4 ms·

Let me put it into perspective. 1) AFAIK Teslas cannot be driven remotely. But even if they could Tesla is not using cars for errands, like wtf c’mon. And if t

by dcow 4y ago

Let me put it into perspective. 1) AFAIK Teslas cannot be driven remotely. But even if they could Tesla is not using cars for errands, like wtf c’mon. And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. 2) Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. This replaces a call to a locksmith and/or the towing company and is way more convenient. So yes, people are okay with being able to have their car remotely unlocked by a third party who they authorize, we always have been.

jandrese 4y ago
On the other hand, Teslas cannot be driven remotely YET. Enabling this functionality is a core goal of the Tesla company. It remains to be seen if it is abused once it actually works. Ford has already applied for patents for cars that will self repossess for example.
- ballenf 4y ago
  Isn't the summon feature exactly that?
  - jandrese 4y ago
    Smart summon is a party trick that requires you to keep LOS to the vehicle the entire time. Like Full Self Driving it is not capable enough to be a problem yet. If there is any good news about this it is that Full Self Driving appears to be a more difficult problem than Elon expected and they are struggling with it.
mindslight 4y ago
"Into perspective" is exactly wrong, because it means accepting all the tenuous assumptions used to justify the design in the first place. The problem is not that an automaker wanted to have functionality that could legitimately unlock cars for legitimate customers. The problem is that creating this functionality entailed making a much larger backdoor that will invariably be abused by independent attackers, police, the company itself, etc - to do much more than merely unlock the doors.
- dcow 4y ago
  Citation/examples needed. There have been numerous talks at security conferences and solid research done on the security of Teslas. I don’t think you realize how sophisticated these things are. The infotainment system and the CAM bus are not the same software, for example. And attackers aren’t gaining remote access to them either (Teslas use stronger ssh keys than you do). So I’m not sure how this mega backdoor FUD even plausibly exists. A car isn’t a safe either, if law enforcement has a warrant for my car, or house, they’re going to forcibly break in if needed (heck they’ll even do that for a safe). Seems better to have Tesla legally complying/cooperating with law enforcement than the alternative where people use force. I’m not saying we should build backdoors into everything for the kids, just to be clear. But I can be a happy consumer/user of a car with remote unlock functionality that’s implemented more responsibly than your npm account without devolving into “zomg Tesla backdoors your life to give you that feature” histrionics. That’s just not true. Like you, I would love to see, just like I argue for phones, the ability for enthusiasts and/or hyper paranoid people to install their own software roots in a supported manner if they don't want another party having access or if they want to delegate to a different 3rd party. And let me turn it on/off, sure. But having a car with remote unlock is not some gateway drug selling your digital soul.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > Teslas use stronger ssh keys than you do SSH !?! This supports my point - a remote command prompt is much more functionality than what is required to unlock doors. It's not really appropriate to talk about this level of control as if it's merely a necessity for remote door unlocking. You're the one engaging in histrionics here - sour grapes about the lopsided relationship that was included with functionality you enjoy, as well as strawmanning those concerned with how ownership is being eroded as rare enthusiasts or "hyper paranoid". FWIW it's perfectly consistent to pragmatically trust specific manufacturer(s) today, while still being concerned about the societal effects of centralized control continuing to be normalized. It's certainly possible to implement the same functionality you're enjoying in ways that put the owner in charge and treat the company as a possible attacker. But it takes more rigorous design and development, and isn't likely to happen on its own as long as people continue to carry water for simplistic centralization.
JohnFen 4y ago
> Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. But with another car, I can choose who (if anyone) I'm willing to give that ability to. I certainly wouldn't want it to be Tesla.
- russell_h 4y ago
  I think every major car manufacturer has some kind of remote unlock capability these days - people want an app. You could design one of those apps to end-to-end encrypt all comms with the car, but I don't think most people would appreciate the usability hit.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > I think every major car manufacturer has some kind of remote unlock capability these days - people want an app. Correct. And that (along with everything else related to it) is why I won't own a car that was made too recently.
    - dcow 4y ago
