Yet another case of potentially-fatal Hubris?
Usually so
Yes
Well
Now if this kind of effort was put in to thinking about the vehicle size arms race we may see progress. People buy larger vehicles to be safer in multi vehicle accidents, but it makes the other vehicle less safe. According to a study about a vehicle size arms race, for every life that was saved by driving a large SUV in 1999, 4 lives were lost in the usually smaller vehicles that they hit.
If I could find another 1997-1998 Toyota Camry “CE” model with the automatic transmission and hand-crank windows, I would JUMP on it! I literally cannot think of a better vehicle, and it’s a shame that the one my family owned was destroyed in an accident. Otherwise I would have inherited it, and I would still be driving it today, even if it needed major/expensive repairs to keep roadworthy.
Your thinking is so messed up that it is hard to describe. People buy the vehicle they want or meets their needs . One size does not meet every person.
What about 1999 to 2001 and power windows?
The 1992 (XV10 until 1996) has better inner tie rod ends, door courtesy lights, better interior door panels, a back lit instrument cluster, a wider front bumper, a body mounted rear view mirror, a valve that turns off coolant to the heater core, hood struts that still worked after 30 years, a fully populated diagnostic connector with fuel pump access and direct O2 sensor voltage connection, a larger front stabilizer, optional ABS, factory undercoat, a fuel return to tank line, available as a wagon, and a mechanical odometer that works when the car is off. There were some issues with the automatic transmissions such as slow shifting though.
Well back to the original issue which is right to repair or really who owns and controls the data generated by your vehicle. Winding its way through congress. Where you go, what you listen to, how fast you drive, who pays, who benefits, etc. always someone willing to pay for information on you, like Walmart. Not easy answer but as before in my view, my data should belong to me, whether I pay a dealer or a shop to fiddle with the software.
I remember having a shop replace a sensor and they had to reprogram the computer. They couldn’t do it and said they used the same device the dealer uses. Maybe this was the reason.
So, you are in favor of having a secure computer network to protect your data. Criminals and people with bootleg diagnostic software won’t be able to access your data in a vehicle with a secure gateway.
Your vehicles are too old to have a secure computer network. Why did they want to reprogram the computer? Was the original program faulty? Install Windows 11?
They probably wanted to perform a calibration for the new component but didn’t have a diagnostic tool capable of doing so.
There’s an amazing feature of the 1997 Camry, its contemporaries, and even my 2010 Honda and its contemporaries that performs all of those functions.
It’s called the driver.
Mmmmm… Not exactly the same thing.
Access & info require your personal info. With tools, you can just walk into a store and plunk down cash for them.
I wouldn’t want to have to go through the fuss of registering for all those features and services.
I’d rather set those things myself. Less to go wrong than with all of the above.
Same with lane-keep-assist, blind-spot detection, adaptive cruise control. All of those things, over time, make us complacent and lazy, and more likely to be tempted to glance at our phones while on an expressway going 60mph.
I wouldn’t make broad assumptions that may have nothing to do with it. The information I had was that a tech 2 was needed to sync with something that I don’t recall. They said they used the same tech 2 the dealer used. Worked anyway.
You’re talking about old vehicles that are now rotting away in junkyards
There you go again . . .
You’re clearly assuming the very worst of everyone else
Ever wonder why you have a hard time keeping jobs and friends?
Additionally… hubris… which famously led to the demise of Icarus.
I don’t disagree with that. The problem though is not everyone on the road drives exactly like I do. if everyone did, we would all be better off! 
There is a By-pass for (FCA Stellantis) vehicles such as Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and RAM to get Bi- directional ability on a scanner and not having to pay a fee. I would not do this until the vehicle warranty is over. this link will explain about the gateway module and how the security gateway module can be bypassed. I believe you can find 12+8 SGM Bypass cables to work for other scanners
Some late model vehicles lack computer network security and are vulnerable to theft via ignition certification (immobilizer) module hacking. There have been reports of thieves gaining access to the BUS communication wiring behind the front bumper cover, at the modules near the glove box or by connecting to the data link connector.
This video shows theft attempts on late model Lexus RX and NX SUVs.
2024 Lexus RX350h Stolen! Here’s How They Did It
What a load of BS.
The reality is this isn’t exactly rocket science. I know plenty of people perfectly capable of doing their own repairs. There is not a looming issue with incompetent people having access to diagnostics or “safety systems”. This is exactly what it looks like, a money grab disguised as something good for “everyone”. I am not fearful of someone accessing my “data” nor am I afraid someone is going to hack and steal my car.
With computerized anything, it requires access to what the embedded controller thinks is wrong. Additionally, there needs to be a way to exercise certain hardware in order to do diagnosis or repair. Whether that is turning on/off a solenoid or releasing the e-brake to replace the pads, access to certain functions are required. This is a small step in loss of freedom disguised as protection from the boogieman that frankly is seriously overblown IMO.
What about the tuners that are able to clean up the manufactures screw up and still offer a tune that is CARB compliant and does not negatively affect the tail pipe emissions output??
The OTT 9.0 version tune is CARB compliant, and they are working on getting the 9.2 version (what I have) compliant as well as some others models at this time…
As much as I love Toyota, putting a Camry engine in a truck was just plain stupid, the tune lowers the torque curve down a little so you don’t have to hit 4K before the truck has any power, also cleans up the drive by wire response, NO more throttle lag, and most importantly, changes the shift points and slows the gear hunting way down, basically it drives like a different truck now… Add an intake spacer (plenum to lower intake manifold) and it lowers the torque curve even more (from what many have reported) for even better lower/mid range torque which is what a truck needs anyway…
Page 1 of 3
So do I. But for every one of those people that we know, there are three more out there who couldn’t even fix a sandwich properly, much less a car.
Secure Gateway Access costs about as much as a 3/8 ratchet. Like I said elsewhere, if you want to do the work, you have to buy the tools.
You must live in a peaceful and secure part of the world.
That’s the thing…how do we protect those legitimate, compliant, legal modifications and still make it harder for the hackers to overboost, overadvance, over-richen to the point of failure which then turns into a warranty claim for a blown up engine?
30 years ago, customers told me they would like to perform their own repairs, but vehicle manufactures have made new cars so complicated that it is no longer possible.
Today it’s always a “Right to Repair” conspiracy.
Vehicle manufactures are conspiring to increase third party sales of scan tools and the vetting of scan tools.
@vdc talked about hubris. Not just with people doing their own work but also among the pros. Many of us have had to correct bad repairs or bad diagnosis for one reason or another. We have access to the same factory repair manuals the folks at the dealership use, but some of us actually read them. Sure things are getting more complicated and you have to know your limitations, but thst goes both ways.