Jailbreak Tesla

[RandyS]

For all those folks who think it isn't wrong to hack paid features into their car for free, just think that it wouldn't be that hard for Tesla to be able to figure it out with all the connectivity the car has. Or if not that way, Tesla could figure it out once they have the car in their possession for service. And once they discover it, there's a lot they could do to punish you.

They could void your warranty, they could put your car on the no-service black list, they could remove supercharging, they could prevent you from buying future new Tesla vehicles, etc. Sure, you could fight back and take them to court (cuz that's wrong etc etc etc). But just think how that's going to play to a judge and/or jury...

But before you ever go there to hack the car for free stuff, don't we all want to support Tesla and their mission? Yes, some of their options are pricy, but they're pricy to create. A team of highly paid FSD folks, for example. Anyways, my point is that shouldn't we all want Tesla to succeed to be able to produce more vehicles with more cool features? That alone (regardless of the definition of "stealing") would keep me from thinking about doing something like this...

 

[ÆCIII]

They might later get a message on their screen something like this:

- ÆCIII

 

[EvilNuff]

Is it stealing though? I mean, I bought the car. It came with the hardware and it has the capability to be turned on. I own it, Tesla doesn't. Not my problem if they installed the feature, but locked me out. I don't see how that's stealing at all.

It is 100% stealing. There is absolutely no question or confusion. If you actually need proof beyond common sense look at software licensing. License software for a time period, after that period you can no longer legally use that software. Hardware is totally irrelevant.

 

[JBee]

I read the article last night and thought about posting it, but it was late.

The question is at what point there is a change of ownership, and what rights ownership gives you, and how these rights are defined in the contract.

You owning and modifying your Tesla by adding a fluffy dice to your mirror doesn't mean that Tesla is automatically absolved of a requirement to perform under a warranty contract, or that the vehicle can be remotely shutdown, or denied service or SC access. If they have an anti fluffy dice clause in the contract then they can, however.

The point is you are dealing with a contract, that has certain provisions, which can lead to a compensation claim if its legal or not, moral or socially acceptable or not.

There are many more contracts, than contracts that are contested, or even make it to trial in a court. It's only after the judge has made orders that it's "legal". Prior to that most contracts are more "suggestions" on how each party should perform, upon which the court can make orders to ensure certain performance.

So the question to ask here is what is covered in a Tesla purchase agreement and specifically what is not. Then the next question is how would a court decide, given that through the exchange of money, certain rights "must" be transferred as a part of the mutual performance under the contract.

I'd dare say there would be a fairly large negative response to Tesla sales if it came out they were allowed to lock you out of using your own car or charging network. So Tesla would have to think carefully about a response that extreme.

The flip side of this is to ask the question if it's stealing to ask a premium for FSD with empty delivery promises, seeing no-one has it yet. Once again, you'd need to look at the contract, if any performance was guaranteed and how it was enforcable.

You could say the same about all the data mining going on and anti-privacy agenda. Who here runs their own DNS server, or at a minimum has configured their own?

Genuinely, I'd like to meet just one guy in my life who bought a car and also he wrote the terms of sale agreement, or at least half of it, instead of the army of lawyers working for the manufacturer. Lol.

BTW this volt pulsing technique is not fixable with a OTA update. The car still works without a data connection too.

The joke is EM makes all the designs open source so nobody else can copyright them, and stop Tesla themselves from using them. That doesn't mean we can't copy open source, it just means no one can make the idea closed source, and use it 9nly for themselves. He's been talking about making FSD open source in 2018 already, with licensing to third parties in the works as we speak. Open source makes the idea better, not worse. EM is pro OS and anti-patent, he primarily does so to stop others from patenting Tesla ideas and designs instead, which would leave Tesla to have to purchase the idea back. That would just be stupid.

So what exactly would a damages claim look like for open source? ?

 

[Zapharus]

Is it stealing though? I mean, I bought the car. It came with the hardware and it has the capability to be turned on. I own it, Tesla doesn't. Not my problem if they installed the feature, but locked me out. I don't see how that's stealing at all.

The issue with Teslas is that even if the car is not bricked with the jailbreak, Tesla could lock the vehicle out of using their superchargers if they detect it’s jailbroken….that would suck big time if you don’t have the ability to charge at home and if you travel long distances.

At that point it becomes more of a legal issue and we then have this question to address: Should a car be treated the same as a personal computer and the owner allowed to modify it as they wish as long as it remains road legal?
Maybe the courts get involved and it becomes a very long process to get an answer.