      Replying to both of you, first off which manufacturers let you choose the 3rd party remote access authorized agent? And which won’t machine new keys if you send them a request and your vin or key code. Second, Tesla comms are encrypted. Anyway, if you don't want to use vehicles which communicate with a server then good for you. Really. But if you’re taking such a stance I hope it’s based on informed data and consistent principles and not cringy FUD. There is nothing that leads me to believe that a Tesla is a “surveillance platform” despite it being a machine that is capable of becoming one. It’s a car. It gets me from A to B. Thats the agreement I have with the manufacturer. I primarily use my app/phone instead of physical keys. I opt in to sharing diagnostic info with Tesla to improve the experience. It’s all pretty above board.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        > which manufacturers let you choose the 3rd party remote access authorized agent? None that I'm aware of. > Tesla comms are encrypted. Which is very good, but still leaves the problem of Tesla getting the data. > if you’re taking such a stance I hope it’s based on informed data and consistent principles and not cringy FUD. I'm taking this stance because the history of the tech industry's practices in this area is full of so much abuse that nobody gets the benefit of the doubt anymore. > Thats the agreement I have with the manufacturer. I'm glad that you are comfortable with that level of trust with Tesla (or any car company). I am not. Which is, I suppose, why you'll own a Tesla and I won't.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> wtf c’mon 100% agree. WTF. I'm losing a bit of faith recently in HN, a significant number of people seem to have gone full tinfoil hat. Edit: downvote all you want, nutters, but this entire discussion is mostly people ranting about things we don't even know to be true, with the justification "well if they aren't for sure doing it now, they will!" What happened to being data driven?
- freedomben 4y ago
  You seem to be assuming that the only reason someone would downvote you is because they are tin foil hatters, or "nutters". I did not downvote you, but I could understand someone doing so for either or all of these reasons: 1. Your comment was kind of a "me too" comment that added nothing (or little) of substance to the conversation. On HN these types of comments are typically downvoted, regardless of topic or whether the voter is wearing a tinfoil hat. 2. You complained about the downvoting, and in addition added a personal insult to the downvoters. Personal insults are typically downvoted on HN as well. 3. You dismissed and strawmanned the "entire discussion" as "mostly people ranting about things we don't even know to be true." This type of thing is also frequently downvoted as it doesn't add anything substantive.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I mean no disrespect, but with nearly 20K "karma" points on HN, I know the rules, and when I'm flouting them a bit. I rarely do, and not the more serious ones. But this whole discussion is such a shit show, filled with so much "of course they're all bad" nonsense that I sacrificed some of that pointless karma to agree with someone in that regard. I recognize your username from this thread, you were one of the accounts that came to mind as a big bandwagon offender of the "it's all bad and there can be no nuance" rhetoric :). Have a good day! And I mean that quite sincerely. It's a beautiful spring day here and I'm just visiting my desk momentarily after spending the last hour waking up the swimming pool and preparing it for this weekend. Time to go back outside and forget about the Internet for a while. Other than this reply, I've ceased posting in this discussion and hidden it to avoid the temptation.
- 4y ago
palata 4y ago
> And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. Let me put it into perspective: making your Tesla (a heavy vehicle probably driving 1 person) drive more is not helping the environment. If you want to help the environment, don't drive a Tesla, find something that burns less energy (like a smaller car, or public transports, or an electric bike).
- dcow 4y ago
  Don’t be a nitwit. Ride/time-sharing a car is better than the alternative where gas vehicles are performing the same miles on the road. If timeshared vehicles reduce the number of cars needed per person, then we are winning. Also if they displace ICE miles we are also winning. My family only uses 1 car, which is 100% less than tue average American household. Kindly check your bitching.
  - palata 4y ago
    > If timeshared vehicles reduce the number of cars needed per person, then we are winning. Well you are winning on the fix cost of building the vehicle (obviously). But you are still moving people in a vehicle that weighs 2 tons. The fact that it is an EV does not mean that you use less energy to move that weight, does it? So yeah, if someone decides not to buy a Tesla or equivalent because they can use your shared one, you are winning. Now if someone uses your Tesla instead of any lighter vehicle that would use less energy during its life than the Tesla (which represents a lot of vehicles, not only bikes and public transports), then you are losing. So let me repeat this: if you buy a Tesla because you think it's a "green" move, then save your money. You should buy a Tesla because you want a cool, expensive, heavy sport vehicle. That's bad for the environment, but I guess that's the cost of being cool.

