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

Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 773 posts

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#101

Post by zgluck »

px43 wrote: post #51
Groxx wrote: post #13

Let's start calling them what they are: Freedom fighters. "Hacking" carries quite a lot of negative connotations in most realms. These are people making sure you are able to make full use of your own stuff . There shouldn't be anything contentious about that.

"Freedom fighters" has a lot of negative connotations in many realms as well. It evokes images of rebels using violence to push some political agenda. Sometimes for worthy causes, sometimes less so. No, we're keeping the word "hacker".

I mean, we used to use the word "cracker" for this up until the late 90s. A hacker was someone who created something cool.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#102

Post by olyjohn »

rvnx wrote: post #61
shagie wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does enabling FSD come with any liability / terms of service? If it is backdoor enabled and the vehicle crashes, what is Tesla's liability? If the OTA patches to the system are needed and the car is running the base, unupdated (buggy) build, what is Tesla's liability? Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will…

It never has been Tesla’s responsibility if the FSD fails (whereas for Mercedes they take responsibility)

I'm not a Tesla fan, but Mercedes doesn't have a fleet anywhere near Tesla's. This is a well-run marketing campaign to try to get Tesla to also accept responsibility and bring prices up, IMO. Mercedes isn't really accepting liability for shit at this point, because they only have like one car with level 3 and it's a super top trim and there won't be very many people using it. Once they have a large amount of vehicles out there with this tech, then we'll see what they really accept responsibility for.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#103

Post by gibolt »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #38
Libcat99 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm somewhat torn too. IBM and I'm sure others have shipped enterprise hardware for years that was partially locked. You might get a machine with 16 cpus but you only paid for 8, for example, but you could license the rest as you grew. It seems a little similar and it was in no way underhanded, everyone knew what the deal was. However I'll echo what another poster said. I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever the…

I'm of the opinion that these two things aren't comparable. True, IBM and others have locked extra capability through software... but they were only ever selling/renting to the corporate world, which presumably had enough in-house legal expertise to not be completely dicked over. To take that business practice, and then try to foist it on consumers who don't have $500/hour lawyers on retainer looking out for them is…

What are you talking about... Tesla is one of only a handful of OEMs that can even issue OTA updates.

Their cars from 2013 can still get modern features OTA. Please explain how you classify that as a train wreck compared to software cobbled together from 100 vendors (none of whom specialize in software)

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#104

Post by hooverd »

HWR_14 wrote: post #2

Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.

IP has gone too far. We're seeing more and more instances of computers forced into perfectly good physical products for the express purpose of degrading their functionality unless a ransom is paid. Now instead of toggling a relay, you have to go through an entire software stack and license check to heat your seats.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#105

Post by Someone1234 »

While the exploit that allows them to run arbitrary code is unfixable, that doesn't mean Tesla couldn't update the vehicle to make accessing these features more difficult. For example, simply not delivering chunks of FSD to unauthorized vehicles server-side.

I guess my point is: This will start an arms race. Eventually you'll need to pick between an on-network Tesla getting software updates from them, or an off-network Tesla with FSD and other things that unlocked can provide. Heated seats can likely be re-enabled electronically without software (i.e. splice in a switch).

Personally, purely from a utilitarian perspective, I wouldn't choose to use FSD that wasn't getting continuous updates because it may not include road changes, state law changes, and frankly still has a lot of room for safety/reliability improvement. Maybe "Enhanced Autopilot" ($6K) just for lane change.

PS - 9/10 of Tesla's recalls have been software updates. So you'd lose those with an off-network Tesla.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#106

Post by code_runner »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #79
judge2020 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 htt…

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.

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.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#107

Post by toomuchtodo »

tadfisher wrote: post #33
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Contract law is running afoul of the first-sale doctrine here. Tesla can not enforce many clauses in a potential contract or license via the legal system, so it's not as cut-and-dry as "you don't own the code". Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least).

> Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least).

Reverse engineering to utilize software you didn't pay for and don't have a license or some other legal authority to use is unlikely to pass muster legally, versus for interoperability purposes.

https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (Control-F "What Exceptions Does DMCA Section 1201 Have To Allow Reverse Engineering?")

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#108

Post by hooverd »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12
MostlyStable wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pu…

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 t…

This just sounds like "you get all the downsides of ownership but we get all the upsides of a subscription model".

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#109

Post by code_runner »

rvnx wrote: post #61
shagie wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does enabling FSD come with any liability / terms of service? If it is backdoor enabled and the vehicle crashes, what is Tesla's liability? If the OTA patches to the system are needed and the car is running the base, unupdated (buggy) build, what is Tesla's liability? Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will…

It never has been Tesla’s responsibility if the FSD fails (whereas for Mercedes they take responsibility)

I think the mercedes taking responsibility thing was at least partially clever marketing. there are really extreme limitations last I saw, which honestly is understandable.
Post reply on HN