Is it possible to hack the software to unlock battery, autopilot, etc.?

[Swift]

I don't have the cash to spare, but others have done exactly that and Tesla hasn't said a word, so you fail there.

If they've really done it, then they're at risk for prosecution. Whether Tesla pursues it or not, it's still stealing and doesn't make the individual any less of a criminal. I think you need to work on your moral compass.

As for prosecutable, only if your documentation says that there is some part of the car that Tesla still owns. In my jurisdiction the law specifically states that if a company delivers an item that I did not request, I have no obligation to return it or pay for it, and am allowed to use it or discard it as I see fit.
If you disagree, show me what law states otherwise.

In this example, it's documented as a S60 and delivered as such.

they didn't just quote a range (which by the way, they did NOT deliver, as I can not go the number of km they claim in normal driving conditions) they quoted a specific battery capacity, something they did NOT deliver on.

They provided a battery size. I understand it is not exact. The focus is on what that translates to in the real world. That is reflected in the range numbers which I and others have achieved. I would prefer Tesla do whatever they need to do to protect the battery by blocking off capacity as long as I achieve the range they advertised as a function of battery size. I was smart enough to realize that when I took delivery in winter I wouldn't get the rated range. The website also has a calculator to help approximate the impact on range. Either way, I did get to their range numbers under optimal conditions. Sorry you can't. Maybe there's something wrong and you should go in for service. I could have said "you fail" as you did to me above but I'm a better person than that. Goes to moral compass again.

And where did I say that I was not availing myself of that system?

Please post details. I'd start a new thread on that. Many here will be interested. Can't wait to see the outcome.

 

[green1]

If they've really done it, then they're at risk for prosecution. Whether Tesla pursues it or not, it's still stealing and doesn't make the individual any less of a criminal. I think you need to work on your moral compass.

Nothing wrong with my moral compass. And you shouting up and down that this is stealing doesn't make it so. If you REALLY believe this is illegal, tell me what exact law it breaks. I've told you about the consumer protection laws that say I can do whatever I want with the product they deliver, and which in fact prohibit them from charging me any extra for it. If anything, they break the law when they ask money to unlock the feature (maybe that's why they're stopping producing the 60?)

In this example, it's documented as a S60 and delivered as such.

No, it's documented as a 60, and then delivered as something else. Per consumer protection law, you can do whatever you want with what they delivered assuming that there is nothing in your purchase agreement saying that they retain any rights to the car.

They provided a battery size. I understand it is not exact.

Actually it is exact, they gave an exact number, not a model number, not an approximation, a number. It's out by a large margin.

The focus is on what that translates to in the real world.

says who? the focus is on what they said they would provide, and what they put in writing that they were providing, vs what they actually did. There are laws about misrepresentation. I paid for 85kWh, they didn't provide that.

I would prefer Tesla do whatever they need to do to protect the battery by blocking off capacity

that's actually a whole different argument, they only delivered 77, and I can't even use all of that because they blocked off capacity beyond the part they didn't deliver.

I could have said "you fail" as you did to me above but I'm a better person than that. Goes to moral compass again.

Ah yes, pointing out how superior you are really shows your moral compass...

Please post details. I'd start a new thread on that. Many here will be interested. Can't wait to see the outcome.

I've mentioned it before, it's a time consuming process, and we'll see where it goes. There are a few government regulatory bodies involved right now, they've sent paperwork to Tesla and Tesla has some time to respond. We'll see where it goes from there. Based on the information I provided those agencies, they felt it was worth pursuing, so it's obviously not as frivolous as you seem to think.

 

[green1]

Here's another real world example.

When I bought my house, it was listed as 1060sqft, I noticed that on the main floor there's an area that's 3' by 3' that's framed as a void. Meaning it's not part of any room, and therefore not part of the 1060sqft mearsurement.
In the upcoming renovation that I'm doing, I plan to open the one wall, drywall the interior of it, and put a door on the front, turning it in to a closet, hence increasing my square footage by 9sqft (more likely a little less once the interior dimensions are taken in to account.)

Does that make me a thief? If I complete the renovation, do I "steal" 9sqft from the builder?

Or do we consider that it's my house, and I'm allowed to renovate it as I see fit?

 

[Jashev]

Their warranty disclaimer is useless as it doesn't supercede the law which states that aftermarket modifications do not void any warranty unless the modification can be proven to have caused the issue, with the onus on the company to provide the proof.

You may be able to get away with that in Canada. I wouldn't want to defend you in a US court.

