<story><title>TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software</title><url>http://keionline.org/node/2363</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>stingraycharles</author><text>Playing the devil&amp;#x27;s advocate here, but you shouldn&amp;#x27;t need access to a car&amp;#x27;s source code to measure its emissions. The test is broken, not the software.</text></item><item><author>xg15</author><text>It also would prevent government agencies from demanding i.e. the source code of a car&amp;#x27;s ECU to verify its safety and emissions behavior.&lt;p&gt;The only way out of this would be to declare car ECUs (or other systems) as &amp;quot;critical infrastructure&amp;quot;, the definition of which I&amp;#x27;m sure will be subject to many political tug-of-wars once this is implemented.</text></item><item><author>dak1</author><text>These are rules for States.  It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL.&lt;p&gt;This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for &amp;quot;inspection&amp;quot; in order to access their market.  It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there&amp;#x27;s a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added).&lt;p&gt;Not everything in the TPP is bad.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jessriedel</author><text>But you can imagine an internal AI that can tell whether it&amp;#x27;s being watched by the government with arbitrarily sophisticated  means.  In fact, that&amp;#x27;s just an extreme example of how VW broke rules.  It wasn&amp;#x27;t, as I think you might be imagining, a case where the emission measuring device was lazy and just took the car&amp;#x27;s word for it.  Rather, the car&amp;#x27;s software determined that it was being tested (based, I think, on various cues from how it was being driven), and lowers emissions in those situations.</text></comment>
<story><title>TPP banning requirements to transfer or access to source code of software</title><url>http://keionline.org/node/2363</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>stingraycharles</author><text>Playing the devil&amp;#x27;s advocate here, but you shouldn&amp;#x27;t need access to a car&amp;#x27;s source code to measure its emissions. The test is broken, not the software.</text></item><item><author>xg15</author><text>It also would prevent government agencies from demanding i.e. the source code of a car&amp;#x27;s ECU to verify its safety and emissions behavior.&lt;p&gt;The only way out of this would be to declare car ECUs (or other systems) as &amp;quot;critical infrastructure&amp;quot;, the definition of which I&amp;#x27;m sure will be subject to many political tug-of-wars once this is implemented.</text></item><item><author>dak1</author><text>These are rules for States.  It has no bearing whatsoever on the GPL.&lt;p&gt;This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for &amp;quot;inspection&amp;quot; in order to access their market.  It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there&amp;#x27;s a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added).&lt;p&gt;Not everything in the TPP is bad.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>15155</author><text>Expounding further - what government agency has the time or money to actually sift through mountains of source code?&lt;p&gt;From a pure financial standpoint, there&amp;#x27;s no possible way that it isn&amp;#x27;t cheaper to just measure real emissions than attempt some kind of software analysis for every version of every vehicle on the market.&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, an agency inspecting source code has absolutely no way to tell whether or not that the source they&amp;#x27;ve been given is actually what&amp;#x27;s running on a car.</text></comment>