the hard part when enabling self-tinkering is the forensics and the burden of proof for accidents, especially lethal accidents.
how do you ensure beyond doubt that the vehicle was not "tampered with" by an "unauthorized unqualified third party"?
would I want to own a car where the oem can turn around burden of proof and can easily claim I have modified the vehicle software, and thus broke vehicle behaviour?
oem: you've patched coreutils, that's what killed your wife, your fault!
me: no. that's technically impossible. the drm disables third party modifications.
now if you provide means to do it anyhow, you'd need to make forensics crystal clear.
so you as a customer want the physical modification to be dead obvious even on a burnt vehicle. especially on a burnt vehicle. so you as a customer can show that you did in fact not unlock software modification.
and state regulations for that reason require drm from car makers, to make it impossible to evade responsibility with flakey claims of third party modifications.
how do you ensure beyond doubt that the vehicle was not "tampered with" by an "unauthorized unqualified third party"?
would I want to own a car where the oem can turn around burden of proof and can easily claim I have modified the vehicle software, and thus broke vehicle behaviour?
oem: you've patched coreutils, that's what killed your wife, your fault!
me: no. that's technically impossible. the drm disables third party modifications.
now if you provide means to do it anyhow, you'd need to make forensics crystal clear.
so you as a customer want the physical modification to be dead obvious even on a burnt vehicle. especially on a burnt vehicle. so you as a customer can show that you did in fact not unlock software modification.
and state regulations for that reason require drm from car makers, to make it impossible to evade responsibility with flakey claims of third party modifications.