBD dongle, right? The same thing every DIY and shade tree mechanic uses to read codes and run service procedures.
Suppose 20,000 people buy it and use it for defeating emissions. Some other number of people buy it for the normal thing. Why does it matter at all whether the other number is 50 or 50 million? Those are the people who aren't relevant. Should the OEM be in trouble if some unrelated third party happens to write the emissions defeat code to require their dongle in particular so they have a high proportion of customers using it for that? Should they get away with promoting it for that if they're a huge company with lots of sales to people not using it for that? None of that should matter. The seller doesn't even control what the users are doing with it, nor should they.
If there is a law against advertising it for defeating emissions then prosecute them for the advertising. That's their crime, what the customers do is third party action.
The difference is this company provides a bunch of cloud services to roll out specific tunes at scale.
From the original filing:
> "EZ Lynk worked with/previewed the EZ Lynk System for at least two delete tune creators during development and before launching the EZ Lynk System. Those creators later disseminated delete tunes using the EZ Lynk System. There were numerous social media websites, including the “EZ Lynk Forum,” where third parties discussed using the EZ Lynk System to defeat emission controls. The Forum was run by EZ Lynk and one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development, and it provided contact information for EZ Lynk technical support. EZ Lynk representatives interacted with posts and videos about deleting emission controls and installing delete tunes, including tunes from one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development."
So it does seem like the DOJ is going after them for collaborating on developing and enabling the tunes. I suspect the subpoena is about establishing damages.
On top of that, wow, if you're familiar with how humans think and how prosecutors write indictments, that's some weak sauce. Look at this:
> EZ Lynk worked with/previewed the EZ Lynk System for at least two delete tune creators during development and before launching the EZ Lynk System. Those creators later disseminated delete tunes using the EZ Lynk System.
They worked with some developers. No claim that they knew what the developers were planning to produce at the time. Later the same developers published something alleged to be illegal.
> There were numerous social media websites, including the “EZ Lynk Forum,” where third parties discussed using the EZ Lynk System to defeat emission controls. The Forum was run by EZ Lynk and one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development, and it provided contact information for EZ Lynk technical support.
Users posted things on social media. There was a thing called "EZ Lynk Forum" that wasn't even entirely controlled by the company and from what I can tell was actually a Facebook group. The group listed the (presumably publicly known) contact info for their tech support.
> EZ Lynk representatives interacted with posts and videos about deleting emission controls and installing delete tunes, including tunes from one of the delete tune creators EZ Lynk worked with during development.
"Interacted with" as in the company's peons weren't lawyers, so their PR flacks liked posts praising the company and their tech support answered tech support questions, without paying attention to whether the user was doing something they weren't supposed to.
This is looking increasingly like a farce. That kind of stuff is vapid. If a user has a tech support question and mentioning that they want to defeat emissions means the company refuses to answer it then the user just comes back later or with a different account and asks the same question without mentioning their use case, right?
These kinds of prosecutions are the worst. It's punishing a company for saying the wrong things, i.e. having insufficiently aggressive lawyers, even if it has no real effect on what they do. It's a trap for the unwary and a bludgeon against companies insufficiently bureaucratic to have all their employees trained in corporate censorship practices.
Now you have me wondering if this is their real target, to go after people who are defeating CRM on their vehicles so they can repair them themselves or in their small mom-and-pop garage of choice. But right to repair is popular, so they have to claim it's for something else.
idk, knife makers are knowingly enabling knife attacks. If there's at least one EZLynk customer who isn't breaking a law then it seems to me the company is in the clear. I would use a gun analogy but, in the US, guns have constitutional protection.
Something similar has happened with gun manufacturers regularly. It's relatively easy to make a semi-automatic user-convertible into an automatic weapon. But selling your rifle with instructions like "we absolutely DO NOT RECOMMEND cutting this specific notch off of the trigger group with a hacksaw BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL" has not been appreciated by the ATF or our court system.
