3 ms·

I get your point... you're concerned "the capability" but my point is... why mislead? what else are they misleading about. > It's what enables Tesla to turn o

I get your point... you're concerned "the capability" but my point is... why mislead? what else are they misleading about. > It's what enables Tesla to turn off features that it doesn't think certain users should have the misleading part is the phrase "doesn't think certain users should have" it sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact they are referring to a single accident.

ncallaway 5y ago
> sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact… I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion. It sounds like it’s that way because it is! Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database. So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability. The statement still reads as totally accurate to me. The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have. My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example. To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.
- andrewtbham 5y ago
  it's not inaccurate, it's misleading. It could have read... "It's what enabled Tesla to once accidentally turn off a feature for a user." This would still make your point... that they have the capability, but wouldn't be misleading.
  - andrewtbham 5y ago
    I have messaged the woman in the article and asked about the incident. because my main point is... these articles are misleading and I don't trust them. curious to see what she says... if anything. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
FireBeyond 5y ago
There are other incidents. Someone pulled info about the Model 3 out of their Model S firmware. Tesla responded by downgrading his firmware remotely, locking his vehicle from future upgrades, and disabling the car's ethernet port.

ncallaway 5y ago

> sounds like it's at tesla's discretion but in fact… I’m not sure I understand the “but in fact”, qualifier because the example that you point to exactly demonstrates that Tesla has the capability to make these changes at their discretion. It sounds like it’s that way because it is! Tesla has the capability to turn off features at their discretion, by altering a row in the database. So…yes, if Tesla doesn’t think a user should have a capability that’s managed remotely, they update a database row (that they have exclusive control over), and that vehicle no longer has that capability. The statement still reads as totally accurate to me. The typical use is not malicious (oh, this free trial is now over, so disable that capability), but that’s still a demonstration of Tesla remotely disabling a feature that they don’t think a certain user should have. My objection is to the capability, rather than a pattern of malicious use. I think the article was correct to point out the capability, and did so by relying on a well known example. To me, I didn’t read it as an implication that this inaccurate remote disabling was a widespread problem for Tesla but I understand if you read it differently.

andrewtbham 5y ago
it's not inaccurate, it's misleading. It could have read... "It's what enabled Tesla to once accidentally turn off a feature for a user." This would still make your point... that they have the capability, but wouldn't be misleading.
- andrewtbham 5y ago
  I have messaged the woman in the article and asked about the incident. because my main point is... these articles are misleading and I don't trust them. curious to see what she says... if anything. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rachor-5040998/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

FireBeyond 5y ago

There are other incidents. Someone pulled info about the Model 3 out of their Model S firmware. Tesla responded by downgrading his firmware remotely, locking his vehicle from future upgrades, and disabling the car's ethernet port.