Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.
Well what you talk about only applies to the 75kWh case (which at an extreme, you can rip the pack out of the car and use elsewhere for full capacity anyways), but for the autopilot and ludicrous software, what is being paid for is the software itself.

I see it not different than software pirating. Most software distributed today has the full featured version in the media and only the key is different. You can use keygens and activation hacks to get all the features, even though you did not purchase them. I believe the illegal part of it is it violates copyright, but again IANAL, so I have not looked into it other than a quick google.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swift
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!!!!!!!

This is how laws work, nothing is just "illegal" without a law. If you think something is illegal, it must violate a law, find that law and I'll either explain why it doesn't apply, or admit that you are right.


Proof? I've seen no evidence that anyone has been sent a C&D and then stopped hacking. I have seen one person who entered an agreement with Tesla that prohibits him from telling other people how to modify their vehicles in exchange for some unspecified compensation, but he is very obviously still modifying his own vehicle, and has been known to actually do so to other people's vehicles as well. Additionally Tesla has posted open invitations asking people to hack their vehicles.
I ask simply because you made a similar claim about odometers which turns out completely wrong (it does violate a law to tamper with one even if you don't sell your vehicle).

And on the subject, someone else posted a law that this potentially violates:
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swift
So if one were to buy a 60kwh car (that can be upgraded to 75kwh) and re-purposes the pack for a solar project or something like that and uses the full capacity would that be illegal? The hardware is purchased, and an owner can take apart their car and do whatever they please. The owner never requested to have 75kwh of cells or AP hardware, that was a decision by Tesla.

If the original owner infringes on the EULA (or whatever Tesla calls it) then perhaps that is illegal. Merely taking apart the car and using the parts in some manner has been done for over 100 years in the automotive industry. There is no law against that.

My personal opinion is that is not an issue. Hacking your car to avoid paying $7k to get the remaining battery (illegal/immoral). Dissembling an $80k car to use the battery in your house (not illegal/immoral).
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: green1 and Swift
I've been following this thread from the beginning and was curious if this problem can be formulated a different way. How about this:
  • You buy a house and the living room has two light fixtures - one is 60 watts and another 15 watts

  • The price for the house with 60 watts fixture is $X and you can upgrade to enable the second fixture for certain amount of money.

  • The switch for the 15 watts fixture is removed and replaced with a blank cover plate. Once you pay the upgrade fee to the builder - they send a tech to remove the blank plate and install an actual switch so you can use the 15 watts light fixture.
So, what "illegal" crowd is saying that it is "illegal" (forget about morality for a sec) for me to replace the blank plate with an actual switch (the same type switch the builder would use) to activate that 15 watts fixture. Is that correct? If illegal, why?

Would it be stealing? Stealing what, exactly?

Would that self-modification be immoral?
 
So, what "illegal" crowd is saying that it is "illegal" (forget about morality for a sec) for me to replace the blank plate with an actual switch (the same type switch the builder would use) to activate that 15 watts fixture. Is that correct? If illegal, why?
Yes.

Depending on your local building code, you may need to pull a permit and hire an electrician ;)

Though almost no one does.
 
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.
I agree if you write custom software that simply uses the hardware, then nothing is violated (I pointed out elsewhere, but at an extreme you can just pull out the pack or cells). But that does not appear to be the case here. The call is to hack the Tesla software.

As another points out, that would violate DMCA. And given a temporary exemption for ECUs, it would depend on what uses that exemption covers (I googled a bit and it seems it's intended to protect researchers who may need to tamper with software in order to find issues similar to VW's emissions cheat).
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: croman and green1
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.
Pirating software does not require making a copy to violate copyright. I just looked a bit at the DMCA cases and phone unlocking is covered (an exemption allows for circumventing as long as it is used solely for interoperability). So even unauthorized unlocking of features is consider a copyright violation.
 
My personal opinion is that is not an issue. Hacking your car to avoid paying $7k to get the remaining battery (illegal/immoral). Dissembling an $80k car to use the battery in your house (not illegal/immoral).
It's a good thing the law doesn't revolve around your personal opinion. But if you think it's illegal. Please post the actual law that it violates (note, already covered and proven irrelevant are: DMCA, Copyright law, Laws against theft, laws against hacking, laws against murder, laws requiring modifications to be approved by the NHTSA, so you'll have to find something else.)
 
It's a good thing the law doesn't revolve around your personal opinion. But if you think it's illegal. Please post the actual law that it violates (note, already covered and proven irrelevant are: DMCA, Copyright law, Laws against theft, laws against hacking, laws against murder, laws requiring modifications to be approved by the NHTSA, so you'll have to find something else.)

Do you require a specific law to be written just for every little situation or are the ones you're disregarding just not explicit enough for you?

Here's the text: https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Here's a quick primer:

"Section 1201(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [title 17].” Under the statute, 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.” (CITATION OMITTED)

A technological measure that “effectively controls access to a work” is one that “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.”

Other parts of section 1201, by contrast, address the manufacture and provision of—or “trafficking” in—products and services designed for purposes of circumvention. Section 1201(a)(2) bars trafficking in products and services that are used to circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works (for example, a password needed to open a media file), while section 1201(b) bars trafficking in products and services used to circumvent technological measures that protect the exclusive rights of the copyright owner in their works (for example, technology that prevents the work from being reproduced).