 

[fhteagle]

In the US, we have the Magnuson Moss Act, which speaks to OEMs invalidating warranties. According to https://www.autocare.org/government-relations/current-issues/Magnuson-Moss-Warranty-Act

"Furthermore, a manufacturer can only deny warranty coverage if it can demonstrate that a non-original equipment part or related service caused a defect to occur in the original product."

 

[ninja6r]

The issue with Teslas is that even if the car is not bricked with the jailbreak, Tesla could lock the vehicle out of using their superchargers if they detect it’s jailbroken….that would suck big time if you don’t have the ability to charge at home and if you travel long distances.

At that point it becomes more of a legal issue and we then have this question to address: Should a car be treated the same as a personal computer and the owner allowed to modify it as they wish as long as it remains road legal?
Maybe the courts get involved and it becomes a very long process to get an answer.

So, technically, everything Rich Rebuilds has done is illegal and that one youtuber who made a truck out of her model 3. I remember the days when RIAA was trying to get legislation passed and suing everyone and that lead to how we got DCMA.

This whole thing is a "right to repair" issue, in my view. I guess I view the hardware feature that's locked in software and a rebuild (for whatever reason) as the same issue. It should be the choice of the owner to do what they want with the hardware they purchased. If I want to run a custom OS or device that unlocks everything in my car, I should be legally allowed to do so as long as it's deemed safe for the road.

Tesla can stop updating the car and even stop letting you use the superchargers, but they should not be allowed to prevent you driving your vehicle. Similar to anyone who buys a classic muscle car, tears the guts out and puts in whatever they want. Yes, warranty void, but not illegal.

The fun will be the used market in 10 years when these Y's and 3's are dirt cheap anyone can own them.

For full disclosure, I will not do anything to void my warranty until that warranty is up . Also, you all are great and can't wait to see us driving our trucks around!

It is 100% stealing. There is absolutely no question or confusion. If you actually need proof beyond common sense look at software licensing. License software for a time period, after that period you can no longer legally use that software. Hardware is totally irrelevant.

I dont' disagree, but if a 3rd party builds and offers a different OS for the vehicle, would that be ok? It's very fun to see where everyone's line is in regards to these sorts of topics. I have similar thoughts when it comes to phones and being locked out. Most androids allow custom OS's, while Apple doesn't. Plus, the future's going to be interesting as we move in a more digitized direction when it comes to cars.

 

[PilotPete]

This whole thing is a "right to repair" issue, in my view. I guess I view the hardware feature that's locked in software and a rebuild (for whatever reason) as the same issue. It should be the choice of the owner to do what they want with the hardware they purchased. If I want to run a custom OS or device that unlocks everything in my car, I should be legally allowed to do so as long as it's deemed safe for the road.

Two issues here. I understand Tesla has won a number of Right to Repair cases. There is a Ytr that bought two totaled cars to make one. He lost. The second is, FSD isn't hardware. The car you buy may support FSD, but it isn't a physical piece you purchased. It's IP. You didn't buy, nor license that IP. You have zero rights to it. This is not a '74 Coupe de Ville that is all pieces and parts. It's not modding the suspension, or mounting new tires and rims. This is IP, plain and simple. What could they do? Look at all the user agreements that are part of buying/leasing/owning the car. Whatever it says there is the first part of your answer. Second part is, take you to court. And they can afford more lawyers than you.

I remember playing a game years ago where you played in teams with other users against other users on the game companies server. People were hacking the software to get all sorts of features that gave them an advantage. The company ran a detection app on the servers, and everyone that was cheating got permanently banned from the server.

And for the record, I think Adam and Eve were the first ones to ignore the Apple user agreement!

 

[CyberGus]

In the US, we have the Magnuson Moss Act, which speaks to OEMs invalidating warranties. According to https://www.autocare.org/government-relations/current-issues/Magnuson-Moss-Warranty-Act

"Furthermore, a manufacturer can only deny warranty coverage if it can demonstrate that a non-original equipment part or related service caused a defect to occur in the original product."

They do not need to honor a warranty on a stolen car. If you have hacked your car's computer to steal features, they can deny everything. Is that legal? Enough to tie you up in court for years.

Alternately, they could hold the car under a mechanic's lien until you pay the $15,000 for the FSD you misappropriated.

The moral of the story is: when someone offers to enable FSD on your Tesla for a "discount", tell them to piss right off

 

[ninja6r]

Two issues here. I understand Tesla has won a number of Right to Repair cases. There is a Ytr that bought two totaled cars to make one. He lost. The second is, FSD isn't hardware. The car you buy may support FSD, but it isn't a physical piece you purchased. It's IP. You didn't buy, nor license that IP. You have zero rights to it. This is not a '74 Coupe de Ville that is all pieces and parts. It's not modding the suspension, or mounting new tires and rims. This is IP, plain and simple. What could they do? Look at all the user agreements that are part of buying/leasing/owning the car. Whatever it says there is the first part of your answer. Second part is, take you to court. And they can afford more lawyers than you.

