Is it possible to hack the software to unlock battery, autopilot, etc.?

[stopcrazypp]

The Model S P100D was not designed for ludicrous mode?

A recent production Model S 60kwh is not designed to use the full 75kwh pack?

A Model S with AP hardware is not designed to use autopilot?

No, that's not what I am saying. Processors are designed to be overclocked by the end user. It's only a click of a button in the BIOS.

Tesla however did not design their software limited features to be unlocked for free. If Tesla added a button in the car to unlock extra power for free (such as the recent Ludicrous+) that is the same thing as your overclocking analogy. However, the ludicrous mode, 75kWh, autopilot require payment to unlock. You are circumventing that by not paying. The closest analogy I see is to pirating software.

 

[green1]

No, that's not what I am saying. Processors are designed to be overclocked by the end user. It's only a click of a button in the BIOS.

Tesla however did not design their software limited features to be unlocked for free. If Tesla added a button in the car to unlock extra power for free (such as the recent Ludicrous+) that is the same thing as your overclocking analogy. However, the ludicrous mode, 75kWh, autopilot require payment to unlock. You are circumventing that by not paying. The closest analogy I see is to pirating software.

Pirating software involves making a copy of the software, and violates copyright law. No copies of any software are required here, so there is no relation in any way shape of form to copyright infringement. To conflate the two indicates a complete lack of understanding of what is being discussed here.

As for "a setting in the BIOS" is that really different than "a setting in the car software"? it's a simple setting right on the centre display after you log in. It's obviously designed to do it. If the processor manufacturer had also made the bios they probably wouldn't have included the option at all.

 

[PowerSource]

No, that's not what I am saying. Processors are designed to be overclocked by the end user. It's only a click of a button in the BIOS.

Tesla however did not design their software limited features to be unlocked for free. If Tesla added a button in the car to unlock extra power for free (such as the recent Ludicrous+) that is the same thing as your overclocking analogy. However, the ludicrous mode, 75kWh, autopilot require payment to unlock. You are circumventing that by not paying. The closest analogy I see is to pirating software.

If someone writes their own firmware and or has their own hardware that communicates with these subsystems/hardware they purchased then they are merely using the hardware that came with the vehicle. If they are using Tesla internal/specific code (obtained from Tesla) then you are correct.

The real way Tesla could stop this, if they so deemed it necessary, is to get NHTSA involved. They would likely send the party that unlocked these features a special inquiry ensuring that their methods met FMVSS standards. Once this happens the hacking would stop pretty quickly. Why waste Tesla's resources suing these companies/individuals when they can use the government to protect their products. IMO that would be the smart way to go.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

No, that's not what I am saying. Processors are designed to be overclocked by the end user. It's only a click of a button in the BIOS.

Tesla however did not design their software limited features to be unlocked for free. If Tesla added a button in the car to unlock extra power for free (such as the recent Ludicrous+) that is the same thing as your overclocking analogy. However, the ludicrous mode, 75kWh, autopilot require payment to unlock. You are circumventing that by not paying. The closest analogy I see is to pirating software.

To play devil's advocate, why is Tesla's inability to properly secure its features from access the consumer's fault? Why punish a consumer for finding ways to extract added functionality from their purchase? One can argue that if Tesla provided you with a 75 kWh pack, there is nothing to steel because it's already in your car.

Apple's 2010 Mac Pro computer was physically identical to its 2009 model. The only model differentiator was in Apple's firmware. However, at some point in the future Apple discontinued support in their OS updates for 2009 models, yet 2010 owners were unaffected. A software patch was created by someone that made its rounds on the internet to patch to re-flash the firmware on 2009 models to make them appear as 2010 models. This enabled a whole slew of CPU upgrade possibilities as well as future OS support.

Was it illegal for me to apply said patch to turn my 2009 Mac Pro into a newer, more valuable 2010 Mac Pro even though the hardware specs are identical and the only change is one setting in the firmware? I mean, I didn't actually buy a new 2010 Mac Pro.

If I chain and padlock the basement in my house, which is 1,500 sqft, and I remove 1,500 sqft from my advertised square footage and sold the house based on the advertised specifications, is it illegal for the new owner of my home to crash through the lock and use square footage that they did not pay for? Do I, as the previous owner, have a right to claw back ownership of the basement or somehow exercise control over that basement once the house was sold? Only if there was a specific agreement to that effect.

If a case like this ended up in court, Tesla would have to show where it was financially harmed by the owners actions. I don't see how Tesla could prove financial harm when Tesla was the one who chose to provide a more expensive battery pack than what was actually requested by the customer. The financial harm has already occurred by putting the more expensive hardware in the vehicle, and that harm was caused by Tesla itself.

 

[green1]

If someone writes their own firmware and or has their own hardware that communicates with these subsystems/hardware they purchased then they are merely using the hardware that came with the vehicle. If they are using Tesla internal/specific code (obtained from Tesla) then you are correct.