We have decades of legal precedent saying that the makers of products with substantial legal uses should not be held responsible for the illegal actions of some of their customers.
Most recently, we have the Supreme Court ruling that ISPs are not liable for customers who use their internet connection for copyright infringement.
I don’t think that justifies the overreach. As you said, if they don’t have a case already, they shouldn’t be allowed to violate user privacy on speculation that some statistical evidence might hypothetically fall out of the data. But the legal system may disagree.
They might already know for a fact that illegitimate use cases are the primary use case, they just cannot use any of their evidence in court
So they are seeking a way to legally obtain the information they already have, basically
It's shady but my understanding is it happens kind of a lot in modern policing. They can get illegal information much easier than legal information. So the illegal information sort of forms the justification for the time and money spent pursuing and gathering the same information legally
"You knowingly enabled $XYZ", etc.
Or AI companies, for that matter...
This seems like a much more invasive, much more expensive version of that. "We have [potentially spurious] evidence that this application is used in way we deem a Bad Thing. We need to violate the privacy of this company and thousands of individuals to gather evidence that we should be required to get before bringing this suit in the first place, but we're the government so we don't have to do that."
It's a pretext for when they want to force companies to reveal the names of their political enemies down the road. I'm certain of it.
Why I think so: The rinky-dink panel that Trump formed to address "christian persecution" recommended that the IRS go after pastors who break tax laws by preaching from the pulpit. Sound counterintuitive? It's a pretext to generate cause for a lawsuit that would be challenged right up to the supreme court (the institution does not deserve the respect of being treated as a proper noun at this point). They want to overturn The Johnson Amendment[0] and they have the right justices installed to achieve it.
Nothing these crooks and liars do is for the benefit of anyone but themselves and their cronies. They are open grifters and proven liars. They aim to remake the country into a christian nationalist fascist state.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment
That's not a a valid argument. That's just an opinion.
The DOJ obtained a lawful subpoena through the legal system to request this information. The legal case is against EZ Lynk and by interviewing users (how will they know who to interview if they can't get the data? duh!) they can build their case against EZ Lynk and their product if the main usage is violating the Clean Air Act.
How else would the DOJ obtain evidence if they don't know who is buying the product?
What I don't understand is how they know someone has to be interviewed, but they don't already know who, which makes me question how the investigation got started in the first place?
> How else would the DOJ obtain evidence if they don't know who is buying the product?
The question is, how did the investigation got started, unless they already can see that people are misusing the product? And since they obviously must be able to see that people are misusing it, why don't they instead obtain evidence about those specific users, that they must have observed already?
The balance is in tailoring the access that the investigators have to the SOMEONE ELSE. They have to convincingly demonstrate the connection between the questions they want to ask the third party and their ability to legally use that evidence to further their case.
It’s like saying the cops can’t subpoena the taxi dispatcher because the suspect only ever talked with the driver.
> The question is, how did the investigation got started, unless they already can see that people are misusing the product? And since they obviously must be able to see that people are misusing it, why don't they instead obtain evidence about those specific users, that they must have observed already?
Well you'd have to get into the legal case for the specifics, but I don't think this is an accurate assumption to make. They can just see the product "on the shelf", test it for themselves, realize it can be used to violate the Clean Air Act, and then request the ability to talk to the consumers of the product to see how they use the product or if they've used it to violate the Clean Air Act. You don't have to engage with a specific person at all.
How else do you get what might be illegal products off the shelves? Perhaps the users primarily use it for other purposes and the interviews bear that out? That would inform the DOJ and the court on the merits of the case.
Your premise is that there is a difference in the product.
The product is a piece of hardware that connects your phone/laptop to the car's computer. Are you using it to program the computer to bleed the brakes, or are you using it to program the computer to defeat emissions tests? It's the same hardware dongle either way. A roll of duct tape isn't a different product when it's being used in the commission of a crime.