I remember playing a game years ago where you played in teams with other users against other users on the game companies server. People were hacking the software to get all sorts of features that gave them an advantage. The company ran a detection app on the servers, and everyone that was cheating got permanently banned from the server.

And for the record, I think Adam and Eve were the first ones to ignore the Apple user agreement!

Adam really is the one at fault. He ruined everything!

Yeah, I was trying to get away from FSD to see if others can see the difference I was trying to lay out. I agree 100% that FSD is an IP thing cause you're using their servers and machine learning to, essential, run it. But, stuff like seat warmers, heated steering, shouldn't be viewed the same way.

Anything that the car can perform with the local hardware, without external sources, should be open season, assuming the vehicle maintains the minimum safety requirements for road usage.

Anyways, good talk.

 

[JBee]

Two issues here. I understand Tesla has won a number of Right to Repair cases. There is a Ytr that bought two totaled cars to make one. He lost. The second is, FSD isn't hardware. The car you buy may support FSD, but it isn't a physical piece you purchased. It's IP. You didn't buy, nor license that IP. You have zero rights to it. This is not a '74 Coupe de Ville that is all pieces and parts. It's not modding the suspension, or mounting new tires and rims. This is IP, plain and simple. What could they do? Look at all the user agreements that are part of buying/leasing/owning the car. Whatever it says there is the first part of your answer. Second part is, take you to court. And they can afford more lawyers than you.

I remember playing a game years ago where you played in teams with other users against other users on the game companies server. People were hacking the software to get all sorts of features that gave them an advantage. The company ran a detection app on the servers, and everyone that was cheating got permanently banned from the server.

And for the record, I think Adam and Eve were the first ones to ignore the Apple user agreement!

Fun fact:

Like the first smartphone, it never was an Apple in the first place. The whole apple story stems from the prohibition when they were trying to get rid of drinking cider. An apple is not mentioned in the Adam and Eve storey at all.

The Apple farmers came up with the counter slogan, "an Apple a day keeps the doctor away", to keep from going bust. Btw apples back then were primarily for cider not eating, it's only since then they've made eating the more popular choice of consumption.

 

[JBee]

Adam really is the one at fault. He ruined everything!

At least half of the blame, for trying to cover it up and blame it on someone else.

But that's because previously before Eve was created out of Adams rib, there was a discussion how much it would cost Adam, that went like something this:

"Adam, I want to make you a life partner, that cooks and cleans, looks after the garden and animals, looks after your offspring, tends to your needs, and always puts you first and always makes you happy without discussion. She will cost you an arm and a leg."

Adam responded: "what can I get for a rib"?

I suppose the moral of the story is you can only expect to get what you first give.

 

[John K]

@ Baker supercharger, displayed message.

$30,000 to backdate FSD purchase and unlock supercharging

 

[cvalue13]

"In the United States it is illegal under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to break any form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to enable software features you didn't pay for."

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/39012/hacking-devices-to-unlock-features-legal-or-not

Im interested in this line of thinking, Gus. So below not disputing, exploring.

are you certain the DMCA, which I think only covers unlocking “software features,” is applicable here?

take Tesla’s incredible “software” limiting of pack size access. There’s a eg 100kWh battery pack under the car, which pack I own, and a software UI “lock” that merely prohibits the software’s access to the entire physical battery. Utilizing that battery isn’t a “software feature” is it?

if I have a schlage digital lock on the front door to my house, and someone bypasses the lock’s software to get inside my home and take my first edition autographed YoKo Ono autobiography, is the DMCA applicable?

In this analogy: I purchase a house from Mr. Schlage himself, with a deed that says I own everything on the lot or in the house. But Mr. Schlage placed a Schlage digital lock on the basement door because he doesn’t want me to enjoy it. Says I could pay him extra to give me the code to the lock. While I may not own the software in that digital lock, I’m free to *break* that software. So I bypass that software to access my basement?

This trend in cars of software locking the UI to hard assets owned by the user, I’m not aware of any caselaw on it yet - but if there’s not yet, there will be!

 

[BillyGee]

If I have a schlage digital lock on the front door to my house, and someone bypasses the lock’s software to get inside my home and take my first edition autographed YoKo Ono autobiography, is the DMCA applicable?

I think it could be argued they did you a favor in this case.

Jailbreak FSD, wonder why I keep being driven to a police station.

That would be a hilarious easter egg and anti piracy trick akin to old video games that put in unkillable enemies.