The real way Tesla could stop this, if they so deemed it necessary, is to get NHTSA involved. They would likely send the party that unlocked these features a special inquiry ensuring that their methods met FMVSS standards. Once this happens the hacking would stop pretty quickly. Why waste Tesla's resources suing these companies/individuals when they can use the government to protect their products. IMO that would be the smart way to go.

The NHTSA doesn't regulate how people work on their own vehicles in any way shape or form. You are free to replace your own brakes at home with the wrong model and the NHTSA won't do a thing about it.

Even if your ridiculous statement held water, the inquiry would go like this:
NHTSA: how are you doing it?
Hacker: Exactly the same way Tesla does, using their own interface
NHTSA: Tesla quit whining to us and wasting our time! We're not in the business of enforcing your bad policy decisions!

 

[Max*]

Are you a lawyer? I would not say that it violates no laws unless you have actually looked at it.

it's been looked at extensively in this very thread. However if you are so certain that it breaks a law despite all the evidence so far. POST THE LAW YOU THINK IT VIOLATES!!!!!!!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

i.e. if no one posted a law here, doesn't imply in anyway whatsoever that no law exists.

[also, he didn't say it's illegal in that quote]

 

[Max*]

no party that can be harmed by it.

I completely agree.

That is if you exclude financial harm to Tesla.

 

[demundus]

Missed it. Last I remember you were disabling nags

My adventures in gaining control of my car

Which thread has you in developer mode?

 

[PowerSource]

The NHTSA doesn't regulate how people work on their own vehicles in any way shape or form. You are free to replace your own brakes at home with the wrong model and the NHTSA won't do a thing about it.

Even if your ridiculous statement held water, the inquiry would go like this:
NHTSA: how are you doing it?
Hacker: Exactly the same way Tesla does, using their own interface
NHTSA: Tesla quit whining to us and wasting our time! We're not in the business of enforcing your bad policy decisions!

NHTSA regulates the safety impact of unauthorized software/hardware on vehicles (regardless of how they are obtained) that could pose a safety risk to the public.

With regards to the conversation, it is not that simple the special order would be quite detailed and all the testing parameters would have to be handed over to NHTSA.

Tesla used this strategy with George Hotz and his autopilot

49 U.S. Code § 30166 - Inspections, investigations, and records

 

[Max*]

Was it illegal for me to apply said patch to turn my 2009 Mac Pro into a newer, more valuable 2010 Mac Pro even though the hardware specs are identical and the only change is one setting in the firmware? I mean, I didn't actually buy a new 2010 Mac Pro.

Illegal? Probably not. And even if it was, no one was going to go after you.
Unethical/immoral? Maybe, that depends on your moral compass.

If I were in your shoes, I'd do the same thing.

 

[green1]

NHTSA regulates the safety impact of unauthorized software/hardware on vehicles (regardless of how they are obtained) that could pose a safety risk to the public.

With regards to the conversation, it is not that simple the special order would be quite detailed and all the testing parameters would have to be handed over to NHTSA.

Tesla used this strategy with George Hotz and his autopilot

49 U.S. Code § 30166 - Inspections, investigations, and records

George Hotz was selling a modification. the NHTSA does have jurisdiction over that.
Nobody has suggested anyone selling anything here, let along a modification. People are talking about changing a switch, the same switch Tesla does for the same thing.

This would be no different than Chevy asking the NHTSA to investigate anyone who rotated their own tires. The NHTSA would laugh them out of their offices!

So you really truly believe that the NHTSA would go after a DIY modification (despite never having done so before in their entire history) and then demand that people prove it's safe when it's the same interface Tesla themselves use. You are REALLY grasping at straws now!

 

[PowerSource]

George Hotz was selling a modification. the NHTSA does have jurisdiction over that.
Nobody has suggested anyone selling anything here, let along a modification. People are talking about changing a switch, the same switch Tesla does for the same thing.

This would be no different than Chevy asking the NHTSA to investigate anyone who rotated their own tires. The NHTSA would laugh them out of their offices!

So you really truly believe that the NHTSA would go after a DIY modification (despite never having done so before in their entire history) and then demand that people prove it's safe when it's the same interface Tesla themselves use. You are REALLY grasping at straws now!

George Hotz never sold anything... my example was specifically not unlocking the features the same way Tesla did because that would suggest using Tesla's proprietary code, which would probably be illegal.

 

[green1]

George Hotz never sold anything... my example was specifically not unlocking the features the same way Tesla did because that would suggest using Tesla's proprietary code, which would probably be illegal.

And the NHTSA didn't do anything other than ask if he was planning to.

If you don't think that it's the same way Tesla would, than you have no clue what you're talking about, it's EXACTLY Tesla's way. The code is already on the car.

And yet again with the "illegal" word... show me the law.

 

[croman]

If there is a method of securing the software against tampering and you circumvent it in any way (even if the security is flimsy or stupid), you are violating the DMCA. While some believe a modification in the past 5 years allows automotive hacking, it explicitly exempts the kind of activity that could potentially affect the safety of a vehicle. Thus changing the avatar of your car to yellow or green or another Bond vehicle is allowed. Anything further than that invites a criminal trial where your freedom is put in jeopardy.

