Massachusetts Question 1 "Right to Repair" (Boston: 2013, pros and cons)

[CrowGirl]

I wanted to start a thread about Massachusetts Question 1 because in all honesty I'm really torn. I've read the official summary and the actual full text of the amendment. I've certainly seen the ads. The Boston Globe has one of the better articles I've been able to find on the pros and cons: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/...g-experts-say/.

I'm still torn.

The initiative is clearly to ensure access to mechnical data rather than personal data, but the definition of mechnical data includes data "used for or otherwise related to the diagnosis, repair or maintenance of the vehicle." The concern there is the "otherwise related to" language - which could be open to creating loopholes for creative people who can find a tiny connection between personal data and a car's diagnosis. Hopefully it would be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended, but it's a risk.

If it passes the legislature could tweak it as it has done with other questions such as to expressly exclude certain information, most notably geolocation data. The article I linked notes that the Californoia initiative that failed (as is referenced in some of the "vote no" adds) specifically INCLUDED geophysical data in the data that would be made available. While I haven't independently confirmed that, the article is correct that the Massachusetts initiative does not expressly include this data. Perhaps expressly EXCLUDING it would help clarify the measure if it passes, and voters could certainly contact their representatives to urge this change.

But it also seems that people who know more than I about informatics (whcih is a lot of people - not even close to my area of expertise) - say the systems are years away from a point at which the manufacturers could really block independents. They urge waiting to let the technology develop and then the law could be more narrowly developed to address the consumer choice concerns. To me that's probably the best argument for no - not no forever but no for now. I expect with the money behind both sides of this debate it will resurface.

Thoughts?

[Shrewsburried]

Vote ‘no’ if you wish to have to pay dealerships triple digit rates for the simplest of tasks. It’s slight hyperbole now, but manufacturers do wish to be the sole servicer of their products and, when and if that happens, good luck changing even a battery without a dealership code reset.

[scorpio516]

Do you want all independent mechanics to go out of business? Vote no.
Do you want to be forced to go to a dealership for all service? Vote no.

Closed systems are not years away. They could be implemented tomorrow if they could. Right to repair is a big deal, farm equipment have had closed systems for decades - harvesters and combines and just about every other piece of new farm equipment can only be services by dealers. Voting no give up your right to repair.

Voting yes keeps the status quo. All cars since 1996 have had open source diagnostics (OBD2), Q1 specifically is about the loophole in the 2013 right to repair law regarding wireless communications that we passed with 86% - the 2013 law said nothing about wireless.

[sawyer2]

Pretty easy decision...

- Vote No if you own a dealership

- Vote Yes if you own a car

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by sawyer2

Pretty easy decision...

- Vote No if you own a dealership

- Vote Yes if you own a car

This. The privacy concerns are largely fear mongering.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by sawyer2

Pretty easy decision...

- Vote No if you own a dealership

- Vote Yes if you own a car

Do you hate people who own cars? Vote no.

[P Larsen]

The privacy stuff is basically wrong. Btw, if it were true - it would apply to dealer shops just as much. But funny how they didn't mention that. That's the clue that the claim is misleading and not a reason to vote no.

[Cape Cod Todd]

I'm facing this issue right now with my wife's 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
When we bought it new I totally forgot to get a trailer hitch. I inquired at the dealer and they quoted me $700. I found a draw tite on Amazon for $110 plus a harness for $25 to plug into the existing Jeep wiring that is sitting right where the trailer hitch goes. I installed the hitch and the plug, went to test the lights and there was no power. I checked the fuses and they were good. I then went online to find out what was wrong and it turns out that I need to bring the JeeP back to the dealer so they can "enable" the existing wiring harness to work. I called the dealer and the cost is $139!



$139! to access the computer in the car and flip a switch!



I put the hitch on so I could use my bike rack with it and to maybe tow my boat in an emergency. Oh well at least I don't need the lights to work for the bike rack..



Right to Repair has very little to do with public safety and everything to do with grabbing our money.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by P Larsen

The privacy stuff is basically wrong. Btw, if it were true - it would apply to dealer shops just as much. But funny how they didn't mention that. That's the clue that the claim is misleading and not a reason to vote no.

And that's my primary issue with it. It's not as if the ethics of brand X's service crew are any higher than my local privately owned auto service shop.

[id77]

Perhaps the most telling aspect of who's interests are at play on this question is that the top 3-5 sponsors of ads in favor of No are all automakers. It's been pretty well covered already why they're against it.