TO THE EDITOR:
Siri, outline “monopoly.”
One hardly ever is aware of the place to start out fact-checking Nathan Proctor’s “Connected cars raise security concerns, but repair isn’t one of them” (autonews.com, June 7), however I’ll attempt.
He claims opposition to the REPAIR Function is according to some fiction auto restore “monopoly” or that isolated repairers aren’t faithful. “Sketchy,” he says.
In point of fact? What sort of a monopoly supplies isolated repairers the similar car restore knowledge supplied to auto sellers? What sort of monopoly develops OEM1Stop, a site for restore techs to get entry to that knowledge? What sort of monopoly indicators a national guarantee (10 years in the past) to contract that get entry to? Solution: negative monopoly in any respect. Take into accout, 70 % of post-warranty auto paintings is treated by way of the isolated restore folk.
The privateness claims are similarly off-base. I’ll say this: Knowledge within the unsuitable arms or with out correct cybersecurity is a blackmail to privateness and protection. Automakers observe a code of behavior that prohibits the sharing of delicate car knowledge (like your location) with out consent.
Who hasn’t taken that oath? The large-box, nationwide auto portions outlets backing the REPAIR Function who would have get entry to to your entire using knowledge, if Mr. Proctor were given his manner.
JOHN BOZZELLA, CEO, Alliance for Car Innovation, Washington
