I do wonder about how much research has gone into this article though, for example this statement :
Quote:
|
For instance, Smith said it’s impossible to put a newer-model engine in an older vehicle without modifying its engine control unit (ECU) software.
|
is nonsense. Lots of people do that - you don't modify it, you bypass it. Some have even been known to fit engines from other makes into GM cars. They pass the MOT (aka safety Inspection) here regularly and appear in tuning magazines all over the place.
That tapped I can see GM's point to some extent that people dicking about with their code or settings might just break something or (for example) make the brakes not work.
This is unlikely but I suppose GM want to be sure that if it does happen they won't be liable in any way, shape or form because they didn't prevent it by putting in security measures in their older software - the stuff they sold before people had the facility to plug in a home computer to a car or even had a home computer.
Plus of course they buy from component makers which also contain software - are they responsible for that too ?
On the same basis if someone "hacked" a VAG product using VAG-COM and caused a problem, would VWAG themselves be liable ? Would VAG-COM given their disclaimers ? How about the website where someone anonymous said "change this here for mega powah" ?
Seems like a perfect playground for lawyers. Then again isn't everything?