Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features • Hacker News Board

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#31

Post by MostlyStable » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

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…

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.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#32

Post by johnl1479 » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

Libcat99 wrote: post #14

johnl1479 wrote: post #7

I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.

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…

> However I'll echo what another poster said. I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever they want, but if the end user finds a way around it too bad.

I think thats the stance I'm leaning towards as well. To quote another commenter[1]:

> 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.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36988514

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#33

Post by tadfisher » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

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…

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).

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#34

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

MostlyStable wrote: post #31

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…

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 c…

I'm fully supportive of someone going to court and finding out what happens when they do this. It is far more valuable than wild speculation. Copyright law is bad and should be changed, but that is unlikely a winning defense in the course of a civil suit (or criminally, if prosecuted for DMCA violations, such as circumvention of digital mechanisms for access control per 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) [1] [2]. I am fairly confident (not an attorney, not your attorney) this applies to access to Tesla's FSD digital work.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems)

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... (circumvent a technological measure (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.)

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#35

Post by shagie » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #2

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

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 Tesla be able to transfer to the vehicle owner?

Hypothetically, if Tesla were licensing 3rd party software and that license was based on installed uses and Tesla was reporting the subscriptions for FSD (rather than sales of the vehicle), what would enabling the software open up Tesla to? Would Tesla then be able to sue the person who unlocked it for the additional licensing costs they incurred?

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#36

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

johnl1479 wrote: post #7

I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.

From the perspective of a customer, what is the difference between a heated seat that doesn't work because it doesn't exist, and one that is locked out by software? Assuming the customer isn't paying up front for that feature.

Some people don't want to pay for heated seats. Turns out the manufacturer found it cheaper to just include the hardware anyway rather than differentiate on the production line. What's the big deal? The ability to change your mind and pay for the feature after purchase without getting an aftermarket seat heater seems like a nice bonus. Everyone wins.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#37

Post by denlekke » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #6

carstenhag wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

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 ?

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#38

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

Libcat99 wrote: post #14

johnl1479 wrote: post #7

I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.

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 more than just morally questionable, it crosses a line into some sort of fraud/extortion-adjacent realm.

If Tesla was really upset about this, it's a problem completely within their capacity to solve. Only send bugfixes OTA, require a service visit for new features. I'm betting that their software's such a trainwreck they wouldn't be able to compartmentalize it properly like that to save their own lives.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#39

Post by _trampeltier » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #6

carstenhag wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

I think it was even a post here, because somebody had to fix something on his car, he don't even had the licence to use it.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#40

Post by ipaddr » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

wahnfrieden wrote: post #15

johnl1479 wrote: post #7

I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.

Does that mean all feature-gating iOS App Store IAP should be unlocked for iPhone owners?

Of course.