 

[Swift]

Nothing wrong with my moral compass.

There is. Plenty of people paid for S75s because they wanted the additional range. You're condoning people hacking a S60 to get something they didn't pay for. It's not only morally wrong, it's just plain stealing (whether that's illegal in the country you live in or not). You can't seem to get beyond that concept. I'm not going to debate it with you anymore.

I've mentioned it before, it's a time consuming process, and we'll see where it goes. There are a few government regulatory bodies involved right now, they've sent paperwork to Tesla and Tesla has some time to respond. We'll see where it goes from there. Based on the information I provided those agencies, they felt it was worth pursuing, so it's obviously not as frivolous as you seem to think.

I'm certain you don't believe it's frivolous. Furthermore I know there are some people here who feel the same way as you do on this topic. I think you should start a thread on your efforts. Maybe they will join you in a possible class action and get the issue decided for everyone who is concerned about that. That all said, I think you should just sell the car and move on if you're that unhappy. You'll still have your rights related to the action you've undertaken. Anyway I'm done. Good luck.

 

[Jashev]

Does that make me a thief? If I complete the renovation, do I "steal" 9sqft from the builder?

No, because you paid for the 9 sq.ft.

 

[green1]

No, because you paid for the 9 sq.ft.

Just like the person with the S60 paid for the 75kWh pack it happens to contain.

 

[green1]

You may be able to get away with that in Canada. I wouldn't want to defend you in a US court.

Have you heard of Magnuson-Moss? It's a US law that states exactly what I said in the post you took exception to.

 

[Jashev]

Have you heard of Magnuson-Moss?

I have, and that is why Chevy can tell me that they will not cover my engine or drivetrain under warranty when I install my own ECU. But M-M does not cover hacking software which by the way, is absolutely illegal in the US. Even without a EULA, Tesla has a copyright and patent on their software and anybody that makes changes to it without their permission is breaking the law in this country.

 

[green1]

I have, and that is why Chevy can tell me that they will not cover my engine or drivetrain under warranty when I install my own ECU.

Only if they can prove that your ECU chip caused the damage. I'd love to see Tesla prove that my using the same interface they do, to make the same change they would, can cause damage. About the most they could do here is that if the 75kWh pack failed, they could replace it with a physical 60kWh pack instead of a software limited 75. Hardly a big issue.

But M-M does not cover hacking software which by the way, is absolutely illegal in the US. Even without a EULA, Tesla has a copyright and patent on their software and anybody that makes changes to it without their permission is breaking the law in this country.

Please quote the exact law, because the US government disagrees with you. First of all, without an EULA, it is considered that you are allowed to use the software however you want, but are unable to redistribute it. As no redistribution is planned, you don't break normal copyright law.
The next one that people trot out is the DMCA, however there is now a specific exemption in the DMCA for modifying vehicles, and the Tesla Model S was, last I heard, a vehicle. So modifying a vehicle is expressly permitted.

I could add, that I have actually found a license agreement on the car now, and it's the GPL, so I actually CAN redistribute the software, as long as I also include the source code. How convenient.

Now some people will talk about hacking, but those laws specifically talk about gaining access without the owner's permission. I'm the owner of the car, so I have my own permission to gain access to it.

So please tell me what law you think would be broken by modifying the software on the vehicle? Nobody in this thread has yet come up with this supposed law.

 

[MikeBur]

Interesting thread to read and whilst some may know how to access developer mode and / their car, I would still suggest it isn't wise to promote enabling features in sw, that are not paid for.

The nuances of software license vs ownership, the risk of cease & desist letters, and potential warranty issues aside, the only likely solution from Tesla would be to remove the future ability to enhance car capabilities after purchase via sw. E.g., no ability for adding fsd on top of ap2, no access to ludicrous data screens, etc - all while likely decreasing the fw update rate and/or willingness to consider all the fleet. Why? The features would have to be not shipped in fw to each car derivative and the already large number of permutations of configurations of fw needing staging and verifying.

You paid for what's on the sticker and Tesla has sunk cost that gives them, and us, more capability flexibility in the future. We've seen Tesla take away our toys (AP1) when we can't be trusted with them and I would like to keep our options open

Re batteries, the fact is Tesla experimented with less permutations of battery packs and believed the reduced initial profit would pay back by %age of owners wishing to extend range of their pack at some point and that %age covered the sunk cost.

 

[MikeBur]

...

I could add, that I have actually found a license agreement on the car now, and it's the GPL, so I actually CAN redistribute the software, as long as I also include the source code. How convenient.
...