You can try to prosecute companies that actually ship the thing with software to defeat emissions, but that doesn't really do any good. People would just get the generic hardware from the store and the defeat software from anonymous third parties over the internet.
If you actually want to stop it, try one of these: The old style emissions tests, where they put the car on a dyno with an exhaust probe, have been mostly phased out because the equipment is a lot more expensive. Keep some of it around. Then when someone goes in for their emissions test, roll a D20 and if they get a 1 their vehicle is taking a trip to the full service facility and if the exhaust probe says something different than the car's computer their car gets a free forensic analysis to check for a defeat device. Finding one means jail time.
If a product being sold is primarily being used for a purpose which violates the law and does not otherwise have fair usage the government can and has pursued and won legal cases resulting in the product being banned. That is no different here. The reason for interviewing consumers is to help determine what the product is being used for to help inform the legal case. It may turn out that it's primarily used for fair usage or "practical" purposes which don't violate the law and the DOJ may drop their case. It may turn out everyone is using these to violate the Clean Air Act in which case it will likely and should be banned.
> A roll of duct tape isn't a different product when it's being used in the commission of a crime.
If the vast majority of the time the roll of duct tape was used in the commission of a crime, it absolutely could and likely would be banned.
Which continues to be an absurd premise. So if the original use case for duct tape was kidnappings then it should be forever banned because a sample taken at that time had that statistical distribution, and thereafter no other uses can be adopted because it's banned?
It seems a lot more reasonable to prosecute kidnappers rather than the makers of generic tools.
This is the same argument they use in the UK to ban things like long knives or realistic airsoft guns. We don’t really do that here in the US. Activists often try, but eventually the laws get struck down.
Their more recent legal defense of the product was throwing their own users under the bus: "we can't control if our customers are using the product to break laws". So they are the ones who framed all of the customers as potential criminals.
I've watched traffic code enforcement drop to essentially non-existent numbers largely because apathetical agencies and "officer safety" concerns.
I'd rather they go after people actively rolling coal instead of violating the rights of thousands of Americans like me.
Enforcing it the hard way by catching people in the act, or even spot checking, is difficult, and takes work and budget.
However, in asking such enforcement work to be made easy, the cost is borne by the rest of the innocents in losing their privacy or rights. Individually, each single instance of such loss is minuscule, but collectively it's a huge loss of rights and privacy - not to mention precedence.
Don't go down this road.
California gasoline tax pisses me off more because it's higher than anywhere else and the money seemingly goes nowhere.
1. Close to 20 years ago I read about someone who converted a car to an EV with an old electric forklift motor, but then couldn't register the car. It was a model year that still required smog checks, but it couldn't pass a smog check because the original emissions equipment wasn't installed anymore.
2. My brother inherited our dad's 1992 pickup, and tries to keep it in running order mostly out of nostalgia. He would like to replace the engine with a newer model that would burn less fuel, produce more power, and correctly installed, no doubt would have lower emissions. But then it wouldn't pass the smog check, because it wouldn't still have the original emissions equipment.
Having said all that, I agree that it disproportionately impacts the poor, because the poor tend to drive older cars that are more likely to need repairs to pass an inspection, and because the inspection fees make a larger impact on the budget of the poor, and because the employment flexibility to be without their car for half a day for the inspection, or longer if repairs are needed, is not as common among the poor. You could subsidize the inspections for low value cars, which would help with the cost aspect, but I don't know a way to solve the other aspects beyond trying to find the minimum amount of inspection that meets the policy goals.
My car is a bit older but its perfectly reliable. It doesn't require a monthly subscription, it doesn't track my location, it doesn't have a remote kill switch, and the title isn't owned by some bank. It would even blow fine on an emissions test. I still couldn't use it in California though because some of the original emissions equipment has failed and original replacements are impossible to find so alternative replacements have had to be used instead.
The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly).
You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is.
I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked.
However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults.
