6 ms·

Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?

Ekaros 4y ago
I wonder if there is some nice fine print somewhere that they only sold a "licence" to use the car. Not the car itself... Kinda like software has...
- noasaservice 4y ago
  If they want to *lease* the vehicles, that's fine. They need to make it explicitly known it is a lease for X term, and at Y cost per month of the lease. Modifying their property would be completely in the clear, or at least a hell of a lot less ethically ambiguous. But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer). And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner. Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.
  - jackmott 4y ago
    All cars are doing this stuff, it isn’t EV specific
- AinderS 4y ago
  Contracts and DRM are two sides of the same coin when it comes to chipping away at ownership. They want to segment the market as finely as possible, to capture all of the excess value of their product. E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers are also trying to come up with ways to restrict "personal" vehicles from being used for "commercial" activities. [1] Nvidia’s updates EULA to ban the use of gamer-oriented GPUs in data centers - https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer-gpus-in-data-centers/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer... [2] Don’t plan on using your autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-autonomous-tesla-to-earn-money-with-uber-or-lyft/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-a...
  - cowtools 4y ago
    I have always suspected that nvidia's closed source drivers are an intentional result of hiding poorly-implemented limitations (see code 43 error, etc.) for the sake of market segmentation between data-center and gaming models. They would be screwed if data centers realized they could just reuse cheap off-the-shelf components for a fraction of the price. Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecosystem (CUDA, etc.) from collecting data from users (geforce now, etc.). It's something of a conspiracy theory.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      Do you think CUDA development would be completely sustained by the profit margins of consumer cards (that would then be shared between the CUDA and gpu research teams)?
- kube-system 4y ago
  It wouldn't matter even if they did. In the US we title large pieces of property so that people don't pull this kind of BS.
nr2x 4y ago
It’s a rental car, you just don’t know that when you “buy” it.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  This fucking exactly. I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical. This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest political opinions.
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    "Any digital restriction or otherwise arbitrary lock that tries to supersede physical ownership or first-sale doctrine or Magnuson Moss Warranty Act shall have all congressional protections, DMCA, copyright, patent, and trademarks stripped from those products. Any remote access after sale has occurred shall be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and shall hold Chief * Officers, upper tier executive positions, and boards of directors fully liable, up to and including reimbursements of 3x per device to the citizens affected, and prison times no less than 1 week to a maximum of 10 years. Enforcement of this law shall be done by the Federal Trade Commission." I would LOVE to see something like this.
    - Willish42 4y ago
      Unfortunately this kind of law is like, at least 2 revolutions away from now w.r.t. US politics. No way this would ever pass even in the house under the current political system (see: Patriot Act, Citizens United, etc.) It's a nice idea though!
  - yarg 4y ago
    Within reason, sure - but there are limits. End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability. I don't want an EV that's capable of accelerating at the maximum rate supported by the motors.
slg 4y ago
Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this? The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    From the twitter thread: "I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal."
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      I see, so that comment is not disagreeing with the original 60 -> 90 switch. They think it's a bad idea when 60 -> 90 -> 60 was completed and then the user (and their confederate) attempted to go back to 90. So that commenter would have been okay with things if Tesla had modified nothing back down to 60. Thank you for explaining.
- toss1 4y ago
  Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls. However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.

I wonder if there is some nice fine print somewhere that they only sold a "licence" to use the car. Not the car itself... Kinda like software has...

noasaservice 4y ago
If they want to *lease* the vehicles, that's fine. They need to make it explicitly known it is a lease for X term, and at Y cost per month of the lease. Modifying their property would be completely in the clear, or at least a hell of a lot less ethically ambiguous. But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer). And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner. Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.
- jackmott 4y ago
  All cars are doing this stuff, it isn’t EV specific
AinderS 4y ago
Contracts and DRM are two sides of the same coin when it comes to chipping away at ownership. They want to segment the market as finely as possible, to capture all of the excess value of their product. E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers are also trying to come up with ways to restrict "personal" vehicles from being used for "commercial" activities. [1] Nvidia’s updates EULA to ban the use of gamer-oriented GPUs in data centers - https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer-gpus-in-data-centers/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer... [2] Don’t plan on using your autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-autonomous-tesla-to-earn-money-with-uber-or-lyft/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-a...
- cowtools 4y ago
  I have always suspected that nvidia's closed source drivers are an intentional result of hiding poorly-implemented limitations (see code 43 error, etc.) for the sake of market segmentation between data-center and gaming models. They would be screwed if data centers realized they could just reuse cheap off-the-shelf components for a fraction of the price. Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecosystem (CUDA, etc.) from collecting data from users (geforce now, etc.). It's something of a conspiracy theory.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Do you think CUDA development would be completely sustained by the profit margins of consumer cards (that would then be shared between the CUDA and gpu research teams)?
kube-system 4y ago
It wouldn't matter even if they did. In the US we title large pieces of property so that people don't pull this kind of BS.

nr2x 4y ago

It’s a rental car, you just don’t know that when you “buy” it.

horsawlarway 4y ago
This fucking exactly. I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical. This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest political opinions.
- noasaservice 4y ago
  "Any digital restriction or otherwise arbitrary lock that tries to supersede physical ownership or first-sale doctrine or Magnuson Moss Warranty Act shall have all congressional protections, DMCA, copyright, patent, and trademarks stripped from those products. Any remote access after sale has occurred shall be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and shall hold Chief * Officers, upper tier executive positions, and boards of directors fully liable, up to and including reimbursements of 3x per device to the citizens affected, and prison times no less than 1 week to a maximum of 10 years. Enforcement of this law shall be done by the Federal Trade Commission." I would LOVE to see something like this.
  - Willish42 4y ago
    Unfortunately this kind of law is like, at least 2 revolutions away from now w.r.t. US politics. No way this would ever pass even in the house under the current political system (see: Patriot Act, Citizens United, etc.) It's a nice idea though!
- yarg 4y ago
  Within reason, sure - but there are limits. End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability. I don't want an EV that's capable of accelerating at the maximum rate supported by the motors.

slg 4y ago

Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.

renewiltord 4y ago
I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this? The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  From the twitter thread: "I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal."
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    I see, so that comment is not disagreeing with the original 60 -> 90 switch. They think it's a bad idea when 60 -> 90 -> 60 was completed and then the user (and their confederate) attempted to go back to 90. So that commenter would have been okay with things if Tesla had modified nothing back down to 60. Thank you for explaining.
toss1 4y ago
Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls. However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.
stonemetal12 4y ago
Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.