How about when I'm flying an airplane; I'm also putting my life in the hands of people that wrote the code that controls it and I have to trust that the plane won't shut itself down mid-flight because of faulty code. Should a similar argument be made here?
Perhaps you are being sarcastic, but I shall attempt to answer the question earnestly anyway.
I've been reading up on aviation regs due to a recent interest in getting a pilot's license. By my understanding, airplanes certified by the FAA as airworthy undergo some fairly heavy testing to exactly determine and prove what their capabilities and limits are. Given that getting your prototype wrong can cause the plane to crash and kill your test pilot, there's incentive to get this stuff right. Furthermore, once a plane is type certified, it can't be modified from that configuration without further testing to prove the modified configuration. Thus you'd better be damned certain that your engine control computers are correct, lest the FAA revoke the plane's airworthiness certificate, making that model unsellable, nevermind the lawsuits of the survivors of deceased passengers or insurance companies recouping their losses.
Additionally, from what I've seen, most general aviation airplanes are stuck in the 60s as far as engine tech goes, in part because of the strict FAA regs. We're talking air-cooled engines with carburettors here, no engine computer to speak of, or if you're running a fancy modern engine, mechanical fuel injection. Unless you're flying a brand new Cirrus SR22 or Diamond DA20, there's no code to inspect. Even if there was, it'd be in the avionics. You don't need a nav beaon, radio, or transponder to land an airplane safely -- though they can make it much easier, and the FAA is going to want to know what happened once you're back on the ground.
As far is large passenger jets? I'd say as a passenger, no, you don't have access to the code. It's not your airplane; it belongs to the carrier.
Personally, if I were to own a plane and fly it, I very much would want access to any and all code that makes the plane go. Though if I'm going to be hacking on said code, I suppose that's what the FAA's Experimental category is for.
> Furthermore, once a plane is type certified, it can't be modified from that configuration without further testing to prove the modified configuration.
Would this work similarly with autonomous cars? For example, what if google wants to change one line of code in their car?
I think the difference between these two are 2-fold - first is ownership and second is personal.
A pacemaker is something you bought and owned, when flying in a plane you are buying a service, this is similar to earlier discussions about being able to change your car's software under DMCA etc...
A pacemaker is also personal, in that it's something that only you have and for your specific pacemaker the only affected party is you.
A specific flight has hundreds of affected people which makes the burden of responsibility (for lack of a better word) shared between many people.
Sure about that? How much did you pay for, and how much did your insurance cover? What's the proportion look like?
Before you downvote, note: I don't like this argument. I find it downright horrifying. But I can't imagine no one will ever make it in a serious way, so it bears considering how to respond.
I don't like this argument but for another reason - it implies a horrible direction things will most definitely go. The pacemaker will become a service. Just like your car, your house and your washing machine. Oh sorry, not your anymore - soon we'll all be renting them, because there's every business incentive for that to happen, and close to zero incentives that would stop it.
I guess bought is subjective here, but ownership is not.
And you can still own something if you got it as a gift or through other means.
If no one can take it from you (or you need to return it) without your consent then you probably own it.
It might be a little vague legally, but we aren't talking about legal issues here (since it's perfectly legal to not have access to the sourcecode of something you own), but rather a perception issue.
> when I'm flying an airplane; I'm also putting my life in the hands of people that wrote the code
Yes, but you don't have to. You're not gonna die if you don't put your life in their hands. But with pacemakers and such, you have to get one or you die. Then, you depend on the manufacturer.