It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.)
Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome.
Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.
Alas, it looks like VTNZ was privatised and the exact outcome you would expect happened.
If my car fails while I'm driving through the desert and leaves me stranded in 100+ degree heat in the summer, that would be a critical situation.
If my car fails while I'm driving on a busy part of I5, that could be a critical situation.
I get that the rolling coal mods or whatever aren't designed to improve reliability, but things like deleting EGR or modifying the control logic for the DEF system are and can prevent a vehicle from failing in a situation that could be life threatening. Again, the government already knows this which is why they order their vehicles with those exact modifications already done.
If you're talking about black smoke out of the exhaust, no it doesn't help reliability. If you just mean tuning to optimize not for emissions, yeah it can help if you know exactly what you're doing or screw it up if you don't, either way you'll only find out later. Doesn't seem to matter because most professionals already make their living without messing with their trucks.
idk who downvoted you, that's not appropriate, so +1'd you to avoid comment death
The fact is, emissions regulations in many ways have nothing to do with health or clean air. I don't drive a diesel truck myself so its not like I'm trying to defend my own behavior or anything. I'm a former automotive engineer who is unfortunately very familiar with the regulations and how nonsensical they are.
Slippery slope is fully lubed
>Real-time protections for non-Play installs Google Play Protect offers protection for apps that are installed from sources outside of Google Play. When a user tries to install an app, Play Protect conducts a real-time check of the app against known harmful or malicious samples that Google Play Protect has cataloged.
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect/client-pr...
They will also go further for apks with novel signatures - take a copy, upload it to google to decompile and scan, and then if you have their express permission, allow you to install it.
You can turn it off, so it's not "any". At best it's "most".
On the other hand, if you try selectively enabling and disabling the service, the push notifications stop working. LineageOS + MicroG is a much better solution if you only need them occasionally and if you prefer an app which does not actively (try to) spy on you.
Clearly there is a single driving agenda, which Google and the government are largely in harmony on, to try to approach 100% real-identity-tying to every activity done online.
Where once, “online” meant generally greater anonymity than “IRL” activities, since most things could be signed up for with an arbitrary throwaway email address and no proof of identity. It is now or shortly will be the opposite.
[1] https://git.koszko.org/haketilo-packages/hacktcha/ [2] https://codeberg.org/JacobK/unfinished-site-fixes/src/branch...
I would not be surprised to see double sided phone cases so we can carry our big brother phone with our real phone.
There is some prior art in people being forced to carry a "work phone" and a "personal phone" at the same time.
There will be strange product marketing effects. If you only carry one phone, you can currently talk people into spending over $1K on a high tier big brother phone. But if you only use a big brother phone for bank apps and only at home, a $1K phone from Apple or Samsung is a hard sell, I'd be more likely to spend $1K on a really nice anti big brother phone on ali express or whatever.
For things requiring Play Integrity, I picked up a $20 burner carrier-locked Motorola phone at Walmart for $30. It's WiFi-only, given that I'm never going to pay for service on it, but I can also tether it to my main phone. It's also useful for writing one-star reviews on apps that require Play Integrity to function, which is something everyone should be doing.
So it's a $30 burner phone, not $20?
gmail and a "work-ish" phone. official stuff like DMV or banks use this. my work requires MFA and auth apps and they live here too. no SIM card and mostly lives at my desk.
my main phone for doin stuff is a different phone with a custom ROM and nothin but f-droid.
Ironically the phones with best third party rom support are google pixels. Good luck getting lineageos support or even unlocked bootloader on a random aliexpress phone. You might be able to sideload without restriction, but the ROM is probably gimped, won't receive updates, and has random privileged apps possibly spying on you.
Is right-to-repair going to get scrod by illegal activity, like everyone got scrod by media piracy?
We knew we'd get scrod back when MP3 piracy started, and many people were warned what would happen, but they still did it, and it played out just like was warned.