Purposely ignoring legal question. IANAL (always loved that acronym )

There is quite a bit of irony here... IIRC Tesla is actually still in violation of the GPL as it does not make the modified source available and I know a few of the original authors have been trying to get this corrected for a while. Perhaps the move to 4.4 will address this?

Does not counter my prior point though. Even if it's not provably illegal to do, don't believe there will be no consequences for hacking the FW to enable capabilities locked by it

 

[green1]

The nuances of software license vs ownership,

When there's no license (as in the case of the Tesla), it becomes much clearer, we have full ownership (those who paid outright for the car)

the risk of cease & desist letters

To mean anything have to quote a law. Which law do you think they'll quote? nobody in this thread has yet come up with one that's relevant.

and potential warranty issues

We know there's no warranty issue, that's guaranteed. (unless Tesla wants to break the law, and not just "the law" that people keep saying will be broken if I hack the car, but an actual law we can quote, the Magnuson-Moss warranty act)

the only likely solution from Tesla would be to remove the future ability to enhance car capabilities after purchase via sw.

And that's my problem how? If they want to change their business model to be more prudent, that's up to them, it doesn't affect me any.

E.g., no ability for adding fsd on top of ap2

That's not actually possible by software anyway, it requires a lot more hardware

no access to ludicrous data screens,

which they're unlikely to do anyway, and again, why would I care?

etc - all while likely decreasing the few update rate and/or willingness to consider all the fleet. Why? The features would have to be not shipped in fw to each car derivative and the already large number of permutations of configurations of fw needing staging and verifying.

Tesla's abysmal software practices are not my problem.

You paid for what's on the sticker and Tesla has sunk cost that gives them, and us, more capability flexibility in the future.

No, I paid for what was delivered. If they chose to waste their money by including hardware in the car that isn't even activated, that's their own poor judgement, not my problem.

We've seen Tesla take away our toys (AP1) when we can't be trusted with them and I would like to keep our options open

So your argument is that because Tesla is a big bully who broke the law and behaves like they still own our cars even after we've taken possession, we should just roll over and let them get away with whatever they want? Sorry, no. Society has laws for a reason, and I expect everyone to follow them.

Re batteries, the fact is Tesla experimented with less permutations of battery packs and believed the reduced initial profit would pay back by %age of owners wishing to extend range of their pack at some point and that %age covered the sunk cost.

So Tesla picked a poor business model, that's not my problem. I don't owe them a profit, they owe me what I purchased, and what they already delivered.

 

[green1]

Purposely ignoring legal question.

As has everyone on this thread who claims this is illegal.

You have a choice, either put up, or shut up.

Tell us what law you think is being broken, or quit telling us that it's illegal. You can't have it both ways.

As for "consequences", Tesla has very limited legal avenues for those consequences. They can't deny warranty, they can't disable supercharging, they can't modify my vehicle, and they have no legal recourse to sue. So what consequences should I be worried about from them really? Are they going to frown at me? I'm SOOOOOO scared....

 

[MikeBur]

As has everyone on this thread who claims this is illegal.

You have a choice, either put up, or shut up.

Tell us what law you think is being broken, or quit telling us that it's illegal. You can't have it both ways.

As for "consequences", Tesla has very limited legal avenues for those consequences. They can't deny warranty, they can't disable supercharging, they can't modify my vehicle, and they have no legal recourse to sue. So what consequences should I be worried about from them really? Are they going to frown at me? I'm SOOOOOO scared....

Are you having such a bad day that you are unable to see?

I am not judging you, or anyone else, on legalese. That's your choice to do what you want.

Wishing you a happier day, and when you reread my text in the way intended - to make everyone (it's not just about you) understand there are likely additional consequences - then I'll gladly discuss

 

[MikeBur]

When there's no license (as in the case of the Tesla), it becomes much clearer, we have full ownership (those who paid outright for the car)


To mean anything have to quote a law. Which law do you think they'll quote? nobody in this thread has yet come up with one that's relevant.


We know there's no warranty issue, that's guaranteed. (unless Tesla wants to break the law, and not just "the law" that people keep saying will be broken if I hack the car, but an actual law we can quote, the Magnuson-Moss warranty act)


And that's my problem how? If they want to change their business model to be more prudent, that's up to them, it doesn't affect me any.


That's not actually possible by software anyway, it requires a lot more hardware


which they're unlikely to do anyway, and again, why would I care?


Tesla's abysmal software practices are not my problem.


