5 ms·

Which is sleazy af. I really wish I could get behind tsla, but they persist with bold lies and consumer toxic behavior. Why cant this guy let the tech speak for

Which is sleazy af. I really wish I could get behind tsla, but they persist with bold lies and consumer toxic behavior. Why cant this guy let the tech speak for itself?

ed_balls 8y ago
This is not that simple. You don't want people hack a car that have a "self-driving" capabilities. Bugs could kill a lot of people.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  or community bug fixes could save a lot of people...
- ryukafalz 8y ago
  If by "people" you mean the owner of the car, of course they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If they modify something and it ends up hurting someone, they're liable for it. It's not that different from modifying an older car.
  - avar 8y ago
    > It's not that different from modifying an older car. There's a huge practical difference between gearheads modifying the physical parts of their cars and a world where any Tesla buyer could as easily tweak engine, breaking etc. performance as they could download an app or re-flash their phone. You'd have idiots who'd otherwise never bothered to modify their cars dying as a result of trying to rice up their ride. It's the same situation as RC planes and drones. The RC community had a natural selection bias for decades and wasn't worth regulating, then drones became available on the mass-market resulting in a bunch of idiocy that regulators needed to scramble to keep up with. I think car manufacturers are rightly paranoid about that. There's a lot of profoundly stupid and unsafe stuff you could trivially do with a Tesla if you had access to the software, and if it was easy to install those sorts of things people would do so en masse.
  - cheerlessbog 8y ago
    It's widely accepted that if I modify my vehicle mechanically causing to to become unsafe, it is my fault. Not news, at least for 100 years. Driving assistance software has not yet earned the same presumption of initial safety. Its also more technically feasible to prevent modification, and speaking as a fellow road user, I think I'd rather you run with stock firmware.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    If they modify something and it ends up hurting someone, they're liable for it. Until the courts can provide adequate compensation to the family of someone was was killed or to a crash victim who received life-changing injuries, I don't think that's going to be a compelling argument in this sort of situation.
- swiley 8y ago
  Honestly I think they’d be safer if the owners had control of the firmware. Tesla has pushed updates which were broken in obvious ways that have killed people. It’s certainly possible to have a company like Tesla develop firmware in a safe way so that restricting what can run on the cars makes sense but that’s not what’s going on right now.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  So what, if the tires don't have enough tread should the car refuse to move until it's towed to an authorized Tesla service center? Bad tires can be as dangerous as self-driving bugs, this sounds far too safety-critical to allow owners to muck about with. This mindset is honestly frightening, I like to actually own the products that I have purchased.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    This mindset is honestly frightening, I like to actually own the products that I have purchased. Sure, but sometimes your ability to customise a product to do whatever you want with it can also affect others, and at that point your rights and theirs have to be balanced. My go-to example of this is modern communication devices like phones and tablets. There are obvious concerns about security and privacy with such devices, and obvious arguments in favour of the hardware design and software running on them being open to audit and verification so owners know their device isn't quietly betraying them. Those naturally lead to suggestions that all firmware should be open to owner modification, black boxes should not exist, etc. What a lot of people don't realise is that if you let some idiot who doesn't know what he's doing mess around with the firmware driving the actual radio components in those devices, it's entirely possible for just a single device to cause widespread disruption that could interfere with the operation of numerous other devices in the area, with obvious implications for safety, security, and general quality of life for everyone else affected. Even fewer people realise that the technology for isolating a rogue unit (which exist anyway from time to time due to things like hardware failure, manufacturing defects or software bugs) is very limited in its capabilities, because unfortunately the laws of physics still take precedence over whatever laws or regulations we choose to create as a society. In other words, not only can one rogue device cause chaos, it can cause chaos for an extended period because even the professionals operating the network have limited powers to do anything about it quickly. To finish by returning to your own analogy, sure, I would have concerns about a car refusing to move until it's towed to a service centre authorised by the manufacturer if its tyres didn't have enough tread. That's obviously a form of lock-in that isn't in the owner's interests. However, I would have fewer concerns about a car refusing to move if its tyres didn't have enough tread to be safe until the problem was fixed, as long as any suitable method that made the car safe would immediately remove that block.
huebnerob 8y ago
You’re well within your right to buy a Tesla, modify it to the moon and back, and use it independently however you want. I hate Tesla as a company and I’m a strong supporter of these rights, but I stop at claiming that businesses have an obligation to continue supporting a product with unknown arbitrary modifications. To the extent that a product is designed to only operate efficiently (or at all) with continued access to manufacturer services, it’s probably a bad idea to disqualify yourself from that access. But there are only two ways to solve that, either A) disallow the sale of products that rely on first-party services, or B) requiring manufacturers to uphold their end of the services contract while you do god-knows-what with your end of it (the product). Neither of these is the clear moral high ground that hacker types seem to think they achieve in this argument.
- 43920 8y ago
  If Tesla (or any other company) can show that your modifications actually affect their ability to provide the services as designed, then sure, they shouldn't be required to provide them. But as long as the modifications I make don't actually affect the car's ability to operate, I don't see any reason why that should allow them to deactivate unrelated services.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    There is also more important things at stake that make it very shortsighted and petty on Tesla's part to deny service. Microsoft understands this which is why they offer updates to known pirated versions of their software. Making things difficult for a few pirates is less important to them that making sure things stay secure. They also don't want a bunch of windows systems out there, slow due to viruses mucking up their reputation.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Revoking access to the charge station somewhat make sense. There is a lot of power involved and if you modify the wrong stuff, things can go spectacularly badly. Also, if a modified Tesla catches on fire at a charging station, do you think the headlines will mention that it was modified or will it just be “Tesla catches fire and blows up at supercharger”