More broadly, activities conducted under the regulatory exemptions must still comply with other applicable laws, including non-copyright provisions. Thus, while an exemption may specifically reference other laws of particular concern, any activities conducted under an exemption must be otherwise lawful."

Federal Register :: Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies

Everyone can read about it and decide on their own. My personal, non-professional opinion, is that I wouldn't put my liberty at jeopardy nor should you doubt the efficacy of the US Marshals.
 
It's a good thing the law doesn't revolve around your personal opinion. But if you think it's illegal. Please post the actual law that it violates (note, already covered and proven irrelevant are: DMCA, Copyright law, Laws against theft, laws against hacking, laws against murder, laws requiring modifications to be approved by the NHTSA, so you'll have to find something else.)
I don't see where it was proven that DMCA is irrelevant. In fact, it is explicitly clear that DMCA applies to hacking automobile software (given there is an explicit temporary exemption required to allow for hacks of such software). Whether it applies to this case would depend on the specific provisions of the exemption (as far as I can tell, none of the exemptions are blanket exemptions, meaning they only apply if used in a certain way). Given IANAL I would not give too much further analysis, but I have not seen an analysis of the DMCA exemption that says it would exempt hacking for the purposes of getting a paid feature for free (the clear example of exemption I read about is for security researchers which @wk057 may fall under; this is also what Tesla says is allowed in terms of encouraging whitehat hackers).
 
Actually people with Volkswagen en Audi's are doing it for years enabling the features via VAGCOM. For example the carkit is by default installed when you order a certain part but not activated. You can simple activate it via VAGCOM.
Given you are in Europe, DMCA does not apply at all to you given it is a US law. I googled a bit and couldn't find anything about "carkit" (other than generic bluetooth kits). Maybe that is a European feature?
 
NHTSA does apply to this
See 49 U.S.C. § 30118
49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(2), (8) and 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112(a)(3), 30118(b).

Green1 isn't reading what is being written just keeps posting the same narrative

If you are modifying or replacing equipment/software on any vehicle it is applicable regardless. The software/hardware can interact adversely with existing subsystems of the vehicle.

I posted it previously and they just re-posted the same narrative :( No point in posting information if they do not read what is being written

Might as well say they are right and apologize
 
Last edited:
One day someone might develop alternative software that can completely overwrite and replace Tesla's software. If you are installing completely new and different software on your car - software that may unlock or utilize unpaid for features - is this illegal or immoral in any way? There is no violation of Tesla's copyright by deleting its software and using someone else's. Of course such an option does not currently exist, but it might someday.
 
Carkit is Handsfree calling.
I googled it. In the USA, handsfree calling is included for free with the MMI system, so any activation of the feature is simply enabling a free feature, so the situation does not apply:
Audi MMI® Help & MMI® Video Tutorials | Audi USA

In Europe, it costs 270 EUR, so it is a similar situation to Tesla's, but again the DMCA does not apply in Europe:
Bluetooth hands-free system 8K1051473 > Audi Genuine Accessories - Vorsprung durch Technik
 
One day someone might develop alternative software that can completely overwrite and replace Tesla's software. If you are installing completely new and different software on your car - software that may unlock or utilize unpaid for features - is this illegal or immoral in any way? There is no violation of Tesla's copyright by deleting its software and using someone else's. Of course such an option does not currently exist, but it might someday.
I don't think anyone is claiming that specific situation (completely different custom software) would be illegal or immoral in anyway. That would be little different from people who are already ripping out the motor/inverters or battery pack/modules/cells and using it elsewhere.

What we are discussing here however is hacking Tesla's software to unlock paid features for free (the clear unambiguous example is autopilot, where the core value is in the software itself).
 
I don't think anyone is claiming that specific situation (completely different custom software) would be illegal or immoral in anyway. That would be little different from people who are already ripping out the motor/inverters or battery pack/modules/cells and using it elsewhere.

What we are discussing here however is hacking Tesla's software to unlock paid features for free (the clear unambiguous example is autopilot, where the core value is in the software itself).
Unlocking the software (not using the proprietary Tesla mechanism) would technically have to comply with various FMVSS regulations set by NHTSA. The hacker/unlocker could be classified as the "manufacturer" of the hack (which would be classified as replacement vehicle equipment- i.e. the hack supplants FMVSS compliant proprietary Tesla code/functions) and thus must comply with 49 U.S.C. § 30118.

So unless this code has been hardened and there is a paper trail to show that it is compliant; NHTSA could restrict the use of this hack.

OTOH if the hack is based on proprietary Tesla IP (the manner in which they unlock key features) then that would be straight theft.
 
I googled it. In the USA, handsfree calling is included for free with the MMI system, so any activation of the feature is simply enabling a free feature, so the situation does not apply:
Audi MMI® Help & MMI® Video Tutorials | Audi USA

In Europe, it costs 270 EUR, so it is a similar situation to Tesla's, but again the DMCA does not apply in Europe:
Bluetooth hands-free system 8K1051473 > Audi Genuine Accessories - Vorsprung durch Technik
Yes correct in the US the cars are standard supplied with more options, due to the fact they have to compete with Chevy cars that are cheapers and have a lot of options.