No, if you don't pay for it then it's the bank's car.
It's like saying "the super stole my TV!!" when actually the super just let the police in with a search warrant, and they took the TV you stole down to the station.
It's like saying "the super stole my TV!!" when actually the super just let the police in with a search warrant, and they took the TV you stole down to the station.
Evidently, the car isn't yours, even though you have paid for it. Tesla still owns it.
Every locksmith in the world has the ability to bypass your lock (exaggeration). That doesn't make them the owner.
You didn't need to and given that was already avoided here; it now has been admitted. Thus, it is by definition a 'backdoor' then especially a directly 'remote' one. It doesn't matter who it is, we just know that Tesla and many others have this ability directly; no locksmith needed or whatever.
So the future is connected cars where not even you can fully control your own car and it is still 'owned' and can be externally controlled in the hands of the manufacturer, just like our phones. Since they are already giving out OTA updates to it.
Dreadful.
In this case though some people are objecting to who the "owner" is. And I think that the people objecting are wrong. And (I assume) so does the law.
Your car is not protected from the bank or the government by its keys, but by the law.
Same as your house. If you lose your house legally, you'll lose your house physically.
The fact that the bank (indirectly) called Tesla instead of a locksmith is to me irrelevant in this case.
Now, in the abstract, is it uncomfortable that the car manufacturer can unlock your car? Sure. But we knew that they could. How else could your phone do it.
I hate to break it to you, but your telco can tap your phoneline. The bus can track your public transport movement. I can follow you on the street. Your power company can effectively track when you're away on vacation.
This case was not abuse. And it doesn't even have to be cloud-connected to enable this kind of owner-depriving abuse. As soon as cars got their first microchip they could have gotten firmware that would brick the car unless it went to an authorized dealer twice a year for "reset".
I'm not saying there aren't dangers, but this case isn't it.
> You didn't need to and given that was already avoided here; it now has been admitted.
It's interesting how you seem to think this was a "gotcha".
It's like the people who say "there is no cloud, it's just someone else's computer". Yeah, just like there is no bakery, it's just someone else's oven.
That may be analogous to "the cloud", but not to the subject here: When you buy a car or a phone, it's supposed to be "yours". (That's what "buying something" means.)
When you go to the bakery every morning to buy your breakfast baguette, you don't think you're buying the bakery -- you're just buying the bread. And that is yours after you've paid for it. Or does your baker have an electronic backdoor to the bread he sells you?
(And you're not just renting the bread, or "buying the service of using it for a while". Or does your baker come around and collect your poop after you've digested the bread?)