4 ms·

No matter what the legal dispute is between the rapper and the company, if the claim is true, disabling a vehicle remotely at a in a way that puts the driver at

No matter what the legal dispute is between the rapper and the company, if the claim is true, disabling a vehicle remotely at a in a way that puts the driver at risk, not only should be illegal but a criminal liability. The man is in the middle of the freeway, this should be tried as attempted murder.

freetime2 1y ago
It's so crazy and dangerous I still have trouble believing it's true. Looks like we absolutely need laws regarding when and where a car company can remotely disable a vehicle.
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  You shouldn't need any laws, because it can be argued that by paying for the vehicle the owner purchased actual functionality, not just bare parts and chips. Any post-sale agreement is therefore inherently suspect from the beginning. If this is actually real I can't wait to see how it develops legally.
  - darth_avocado 1y ago
    I have a similar understanding that the TOS doesn’t matter in this case and should not be enforceable, therefore making the company liable for civil penalties. But I really think such a reckless action should be tried as a criminal case and individual people within the company need to be held accountable. Not sure if there are any laws or precedent for that though.
  - apical_dendrite 1y ago
    Would that logic also apply to subscriptions like Full Self Driving and supercharging? I think that even if Tesla can't disable the car over a terms of use issue, they could cancel full self driving and maybe ban you from supercharging.
    - darth_avocado 1y ago
      If the self driving is fully paid for then no, they should not be able to disable it. For denying the monthly subscription and supercharging, a case could be made that these were the features that influenced the decision of the purchase, and denying them has now made the purchase less valuable. A civil suit could be filed, but not sure how the courts would rule.
- throwawaysleep 1y ago
  Why? Tesla has long been run by an extremely petty person.
  - duxup 1y ago
    I think that's likely the reason this story is getting traction.
  - freetime2 1y ago
    Fake news is so ubiquitous these days that I think you need to apply a higher standard than "it feels likely to be true". Especially for things that trigger outrage. I think the question you should be asking is "has it been verified by a trusted third party?" And if not, you should treat it as something with a significant probability of being untrue.
- Telaneo 1y ago
  How about a law that a company can't disable your product remotely, full stop? Or at least make it a negative right, so that any company can't disable your car/dishwasher/thermostat/video game, unless there's a very good reason to (say theft for example), with the burden of proof being on the company and not the consumer's shoulder?
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
  It’s all fun and games until your car is stolen.
bbor 1y ago
I was curious what the laws in Michigan might say about that, since it seems both plausible and absurd that attempted murder codes might apply. The below was originally sourced by Claude Opus and written by some random kid, so I would obviously appreciate an actual expert's armchair opinion! 1. Both Michigan[1] and the US[10] have statues that criminally prohibit "Access... to a computer program... to alter... or otherwise use the service of a computer program... without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization." Potentially a stretch, I can't find any super-relevant precedent. 2. The same statute[2] also prohibits ~"using a computer program... to (attempt to-)commit a crime", which obviously doesn't matter on its own, but could be added on to other charges, such as (drum-roll please)... 3. Attempted murder[3]. This one seems like a stretch indeed -- the law does leave room for "any means not constituting the crime of assault," but proving "intent to murder" seems basically impossible (unless there's some absolutely crazy texts to be found in discovery?). 4. More appropriate is assault[4], which leaves room for any "assault" with a "dangerous weapon without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder." That last one is the most plausible+serious potential charge IMHO, but it really gets at the heart of the issue, as my understanding of assault is based on "harmful contact"[5]. Would shutting down someone's pacemaker be "contact"? On one hand it could be seen as akin to throwing something (which is definitely still assault), but on the other hand, the massive distances involved (CA -> MI?) stretch the colloquial understanding of "contact" by a lot. There's a whole section on Civil(/tort?) penalties, but I'll spare y'all the details since that comes down to contract debates I don't comfortable even vaguely attempting to sorta-kinda speculate about! Namely: "was this authorized by some clause in the bill of sale?" In short, Claude brings up 1. Conversion[6] (" intentionally destroying or altering a chattel in the actor's possession") and 2. a variety of statues[7] prohibiting deceptive advertising. The latter would be particularly tricky in a world where searching "Tesla remote shutdown" returns many hundreds of articles on this being possible! Claude cites the Michigan precedents of Owens v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (1982)[12] and Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co (1984)[13] to establish that you can't sell dangerous cars, but those cases were about manufacturing defects and not intentional tampering. Finally, on a federal level: the NHTSA has broad authority to regulate therein "vehicle cybersecurity"[8,9] and the FTC is similarly charged to regulate "unfair or deceptive [commercial] acts or practices"[11], tho IDK how helpful those would be in the post-Chevron hellscape that we now reside within, to say nothing of the "First Buddy" angle. TL;DR: No matter what happens, I think it's clear that there's little precedent on any level for such a brazenly-dangerous act of digital sabotage of a "protected computer" by the computer's manufacturer. I doubt much will happen either way, but I'd really love to see some precedent get made here one way or another! [1] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-795 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-7... [2] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-796 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-7... [3] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-91 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-9... [4] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-82 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-8... [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault [6] https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/michigan/common-law/#conversion https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/michigan/c... [7] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-445-903 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-445-9... [8] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research/vehicle-cybersecurity https://www.nhtsa.gov/research/vehicle-cybersecurity [9] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30111 [10] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 [11] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 [12] https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1982/61965-3.html https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1982/619... [13] https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/products-liability/prentis-v-yale-mfg-co/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-eps...
Reason077 1y ago
> "disabling a vehicle remotely at a in a way that puts the driver at risk, not only should be illegal but a criminal liability" This actually happened to me some years ago. I rented a car from one of those "on demand" rental services - a Zipcar competitor who are no longer in business (AFAIK). While picking it up from Heathrow airport, either I managed to not unlock the car correctly from the app, or the device inside the car which controls this was buggy/faulty. Either way, I was still able to start the car and drive away normally. But after about 10 minutes of driving, the car suddenly stalled and shut down in a live running lane on the M4(!!) and would not restart. Thankfully traffic was slow moving at the time so there wasn't too much danger of being rear-ended at high speed. Called the customer support line from within the app and within about 30 seconds of explaining the problem the car was unlocked again and started normally. The way they responded to my situation so quickly and without seeming at all surprised suggested that it was certainly not the first time it had happened...

