-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Laumb
smrtass.
then that's the code normal techs go on the tesla webpage to generate.
they then enter it into an application at command line to enable access to the Ethernet port for use with the diagnostic software on the laptop.
I won't get too much into the debate on who's allowed to do what with the car/hardware/software besides pointing out that in my case specifically I'll reinforce that I'm not messing with a live car, just parts on the bench. I don't intend on dismantling my vehicles to gain this type of access to them. Not much to be gained there for me, anyway.
- - - Updated - - -
Probably so. Wish I knew how they got the code from Tesla
- - - Updated - - -
Probably so. Wish I knew how they got the code from Tesla
I won't get too much into the debate on who's allowed to do what with the car/hardware/software besides pointing out that in my case specifically I'll reinforce that I'm not messing with a live car, just parts on the bench. I don't intend on dismantling my vehicles to gain this type of access to them. Not much to be gained there for me, anyway.
- - - Updated - - -
Probably so. Wish I knew how they got the code from Tesla
I'd also add that wk has physical access. He's not using remote exploits to gain access which is a much bigger issue.
Kalud
Active Member
Head that they normally use their laptop and need to connect to the vpn, even use their cell phone to tether for Internet access. I guess they can tow the car as a next step and finally there must be a way to get a code from engineering...
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
This is such a fun legal mine field. Because both sides have such strong arguments.
We've seen something similar with cell phones. A hacked cell phone can bring down a complete cell and prevent cell service for people around you. So the exemptions that allow rooting / jailbreaking cell phones were written specifically in a way to restrict the use case to allowing access to applications, but not to allow you to make changes to the radio. I'm wildly oversimplifying, btw.
So in the case of a car, what's the equivalent notion? Hacking the IVI system (big screen) or instrument cluster so you get a better UI, get access to more apps, etc? Might be OK. But since there is no explicit DMCA exemption for it, it's still likely a violation of the DMCA since you are breaking an encrypted system. Hacking the auto steer, the break system, the engine control? Even if cars get a DMCA exemption almost certainly illegal.
wk057 is hacking a connected computer system on his workbench. That isn't connected to a car. Probably OK.
If wk057 then takes that hacked system, mounts it in his car, drives around and causes a) damage to his car b) damage to other people or their property? Very different story. In a) Tesla could likely walk away from warranty and in b) wk057 would be in all kinds of legal trouble.
tl;dr: right to repair only dominates the outcome if there is no overriding negative consequence involved.
I really think the idea of "brand protection" when it comes to software right-to-repair is a red herring. You could make any of the same arguments for mechanical systems; after all, if I replace the brakes on my Porsche and use substandard parts (or just do a bad job) and put the car into a wall, the headlines will read "driver crashes Porsche"--not "driver crashes Porsche because he didn't install his aftermarket brake pads correctly."
The same goes for "network effects." Yes, hacked software can be a danger in an interconnected world, but there are few things more interconnected than the interstate highway system. A faulty or incautious brake or steering repair can be just as deadly on I-95 as anything you can do with software.
We have legal systems set up that recognize the source of fault and assign responsibility accordingly. That can sometimes be messy or imperfect, but none of this is a new problem. Everyone thinks that layering code on top of this issue makes it somehow shiny and different, but the issues are basically the same as those that we've faced since the first time one person decided to make something and sell it to someone else.
The same goes for "network effects." Yes, hacked software can be a danger in an interconnected world, but there are few things more interconnected than the interstate highway system. A faulty or incautious brake or steering repair can be just as deadly on I-95 as anything you can do with software.
We have legal systems set up that recognize the source of fault and assign responsibility accordingly. That can sometimes be messy or imperfect, but none of this is a new problem. Everyone thinks that layering code on top of this issue makes it somehow shiny and different, but the issues are basically the same as those that we've faced since the first time one person decided to make something and sell it to someone else.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I think it's more complex than you say. Let's go to another industry for a moment ... I've worked with pharma companies who have the giant headache of dealing with counterfeit product. So good that when we'd look at the packaging, complete with holograms and seals and whatnot, that we could not tell it was not manufactured by the pharma company. Yet the drug product itself was missing biologic activity or wrong concentration or contaminated or just whatever liquid was around at the time.
