Guest commentary: Connected cars raise security concerns, but repair isn't one of them

As a national advocate for right-to-repair reforms — for all types of equipment from toasters to tractors — I am used to hearing manufacturers' claims that they alone can protect your data, and pro-repair reforms will undermine your security and privacy.

At the core of the issue is what we advocates call "the myth of the benevolent monopoly." That myth is, essentially: The manufacturer and their dealerships are the only ones capable of doing things the right way and are the only trustworthy partners. If a third party tries to use the same methods as the "authorized" elite to fix the product, everything will go horribly wrong. The implication is that independent repair shops are sketchy.

The monopoly, therefore, is to protect us. What an act of care and benevolence from the manufacturer!

Readers of Automotive News have seen this argument. For example, John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, wrote that backers of the REPAIR Act seek "unfettered access to a treasure trove of private telematics data for their own sales and marketing purposes."

The REPAIR Act would allow a car owner to access and direct car maintenance data to a third party.

This "benevolent monopoly" myth struggles under the weight of reality. I'm sure many dealerships do a great job, but know that some overcharge customers for the same repairs. There is a clear incentive for a manufacturer to tell this story: When the manufacturer or their branded dealer is the only party with the parts, tools and information needed, they can charge whatever they want. In the case of many consumer devices, they can also say that repair is impossible and push you to purchase an "upgrade" instead of fixing your broken product.

The solution is to ensure there is competition by allowing people to find and use the technician of their choice.

Unfortunately, as everything in our lives becomes more reliant on software and the Internet, manufacturers have a host of new opportunities to control what users do, gather and monetize data from their products without paying for it, and restrict repair and service.

Manufacturers claim that their refusal to allow others to access repair and maintenance data results from their firm commitment to user privacy and security. But that seems at odds with recent scandals, such as how Tesla employees shared videos and images captured of customers in their cars in sensitive situations with each other.

Consumers deserve real privacy protections while we are in our cars. We should have physical Internet off-switches, and parts of the system that do connect should be isolated from the driving or engine controls. For example, there never should have been a way to access active parking assist remotely. We should have control over every camera and microphone.

There are legitimate fears about cars connected to the Internet, but a local repair shop getting data about whether your starter motor is going bad isn't one of them.

We should have full ownership of any and all data our cars generate. If we want to view that data to check up on repair or maintenance issues, or share that data with a mechanic of our choosing, that should be our choice — not at the whim of the company from whom we bought our vehicle.