Public service part two.

In Massachusetts, we have a ballot question called "Right to Repair Initiative (2020)" also known as Question 1. It apparently has some very wealthy supporters and opponents because there is a television commercial for or against it being run every ten minutes on all channels.

Here's what I know about it:

• It basically an addendum to the 2013 "Right to Repair" law that addresses technology advances put in place by the auto manufacturers since then.
• Specifically, it addresses the newest tech of having cars send their operational data wirelessly to a remote receiver.
• This tech is known as "telematics" and it currently provides a wireless connection between the car and a remote receiver used by the manufacturer who in turn provides the data to a dealership repair center.
• Q1 requires that manufacturers create a platform that allows the vehicle owner to grant access to the telematics to any mechanic.
• Q1 requires that the access rights be for a time period specified by the vehicle owner. It can be permanent or for as little as one hour.
• Proponents say this addition to the Right to Repair law simply brings the law up to date with modern technology.
• Opponents say this addition to the Right to Repair opens up the possibility the private and personal data may inadvertently fall into the hands of "hackers".

Here's what I say:

Put the question of allowing non-dealer repair places access to my vehicle data aside for a second and ask yourself this question: Why have the auto manufacturers built a system that makes it possible for my personal data from my connected phone to be collected and sent over the air to a remote site?

At no time did I give my car permission to collect my phone data and send it to Detroit.

Granted, my car is 15 years old and the most advanced thing in it is a tiny little display that calculates how many miles I can drive on what's left in my gas tank. The closest my phone gets to being connected to my car is when I plug the charger into the cigarette lighter port (are they still called that?) to charge it.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is that I'm willing to bet the local mechanic that works on my car, who I've known for twenty years, is more ethical than the CEO of some huge car company. I'm pretty sure that most corporations have no moral compass or ethical guidelines, they do whatever they can do to earn money and if they can earn money by collecting and selling data about me, they will.

I don't trust GM any more than I trust Facebook.

Which takes us back to Q1. Personally, I'm going to vote yes because this is at least an attempt to define who controls my data. Specifically, it is an attempt to give me control over it, not the car companies. Just because the technology might fail at some point doesn't mean I should give up control of my data.

This closes today's public service.

⧫
The freakin Dodgers beat the Rays 8-3 last night and I am not happy.

I managed to stay awake until the sixth inning and I knew when I went to bed that the Rays were gonna lose.

I'm really hoping the Rays manage to get their act together and beat up on the Dodgers tonight.

⧫
Once again, I need to figure out what I want to make for dinner.
While I do that, you can do these:

• Key phrase in this story: "Not only had he been drinking, he was clutching a bag of grilled barbecue meat."



• Key phrase in this story: "They apparently didn’t want to leave the bank."



• Maybe these people should move out of the woods.



• Presenting this episodes Brilliant Criminal of the Day.



• So how are kids without Apple TV suppossed to watch it?



• Add this to the list of things I didn't need to see.