No, I paid for what was delivered. If they chose to waste their money by including hardware in the car that isn't even activated, that's their own poor judgement, not my problem.


So your argument is that because Tesla is a big bully who broke the law and behaves like they still own our cars even after we've taken possession, we should just roll over and let them get away with whatever they want? Sorry, no. Society has laws for a reason, and I expect everyone to follow them.


So Tesla picked a poor business model, that's not my problem. I don't owe them a profit, they owe me what I purchased, and what they already delivered.

The first 3 are out of context. You missed the word 'aside' meaning I was not referring to them...

FSD is a software unlock on top of AP2 isn't it, i.e. The 8 cameras and hardware are there. Am I missing something?

My point was intended to reinforce, despite any legal considerations the only logical end result left, that Tesla could do, is not ship with ability to sw unlock capabilities.

 

[green1]

FSD is a software unlock on top of AP2 isn't it, i.e. The 8 cameras and hardware are there. Am I missing something?

Only that there's no possible way to make a car full self driving without rear or side radars. Cameras will not cut it and Tesla has been blatently lying about this. Of course they've been given a pass on their AP1 lies, so why should they tell the truth on AP2?

My point was intended to reinforce, despite any legal considerations the only logical end result left, that Tesla could do, is not ship with ability to sw unlock capabilities.

And I'm failing to see why that is a bad thing.

Buy what you want, and they should provide what you bought. This idea that everyone should pay for one thing and expect to be given something completely different is absurd, and it's a positively HORRIBLE business model for Tesla to take.

 

[Canuck]

As for "consequences", Tesla has very limited legal avenues for those consequences

Really? There's a prohibition against Tesla suing civilly in Canada/US? That's a new one to me. Where did you learn the law and get your degree? In my view, you have no idea at all how lawyers for Tesla will play this one out.

But I do remember people posting the same thing on the satellie forums many years ago. It took years but the lawsuits were filed and the consequences almost become irrelevant when you are forced to defend youself. Just wait until they sue civilly for significant damages. Again, the "consequences" are irrelevant to Tesla. Making an example is the point and they will appeal right to the SCC/SCOTUS if necessary. Even if you win in court you still lose since recoverable costs are less than 1/3 of actual legal fees in Canada and worse in some States. The deep pocket always wins.

And you are fooling yourself if think any judge will allow unlocking, again in my view, but again the outcome is irrelevant.

But it sure will be fun to watch anyone who has no morals or ethics do this since there's no chance in hell Tesla will let it slide. Mark my words on this one.

 

[green1]

Really? There's a prohibition against Tesla suing civilly in Canada/US? That's a new one to me. Where did you learn the law and get your degree? In my view, you have no idea at all how lawyers for Tesla will play this one out.

Ok, we'll go over this one more time... List a law that they would sue under. We've been over this a thousand times already. You state it's illegal, but you keep failing to list a law.

That's not how the law works in Canada or the US. You can't just say "I don't like it therefore I think it's illegal", you have to have a law that was violated.

List the law, or quit saying it's illegal.

And you are fooling yourself if think any judge will allow unlocking, again in my view, but again the outcome is irrelevant.

Yes, judges make up new laws out of thin air every day with no precedent, and no existing law to draw from... sure... that's exactly how it works.

since there's no chance in hell Tesla will let it slide. Mark my words on this one.

Your words are meaningless. Tesla has already "let it slide" many times, likely because they can't come up with any law that's been broken any more than you can.

As for "morals and ethics" .. Explain why it's ok for Tesla to short change a customer by 8kWh that the customer actually paid for, but it's not ok for a customer to use 100% of what was delivered to them?

Morally, and ethically, You, and Tesla, have no ground to stand on.

 

[Jashev]

Tell us what law you think is being broken, or quit telling us that it's illegal.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. This section describes some of the uses of copyrighted software that courts have held to be fair. In Galoob v. Nintendo, the 9th Circuit held that modification of copyright software for personal use was fair. In Sega v. Accolade, the 9th Circuit held that making copies in the course of reverse engineering is a fair use, when it is the only way to get access to the "ideas and functional elements" in the copyrighted code, and when "there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access".

It is a pretty simple legal position for Tesla to take that theft of battery functions which were not paid for is not a legitimate reason for seeking access.

Further, if you read your Tesla agreement, you will find that Tesla is under no obligation to provide you with updates nor are they required to give you access (for pay or for free) to their supercharger network. I have no doubt, that should you proceed to hack Tesla's software, nothing would prevent them from not providing those services to you.