4 ms·

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

by nr2x 4y ago

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.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    Why not allow access to safety systems? ICE vehicles have allowed for all kinds of modifications over the years that are unsafe and maybe illegal. Why take the user’s choice away now? Because of some bogeyman safety issues that might affect a dozen people who actually want to tweak things? It’s happening today anyways.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      When's the last time you saw Toyota in the headline for one of their cars catching on fire on the highway? Tesla has hype on the same level of Apple, so any time anything goes wrong with a car catching on fire or crashing, or having a terrible time with getting the car serviced, they're in the news. Tesla's first-party service centers are usually a plus for consumers, but Ford GM et al. benefit from dealerships being separate entities that take all the blame when something goes wrong.
      - ok_dad 4y ago
        I don’t understand how a business’s PR concerns should affect my freedom.
        judge2020 4y ago
        As far as I can tell nobody is stopping you from doing this. Just as you can legally hack iPhones if you figure out how, so can you hack your Tesla. The only slightly illegal thing might be the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, but you'd have to take that up with Howard Coble and the members of the 105th congress. My comment is reasoning for why Tesla has a stake in protecting their reputation; if you don't like it, please don't support their practices by buying their cars.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    > End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability. Sure is - and that's absolutely no reason to lock a person out of a car that they own. They OWN it - they are responsible for modifications (and the liability that comes with them). Exactly the same as every car built without a computer - which was roughly ALL of them until the late 70s/early 80s.

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

by nr2x 4y ago

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

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.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  Why not allow access to safety systems? ICE vehicles have allowed for all kinds of modifications over the years that are unsafe and maybe illegal. Why take the user’s choice away now? Because of some bogeyman safety issues that might affect a dozen people who actually want to tweak things? It’s happening today anyways.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    When's the last time you saw Toyota in the headline for one of their cars catching on fire on the highway? Tesla has hype on the same level of Apple, so any time anything goes wrong with a car catching on fire or crashing, or having a terrible time with getting the car serviced, they're in the news. Tesla's first-party service centers are usually a plus for consumers, but Ford GM et al. benefit from dealerships being separate entities that take all the blame when something goes wrong.
    - ok_dad 4y ago
      I don’t understand how a business’s PR concerns should affect my freedom.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        As far as I can tell nobody is stopping you from doing this. Just as you can legally hack iPhones if you figure out how, so can you hack your Tesla. The only slightly illegal thing might be the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, but you'd have to take that up with Howard Coble and the members of the 105th congress. My comment is reasoning for why Tesla has a stake in protecting their reputation; if you don't like it, please don't support their practices by buying their cars.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  > End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability. Sure is - and that's absolutely no reason to lock a person out of a car that they own. They OWN it - they are responsible for modifications (and the liability that comes with them). Exactly the same as every car built without a computer - which was roughly ALL of them until the late 70s/early 80s.