Which is sleazy af. I really wish I could get behind tsla, but they persist with bold lies and consumer toxic behavior. Why cant this guy let the tech speak for itself?

ed_balls 8y ago

This is not that simple. You don't want people hack a car that have a "self-driving" capabilities. Bugs could kill a lot of people.

dwighttk 8y ago
or community bug fixes could save a lot of people...
ryukafalz 8y ago
If by "people" you mean the owner of the car, of course they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If they modify something and it ends up hurting someone, they're liable for it. It's not that different from modifying an older car.
- avar 8y ago
  > It's not that different from modifying an older car. There's a huge practical difference between gearheads modifying the physical parts of their cars and a world where any Tesla buyer could as easily tweak engine, breaking etc. performance as they could download an app or re-flash their phone. You'd have idiots who'd otherwise never bothered to modify their cars dying as a result of trying to rice up their ride. It's the same situation as RC planes and drones. The RC community had a natural selection bias for decades and wasn't worth regulating, then drones became available on the mass-market resulting in a bunch of idiocy that regulators needed to scramble to keep up with. I think car manufacturers are rightly paranoid about that. There's a lot of profoundly stupid and unsafe stuff you could trivially do with a Tesla if you had access to the software, and if it was easy to install those sorts of things people would do so en masse.
- cheerlessbog 8y ago
  It's widely accepted that if I modify my vehicle mechanically causing to to become unsafe, it is my fault. Not news, at least for 100 years. Driving assistance software has not yet earned the same presumption of initial safety. Its also more technically feasible to prevent modification, and speaking as a fellow road user, I think I'd rather you run with stock firmware.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  If they modify something and it ends up hurting someone, they're liable for it. Until the courts can provide adequate compensation to the family of someone was was killed or to a crash victim who received life-changing injuries, I don't think that's going to be a compelling argument in this sort of situation.
swiley 8y ago
Honestly I think they’d be safer if the owners had control of the firmware. Tesla has pushed updates which were broken in obvious ways that have killed people. It’s certainly possible to have a company like Tesla develop firmware in a safe way so that restricting what can run on the cars makes sense but that’s not what’s going on right now.
zrobotics 8y ago
So what, if the tires don't have enough tread should the car refuse to move until it's towed to an authorized Tesla service center? Bad tires can be as dangerous as self-driving bugs, this sounds far too safety-critical to allow owners to muck about with. This mindset is honestly frightening, I like to actually own the products that I have purchased.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  This mindset is honestly frightening, I like to actually own the products that I have purchased. Sure, but sometimes your ability to customise a product to do whatever you want with it can also affect others, and at that point your rights and theirs have to be balanced. My go-to example of this is modern communication devices like phones and tablets. There are obvious concerns about security and privacy with such devices, and obvious arguments in favour of the hardware design and software running on them being open to audit and verification so owners know their device isn't quietly betraying them. Those naturally lead to suggestions that all firmware should be open to owner modification, black boxes should not exist, etc. What a lot of people don't realise is that if you let some idiot who doesn't know what he's doing mess around with the firmware driving the actual radio components in those devices, it's entirely possible for just a single device to cause widespread disruption that could interfere with the operation of numerous other devices in the area, with obvious implications for safety, security, and general quality of life for everyone else affected. Even fewer people realise that the technology for isolating a rogue unit (which exist anyway from time to time due to things like hardware failure, manufacturing defects or software bugs) is very limited in its capabilities, because unfortunately the laws of physics still take precedence over whatever laws or regulations we choose to create as a society. In other words, not only can one rogue device cause chaos, it can cause chaos for an extended period because even the professionals operating the network have limited powers to do anything about it quickly. To finish by returning to your own analogy, sure, I would have concerns about a car refusing to move until it's towed to a service centre authorised by the manufacturer if its tyres didn't have enough tread. That's obviously a form of lock-in that isn't in the owner's interests. However, I would have fewer concerns about a car refusing to move if its tyres didn't have enough tread to be safe until the problem was fixed, as long as any suitable method that made the car safe would immediately remove that block.

huebnerob 8y ago

You’re well within your right to buy a Tesla, modify it to the moon and back, and use it independently however you want. I hate Tesla as a company and I’m a strong supporter of these rights, but I stop at claiming that businesses have an obligation to continue supporting a product with unknown arbitrary modifications. To the extent that a product is designed to only operate efficiently (or at all) with continued access to manufacturer services, it’s probably a bad idea to disqualify yourself from that access. But there are only two ways to solve that, either A) disallow the sale of products that rely on first-party services, or B) requiring manufacturers to uphold their end of the services contract while you do god-knows-what with your end of it (the product). Neither of these is the clear moral high ground that hacker types seem to think they achieve in this argument.

43920 8y ago
If Tesla (or any other company) can show that your modifications actually affect their ability to provide the services as designed, then sure, they shouldn't be required to provide them. But as long as the modifications I make don't actually affect the car's ability to operate, I don't see any reason why that should allow them to deactivate unrelated services.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  There is also more important things at stake that make it very shortsighted and petty on Tesla's part to deny service. Microsoft understands this which is why they offer updates to known pirated versions of their software. Making things difficult for a few pirates is less important to them that making sure things stay secure. They also don't want a bunch of windows systems out there, slow due to viruses mucking up their reputation.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

Revoking access to the charge station somewhat make sense. There is a lot of power involved and if you modify the wrong stuff, things can go spectacularly badly. Also, if a modified Tesla catches on fire at a charging station, do you think the headlines will mention that it was modified or will it just be “Tesla catches fire and blows up at supercharger”