Illegal activity creates both reason and pretext for forcibly taking away what should be rights. And those rights will be forcibly taken away, for both reasons. Often by crappy people, because you either forced their hand, or you handed the pretext to them on a silver platter.
This is one reason for tech freedom advocates to fully appreciate that they're operating in a political context, so that they're a sustainable positive force, not a counterproductive one.
If they really cared they could equip federal agents, and state/local police with testing equipment. It is easy to see/hear vehicles that are likely to be violating these rules. Heck, make a hotline, I would rat them out all day. Just incorporate it with rate-limiting how often each vehicle could get pulled over for it, so it doesn't get abused.
This really comes down to corporations and the government colluding to make us not actually own anything. The fact that they would refer to a tool for making modifications to your car a "defeat device" is so telling. Coupled with phones not allowing side loading is really fucked up.
Everything is awful, and it's been getting worse for as long as I can remember. I think I'm going to lose it and just cut ties with the internet, and computers in general very soon. The power, and freedom I used to feel has been replaced with oppression disguised as convenience. One Token Ring to rule them all.
Probably if the appmaker donates to the Trump foundation it will be withdrawn within the day.
Oh so AdBlue shortage is about to hit the US too?
Corporate mobile operating systems suck. Including "apps" to run on them, generally
There are some that do not require corporate approval and do not try to phone home but it's a relatively small fraction
This is the... *checking notes* ... second thing this administration has done that seems reasonable, or at least not overtly evil.
Just because you use the internet to commit the crime doesn't make it not a crime.
The case being discussed is one where someone might be able to use the product to break the law.
So it’s more like demanding that Home Depot, Walmart, Amazon give the names of every American who’s ever bought a crowbar because the DOJ has heard that some people are breaking into buildings with crowbars.
It has been alleged that the government doesn’t want to prosecute these people who are the ones committing the crimes, they “just want to talk” in order to prosecute the company. Not sure I’d trust that without a signed immunity agreement. If I were forced to speak to these goons, I certainly wouldn’t say a word unless they gave me one of those - regardless of what I was using the gadget for.
Please explain to me how ICE (part of the nominally democratic USG) can be held accountable for summarily executing citizens.
For example, the reason we don’t have super efficient turbodiesel subcompacts that are perfectly legal in the EU is thanks to the so called “Clean” air act. Since the law is based on vehicle weight I can go buy a 8,000 pound truck and commute to work alone in it and pollute all I want. But if I want a super clean 80MPG diesel subcompact that’s 1/4 the gross weight supposedly bad for the environment.
But it gets worse in all sorts of ways, the law grandfathers coal plants from all these emissions standards. One coal plant can emit more pollution than millions of trucks. Guess which polluter the government is aggressively pursuing and violating the rights of? You guessed it, car enthusiasts who downloaded an app. Give me a break.
We have regulations that make cars take more damage in low speed impacts to make them safer for pedestrians, but pickup trucks with a hood line higher than an average adults head are legal.
In many countries in the EU, vehicles will flash either the brake lights or the signal lights when the ABS system activates to help warn the driver behind them. This has been proven to reduce the rate of multi vehicle accidents. That type of system is still illegal for car makers to use in the US.
Other countries had adaptive headlights that reduced glare for oncoming vehicles for years before the US finally allowed it.
But I don’t see this as absurd, intermediaries are always loose ends
The only news here is if the intermediaries complied or not
If the idea of “being on a list” actually guides your behavior, then argue that chilling effect in federal court. I mean if you have the rights as a naturalized-since-birth citizen, since others might not be able to reach a federal court before being kidnapped and renditioned
Downloading an app isn't a crime, you can still have TSA-precheck and run for office just because the government knows you downloaded an app or have the tor browser or something
This isn't really anything terribly new either. The government regardless of who the current president is will routinely go after individuals for (allaegedly) hurting coprorate profits. We saw it in the Napster/Limewire era, in the BitTorrent era and even with physical products far earlier than that. There's a ban on importing cars less than 25 years old because Mercedes-Benz dealerships lobbied for a law in the 1980s because too many people were importing them directly from Germany at a lower cost [2].