freetime2 1y ago

It's so crazy and dangerous I still have trouble believing it's true. Looks like we absolutely need laws regarding when and where a car company can remotely disable a vehicle.

EMIRELADERO 1y ago
You shouldn't need any laws, because it can be argued that by paying for the vehicle the owner purchased actual functionality, not just bare parts and chips. Any post-sale agreement is therefore inherently suspect from the beginning. If this is actually real I can't wait to see how it develops legally.
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  I have a similar understanding that the TOS doesn’t matter in this case and should not be enforceable, therefore making the company liable for civil penalties. But I really think such a reckless action should be tried as a criminal case and individual people within the company need to be held accountable. Not sure if there are any laws or precedent for that though.
- apical_dendrite 1y ago
  Would that logic also apply to subscriptions like Full Self Driving and supercharging? I think that even if Tesla can't disable the car over a terms of use issue, they could cancel full self driving and maybe ban you from supercharging.
  - darth_avocado 1y ago
    If the self driving is fully paid for then no, they should not be able to disable it. For denying the monthly subscription and supercharging, a case could be made that these were the features that influenced the decision of the purchase, and denying them has now made the purchase less valuable. A civil suit could be filed, but not sure how the courts would rule.
throwawaysleep 1y ago
Why? Tesla has long been run by an extremely petty person.
- duxup 1y ago
  I think that's likely the reason this story is getting traction.
- freetime2 1y ago
  Fake news is so ubiquitous these days that I think you need to apply a higher standard than "it feels likely to be true". Especially for things that trigger outrage. I think the question you should be asking is "has it been verified by a trusted third party?" And if not, you should treat it as something with a significant probability of being untrue.
Telaneo 1y ago
How about a law that a company can't disable your product remotely, full stop? Or at least make it a negative right, so that any company can't disable your car/dishwasher/thermostat/video game, unless there's a very good reason to (say theft for example), with the burden of proof being on the company and not the consumer's shoulder?
dzhiurgis 1y ago
It’s all fun and games until your car is stolen.

