zlacker

This might be the case, but how could Mazda even prove this? Unless they communicate in some weird proprietary binary protocol I could imagine that the API (especially if it's just some JSON/XML REST stuff) can be reverse engineered by MitM traffic analysis.

>>sp1rit+(OP)
If it's HTTPS stuff, they might be claiming that it falls under DMCA 1201 shenanigans.

> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

As I understand it, car manufacturers prevent independent repair shops from lawfully obtaining some of the diagnostics information in the onboard computer by encrypting it with a key that sits on the very same drive. Said encryption is the "technological measure that effectively controls access" and using the key to decrypt it is "circumvention" -- naturally, of the "effective" access control.

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=17... to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner)

Mazda might be interpreting the SSL certificate as a similar measure and therefore use of the certificate to decrypt traffic as a similar violation.

>>lcnPyl+a2
From the posted notice[1], they answered "No" to the question "Do you claim to have any technological measures in place to control access to your copyrighted content? Please see our Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology if you are unsure." Is that the same thing you are referencing?

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-1...

>>wuuza+R3
Yep, sounds like it, which rules that out. Good to know that it might be on the served notice; I'll look for that next time.

>>sp1rit+(OP)
I would assume Mazda looked at the infringing code and thought it looked suspiciously like their own code.