Heck, 60 years of Cuban embargoes and sanctions as well as the 1954 Guatemala coup were US efforts at the behest of the United Fruit Company. Same thing for oil and the 1953 Iranian coup.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/google-broke-its-promi...
[2]: https://www.jalopnik.com/the-25-year-import-rules-history-is...
More importantly, there's not spying on the user in the first place. The law doesn't force Google to spy, nor does it force Apple to lock consumers (for sure not "owners") out of their phones, so that they're left helpless when the CCP bans VPN and protest apps [1] (not to imply spying from Google alone isn't bad, before any other actors get involved).
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-pulls-mapping-app-used-by-h...
Fortunately, we have more powerful policy tools to clean the air than attacking individual gearheads... convert America to an electric car system. You need to attack these problems at the point of production. Consumption side approaches are petty and not very effective.
It'll void any warranty.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act disagrees with you.
Here's a legal view that explains it further [1].
Basically, they can deny warranty service if you make modifications, and they can tie it to a failure. You can add 100s of HP to your engine profile with these things, and why would it be reasonable to expect a manufacturer to warrant related component repairs if they're pushed beyond spec?
Here are relevant quotes, and []'s are mine.
> The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act requires manufacturers to honor their warranties and auto manufacturers only warrant their vehicles against manufacturing defects. Your claim here could be denied because the failure was not due to a defect in a factory component. It was caused by something added to the car[...] That system caused a non-defective part to fail. Your mod did not void the [entire] warranty. It’s just that the failure was not caused by a factory defect.
> Obviously, an aftermarket camshaft or a hopped up ECU won’t void the entire warranty on your car. The master cylinder failed? The blue tooth quit working? Unless there is a logical connection between the mod and the part or system that failed, you should be good to go.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
[1] https://lehtoslaw.com/will-modifications-void-new-car-warran...
They can deny a claim. You can challenge that, they will need to prove the modification caused the defect. They cannot void your warranty, in whole or in part. The most they can do is make a note of your modification and then use that as a reference going forward to deny individual claims as they happen.
You might argue that they are likely to win those claims, because they have the engineer who will show up in court to explain why your modification was the problem. On that I'd agree. But they'll have to do that for every claim they deny (assuming you take them to court).
I understand what you're saying, but your core beef seems really pedantic in context.
Yes, the warranty terms aren't abandoned, but...
..."voided" isn't a defined term, it's not used anywhere in the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (from my scan), I sourced an attorney using "voiding" in a more casual sense, and you even acknowledge that in practice, you're screwed if you tune your car, get caught by the dealer/manufacturer, and have issues with relevant components.
[1] https://www.motor1.com/news/729265/toyota-gr-corolla-warrant...
Adding insult, one guy had his comprehensive insurance coverage lapse right before!
The point isn't that you can't run the deep research. Everyone now has more capabilities, and if you want to waste time and tokens you can do it. The point is someone has done the work compiling these, and made it available once, for everyone to read. Think "caching". It has the exact amount of information needed to show the details of every attack. There is a lot. Sadly making it "concise" will remove information -- there is that much.
I do usually make edits to an article after I get it from an AI, as an editor would do when a writer submits something. I hate having AI shibboleths like "It's not X. It's Y". So I make it more humanized. But at the end of the day, the article does what it's supposed to do: make people aware of things in one place, rather than have to research it themselves every time.
Just like I don't want to look at AI art or listen to AI music, I don't want to read AI written blogslop.
The web is now full of shit. What a waste.
Why don't you write all your assembly code yourself? Why do you use a compiler? Why do you generate images, when you can draw them yourself? You're supposed to add value.
