Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

tiremeetsroad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 383 posts

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#31

Post by scoopertrooper »

staticassertion wrote: post #19
Jaruzel wrote: post #12

The main issue here I guess, is Tesla assisting the bailiffs. Bailiffs (here in the UK) have certain legal rights to enter and repossess your house and/or remove property you haven't fully paid for. They are granted this right via a case-by-case court order. If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs, then presumably it would be a fully legal action. At the end of the day, you…

I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.

Well, technically, the bank owns the car till you pay it off. So, maybe they are advocating for their customers?

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#32

Post by netcan »

staticassertion wrote: post #19
Jaruzel wrote: post #12

The main issue here I guess, is Tesla assisting the bailiffs. Bailiffs (here in the UK) have certain legal rights to enter and repossess your house and/or remove property you haven't fully paid for. They are granted this right via a case-by-case court order. If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs, then presumably it would be a fully legal action. At the end of the day, you…

I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.

To take a contradicting pov... I think this sort of expectation/ideal has done us more harm than helped.

As advocates, companies are fickle and unreliable.

Presenting as advocates, companies always stress how aligned their interests are with customers'. We'll, that's true until it isn't. Once it isn't, it flips.

That's useless. Better to keep in mind that companies aren't your advocates. They're your salesman.

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#33

Post by Tuna-Fish »

greatpatton wrote: post #15

Not much into US law, but can someone tell us what is happening if you had personal possession of value in your car?

The same as would happen in any other repo case. The repo agent bags them, writes an inventory of them, and must return them on request. Different states have different laws on the conditions on that. Most don't allow any fees to be charged for this, but generally you have to go get them, they won't be brought to you.

Huge amounts of stuff is never returned, either because the repo guys were careless/stole it, because retrieving is hard/inconvenient for someone who no longer has a car, or because the owners just don't care.

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#34

Post by junon »

Joker_vD wrote: post #29
Jaruzel wrote: post #12

The main issue here I guess, is Tesla assisting the bailiffs. Bailiffs (here in the UK) have certain legal rights to enter and repossess your house and/or remove property you haven't fully paid for. They are granted this right via a case-by-case court order. If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs, then presumably it would be a fully legal action. At the end of the day, you…

> If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs From what limited knowledge of law enforcement I have (and it's very little, I admit), it's reversed: everyone by default is legally obliged to assist a law officer, on their request, to enforce the law and order; there are some limits beyond which explicit court orders are required, but those limits are rather broad.

This is an assumption based on current events and climate toward LEOs and is very far from the truth. There are very clear boundaries for assisting with law enforcement. Warrants are not magical documents that allow anything to happen.

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#35

Post by simonh »

staticassertion wrote: post #19
Jaruzel wrote: post #12

The main issue here I guess, is Tesla assisting the bailiffs. Bailiffs (here in the UK) have certain legal rights to enter and repossess your house and/or remove property you haven't fully paid for. They are granted this right via a case-by-case court order. If Telsa are also granted the rights within the court order to assist the bailiffs, then presumably it would be a fully legal action. At the end of the day, you…

I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.

Tesla were helping the legal owner of one of their vehicles take possession of it. If you were the legal owner, wouldn't you want that?

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#36

Post by hatchnyc »

LightG wrote: post #20

Holy sh!t ... reason 47 to not buy a Tesla.

So…in case you plan to not pay for it but still keep it anyway?

I am really struggling to understand the mindset here of what I assume are mostly well paid professional software developers. If I defaulted on a car loan (I don’t know the details exactly off the top of my head, but this entails more than just missing a payment) I’d be quite ashamed of myself and return the car myself with an apology. I cannot understand the mindset of someone who would feel justified keeping the car, much less getting angry at the method used by the bank to reclaim their property.

It’s not like this is a cheap car either where you’re threatening someone’s livelihood who is not going to be able to get to work.

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#37

Post by simonh »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #31
staticassertion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.

Well, technically, the bank owns the car till you pay it off. So, maybe they are advocating for their customers?

I don't think that's quite right, you own the vehicle legally and you owe the bank the loan. However as soon as a repossession takes place the legal title to the vehicle does change.

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#38

Post by staticassertion »

netcan wrote: post #32
staticassertion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, though I think that ideally companies are advocates for their customers. For example, companies have to turn information over to courts, but they can push back on some, and publish transparency reports for others. Yes, they have to comply with the law, but imo a company has an obligation to advocate for their customers.

To take a contradicting pov... I think this sort of expectation/ideal has done us more harm than helped. As advocates, companies are fickle and unreliable. Presenting as advocates, companies always stress how aligned their interests are with customers'. We'll, that's true until it isn't. Once it isn't, it flips. That's useless. Better to keep in mind that companies aren't your advocates. They're your salesman.

I agree that relying on companies to be advocates out of good will is not a good strategy.

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#39

Post by cheschire »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

When reading the tweet, I get the feeling that it is satire (kind of like the Onion). I am not aware that Tesla is directly financing the vehicles, so why would they hire a repo person to go repossess it? In addition, given the OTA update capabilities of Tesla, they could probably just remotely disable the car, and not have to worry about the expense of liability of a repo agent. In addition, the picture is weird, as…

Indeed, Tesla’s own lending page seems to point to banks as lenders, not Tesla or a Tesla finance company. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding though, I’ve never looked deeply into this before.

https://www.tesla.com/support/lending#additional-support

Re: Tesla remotely unlocks Model 3 car, uses smart summon to help repo agent

#40

Post by yardie »

jcims wrote: post #21
Ekaros wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it really depends on exact legal contract. Is the financing that is loan against the vehicle and it is owned by the user. Or is it essentially rented. And in first case even with court order there is good question about other creditors...

(probably wrong statement follows) In the US, title to the vehicle usually remains in the hands of the creditor until it’s paid off.

Th title is in the owners name with a note of a bank lien on it. When you sell the car the bank lien is settled first and then the transfer can begin. In most cases you can’t register the car without the title and you cant drive the car without it being registered.
Post reply on HN