Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.

View on HN

This sort of justification would never fly if we were talking about modding ICE vehicles:

* Illegal to replace your own brake rotors or pads, as faulty ones can cause safety issues.

* Illegal to replace your own headlights, as bad ones could be too dim or too bright and cause safety issues.

* Illegal to change your own oil, as bad ones could seize up your engine in the middle of the road and cause safety issues.

* Illegal to install a turbocharger, as that makes your car accelerate faster than the manufacturer likes and could cause safety issues.

The end result of this line of thinking leads to a million dollar tractor that a farmer can't fix when they need it most. I much prefer the idea that people are individually responsible for any modifications they choose to make to their cars.

In the UK, many modifications are restricted. For example, if I was to replace my halogen car headlights with LED ones, the car would be technically illegal, uninsured and fail inspection (if they notice). Exhausts can't be noisier than factory, which means in practice all aftermarket sports exhausts are illegal.

At some point, I assume modifying drive-by-wire systems will become legally restricted.

You are talking about something subtly but crucially different. Replacing your headlights is not illegal, only the type of headlight you use is legally restricted. Modification itself is not legally restricted, only the end result.

Yeah, a better example is modifications to homes. Those are restricted in many places in the US. I can't replace a circuit in my homes wiring, even if I follow every code.

But even in that case, the restriction comes from law, not an arbitrary decision made by a private company.

And there are a number of competing, qualified, third party electricians who can make the change for you. You aren't locked-in to contracting with the company which originally built the house.

Who is going to stop you?

In the US, for a while, car manufacturers could void your warranty over modifications. Something happened some-odd years back that made it so that they had to prove that the modification is what caused the issue to refuse service.

1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

https://www.autocare.org/government-relations/current-issues...

Are those modifications illegal or is driving it on public roads after those modifications illegal?

Well that's just not true.

In EU many modifications are illegal and you'll get huge fines and/or lose your vehicle.

Gross.

Nitpick: the modifications aren't illegal. Driving with some modifications is illegal

You can modify your car to your heart's desire and put it in a garage or drive it on a race track. You just cannot go into a public road with them. Totally sensible.

Yeah, that's a better way to put it. But the end result for an average person is that on public roads you know that the vehicles are at least somewhat standard. You just can't go around trying to kill pedestrians or bicyclist because "muh freedom". [1]

[1]: https://i.redd.it/e9n15wjtad411.jpg

Sadly, a lot of people disagree with you and do want much heavier regulations for a lot of those things.

These seem largely to be straw-men; brake rotors, pads, headlights.... all have associated safety standards.

You can install your own brake pads sure, but as a layman if you installed brake pads of your own design and construction, it might be a bit of an issue.

Whether or not the car is street legal is an entirely separate concern, and certainly not one that should be enforced by allowing the manufacturer to prohibit all software modifications of any sort.

It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly isn't justification for locking down the car to only be drivable with manufacturer-installed tires, or remotely disabling cars that use tires from unapproved brands.

> But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that

Imagine someone installs a cheap third-party ADAS in a Tesla that causes a multi-car pile-up. Should we expect highway patrol officers be able to determine if some third-party software interfered with the normal operation of the car? And, even if Tesla Inc is legally in the clear because the customer did it, they are the #1 target for bad news headlines because they're 'the Apple of Cars' (at least in terms of how much hype they attract), so by the time they set the record straight they've already lost some good-will.

While not exactly equivalent, what if the lock was on MPG on an ICE vehicle? Would that be reasonable?

Li-ion batteries have a huge environmental cost. To hide ⅓ of that material behind software is immoral (imho).

It sounds like they were swapping in a better part because they may have not had the original. In the past that was a “win” for the customer. It seems like Tesla has turned this into a loss for the customer (more weight on the vehicle) and a loss for humanity (70 tons of earth mined for unused lithium).

The energy cost difference with regenerative braking is essentially negligible between these two cars. Adding several hundred pounds to my EV driving around makes little difference by my measurements. And as to the idea of the lithium being wasted, that might not necessarily be true as well. Its not like those extra cells will never be used, its just the pack will never really hit 100% charge and will never really hit 0% charge, it'll essentially always be somewhere above 0% and below 100%. This will allow better wear leveling over the whole pack, so if the car is used a decent bit it'll get more miles on its life than the smaller pack.

Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls.

However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.

I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this?

The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.

From the twitter thread: "I try to help, but without completely disconnecting the car from Tesla, when I change it back to a 90 their "teleforce" bot reaches in remotely and flips it back to a 60 within moments. There's hacky ways around this, but none are ideal."

I see, so that comment is not disagreeing with the original 60 -> 90 switch. They think it's a bad idea when 60 -> 90 -> 60 was completed and then the user (and their confederate) attempted to go back to 90. So that commenter would have been okay with things if Tesla had modified nothing back down to 60. Thank you for explaining.

Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.

https://www.saleen.com/gtx/

Now I kind of want to see what Shelby would do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com