by dcow 4y ago

jandrese 4y ago

On the other hand, Teslas cannot be driven remotely YET. Enabling this functionality is a core goal of the Tesla company. It remains to be seen if it is abused once it actually works. Ford has already applied for patents for cars that will self repossess for example.

ballenf 4y ago
Isn't the summon feature exactly that?
- jandrese 4y ago
  Smart summon is a party trick that requires you to keep LOS to the vehicle the entire time. Like Full Self Driving it is not capable enough to be a problem yet. If there is any good news about this it is that Full Self Driving appears to be a more difficult problem than Elon expected and they are struggling with it.

mindslight 4y ago

"Into perspective" is exactly wrong, because it means accepting all the tenuous assumptions used to justify the design in the first place. The problem is not that an automaker wanted to have functionality that could legitimately unlock cars for legitimate customers. The problem is that creating this functionality entailed making a much larger backdoor that will invariably be abused by independent attackers, police, the company itself, etc - to do much more than merely unlock the doors.

dcow 4y ago
Citation/examples needed. There have been numerous talks at security conferences and solid research done on the security of Teslas. I don’t think you realize how sophisticated these things are. The infotainment system and the CAM bus are not the same software, for example. And attackers aren’t gaining remote access to them either (Teslas use stronger ssh keys than you do). So I’m not sure how this mega backdoor FUD even plausibly exists. A car isn’t a safe either, if law enforcement has a warrant for my car, or house, they’re going to forcibly break in if needed (heck they’ll even do that for a safe). Seems better to have Tesla legally complying/cooperating with law enforcement than the alternative where people use force. I’m not saying we should build backdoors into everything for the kids, just to be clear. But I can be a happy consumer/user of a car with remote unlock functionality that’s implemented more responsibly than your npm account without devolving into “zomg Tesla backdoors your life to give you that feature” histrionics. That’s just not true. Like you, I would love to see, just like I argue for phones, the ability for enthusiasts and/or hyper paranoid people to install their own software roots in a supported manner if they don't want another party having access or if they want to delegate to a different 3rd party. And let me turn it on/off, sure. But having a car with remote unlock is not some gateway drug selling your digital soul.
- mindslight 4y ago
  > Teslas use stronger ssh keys than you do SSH !?! This supports my point - a remote command prompt is much more functionality than what is required to unlock doors. It's not really appropriate to talk about this level of control as if it's merely a necessity for remote door unlocking. You're the one engaging in histrionics here - sour grapes about the lopsided relationship that was included with functionality you enjoy, as well as strawmanning those concerned with how ownership is being eroded as rare enthusiasts or "hyper paranoid". FWIW it's perfectly consistent to pragmatically trust specific manufacturer(s) today, while still being concerned about the societal effects of centralized control continuing to be normalized. It's certainly possible to implement the same functionality you're enjoying in ways that put the owner in charge and treat the company as a possible attacker. But it takes more rigorous design and development, and isn't likely to happen on its own as long as people continue to carry water for simplistic centralization.

JohnFen 4y ago

> Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. But with another car, I can choose who (if anyone) I'm willing to give that ability to. I certainly wouldn't want it to be Tesla.

