Auto Care Association

01/15/2025 | News release | Distributed by Public on 01/15/2025 10:50

Industry Expert Advocates for Remote Diagnostics and Enhanced Data Privacy in the Automotive Sector

In a recent meeting of the Automotive Right to Repair Working Group, Mike Tanner, director, vehicle technology and innovation, Auto Care Association, underscored the transformative potential of remote diagnostics in the automotive industry. Tanner highlighted its efficiency, convenience, and potential competitive advantage for manufacturers while urging a balanced approach to privacy and safety in vehicle data management.

Tanner pointed to the successful integration of remote diagnostics by manufacturers like BMW, emphasizing the ability to diagnose vehicles remotely and guide owners to their dealer service facilities. "This creates efficiencies, convenience for vehicle owners, and significant advantages over the aftermarket," Tanner explained, adding features like advanced scheduling and parts ordering elevate the overall customer experience. Without the same ability to perform remote diagnostics, the automotive aftermarket will be at a clear disadvantage.

Drawing parallels to smartphone technology, Tanner advocated adopting similar data security and management frameworks in vehicles. "The ability for phone users to control access to their data on a per-request basis is standard today," Tanner noted. "Vehicle owners should have similar control over their data while using existing technology to ensure privacy and safety are maintained."

Tanner explained that privacy and safety can be maintained using recognized protocols. He cited several established standards, such as ISO 21177 for intelligent transportation systems, which address both security and privacy. These standards, Tanner said, were designed to meet stringent regulations like the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

To further bolster his argument, Tanner highlighted advanced security technologies such as the SOVD framework for granular data management and the SAE EV Charging PKI Certificate Policy (SA PKI 001), which secures charging infrastructures for electric vehicles. According to Tanner, these frameworks demonstrate that robust security measures are not only feasible but also practical in modern vehicles.

"The technology is not the barrier here; it can be the springboard," Tanner asserted. Instead, he identified a lack of engagement by the manufacturers to set policies as the primary challenge. He called for collaboration among stakeholders to establish objective, well-defined rules for data access and usage. "Policies should guide the implementation of these technologies and address subjectivity in determining how and what data is shared."

Tanner's statements reflect the importance of fostering innovation while protecting the rights of consumers and independent repair shops to access maintenance and repair vehicle data. As discussions continue, his emphasis on integrating proven technologies with clear policies should serve as a roadmap for allowing vehicle owners access to vehicle data in an increasingly connected world.

Background Information:

Summary of Mike Tanner Comments in Maine R2R Working Group Dec 20, 2024


Here's a summary of Mike Tanner's comments:

1. Advocacy for Remote Diagnostics:

  • Highlighted the value of remote diagnostics as a business model, referencing examples such as BMW's use of the technology.
  • Emphasized its advantages, including efficiency, convenience for vehicle owners, streamlined scheduling, and parts ordering.

Argued that this model gives a competitive edge to manufacturers over the aftermarket.


2. Parallels with Mobile Technology:

  • Drew a comparison between data management on vehicles and smartphones, emphasizing that the technology to secure and control access to data is well-established in mobile devices.
  • Suggested that vehicle data should similarly allow owners to control access on a per-request basis.
  • Argued that existing mobile data security methods could be effectively applied to vehicles.

3. Importance of Privacy and Safety:

  • Acknowledged privacy concerns but placed greater emphasis on safety issues, which have been studied for years.
  • Discussed standards like ISO 21177 (for intelligent transportation systems) and other frameworks that address privacy and security, including compliance with GDPR.

4. Security Standards:

  • Cited examples of robust security frameworks, such as the SOVD (used by manufacturers for granular data management) and SAE EV Charging PKI Certificate Policy (SAE PKI 001), which secures charging infrastructure.
  • Pointed out that these technologies provide robust mechanisms for data authentication, authorization, and access control.

5. Technology vs. Policy:

  • Asserted that technology is not a barrier but could be a springboard for progress.
  • Suggested that the key challenge is the lack of well-defined policies.
  • Recommended developing clear policies through stakeholder collaboration to ensure fair and objective data access rules.


Tanner's remarks focused on the intersection of technology, policy, and the competitive landscape, emphasizing that security frameworks exist and should be supported by stakeholder-driven policies.