3 ms·

I’m trying to discern your point. If it’s about cars having a data connection then my point makes no sense, obviously. But your comment was in response to someo

by dcow 4y ago

I’m trying to discern your point. If it’s about cars having a data connection then my point makes no sense, obviously. But your comment was in response to someone complaining about “remote control” which is just “remote unlock” (that’s all Tesla does remotely in the context of GGP). So that’s how I interpreted your response.

JohnFen 4y ago
Yes, sorry, I could have been more clear. I see a huge difference between the ability to physically break into a car and having a datastream to a company that can be used to unlock the car. The latter is much more problematic -- especially if I can't choose who does or does not have that ability. This is all a subset of the problem that modern cars are surveillance platforms.
seretogis 4y ago
It seems you're being deliberately obtuse. There is a clear and obvious difference between "well someone can break that" and "someone has built a backdoor into this thing you purchased, for their own use".
- dcow 4y ago
  No, there is just no foundation to the claim that there is a backdoor in Teslas for their own use. There’s remote unlock and remote software updates, both features that are for my benefit and use. And they don’t come with some naïve backdoor that attackers can exploit. They’re cryptographically secure and don’t expose me to vulnerabilities. There’s a difference between the government legislating obscure and weak backdoors into all microchips so the NSA can spy on you, and a car company providing features consumers want, agree to, and pay for, in a secure way. One is a surveillance platform, the other is a good product. It’s silly to equivocate the two. Thats what I’m responding to.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > just no foundation to the claim that there is a backdoor in Teslas for their own use. If it's not for their own use, whose use is it for? It's literally just for their use. They may promise that they won't use that backdoor for purposes that aren't for your benefit, but that's just their promise. And how do they define "for your benefit"? How secure from other attackers that back door is is only one aspect. It's important (and important to remember the truism that "if there's a way to access it legally, there's a way to access it illegally"), but not the only issue. Even if we assume that hackers really can't get in that way, the backdoor and the data collection are still unacceptable to me.
    - dcow 4y ago
      I don't know if we’re arguing semantics or what at this point but it’s not a backdoor if it’s advertised as part of the product that consumers pay for. It’s just a product feature that needs to be secure like any other—frontdoor. If you’re not comfortable with that feature then don’t buy the car. But don’t go spewing certifiable nonsense about how Tesla backdoors your car and steals your personal data for profit. There is nothing in their terms or privacy policy that indicates this is happening, and data collection that could expose PII is opt in. Like research the product before making crazy claims… It would help me understand your concern if you pointed to the data collection and use thereof that you consider unacceptable. The way I see it, you’re essentially uncomfortable with Tesla being able to update the software on your system (which is also opt in BTW). Do you feel this way about all products that auto-update?
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        > If you’re not comfortable with that feature then don’t buy the car. This was the only point I was actually making, yes. > But don’t go spewing certifiable nonsense about how Tesla backdoors your car and steals your personal data for profit. Aside from niggles about what constitutes a "back door", I was not doing that. > There is nothing in their terms or privacy policy that indicates this is happening, and data collection that could expose PII is opt in. None of that is actually reassuring, but the reason why is a whole other, very large, discussion. > The way I see it, you’re essentially uncomfortable with Tesla being able to update the software on your system (which is also opt in BTW). No, I'm uncomfortable with the data connection to Tesla. I'm uncomfortable with their data collection, and I'm uncomfortable with them having any sort of control over the car. > Do you feel this way about all products that auto-update? Yes. I consider auto-updating to be harmful. But the reasons why are another long, separate, conversation.

by dcow 4y ago

JohnFen 4y ago

Yes, sorry, I could have been more clear. I see a huge difference between the ability to physically break into a car and having a datastream to a company that can be used to unlock the car. The latter is much more problematic -- especially if I can't choose who does or does not have that ability. This is all a subset of the problem that modern cars are surveillance platforms.

seretogis 4y ago

It seems you're being deliberately obtuse. There is a clear and obvious difference between "well someone can break that" and "someone has built a backdoor into this thing you purchased, for their own use".

dcow 4y ago
No, there is just no foundation to the claim that there is a backdoor in Teslas for their own use. There’s remote unlock and remote software updates, both features that are for my benefit and use. And they don’t come with some naïve backdoor that attackers can exploit. They’re cryptographically secure and don’t expose me to vulnerabilities. There’s a difference between the government legislating obscure and weak backdoors into all microchips so the NSA can spy on you, and a car company providing features consumers want, agree to, and pay for, in a secure way. One is a surveillance platform, the other is a good product. It’s silly to equivocate the two. Thats what I’m responding to.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > just no foundation to the claim that there is a backdoor in Teslas for their own use. If it's not for their own use, whose use is it for? It's literally just for their use. They may promise that they won't use that backdoor for purposes that aren't for your benefit, but that's just their promise. And how do they define "for your benefit"? How secure from other attackers that back door is is only one aspect. It's important (and important to remember the truism that "if there's a way to access it legally, there's a way to access it illegally"), but not the only issue. Even if we assume that hackers really can't get in that way, the backdoor and the data collection are still unacceptable to me.
  - dcow 4y ago
    I don't know if we’re arguing semantics or what at this point but it’s not a backdoor if it’s advertised as part of the product that consumers pay for. It’s just a product feature that needs to be secure like any other—frontdoor. If you’re not comfortable with that feature then don’t buy the car. But don’t go spewing certifiable nonsense about how Tesla backdoors your car and steals your personal data for profit. There is nothing in their terms or privacy policy that indicates this is happening, and data collection that could expose PII is opt in. Like research the product before making crazy claims… It would help me understand your concern if you pointed to the data collection and use thereof that you consider unacceptable. The way I see it, you’re essentially uncomfortable with Tesla being able to update the software on your system (which is also opt in BTW). Do you feel this way about all products that auto-update?
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > If you’re not comfortable with that feature then don’t buy the car. This was the only point I was actually making, yes. > But don’t go spewing certifiable nonsense about how Tesla backdoors your car and steals your personal data for profit. Aside from niggles about what constitutes a "back door", I was not doing that. > There is nothing in their terms or privacy policy that indicates this is happening, and data collection that could expose PII is opt in. None of that is actually reassuring, but the reason why is a whole other, very large, discussion. > The way I see it, you’re essentially uncomfortable with Tesla being able to update the software on your system (which is also opt in BTW). No, I'm uncomfortable with the data connection to Tesla. I'm uncomfortable with their data collection, and I'm uncomfortable with them having any sort of control over the car. > Do you feel this way about all products that auto-update? Yes. I consider auto-updating to be harmful. But the reasons why are another long, separate, conversation.