russell_h 4y ago
I think every major car manufacturer has some kind of remote unlock capability these days - people want an app. You could design one of those apps to end-to-end encrypt all comms with the car, but I don't think most people would appreciate the usability hit.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > I think every major car manufacturer has some kind of remote unlock capability these days - people want an app. Correct. And that (along with everything else related to it) is why I won't own a car that was made too recently.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Replying to both of you, first off which manufacturers let you choose the 3rd party remote access authorized agent? And which won’t machine new keys if you send them a request and your vin or key code. Second, Tesla comms are encrypted. Anyway, if you don't want to use vehicles which communicate with a server then good for you. Really. But if you’re taking such a stance I hope it’s based on informed data and consistent principles and not cringy FUD. There is nothing that leads me to believe that a Tesla is a “surveillance platform” despite it being a machine that is capable of becoming one. It’s a car. It gets me from A to B. Thats the agreement I have with the manufacturer. I primarily use my app/phone instead of physical keys. I opt in to sharing diagnostic info with Tesla to improve the experience. It’s all pretty above board.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > which manufacturers let you choose the 3rd party remote access authorized agent? None that I'm aware of. > Tesla comms are encrypted. Which is very good, but still leaves the problem of Tesla getting the data. > if you’re taking such a stance I hope it’s based on informed data and consistent principles and not cringy FUD. I'm taking this stance because the history of the tech industry's practices in this area is full of so much abuse that nobody gets the benefit of the doubt anymore. > Thats the agreement I have with the manufacturer. I'm glad that you are comfortable with that level of trust with Tesla (or any car company). I am not. Which is, I suppose, why you'll own a Tesla and I won't.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> wtf c’mon 100% agree. WTF. I'm losing a bit of faith recently in HN, a significant number of people seem to have gone full tinfoil hat. Edit: downvote all you want, nutters, but this entire discussion is mostly people ranting about things we don't even know to be true, with the justification "well if they aren't for sure doing it now, they will!" What happened to being data driven?

freedomben 4y ago
You seem to be assuming that the only reason someone would downvote you is because they are tin foil hatters, or "nutters". I did not downvote you, but I could understand someone doing so for either or all of these reasons: 1. Your comment was kind of a "me too" comment that added nothing (or little) of substance to the conversation. On HN these types of comments are typically downvoted, regardless of topic or whether the voter is wearing a tinfoil hat. 2. You complained about the downvoting, and in addition added a personal insult to the downvoters. Personal insults are typically downvoted on HN as well. 3. You dismissed and strawmanned the "entire discussion" as "mostly people ranting about things we don't even know to be true." This type of thing is also frequently downvoted as it doesn't add anything substantive.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I mean no disrespect, but with nearly 20K "karma" points on HN, I know the rules, and when I'm flouting them a bit. I rarely do, and not the more serious ones. But this whole discussion is such a shit show, filled with so much "of course they're all bad" nonsense that I sacrificed some of that pointless karma to agree with someone in that regard. I recognize your username from this thread, you were one of the accounts that came to mind as a big bandwagon offender of the "it's all bad and there can be no nuance" rhetoric :). Have a good day! And I mean that quite sincerely. It's a beautiful spring day here and I'm just visiting my desk momentarily after spending the last hour waking up the swimming pool and preparing it for this weekend. Time to go back outside and forget about the Internet for a while. Other than this reply, I've ceased posting in this discussion and hidden it to avoid the temptation.
4y ago

palata 4y ago

> And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. Let me put it into perspective: making your Tesla (a heavy vehicle probably driving 1 person) drive more is not helping the environment. If you want to help the environment, don't drive a Tesla, find something that burns less energy (like a smaller car, or public transports, or an electric bike).

dcow 4y ago
Don’t be a nitwit. Ride/time-sharing a car is better than the alternative where gas vehicles are performing the same miles on the road. If timeshared vehicles reduce the number of cars needed per person, then we are winning. Also if they displace ICE miles we are also winning. My family only uses 1 car, which is 100% less than tue average American household. Kindly check your bitching.
- palata 4y ago
  > If timeshared vehicles reduce the number of cars needed per person, then we are winning. Well you are winning on the fix cost of building the vehicle (obviously). But you are still moving people in a vehicle that weighs 2 tons. The fact that it is an EV does not mean that you use less energy to move that weight, does it? So yeah, if someone decides not to buy a Tesla or equivalent because they can use your shared one, you are winning. Now if someone uses your Tesla instead of any lighter vehicle that would use less energy during its life than the Tesla (which represents a lot of vehicles, not only bikes and public transports), then you are losing. So let me repeat this: if you buy a Tesla because you think it's a "green" move, then save your money. You should buy a Tesla because you want a cool, expensive, heavy sport vehicle. That's bad for the environment, but I guess that's the cost of being cool.