Hacker News Reader

Comment by inlined | Hacker News Reader

> On a final note, Tesla’s bug bounty program is fantastic. They provide a safe haven for researchers who are in good-faith trying to hack their cars. If you accidentally brick one, they’ll even offer support in attempting to fix it.

This is an amazingly open and refreshing policy!

View on HN

* Subject to Tesla's definition of "good faith".

Another hacker who discovered references to the Model 3 in his car before its announcement:

* had his vehicle firmware downgraded to a version that contained no such references

* had his vehicle blocked from receiving further firmware updates

* had his vehicles ethernet port disabled

* [deleted] caught some commentary from Musk about his hacking behavior put himself, and other drivers at risk.[/deleted]

Tesla and send a custom update that breaks your specific car that you bought?

They would call it "protecting their IP", rather than "breaking", but yes.

Though I suppose it's not technically "breaking" but downgrading.

You are entitled to the software provided with the vehicle at time of purchase, no more.

Tesla software is Tesla IP. Would you dump your company's Github repos to customers? If not, why would Tesla wanting to tightly control their firmware and its contents be different? I have yet to run across a license agreement when code is provided to a customer that allows reverse engineering or disassembly.

I do disagree with the decision to disable ethernet ports on an owner's product.

> You are entitled to the software provided with the vehicle at time of purchase, no more.

And is the company entitled to reach into your device and remove the software provided and substitute it with an older version?

If the statement above is correct then they can substitute any newer version of the software with the one that was installed when you bought it.

One could argue whatever that because Tesla advertises heavily with OTA upgrades that they are included in the purchase price and therefore should not be able to be unilaterally pulled.

Many software updates are effectively product recalls, even if we don't call them that. Replacing the most recent software with a recalled version could be a safety concern, depending on what bugs exist in the old software.

I don't know exactly what obligations automakers have with respect to recalls, but I would expect that it's something more than just "we aren't allowed to make the car any more broken than it was the day you bought it".

>You are entitled to the software provided with the vehicle at time of purchase, no more.

Is this actually true? I'm entitled to a working product, so if a future update fixes bugs, am I not entitled to it?

Also, specifically in Tesla's case, they advertise that their cars are "capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future through software updates". If that does happen, am I not entitled to that update considering I bought a Tesla with that in mind?

As I have to say far too often to people:

"What does your contract [or in this case, purchase agreement] say?" If it is silent on the subject of updates, how would a court interpret the argument that you are entitled to free software updates? For how long?

The battery and powertrain warranty is specific. The remaining component warranty is specific. The amount of time you receive premium data for is specific. There is no language to my knowledge (I would have to pull the purchase agreement for my Model S out) that speaks to a purchaser's entitlement to software updates when purchasing any model of Tesla.

The lack of specific language in the contract means that it is open to interpretation. And the most reasonable interpretation is that you are entitled to all updates because that is what is in their marketing.

Agree to disagree that is a reasonable interpretation.

Then you'd have a case for deceptive marketing, perhaps, if your "reasonable interpretation" is that advertising "full self driving will be available with this hardware subject to regulation" but your literal interpretation of the caveat is "but not to you, ever".

Whether their marketing language is included in the actual contract is irrelevant. If sales people and Tesla sell cars based on the idea that a Tesla is better because you get software updates and added functionality down the road (which they do), courts would most definitely side with the consumer.

Not to mention the fact that courts also tend to side with consumers when it comes to "implied contracts". If every car sold has and still does get updates on a regular basis, Tesla can't just not give the same to some customers.

Now, there may well be a provision allowing in the contract staying they have a right to deny updates if you try to reverse engineer things, but otherwise, they would need to go through the courts to go after someone for breach of contract. You don't get to take the law into your own hands when you suspect someone of wronging you.

Source? The closest thing I can find is this, which matches some details of your description but conflicts with others: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/706185709481119745

Interesting, I hadn't seen that reply. I edited my previous comment.

I love that we're living in a world where you can accidentally brick your car. The future, man, the future.

As an owner of a 1974 Mini Clubman, I can assure you that the ability to "brick" your car by tampering with it is not a new concept...

I don't. Especially if it can be bricked through the internet in the middle of driving at high speed.

Does this mean you can legally mod your car under the guise of hacking it?

It's not illegal to have a NO2 factory in your garage, it's illegal to drive it on the roads. A good-faith emissions control hacking would probably not involve long-distance highway driving or racing.

I was thinking you wouldn't have to tell Tesla this, but it's a good point because the car is connected so they would know if you were driving it or not.

Maybe if you only drive in a private property and not public roads. Probably like aftermarket modifications currently.

This topic made me think of a funny old video of a farmer who put a turbo on his tractor.

Probably illegal to drive this on any public road, however on his own property/private roads he is having a blast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZZpAO0jP7E

Also some gearing changes most likely.

I'd want a lot more roll cage than he has on there.

What is with this latent assumption in this thread that DIY activity is a priori illegal? Of course it's legal to mod your car under the guise of hacking. Just like it's legal to mod your car under the guise of throwing a birthday party. The "guise" is irrelevant!

There's obviously legal nuance involving speed, safety, etc. But propagating a cultural assumption of "doing something weird must be illegal" is frightening.

It comes down to DRM and BS in the software industry. Anything with a EULA usually disallows you from doing anything "unauthorized" with it, and Teslas have a lot of software and EULA

I will agree that software authoritarianism is a big source of ambiguous fear being pushed onto other endeavors, but a contractual dispute is a far cry from "illegal". And yes the broken-ass DMCA can lift some of that into the realm of illegal, but even that is practically unenforceable beyond a mere chilling effect on publishing.

>but even that is practically unenforceable beyond a mere chilling effect on publishing

Not with Tesla recording remotely what "owners" do with their cars.

Modding cars is already legal.

I mean, you need to expand this statement, because with just those 5 words it's blatantly untrue. There's a whole load of mods allowed by my insurance and I'm sure you'd consider most of them "modding" - the law also has no opinion on most of them unless they start changing the emissions of the car(in which case that's still not the end of the world, you can get the car re-certified for the new emissions figure).

Edit: ignore me, I apparently cannot read

You're being pedantic. Saying "modding cars is legal" doesn't mean it's unrestricted.

Since when do insurance companies approve car mods? And what does that have to do with something being legal?

The only federal legal restrictions are on emissions equipment and safety equipment like seat belts and airbags. Some states have additional laws like tint limits and exhaust sound limits.

Wait, I either misread his comment, or it was changed after I replied - I was replying with the assumption that he said "modding is already illegal".

And any mods have to be reported to your insurer in the UK, even if it's just changing rims or putting on non-standard size tyres - failing to do so might get your claim denied if you ever file one.

I misread it exactly the same as you and had to go back.

I think since the default is for something to be "legal" until it is made "illegal" it makes the phrase "already legal" an uncommon one.

Also, at least in the US, there is little chance an insurance company could deny a claim based on a mod (reported or not) as long as said mod could not reasonably be construed to be the cause of the claim.

Not that they wouldn't try.

Same as the whole "warranty void if seal is broken" nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com