Researchers jailbreak a Tesla to get free in-car feature upgrades::A group of researchers found a way to hack a Tesla’s hardware with the goal of getting free in-car upgrades, such as heated rear seats.

  • Jarmer@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    224
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m amazed that it’s legal for a car company to sell you something, and then after you own it, remotely disable xyz aspects of the functionality unless you pay them more. How can that be legal? I own the car, it’s MINE now, how can I not use every single thing that’s in it?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      133
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same reason it’s legal for HP to brick your printer if you use third party ink. You violated their shitty TOS that none of us read because it’s 80 pages of legalese, but you agreed to it.

      • Jarmer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        1 year ago

        hmmm yes I suppose that’s true. Okay so let me rephrase: I’m amazed it’s legal for a car manufacturer to even HAVE a TOS like that when you purchase a car. It shouldn’t be legal to write language like “you are purchasing this but agreeing that you can’t use it” … wtf?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree that it’s wrong, but I don’t think, at least in the U.S., that there’s any law against it. Like I said, HP does the exact same thing with their printers. I certainly would like for it to be illegal.

          • Streetdog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can any fill in how this is in the EU right now, as they often have better legislation regarding this issue?

            • avapa@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              In Germany, BMW and VW both offer subscriptions for functionality already built into the car. BMW is notorious for their heated seat subscription here and the Mk8 Golf I leased for a while had a bunch of minor stuff pay-walled like automatic high beams, changing color of the interior ambient lighting, etc.

              You can still outright buy those features but it’s totally insane to pay for something that’s already physically inside the car. And it’s not like these are budget brands that need to upsell a bunch of stuff to be profitable. A base Golf starts at €31k…

            • strank@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              As for Tesla, at least where I am in the EU, there is only one feature offered as a subscription: a mobile network connection for the car. Keeping its SIM card active basically. That one makes sense, I’d say.

              Then there are three “features” that you can buy outright after the fact: an “acceleration boost”, that one is dodgy, and two levels of their auto-pilot/self-driving. The latter two currently do effectively nothing (especially in Europe that is also true for enhanced autopilot), so they are more or less an option to say “here have some money for future development” if you have too much…

              No heating subscription or anything like that. I was going to say that I think the local laws seem to have at least discouraged them a bit, but BMW and VW are trying it too, so I don’t know.

          • persolb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So I’ve been in discussions like this for equipment on trains. It functionally goes:

            You paid for X. The hardware we plan to use for faster build supports X+Y. You can either:

            1. pay for Y
            2. have us artificially prevent Y
            3. wait until the hardware that just does X comes in

            I actually agree with the options prevented above. I just think that, as the owner, you should still have the right to reverse item 2 if you can figure out how. Especially if it’s out of warranty.

          • Matt Shatt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Don’t like it? Move”

            That’s the same dangerous logic. Heaven forbid people try to make things better.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            First they enshittified Tesla and I didn’t care cuz I didn’t buy Tesla

            Then they enshittified GM and I didn’t care cuz I didn’t like GM

            Then they enshittified Toyota and I didn’t care cuz I didn’t buy Toyota

            Then they’d enshittified everything, and since they also cut all corporate taxes and subsidized the oil companies my town has no public transit and I walk by the side of the road.

      • Nioxic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lets be fair

        TOSs you need two lawyers and an ai chatbot to explain to you, shouldnt be legal vs regular citizens.

        They cannot expect anyone to read all TOS they get thrown in their face throughout a lifetime. Let alone understand them. Its often not written super clearly and not all users can even read the language very well to begin with.

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean you are correct to some extent. But I’m curious, how does this not happen in a system where the state has full control? The only difference is the consumer has no other choices and the “politics” don’t have to be paid for as they are already fully in control.

        Unless you mean to say that by the good graces of the government they’d never do that in a state run economy because it’s morally wrong. In which case… Lol

        • xodoh74984@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          People who say things like that don’t understand what regulations are or that better regulated capitalism is probably what they want

        • TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          State-run authoritarian economies generally aren’t so money-obsessed that they pull weird shit like this, but generally suffer from drastic inequality, distribution inefficiency, and a general lack of freedom and innovation. The most effective economic models from what I’ve seen are hybrid models, with a regulated market system with some nationalized industries. Morally though, I also believe that a nation’s economic system should be democratic and that people should have a say in how their workplace is run and who their workplace leadership should be.

    • IronEagleBird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless you pay them more every month. Not everything needs to be a subscription and they’ll keep doing it unless people stop buying.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen a bunch of lab equipment do this as well. For some, there are firmware hacks available to enable features only available on models twice the price.

    • lazyplayboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s a bit inevitable. There’s a market for a range of features - i.e. some people don’t want to pay extra for extra features. But it’s simpler (i.e. cheaper) to produce all models with the same hardware. So, to fill the market, some features are simply disabled in software.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine buying a house but you didn’t want to pay extra so one room is padlocked, or several windows boarded up, or a pool walled off.

        • lemmycolon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it brought down the price of the house, people who didn’t need those things would absolutely take the deal, and that’s the point.

            • lemmycolon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Were the terms of the purchase in the contract that the purchasers weren’t allowed in the room? If so, then no. That would be breach of contract and wrong.

              To be clear. I’m not a fan of paid upgrades for things that are already physically included but inaccessible without payment. But I get it because it still brings the price of the thing down to those who don’t care about having the extra thing.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point is being locked out of something you own is immoral. People being will to take the immoral deal doesn’t make it okay.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So, when Tesla installed a rear seat heater module that’s unusable by the car owner because they didn’t pay for it, is the heater module actually legally owned by the car owner (even though it doesn’t work), or is it still owned by Tesla? If the module is legally owned by the car owner, does Tesla in this case only sell ability to turn on the heater module?

      • just_browsing@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oftentimes it’s done because it’s cheaper, though oftentimes it’s actually more expensive but they calculate that money from licenses post initial sale gets them more revenue and margin in the end anyway.

        Still, even if it always was cheaper for the manufacturer this way, the point here is companies should not be able to control something you physically own once you have purchased it. It’s a dangerous precedent to set and things like this will creep into more and more products if we let it.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Companies have owned your hardware for decades. Apart from a few open hardware systems like x86, everything comes software or mechanically locked to the price you pay.