Coming soon to a car near you.
Not saying cars should be locked down like this, I really don't know and my first 'hacker' instinct is to say it should be free-as-in-freedom, but the argument has an extra dimension to it when compared to the Nintendo Switch.
(That's of course assuming in your threat model you trust the hardware maker but not the cloud provider. The sentiment in this thread is clearly don't trust the hardware maker.)
Of course, running on your 'own' hardware is a fiction, too: companies themselves are made up of contractual relationships, fiduciary duties and other legal devices.
Even if you are running your software on your own in-house datacentres, remote attestation is still useful.
(Just like git's commit hashes are still useful, not only when your code lives externally on github, but even when some other department of the same company is hosting your source code.)
Exactly.
The societal situation is analogous to "Web 2.0". Everybody thought "this is neat, it lets me make interactive applications that I can share easily with my friends". Few dwelled much on how the intrinsic centralized control was a terrible dynamic. Over time, economic optimization increasingly focused on and exploited that centralized control. Now we've ended up with most people's idea of "the Internet" being choosing between least-bad corporate bundles, and just suffering all the ways they're being controlled. Remote attestation further increases that control, making it infeasible to employ software to represents your own interests.
Your new comment is basically re-iterating this sentence I quoted from the old one.
I'm not sure, if I outright agree; but I do see the point and was not arguing against it.
It is indeed worrying!
> Or you can just run security-critical code on your own hardware on your own premises, as has been and will always be the answer for strong security.
My comment was arguing against this part of your original comment. On-premises doesn't have to be more secure; and it misses out on some gains from division of labour and specialisation.
It's possible they were lying, I suppose, it would not be the first time, but it seems an odd thing to lie about.
Seems reasonable to not allow random downgrading because you didn't like the UI layout.
2 cents opinion.
The correct solution would be for Tesla to fix the design flaws, of course. Or maybe to actually test their own products to find such obvious problems before they are released.
If doing thing be requires doing thing a that is unreasonable, then just don't do thing b