5 ms·

But they don't own the license to use the software (Full Self Driving). I agree with you about the heated seats though.

blacksmith_tb 3y ago
Hmm, is the code already present? Would enabling it be putting unexpected load on Tesla's servers? If it's just a local feature (like the heated seats) that's shipped turned off, I'd say enabling it doesn't feel especially different to me (trusting it to drive you around of course is different).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tdiggity 3y ago
  There is some real-time data being downloaded while navigating. https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088 https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088
- denlekke 3y ago
  i dont have a settled opinion on software unlockable stuff. in general i think users should be able to hack it without repercussions. however, thinking about the concepts you present i had some hypotheticals. if tesla does all the self driving processing outside the car, it feels a little reasonable to pay them for their processing. but what if they just moved the heat seating processing out of the car (comparing the actual temperature to the desired temperature and modulating the power) ? that would seem unreasonable to me because the car is fully capable of doing it. So then what if tesla ships an intentionally terrible processor so that most data processing happens outside the car ? maybe it's reasonable again . .. no point to this, just thinking out loud
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Software lockable stuff sounds like in-app purchases. Should unlocking this content become legal ?
- judge2020 3y ago
  Self driving has an ongoing cost to Tesla for them to keep it updated and to improving upon its performance. It’s only a subscription because it doesn’t make financial sense to purchase it outright for $15k up-front (with a 6% interest rate, you’d need to own the car for 102 months to pay less than paying for the FSD subscription for those 102 months, and it costs more per month in your loan than the subscription https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FUp8jhSdchyuj0KJVtUKJrELjyRJG9eCCYs916YwF0AWotV4hY4e-3Dn7RgmbnDnNLgV2/pubhtml?gid=699400202&single=true https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FU... )
  - blacksmith_tb 3y ago
    Sure, though that highlights why someone would be interested in unlocking it (even without updates going forward). Personally I think I'd want mission-critical sw to be as current as possible, I can see someone arguing they should be able to run what's already sitting there on the computer in their car.
    - code_runner 3y ago
      the software stack is different as far as I know. if you buy FSD and sign up for the beta program, you get a fairly massive software package downloaded. it is not instant and already on the device. of all the things to hate about elon, tesla, and this whole concept of locking down features in a car, FSD really isn't one of them, as its just a software issue and its a totally separate package that isn't core to the operational capability of the car's components.
babypuncher 3y ago
Here's my attitude: The consumer should have complete control over any hardware and software in any product they buy. If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Yep, there would be issue at all if they sold the car and you install FSD with a download and a license key but if it comes with the car that's on you if/when the owner breaks the lock they own to access it. If you sell me a house with a safe in it and want to charge me for the code that's fine, but if get a welder to just break the door open you have no right to tell me no.
- denlekke 3y ago
  in general you would think this is just a DRM race then between tesla and unlockers. however, with so many of tesla's features existing outside the car, tesla has a lot of leverage. a music cd or blu ray is generally finished content. a tesla is constantly getting software patches and most owners use the app which i'm sure is going through teslas servers is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    > is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? Of course, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. > would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ? There are laws governing this exact thing (in the US it's the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act), and in general Tesla would have to prove your unauthorized modification caused the failure which you're claiming under warranty.
MostlyStable 3y ago
I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models. As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
wredue 3y ago
Haven’t we already been through this type of shit with EA? Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall. Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.
px43 3y ago
The entire concept of "intellectual property" is an attempted theft of our own physical property, and I for one don't appreciate it. I understand that my values on this don't align with much of the rest of the legal systems of the world, but the absurdity of intellectual property is never more clear than when some far away company attempts to assert ownership over something that you use every day.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
semiquaver 3y ago
The article claims this is not patchable but it also says that the hackers have not yet unlocked FSD with this technique. I strongly suspect that the “unpatchable” part would not apply to any potential FSD unlock because of the large amount of server-side functionality involved for FSD. Server side components aren’t going to be easily fooled by a car-local exploit. Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch. Edit: a now-dead reply says there is no server side functionality whatsoever for FSD. I don’t own a Tesla but find it very unlikely that FSD has not even usage telemetry in what are otherwise highly connected cars.
- esotericimpl 3y ago
  [dead]

