And again, I don’t see that it applies at all to what is a parts tracking system, its not a maintenance plan, a direct safety system, operational guidelines for engineers or anything else you are falsely trying to make it.

You keep describing the maintenance schedule, which is again, irrelevant to tracking the history of parts. Age of the system is also irrelevant to the problem here, a system outside or inside its operational life span can still have shitty black market parts fitted to it making it more unsafe than using the correct part.

The airline industry in particular has been hit with a number of planes being fitted with bogus parts, this is despite all of the things you talk about, they have not worked for tracking parts and proving their provenance. Hence, a more robust system is needed.

I am intentionally not accounting for it, as its irrelevant to an end to end parts tracking system.

Your difference is only really relevant to the standards that the part is made, the safety systems the vehicle needs to have including redundancy, and the frequency and depth of the maintenance schedule.

Both need to be able to prove that shoddy third party parts haven’t been fitted, that the parts have been replaced on schedule, even if the quality of the parts and the frequency of replacement is completely different.

While parts don’t need to be made to the same standard nor do you need the same depth of safety components, I completely disagree that we should not be applying the same hygiene to part province and maintenance schedules. Obviously this should apply to track side components such as signalling, the track etc. as well, just like it should for the parts of an airport that a plane will interact with.

Avoiding utter maintenance shit shows like the train crash in India that killed 300 people seem just as attractive to fix as they do with planes. Or the toxic spills that America has had that may not have killed as many people but are still expensive and hugely disrupting.

Part of getting maintenance schedules followed properly and using quality parts is right to repair, part availability, and being able to prove part provenance and quality. A method to audit a part is essential for this, if we do whats needed by allowing 3rd parties to make parts to original spec for a reasonable cost, like we should to lower cost. Lower cost, more chance companies will avoid cutting corners, particularly if there is a proper audit trail for the part and you can actually prove that it is the *part *as well.

The article is about right to repair, third party parts, and systems designed to block both of them, which I applied to an existing problem that applies to planes for certain and almost certainly other forms of public transport. Even a shit idea can be repurposed to improving the common good.

Agree with you about the level of standards, there needs to be some for train and bus parts but not to aircraft standards.

I also agree any part manufacturer to be audited to which level they are working at and prove a chain of custody for that part. They grey and black markets need to be squeezed out as much as possible, obviously you have to give the end customer, airlines, rolling stock owners, etc. a cost incentive with right to repair to honor the system. As any system can be hacked or broken with enough of a cash incentive.

I think the OEM having to license, at a reasonable cost, the exact spec and design for a part to third parties is an important part of any right to repair. You cannot self repair if you cannot get replacement parts for a reasonable cost.

Its not hypothetical, its a widespread issue for aircraft: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/airline-scandal-fake-parts-scandal-b2459534.html

and did you even read what I wrote?

Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong,

With the fake parts scandal for airplanes I wonder if this should be mandatory for parts that impact public safety for public transport like trains, buses, planes and so on.

Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong, but if it could be adapted to allow for critical parts to be made under license by third parties and helped prevent fake parts then may be a small amount of good can come from this shitty practice.

There is a significant scalp market for the limited release Porsche and other premium cars in the UK. Its not uncommon to double your money on some cars just for sitting in the queue for the car for 12 months or so from using a small deposit of say £5k.

Hard part is getting on the list to buy one, you need to be in good standing with the dealer from purchasing a lot of cars, which most scalpers are. You can then sell the place on the waiting list, or finance the car, run it for a short period if you want, then sell it for a big profit.

Its also a terrible way of reducing charging time for anything that doesn’t have an enormous battery like an electric Lorry/Semi. Even then its like 30 minutes for 70% charge for the Tesla Semi, which is roughly the same as a mandated break anyway for the driver.

What is more useful is making sure all EV batteries are easily swappable by third parties as this will massively extend the lifespan of EVs if you do not need to go back to the main dealer for a much marked up battery replacement when the cars battery stops holding a useful amount of charge past the 10 year mark.

They would just exempt themselves from it as they did with both reporting on people accessing porn using the HoP network and with the investigatory powers bill.

When they did report on it, it was a shockingly high number for a place of work: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/09/04/mps_binge_on_smut_theyre_trying_to_ban/

Well they did win two world wars, which is two more wars than their idiot children, the boomers managed against weaker opposition.

But thats about it for their achievements.

They wont have anything but a minimal budget to even research this properly, let alone employ the staff or setup the systems to manage it properly.

I realise China monitors a lot more than porn and their population is much much larger however they have between 20 and 50k working on it. Even if you cut down the scope you are still looking at thousands of employees to do this properly.

Yes I am aware of that, however the current way that is being looked at addressing the problem is moving the cabling to further within the car, which is just pathetic, like thieves wont just adapt to that.

Encryption really isnt as big a performance impact if it is done correctly, sure it is not cost neutral but ask Range Rover how much reputational damage they had with their piss poor security. They are still having 1 in a 300 brand new defenders stolen after adding what is pretty a traditional immobiliser and tracker.

As an example: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2006/1/012071

The existing standards OBD-II and CAN Bus just aren’t fit for purpose for ICE cars let alone EVs. Too many keyless cars get hacked by the thief hacking into either system and overriding the lack of a key, even if it means cutting a hole in the boot lid to expose the CAN Bus connection as with some Range Rovers.

Its become a significant problem for a lot of cars. It used to be that they would break into your house to steal your key, then steal the car but now they do not need to do that. It can be done in a couple of minutes on some cars that do not properly protect the CAN Bus cable.

What we really need is a proper public/private key pair for the cars so that all comms is only authorised via the physical key fob. This needs to be touch authorised to prevent snoop attacks. Sticking it on the key would then mean right to repair is not blocked, if the main dealer has it then its a big blocker for right to repair.

Fiat implemented a “firewall” for their port, without the right device you cannot connect to it.

It was implemented to prevent thefts, people hack the car through the ODB port or through the CAN bus connection.

Its easier for them to lock down access rather than fix the fact you can drive a keyless car without the key.

Everything Dies by Spirted Adrift, its a cover of the Type O Negative song

There are ways around most things, but you’ll have to define this sandbox on your mobile as a lot of these can be prevented with the right additional product, obviously Microsoft being Microsoft isn’t going to give this away.

If you set up intune correctly (and its a requirement) you can prevent access to the entire of m365 including outlook unless they register their device and you can use allow lists for users who are approved to use their own devices, or just block them full stop while allowing company phones access.

If yours isn’t requiring registration, then its not setup to do so, you can very much enforce it, this is usually done via conditional access requiring that the device is registered before it can get access.

Often admins also forget to block web access from mobile devices, but that’s also blockable via the conditional access settings (and other ways, but conditional is how I would do it). Its not perfect as its using the user agent, which can be spoofed. Personally if the client needs that level of protection then web access should just be blocked for non company devices.

You can enforce that the company is added as a device manager, that’s usually how the device wipe is enforced. Access to personal data isn’t really what you are granting here, it is the ability to remote wipe the entire device.

Its a proper device management system with a ton of options. You can for example force users to only use an approved list of applications on their own device for company data.

Well yeah, but the question was about wiping the device not the account.

Where is the footage stored? As I am conscious it often goes missing in the US for problematic cases.