6 ms·

going to go out on a limb as I might not know what I'm talking about - a tesla is blurring the lines between mechanics and software to an even greater degree th

by zzzeek 8y ago

going to go out on a limb as I might not know what I'm talking about - a tesla is blurring the lines between mechanics and software to an even greater degree than most/all other conusmer-level cars on the road. IIUC, Chrysler/Ford/GM/Toyota etc. don't give consumers any ability to mess with the electronics or software in these cars. I can see how Tesla engineers would be uncomfortable with hobbyists putting the cars together themselves. The Teslas are really super different than any other car I've driven (I've driven a few). That said I absolutely support what this guy is doing, I'm just saying allowing your highly computerized car to also be hackable without adding new safety risks adds a lot of engineering expense to it and I can see why Tesla doesn't want to allow that. I don't want people messing with the source code of my libraries that I release and then suing me when they unsuccessfully tried using it to calculate how much fuel their plane has left.

3pt14159 8y ago
I'm afraid you do not understand correctly. When I started to become concerned about the mass weaponization of autonomous systems I looked into what was actually happening in the field. Tesla is by far the safest out of any consumer-car company with respect to cybersecurity. (Waymo is safer, but their cars aren't in the possession of consumers yet.) There are some other car companies (e.g., Audi) that are better than others, but many of them are downright disasters. Because many large car manufacturers refused to sell tools to engage the software that is used in cars, but mechanics want to interact with it anyway, what they've resorted to doing is relying on third party diagnostic tools. Most of the times these tools are running some horrible out of date version of linux or, if they're lucky, an Arduino. Many of the components within automotives are vulnerable. Ironically, some that tried to take safety seriously often bought into promises from vendors that didn't work out as expected. For example, QNX was damn vulnerable (broken SRNG, admin password backdoor, etc) and it's in countless subcomponents of vehicles of many types, including cars, but also military tanks and freight trucks. (I've even heard that it's been used in scarier stuff, like nuclear power plants, but that's third hand.) Anyway, I don't have all the answers or information, but at least as things stand right now, I'm with Tesla on this one. The last thing we want for our computerized cars is Joe programmer teaming up with Jane mechanic thinking they know what they're doing when they don't.
- zzzeek 8y ago
  i was responding to the notion that "all car companies allow their cars to be hackable" and how that is not really true. I know very well that the software in modern cars is really insecure, buggy, and sometimes even willfully lawbreaking. Opening it up to consumers should be done but how to do it without introducing the risk of hobbyists driving dangerous cars on the road that endangers others is an unsolved problem. Asking Tesla to do this and not any of the other manufacturers else wouldn't be fair to them, it should be across the board. Longer term I think driving on public roads should itself be illegal once things are autonomous, but even then, allowing hacked autonomous cars on the road are still a problem. It points towards a future where self-owned cars just aren't allowed on roads anymore. If you traveled in time 300 years and landed on the spot a major highway existed in the present, what would be there?
  - snazz 8y ago
    As soon as you disallow self-modified cars, where is the line drawn? These kinds of regulations give big companies that can acquire “car-making licenses” lots of power and take away a valid and perfectly legal hobby from millions of people.
    - zzzeek 8y ago
      > As soon as you disallow self-modified cars, where is the line drawn? the road :) that's your line. a hundred years from now.
microcolonel 8y ago
> IIUC, Chrysler/Ford/GM/Toyota etc. don't give consumers any ability to mess with the electronics or software in these cars. I think they just don't want the hassle, AFAIK they keep the ECU mostly a black box even to first-party mechanics as well (because in the U.S. if they show it to their first party mechanics, they are generally obligated to sell it to third parties at a reasonable price as well). Third party, and even open source, ECUs do work well though (emissions control being a bit more difficult to get right, mind you, and some of these projects are mostly abandoned by now); I don't think it's really that hard to swap it out, the sensors are mostly passive components.
- oceanplexian 8y ago
  There is, in fact, a thriving chip industry for automotive ECUs, so that's not true. Yes- they are black boxes, but they've almost all been cracked and modified to some extent. At least for cars that people care about.

by zzzeek 8y ago

3pt14159 8y ago

I'm afraid you do not understand correctly. When I started to become concerned about the mass weaponization of autonomous systems I looked into what was actually happening in the field. Tesla is by far the safest out of any consumer-car company with respect to cybersecurity. (Waymo is safer, but their cars aren't in the possession of consumers yet.) There are some other car companies (e.g., Audi) that are better than others, but many of them are downright disasters. Because many large car manufacturers refused to sell tools to engage the software that is used in cars, but mechanics want to interact with it anyway, what they've resorted to doing is relying on third party diagnostic tools. Most of the times these tools are running some horrible out of date version of linux or, if they're lucky, an Arduino. Many of the components within automotives are vulnerable. Ironically, some that tried to take safety seriously often bought into promises from vendors that didn't work out as expected. For example, QNX was damn vulnerable (broken SRNG, admin password backdoor, etc) and it's in countless subcomponents of vehicles of many types, including cars, but also military tanks and freight trucks. (I've even heard that it's been used in scarier stuff, like nuclear power plants, but that's third hand.) Anyway, I don't have all the answers or information, but at least as things stand right now, I'm with Tesla on this one. The last thing we want for our computerized cars is Joe programmer teaming up with Jane mechanic thinking they know what they're doing when they don't.

zzzeek 8y ago
i was responding to the notion that "all car companies allow their cars to be hackable" and how that is not really true. I know very well that the software in modern cars is really insecure, buggy, and sometimes even willfully lawbreaking. Opening it up to consumers should be done but how to do it without introducing the risk of hobbyists driving dangerous cars on the road that endangers others is an unsolved problem. Asking Tesla to do this and not any of the other manufacturers else wouldn't be fair to them, it should be across the board. Longer term I think driving on public roads should itself be illegal once things are autonomous, but even then, allowing hacked autonomous cars on the road are still a problem. It points towards a future where self-owned cars just aren't allowed on roads anymore. If you traveled in time 300 years and landed on the spot a major highway existed in the present, what would be there?
- snazz 8y ago
  As soon as you disallow self-modified cars, where is the line drawn? These kinds of regulations give big companies that can acquire “car-making licenses” lots of power and take away a valid and perfectly legal hobby from millions of people.
  - zzzeek 8y ago
    > As soon as you disallow self-modified cars, where is the line drawn? the road :) that's your line. a hundred years from now.

microcolonel 8y ago

> IIUC, Chrysler/Ford/GM/Toyota etc. don't give consumers any ability to mess with the electronics or software in these cars. I think they just don't want the hassle, AFAIK they keep the ECU mostly a black box even to first-party mechanics as well (because in the U.S. if they show it to their first party mechanics, they are generally obligated to sell it to third parties at a reasonable price as well). Third party, and even open source, ECUs do work well though (emissions control being a bit more difficult to get right, mind you, and some of these projects are mostly abandoned by now); I don't think it's really that hard to swap it out, the sensors are mostly passive components.

oceanplexian 8y ago
There is, in fact, a thriving chip industry for automotive ECUs, so that's not true. Yes- they are black boxes, but they've almost all been cracked and modified to some extent. At least for cars that people care about.