Hmm, is the code already present? Would enabling it be putting unexpected load on Tesla's servers? If it's just a local feature (like the heated seats) that's shipped turned off, I'd say enabling it doesn't feel especially different to me (trusting it to drive you around of course is different).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tdiggity 3y ago
There is some real-time data being downloaded while navigating. https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088 https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088
denlekke 3y ago
i dont have a settled opinion on software unlockable stuff. in general i think users should be able to hack it without repercussions. however, thinking about the concepts you present i had some hypotheticals. if tesla does all the self driving processing outside the car, it feels a little reasonable to pay them for their processing. but what if they just moved the heat seating processing out of the car (comparing the actual temperature to the desired temperature and modulating the power) ? that would seem unreasonable to me because the car is fully capable of doing it. So then what if tesla ships an intentionally terrible processor so that most data processing happens outside the car ? maybe it's reasonable again . .. no point to this, just thinking out loud
- rvnx 3y ago
  Software lockable stuff sounds like in-app purchases. Should unlocking this content become legal ?
judge2020 3y ago
Self driving has an ongoing cost to Tesla for them to keep it updated and to improving upon its performance. It’s only a subscription because it doesn’t make financial sense to purchase it outright for $15k up-front (with a 6% interest rate, you’d need to own the car for 102 months to pay less than paying for the FSD subscription for those 102 months, and it costs more per month in your loan than the subscription https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FUp8jhSdchyuj0KJVtUKJrELjyRJG9eCCYs916YwF0AWotV4hY4e-3Dn7RgmbnDnNLgV2/pubhtml?gid=699400202&single=true https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FU... )
- blacksmith_tb 3y ago
  Sure, though that highlights why someone would be interested in unlocking it (even without updates going forward). Personally I think I'd want mission-critical sw to be as current as possible, I can see someone arguing they should be able to run what's already sitting there on the computer in their car.
  - code_runner 3y ago
    the software stack is different as far as I know. if you buy FSD and sign up for the beta program, you get a fairly massive software package downloaded. it is not instant and already on the device. of all the things to hate about elon, tesla, and this whole concept of locking down features in a car, FSD really isn't one of them, as its just a software issue and its a totally separate package that isn't core to the operational capability of the car's components.

babypuncher 3y ago

Here's my attitude: The consumer should have complete control over any hardware and software in any product they buy. If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.

Spivak 3y ago
Yep, there would be issue at all if they sold the car and you install FSD with a download and a license key but if it comes with the car that's on you if/when the owner breaks the lock they own to access it. If you sell me a house with a safe in it and want to charge me for the code that's fine, but if get a welder to just break the door open you have no right to tell me no.
denlekke 3y ago
in general you would think this is just a DRM race then between tesla and unlockers. however, with so many of tesla's features existing outside the car, tesla has a lot of leverage. a music cd or blu ray is generally finished content. a tesla is constantly getting software patches and most owners use the app which i'm sure is going through teslas servers is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
- tadfisher 3y ago
  > is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? Of course, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. > would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ? There are laws governing this exact thing (in the US it's the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act), and in general Tesla would have to prove your unauthorized modification caused the failure which you're claiming under warranty.

MostlyStable 3y ago

I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models. As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.

wredue 3y ago

Haven’t we already been through this type of shit with EA? Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall. Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.

px43 3y ago

The entire concept of "intellectual property" is an attempted theft of our own physical property, and I for one don't appreciate it. I understand that my values on this don't align with much of the rest of the legal systems of the world, but the absurdity of intellectual property is never more clear than when some far away company attempts to assert ownership over something that you use every day.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

semiquaver 3y ago

The article claims this is not patchable but it also says that the hackers have not yet unlocked FSD with this technique. I strongly suspect that the “unpatchable” part would not apply to any potential FSD unlock because of the large amount of server-side functionality involved for FSD. Server side components aren’t going to be easily fooled by a car-local exploit. Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch. Edit: a now-dead reply says there is no server side functionality whatsoever for FSD. I don’t own a Tesla but find it very unlikely that FSD has not even usage telemetry in what are otherwise highly connected cars.

esotericimpl 3y ago
[dead]