bbor 1y ago

I was curious what the laws in Michigan might say about that, since it seems both plausible and absurd that attempted murder codes might apply. The below was originally sourced by Claude Opus and written by some random kid, so I would obviously appreciate an actual expert's armchair opinion! 1. Both Michigan[1] and the US[10] have statues that criminally prohibit "Access... to a computer program... to alter... or otherwise use the service of a computer program... without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization." Potentially a stretch, I can't find any super-relevant precedent. 2. The same statute[2] also prohibits ~"using a computer program... to (attempt to-)commit a crime", which obviously doesn't matter on its own, but could be added on to other charges, such as (drum-roll please)... 3. Attempted murder[3]. This one seems like a stretch indeed -- the law does leave room for "any means not constituting the crime of assault," but proving "intent to murder" seems basically impossible (unless there's some absolutely crazy texts to be found in discovery?). 4. More appropriate is assault[4], which leaves room for any "assault" with a "dangerous weapon without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder." That last one is the most plausible+serious potential charge IMHO, but it really gets at the heart of the issue, as my understanding of assault is based on "harmful contact"[5]. Would shutting down someone's pacemaker be "contact"? On one hand it could be seen as akin to throwing something (which is definitely still assault), but on the other hand, the massive distances involved (CA -> MI?) stretch the colloquial understanding of "contact" by a lot. There's a whole section on Civil(/tort?) penalties, but I'll spare y'all the details since that comes down to contract debates I don't comfortable even vaguely attempting to sorta-kinda speculate about! Namely: "was this authorized by some clause in the bill of sale?" In short, Claude brings up 1. Conversion[6] (" intentionally destroying or altering a chattel in the actor's possession") and 2. a variety of statues[7] prohibiting deceptive advertising. The latter would be particularly tricky in a world where searching "Tesla remote shutdown" returns many hundreds of articles on this being possible! Claude cites the Michigan precedents of Owens v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (1982)[12] and Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co (1984)[13] to establish that you can't sell dangerous cars, but those cases were about manufacturing defects and not intentional tampering. Finally, on a federal level: the NHTSA has broad authority to regulate therein "vehicle cybersecurity"[8,9] and the FTC is similarly charged to regulate "unfair or deceptive [commercial] acts or practices"[11], tho IDK how helpful those would be in the post-Chevron hellscape that we now reside within, to say nothing of the "First Buddy" angle. TL;DR: No matter what happens, I think it's clear that there's little precedent on any level for such a brazenly-dangerous act of digital sabotage of a "protected computer" by the computer's manufacturer. I doubt much will happen either way, but I'd really love to see some precedent get made here one way or another! [1] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-795 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-7... [2] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-796 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-752-7... [3] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-91 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-9... [4] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-82 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-8... [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault [6] https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/michigan/common-law/#conversion https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/michigan/c... [7] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-445-903 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-445-9... [8] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research/vehicle-cybersecurity https://www.nhtsa.gov/research/vehicle-cybersecurity [9] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30111 [10] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 [11] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 [12] https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1982/61965-3.html https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1982/619... [13] https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/products-liability/prentis-v-yale-mfg-co/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-eps...

Reason077 1y ago

> "disabling a vehicle remotely at a in a way that puts the driver at risk, not only should be illegal but a criminal liability" This actually happened to me some years ago. I rented a car from one of those "on demand" rental services - a Zipcar competitor who are no longer in business (AFAIK). While picking it up from Heathrow airport, either I managed to not unlock the car correctly from the app, or the device inside the car which controls this was buggy/faulty. Either way, I was still able to start the car and drive away normally. But after about 10 minutes of driving, the car suddenly stalled and shut down in a live running lane on the M4(!!) and would not restart. Thankfully traffic was slow moving at the time so there wasn't too much danger of being rear-ended at high speed. Called the customer support line from within the app and within about 30 seconds of explaining the problem the car was unlocked again and started normally. The way they responded to my situation so quickly and without seeming at all surprised suggested that it was certainly not the first time it had happened...