This should be "hacked" by the regulator and not by the hackers. If they sold you a car with heated seats (so if the hardware is there), the heated seats should be available for the consumer to use.
Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
401–410 of 773 posts
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flip side of that is when they disable features that were purchased when a car is purchased used.
I think the disabling features of a used car has some nuances. 1) If tesla took possession of the used car and then sold it to you, I think they can disable features. 2) If you sold your car to someone, and THEN tesla disabled features I am not ok with that. With case #1, I think it is like any used car. People flip cars. They can take a car, remove expensive rims or other options and sell the car without them. Peopl…
Case 2 definitely has happened.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also change my facial hair style 4 times a year. Will start getting plastic surgery twice a year starting next year.
sounds like a slippery slope to voluntary hip surgery for gait correction
I always wondered if this could be beat by putting a pebble in your shoe or something.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the end user, I couldn’t care less about a manufacturer’s costs. That’s a them problem, not a me problem. I understand your point. I just don’t care. They sold me a thing, and now it’s mine.
That strikes me as a pretty dissonant argument on HN. If we play that out, no software creator would have a defensible way to monetize what they invested time, energy and money to create. Enforceable laws protecting IP are the difference between entire sectors of the economy existing vs. not being worth the effort.
I don't think that's true at all, or what the person you're replying to is getting at.
If you sell me a bunch of hardware, that hardware is now mine, and I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If you sell that hardware with a bunch of software on it, I should again be able to do anything I want with that software.
That doesn't entitle me to updates of that software, or ongoing use of the company's cloud infrastructure. It's fine to require payment for that.
IP laws just aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should be able to legally "pirate" the software running on our devices.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#405> Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry. Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.
You better be ok with building your own car then, because every major player is adding subscriptions for various features. Remote start and remote lock/unlock are the most common, along with satellite radio.
The way I see it is that you're supposed to own the car and every feature you paid for it.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heated seats is essentially a bool somewhere in the code implemented as artificial limitation. Self-Driving is much more complex and abides much more as an argument to your view.
But who gets to decide? Usually the more uneducated a person is of some particular product, the more they think a feature is "just a bool somewhere". (personally I'm very much on the side of giving people control of their own software and hardware)
If the hardware for the feature is present and hooked up, and the software (if any) that's needed to run it is installed, then it is indeed "just a bool somewhere".
If the hardware requires non-trivial software to enable the feature, and that software is not provided with the device, then it's fair to require additional payment to buy that software. But also no one should be able to prevent a third party from reverse engineering the hardware and writing their own software for it.
I think "who gets to decide?" is a somewhat silly question. It's the same answer we'd accept for just about any situation: someone reasonably well-versed in the technology.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#407Pretty sophisticated attack vector: low voltage attack on AMD secure execution environment during boot. I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place. Also, I imagine you only need to cut 12V wires to do this, but I admire the willingness to get in there direct on these systems. I'd be a little nervous to make those cuts personally. Buried in the article is the claim that this will…
Just like we used to have cable box guys willing to sell you an unlocked box for premium channels, we are eventually going to have feature unlock guys that you go do and for a small fee perform some slightly more technical hack to enable features that are already there.
This has already been the case on European navigation systems (Audi and VW MMI/MIB) for many years now.
VW Audi Group developed an entire infrastructure called SWaP (Software as a Product) and FEC (Feature Enable Codes) many years ago, and ever since, there has been a cottage industry in bypassing the system to enable features like CarPlay, Navigation, and Performance Monitor which are usually locked by software trim levels.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's relatively clear to me... Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter. BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. Something like self-driving, where there might be an active in…
If the feature is built in to the car from the factory and disabled via software so they can charge more then you are already paying for the parts and lugging around the added weight in the vehicle thus costing you more in fuel. Software locking a hardware feature that is integrated is an awful practice. Telsa chose to do this presumably to only have to buy a single seat configuration and streamline installs so they…
For many features it makes sense. Heated seats for example have trivial hardware costs. It's basically a couple resistive wires, plus the necessary controls. The process costs of manufacturing some cars with and some without heated seats likely far exceed the cost of the heated seats themselves, so it's cheaper to just put them in every car. But heated seats are a great upselling opportunity, people are willing to pay $200-400 for them, more if you bundle them in a package with other stuff the customer doesn't actually need but that creates a vague sense of value.
The compromise that minimizes production costs and still allows that upsell is to put them in every car and disable them via software.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the end user, I couldn’t care less about a manufacturer’s costs. That’s a them problem, not a me problem. I understand your point. I just don’t care. They sold me a thing, and now it’s mine.
That strikes me as a pretty dissonant argument on HN. If we play that out, no software creator would have a defensible way to monetize what they invested time, energy and money to create. Enforceable laws protecting IP are the difference between entire sectors of the economy existing vs. not being worth the effort.
I strong disagree. I'm not talking about making unauthorized copies of the car. I'm just going with the principle that's as old as the whole concept of property: once I buy something, it's mine.
If I own a shoe, I can paint it to look different or change its shoelaces. If I own a book, I can tear out the pages and rearrange them. If I own a TV, I can hook anything I want up to it. And if I own a car, I can modify it as I see fit. Those things are mine. If I no longer want them, I can sell them (barring a specific contract with the manufacturer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). And if a company wants me to pay them money while still retaining some kind of legal right to restrict how I use it, they can negotiate a discounted price for me to pay them.
When I walk onto a car lot, I'm not saying "whoa, check out this IP!" The salesperson doesn't hype me up by saying "you could own significant portions of this beauty today!" We don't sign a "purchase (most of it) contract". I don't pay "sales-but-all-rights-reserved" tax on it. The DMV lists me as the owner, not the IP licensee.
If I had to choose whether to support laws protecting IP versus laws protecting ownership, I'll pick ownership 100% of the time.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#410I'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 think the problem becomes when you figure out a way to unlock those extra CPUs without paying IBM, and then IBM sues you or terminates your contract with them entirely.
People should not be constrained in doing whatever they want with the hardware they have bought.