It shouldn't be illegal to bypass the security of your own property. On the other hand, it shouldn't be illegal either for manufacturers to make security features that are impossible to bypass.

> it shouldn't be illegal either for manufacturers to make security features that are impossible to bypass

No such thing as impossible to bypass, which is exactly why companies turn to the courts and police for enforcement instead.

And that's the problem. Companies should just accept that hardware and software will never be perfect, and people bypassing imperfect security/revenue-enhancing features is just a risk and cost you have to accept when doing business.

Instead, we have bullshit like the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions that companies pushed so they could get the government to legally enforce their crappy business models.

your phone isn't a 3500 lb metal box of death on public roads with other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians

We already have a system in place for this: civil liability and criminal culpability. If you hack your car negligently, you can be sued for negligence or charged with manslaughter.

Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, but it follows that you should also maintain this: "It should not be illegal to drink alcohol while you drive. If it affects your driving performance negatively, that, in isolation, is what should be penalized."

Same thing if you sell unsafe food, yet we have regulations, because it's preferable to not be killed in the first place.

And because the impact is exponentially larger. Arguments for regulation prohibiting individuals from tinkering with their cars does no such thing, because those laws are not currently in place, and there is not an epidemic of runaway user-modified vehicles.

On the other hand, such regulation would serve to prevent users from enjoying the property they purchased and to facilitate exploitative practices by manufacturers and retailers. It is all the more absurd given that existing law already provides mechanisms for deterrence and punishment, namely: the notion of negligence.

I cannot stress how terrible this idea is. This would severely degrade consumer rights and do virtually nothing to protect people.

It really depends what you are modifying. By all means have a custom entertainment system and I detest the software locked features such as heated seats.

If you are messing with safety critical software then it is no help to me that you are prosecuted for negligence if I am killed.

Even if your safety critical software works it still is negligent, there should be some barrier to entry for such software. It shouldn't be out there in the wild made by whoever with no oversight.

Do you think you should be allowed to change your brake pads? How about bleed your brake lines?

Yes, I would trust people to generally be competent enough.

Writing your own self driving software, go ahead, as long as your driving on private land I have no issue.

But nobody is writing self-driving software. They are jail breaking the existing software.

There is someone posting about exactly that on this post.

https://github.com/d4l3k/torchdrive

The road worthiness of your modded car is a question between you and the DMV, though. Once you start adding a fifth wheel to your Lada, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility.

(Tesla's software killing people is also not their responsibility, because you're 'supposed' to use it in a way that nobody actually uses it.)