Do they have a responsibility to the public? Yes, I think so. (So did the company I was working with. So did the FDA.) Could it negatively impact their brand? Oh yeah. So one company, whose flagship product was popular among athletes for doping because it was undetectable, created test kits that tested for an unknown marker added to the drug. And that unknown marker changed, depending on batch. Easy to drug test athletes, but more importantly, very quick and easy to identify counterfeit product.
So that's a case of a third party hack, if you will. People unsuspectingly bought counterfeit product that had shown up in pharmacies. But what if you purchased a car from someone who had made a number of modifications? What assurances do you have that those mods don't impact? Or what if they don't disclose that they made some mods? Are you good with that? Or do you feel Tesla should have built and designed a vehicle that wouldn't allow that to happen.
Complex issue.
spaceballs
Member
There already laws to take care of scenarios like you describe.
What your arguing is how involved you want the manufacture to "Own" the product you buy. It can go 100% to the customer to 0% to where you basically are renting the car. Now you get to argue how much/big the grey area is.
green1
Active Member
Maybe all those who say this shouldn't be allowed should move to a different thread so that WK can get back to actually doing it...
I agree with spaceballs; there are some potentially bad fact patterns that can be spun out here, but none of the issues are really that novel. And I don't think anyone is arguing that Tesla should warrant its cars against the possibility of (physical) modification, right?
Let's take an example from the physical world. I own a 10 year old Porsche that's been out of warranty for 6 or so years now. It's had a variety of different brake pads installed, and a couple of different sets of rotors. It's had non-OEM, high-temp brake fluid. It's also had 2 different sets of non-Porsche approved, non-N spec tires installed,* in sizes that are slightly different from OEM (to try and dial out understeer).
I could sell that car tomorrow, with or without divulging all of the above. If there turned out to be fatal damage to the car from any of those modifications, should the buyer come after me if I failed to disclose them? Or should they go after Porsche? The analogy to the "brand reputation" harm in the software context is that the buyer should go after Porsche for making a car *that is capable of modification.* But that seems (at least to me) crazy--do we really want to live in a world where there are no aftermarket alternatives available for vehicles, and a manufacturer is liable for damage caused to its product because it failed to design its product in such a way to prevent replacement of parts?
The issue of counterfeit goods is slightly different. Of course Porsche has an economic interest in ensuring that people aren't buying (and making) counterfeit Porsches, and they may want to come up with ways to verify that the Porsche you're looking at is authentic, but they don't have a legal obligation to make sure that no one *can* make a counterfeit Porsche. They aren't obligated to design the car in such a way that copying it is impossible, or even particularly difficult. They certainly don't warrant that every car on the road with a Porsche badge is an authentic Porsche.
*FN: If you want to have fun, go to a Porsche board and ask whether you need to install N spec tires on your car. The inevitable flame war will keep you warm all winter.
Let's take an example from the physical world. I own a 10 year old Porsche that's been out of warranty for 6 or so years now. It's had a variety of different brake pads installed, and a couple of different sets of rotors. It's had non-OEM, high-temp brake fluid. It's also had 2 different sets of non-Porsche approved, non-N spec tires installed,* in sizes that are slightly different from OEM (to try and dial out understeer).
I could sell that car tomorrow, with or without divulging all of the above. If there turned out to be fatal damage to the car from any of those modifications, should the buyer come after me if I failed to disclose them? Or should they go after Porsche? The analogy to the "brand reputation" harm in the software context is that the buyer should go after Porsche for making a car *that is capable of modification.* But that seems (at least to me) crazy--do we really want to live in a world where there are no aftermarket alternatives available for vehicles, and a manufacturer is liable for damage caused to its product because it failed to design its product in such a way to prevent replacement of parts?
The issue of counterfeit goods is slightly different. Of course Porsche has an economic interest in ensuring that people aren't buying (and making) counterfeit Porsches, and they may want to come up with ways to verify that the Porsche you're looking at is authentic, but they don't have a legal obligation to make sure that no one *can* make a counterfeit Porsche. They aren't obligated to design the car in such a way that copying it is impossible, or even particularly difficult. They certainly don't warrant that every car on the road with a Porsche badge is an authentic Porsche.