 

[PowerSource]

And the NHTSA didn't do anything other than ask if he was planning to.

If you don't think that it's the same way Tesla would, than you have no clue what you're talking about, it's EXACTLY Tesla's way. The code is already on the car.

And yet again with the "illegal" word... show me the law.

you are correct apologies

 

[jeffro01]

Woah, be careful with that. That logic would support Microsoft being owed royalties on any 3rd party software of any kind that runs on Windows computers. And require that, say, Dell must be paid for any software an end user wants to install on one of their computers.

WHAT???? That doesn't even make sense... Windows is DESIGNED to have third party software run on it... There is no special switch you need to enable to do so, it comes that way out of the freaking "box"... Where in the hell did you even come up with such a ridiculous argument?

Jeff

 

[jeffro01]

I continue to maintain that just because you can't point out a specific statute that says X is illegal, that doesn't make it right. Anyone who hacks their cars to enable features/functionality they didn't pay for is stealing from Tesla and I don't care what kind of backwards, or otherwise insane, logic you come up with to justify it.

Tesla knows what you're doing and this is yet another example of why people like me shouldn't be put in charge of companies like Tesla as I'd lock anyone of out of their cars completely if I detected this kind of nonsense. Theft is theft no matter how you slice it. You paid for the car on the MVPA, not the car you hacked to steal features you didn't pay for on said MVPA... As a shareholder, I wish Tesla would take a far more aggressive stance with this stuff... There is a line they can draw that allows people like Jason Hughes to tinker while stopping others from blatantly stealing from the company...

Jeff

 

[Max*]

I continue to maintain that just because you can't point out a specific statute that says X is illegal, that doesn't make it right. Anyone who hacks their cars to enable features/functionality they didn't pay for is stealing from Tesla and I don't care what kind of backwards, or otherwise insane, logic you come up with to justify it.

Tesla knows what you're doing and this is yet another example of why people like me shouldn't be put in charge of companies like Tesla as I'd lock anyone of out of their cars completely if I detected this kind of nonsense. Theft is theft no matter how you slice it. You paid for the car on the MVPA, not the car you hacked to steal features you didn't pay for on said MVPA... As a shareholder, I wish Tesla would take a far more aggressive stance with this stuff... There is a line they can draw that allows people like Jason Hughes to tinker while stopping others from blatantly stealing from the company...

Jeff

Were you against Jason Hughes when he took an 85kwh battery and installed it in a car that previously had a 60kwh battery in it (no theft here, he paid for the battery right) and THEN he took that 85, and in software, upgraded it to a P85?

Did theft occur then? He didn't buy a P85 battery/drivetrain (based on him, they're not any different anyways).

Pack Swap on 70D to 90kWh HP?

He "stole" $10k from Tesla! Where's the outrage there? Most of the posts were positive.



I think the issue with this thread is green1's persona (and don't take this personally green1). If he were to just say "yeah, I'm going to hack a Tesla to convert a 60kwh to a 75kwh just in software, and I don't care" it'd be one thing, but he's trying to argue that what he's doing is ethical (which is questionable) and moral (again, questionable) because no laws have been broken (yet again, questionable, though maybe he's right).

 

[Swift]

Are they? Is there some part of any of the agreements that specifically states that as a 60 owner I'm not allowed to use the additional 15kWh? Merely charging $7k to unlock that is not a sufficient statement that I'm not allowed to unlock it myself.

If you seriously believe you are entitled/allowed to unlock the 60->75 upgrade yourself and without paying for it, please do so and prove it out for the benefit of those debating it here on the forums, Tesla's lawyers, and CA law enforcement.

 

[jeffro01]

Were you against Jason Hughes when he took an 85kwh battery and installed it in a car that previously had a 60kwh battery in it (no theft here, he paid for the battery right) and THEN he took that 85, and in software, upgraded it to a P85?

Did theft occur then? He didn't buy a P85 battery/drivetrain (based on him, they're not any different anyways).

Pack Swap on 70D to 90kWh HP?

He "stole" $10k from Tesla! Where's the outrage there? Most of the posts were positive.



I think the issue with this thread is green1's persona (and don't take this personally green1). If he were to just say "yeah, I'm going to hack a Tesla to convert a 60kwh to a 75kwh just in software, and I don't care" it'd be one thing, but he's trying to argue that what he's doing is ethical (which is questionable) and moral (again, questionable) because no laws have been broken (yet again, questionable, though maybe he's right).

Apple vs Oranges with regards to my argument... Jason bought an 85kWh battery second hand, he bought the car second hand, in those kinds of transactions he's no longer dealing with Tesla....

For me this is a very easy distinction to draw.... If you bought the car brand new from Tesla delivered to you in the configuration specified on your MVPA and then you hack the software to unlock features/functionality you didn't pay for that wasn't on your MVPA then you've now committed theft. However, if you bought said car and then went out and bought a bigger battery second hand and simply need to update the car software to enable that battery then I don't see what the issue is. Those are completely different things in my mind. Again, as I said before, there is a line that can be drawn here between tinkerers like Jason and those who seek to defraud and steal from Tesla.

Jeff