I don't think preparing a list of all the threats, editing it and publishing it for others is a "waste". I'm not publishing random stuff, this is important and in line with what I want people to know.
Some people on HN downvote any criticism of AI, other people complain that things are written by AI. If you're such big fans of AI being used more and more, then accept the consequences!
The problem with LLMs outputting English is that they're very good at bullshit and it can be really hard to see through the nonsense. The output can be skewed by the model parameters and this can be really hard to spot.
The compiler analogy doesn't work: compilers are (mostly) deterministic and I can verify their output if I wanted to, just ask the compiler to output assembly.
With code generation I can also more or less instantly see if the code is correct or not, because code has less words than human language. The same would apply to images: it would take even less time to see if a generated image is correct or not. That said, I don't use AI for image generation, since I have no use for it.
I'm seeing increasing numbers of people credulously citing ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini output as ground-truth fact. Many more are increasingly lulled into a false sense of security by the citations models append (to the point of neglecting even a bare-minimum skim of the cited sources, much less critically evaluating/contextualizing the nature of the sources themselves). My fear is that most people are blissfully ignorant at the new paradigms of propaganda that AI could enable; most of us here wouldn't be taken by the "slop" image-gen deepfakes (right now), but can you say the same about a couple of citations taken out of context?
We already know how trivial it is to win over a sizeable chunk of society by introducing red-herrings, misrepresenting statistical data, etc. -- oil companies perfected that art, and now as a result a huge number of voters in the US believe that climate change (doesn't exist|isn't man-made|is unavoidable). And that effort was "fully manual" and carried out without the aid of extensive psychological profiling at the individual level via an ad-surveillance complex. Today, society is almost completely defenseless against the extreme granularity/subtlety of manipulation that ownership of frontier AI models enables, especially when it's armed with even a fraction of the torrent of personal data that's being collected on each of us every day.
That's kinda fair, like it's still useful to prepare a list, but it's also like if you didn't go research your information yourself why would I start from a position of charitability when I read it? When I research something with LLMs, I know to double-check everything myself before I use it as a basis for my thought or repeat it to other people. Knowing an article is AI written forces me to doubt every sentence. Or maybe it's worse, I have to assume nobody cared about the sentence. The old format was a guarantee that someone gave enough shits to put the article together. Relevance comes implicitly bundled in each sentence. It's like someone talking to you in public in that there's often a reason to pay attention.
It's not as though that person is going to say something correct, or ethical, but I've had a lifetime of dealing with human kinds of wrongness. When stuff is wrong, I'll know it's wrong because the article is slanted or wrong because the author was lazy etc., which will let me discount it selectively and still get value from it when, e.g., a slanted author contradicts themselves. Reading an LLM article I have no clue whether the person who put it up even read the whole thing, so when I read sentences, I have no guarantee that the sentence communicates something worth paying attention to. I dislike that ambiguity and would prefer to guarantee that the text is slop by asking a bot myself. Then I know its worth upfront. I'd be fine with it if these sites included a direct statement in bold at the top: HEY THIS IS AI SLOP IF YOU DONT WANT THAT LEAVE. Then I know exactly how to parse it.
I spent way too much time on actually building this — with Claude and double checking everything — so an article I publish can be OK to push out. We aren’t building a bridge for thousands of cars here, it’s an article.
A lot of things are automated and 95% of the time they are correct. The key is knowing whether the last mile is worth fixing, if the consequences are minor.
What the startup does is make a verifiably trusted, zero-configuration, turnkey environment for businesses to move their data into and run AI workloads on, without worrying about their data being stolen, or some Agents doing unpredictable things. The environment is super-secured, with no ssh. It's an appliance, with over-the-air M of N updates. Think more "Tesla car" and less "OpenClaw". That's the foundation.
That environment then builds everything around a graph database, for people, organizations, and even code. We have Grokers that can ingest a codebase statically once, and then present the graph databases as a far better "RAG" than cosine similarity and pinecone vector databases.