*FN: If you want to have fun, go to a Porsche board and ask whether you need to install N spec tires on your car. The inevitable flame war will keep you warm all winter.
spaceballs
Member
+1
Bonnie use to be a mod so she could have done it, any other mods out there? I say spin this off to a software modding legal discussion thread.
Nobody is saying what wk is doing shouldn't be allowed and I'm sure he's not waiting for an outcome of this discussion before getting back to it.
I owned a 10 year old Lotus, and like every other 10 year old Lotus it was not as it came out of the factory
(Solid gearlink bushes, upgraded wheels and tyres, upgraded brakes, short-shifter, intake kit.... this is considered mild) TBH it was part of the fun of owning the car, and as an "enthusiats car" it's completely expected. I'm 100% positive no one would ever dream of coming back to you for modifying the car in the event of an accident or fitting non standard parts.Last year I traded it in for a brand new one. It is almost exactly as it came out the factory (bar the radio). Until warranty is up it will stay that way. However once the warranty has expired it too will be getting seriously upgraded (bigger Supercharger, better coilovers, louder exhaust, new headers, etc. etc.)
So in a similar vein, we are 5 years off any Model S running out of warranty (possibly excluding the odd 60s that go over 120k miles). I seriously wonder how many will have the appetite to risk the cost of a replacement battery/drivetrain by messing with the cars software. IOW the shear length of the Tesla warranty is probably enough to discourage many from hacking proper cars via software.
Well, let me clear up one thing briefly. If I find a remote exploit, sorry folks, but I'm not posting details about it until well after Tesla patches against it and people have had time to update their cars. I own two of these cars, and the last thing I would want would be someone able to remotely mess things up with mine of other's vehicles. I've not found any such issues, which is good, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Now, if you want to take your dash apart and go to town on your own car... pfft, I'll probably join you. Any exploit that requires significant physical access I personally don't consider a problem in this scenario. I likely won't publicize anything like that either just so that when someone does end up in the situation where they have an out-of-warranty car or a salvage car that there will be a way back in to actually do diagnostics and such that either they can figure out or ask me about.
Suffice it to say I will not release anything publicly that could compromise the security of the car in any way that could potentially jeopardize anyone's safety. If that's what you're looking for, you're in the wrong place and you're going to have to mount your own efforts to do so... and then hope I don't figure things out before you do.
As for the is it allowed/not allowed/consequences of doing what I'm doing, etc...... I think everyone knows where I stand on that for the most part. I'm not going to do anything to intentionally hurt Tesla or anyone else, and I'll give them plenty of time to fix any actual problems I may find before discussing details. I'm not messing with my actual cars because I think that would just cause more trouble than it's worth at the moment.
All of that said, I have some other matters that have priority over this particular project for the next couple of weeks, including some holiday company and such. Going to be a busy couple of weeks.
Now, if you want to take your dash apart and go to town on your own car... pfft, I'll probably join you. Any exploit that requires significant physical access I personally don't consider a problem in this scenario. I likely won't publicize anything like that either just so that when someone does end up in the situation where they have an out-of-warranty car or a salvage car that there will be a way back in to actually do diagnostics and such that either they can figure out or ask me about.
Suffice it to say I will not release anything publicly that could compromise the security of the car in any way that could potentially jeopardize anyone's safety. If that's what you're looking for, you're in the wrong place and you're going to have to mount your own efforts to do so... and then hope I don't figure things out before you do.
As for the is it allowed/not allowed/consequences of doing what I'm doing, etc...... I think everyone knows where I stand on that for the most part. I'm not going to do anything to intentionally hurt Tesla or anyone else, and I'll give them plenty of time to fix any actual problems I may find before discussing details. I'm not messing with my actual cars because I think that would just cause more trouble than it's worth at the moment.
All of that said, I have some other matters that have priority over this particular project for the next couple of weeks, including some holiday company and such. Going to be a busy couple of weeks.
Last edited:
^^^^
I will not post a dump of the filesystems. While I think technically there could be some wiggle room since there are almost no copyright notices on anything and it's mostly GPL type stuff anyway...... that's not a path I'm willing to take.
- - - Updated - - -
I got 99 problems but dev mode aint one...
(Not sure why I felt the need to post that... :tongue: )
