rem1473

The Wired article references that Renault put DRM in a car battery and can shut the car down if you violate the contract. Why is that offensive to you? I don't find that offensive at all. Why should your opinion, my opinion, or the opinion of the government get in between Renault and their customers?

I would find it offensive if Renault willfully deceived the public about that special battery. Renault should not be permitted to be deceptive that the battery exists and their ability to shut down the car. Personally, I would never, ever purchase a Renault, if I knew they had a way to shut down the car. I think that is egregious. But I am not going to tell my neighbor that I am going to lobby the government to disallow the sale of a Renault to them, because I don't like one particular component installed in the car. I think the government should let the free market exist. The issues of adding DRM to a battery to disable a car are between Renault and their customers. I fail to see why the government should get involved. I fail to see why your opinion and my opinion should matter. It's between Renault and their customers.

Should GM be permitted to shut down a car using OnStar if the car is reported stolen? That would probably be OK with most people. But if they shut down the car because you didn't pay your OnStar bill, or violate your contract with them in some other way, that suddenly becomes offensive?

I admit that I don't read all the click through agreements. I definitely would skip over one when spending $0.99 for an app. I would NEVER, EVER buy a $30,000+ car without reading the contract completely through. If you decide to spend $30,000 without reading the contract, then shame on you for missing something that you find objectionable. If I lose $0.99 on app because there was something in the agreement that I did not read, then so be it. It's on me, and I can afford to lose the $0.99 over my mistake. The higher the value, the more time I'm willing to take to fully understand the obligations. It's up to me to decide what value is worth what amount of time. It's not up to the government or anyone else to determine that for me.

I guess we have a simple difference of opinion. I would never buy a Renault because of the battery issue. If someone else wants to buy one, I respect their decision to do so. I don't think the government should be passing laws to protect people against their own stupidity. That's exactly the type of government that I don't like. The nanny state looking over our shoulders, telling us that we aren't capable of entering contracts without their help. Those decisions are ours to make, unencumbered by government.

If it takes a 30 page user agreement to buy a car, I'll look elsewhere. If enough people feel the same way, then Renault will be forced to change their ways, or they will go out of business. I will never choose to lobby the government to force my buying habits upon other people.