At its most basic level: Agents can't be trusted. We want predictable Workflows, not agents. They can do 99% of everything Agents can, if done properly, and the remaining 1% are the dangerous parts https://safebots.ai/agents.html
It's a lot of innovations at once, including:
Collaborative Bots that are safer than agents.
Workflows and tools that can read, reason and propose actions.
Policies that must be satisfied before actions can be taken.
Logging of everything. Verifiable security and audits for SOC2 compliance etc. etc.
Everything is configurable and designed for serious businesses, not a grandma that finished a Chinese course on how to install OpenClaw on her terminal and not get pwned
This is why you should write things yourself. There is no way an AI would write something so insane in response to that question. Since I can now read your true understanding of the world, I know not to waste my time on your ai slop. I have no reason to believe you fact checked the 'research' done using AI if you cant even understand how the research should have been done in the first place. You want to waste the time of others but arent even willing to sacrifice a bit yourself.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.
It’s a genuinely complicated issue, and relates to a lot of things in tech and software. But IMHO if an app makes it easy to do something illegal which is otherwise difficult, then there’s reason for the government to be interested. If that app could be written in a way that blocks the illegal behavior, and has chosen not to put those restrictions in place, then I think the government is justified in interfering.
That’s what seems to be happening here. I have a hard time believing that it would be difficult for EZ Lynk to distinguish between a “delete tune” that rolls coal or blows past emission regs and a legitimate clean tune. Maybe some things get blurry around the edges, but they’re clearly not even trying. And you know that’s why this app is popular. The clean tunes just don’t change anything much, because the manufacturer already tunes the engine for maximum legal power, or close to it.
Americans: How did you let it get this way?
This is an app for deliberately causing pollution. The users of that app should be criminally prosecuted and lose their license/spend a few months in prison. The price differential between this device/app and a generic ODB dongle you can buy on Amazon for ~$10 is entirely made up by the criminal features EZ Lynk offers.
The app being software versus hardware doesn't change the legal or moral situation involving it. Much like the DOJ would demand identities of people importing PlayStation 1 modchips back in the 90s, the users of this equally criminal application will be provided to the DOJ.
I think people should have the freedom to do what they want; if you want to have a truck that has horrible exhaust, fine, but we'll have it piped back into your cab for you to breathe instead of the people behind you, and if you want a car that sounds like a thousand go-carts racing down the street fine, but it'll be through headphones destroying your hearing every time you hit the gas.
Hey congrats, you discovered Society! This is what all those rules and shit are all about - your impact on other people, and their impact on you! It turns out that just saying “people should be able to do what they want” doesn’t actually solve anything, because other people also exist, and some of them are you!
I also absolutely loath the coal-rollers and everything about what they do, and if I could snap my fingers and have them lose both their trucks and their licenses to drive with no other consequences beyond their frustration, I'd do it.
Nevertheless, we cannot allow this good reason for which be both agree to be used as a wedge to let the state just wholesale collect data for whatever reason they want.
Very soon, the reason the state wants to wholesale collect data will be for a reason we entirely disagree. That is not an "IF", it is a "WHEN".
So, no, this isn't a justification.
Very soon, that ca
But if they get this thing taken off the market, that’s a huge loss for all of us because there are a ton of things this type of tool enables, many of them things people like us would be very interested in. Such as disabling privacy-invasive telematics, or disabling features like stop start, which I can personally attest has caused significant repair issues with the engine on my last car.
Having access to a tool like this is to a car what having an administrator account is on a PC. Without it, you are merely a guest, not an owner of the system.
Why is this administration, which is all for coal, oil, and against environmental policies pursuing THIS?
This DOJ is all about pursuing cases for retribution. It could be, they already know someone they want to punish, and already found they're using the device. Or, use it as a source for finding people they want to punish.
This issue is just not directly politically important enough to get the "don't touch" treatment.
Donors and party power brokers aren't rolling coal.