they f**ked up Tesla locked a customer's car out of 1/3 of its battery capacity for a $4.5k ransom

[An0maly_76]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

No, this was a software change.

There is literally zero augmenting that this was not a software change. Did Tesla remotely, over the Internet, change the hardware in his car? No, they didn't. They changed the software that controls the battery. That code that was changed, is software.

This was a software change. It is software that was changed. You can not claim that they did a hardware change over the Internet.

Still a bullshit argument. Once a manufacturer sells a vehicle, they have no claim to modify or change anything in the car unless any modifications directly violate safety or emissions rules and regulations. A higher-capacity battery does neither. Full stop. Car makers are starting this "subscription" bullshit simply to use features your car has, and that needs to stop too. No car manufacturer has the right to charge you to use features that were part of the purchase price.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The hardware, the physical hardware, was not changed. All that was changed was the software that controls the hardware.

Irrelevant, not a requirement to fall under "Hardware level change":

 

Die on this hill if you want, I'll die on this hill as well. Your argument thus far did not pass muster.

[An0maly_76]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As opposed to?  Every brand has had their own scandal.  In terms of the EV market as well, the Ioniq is the only one that I think that properly competes with price to performance [that doesn't have some massive things overshadowing it]

Who said they didn't? But we aren't talking about GM, Ford or any other automaker scandals. We're talking about Tesla.

BS like this is why I bought a used late-model Camry after my last supreme disappointment and utter POS that Chevrolet had the audacity to call a car.

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Was the affected entity hardware? If yes then hardware change. Very simple. Just like my SSD example I gave many posts back.

No, the affected entity was the software that controls the battery. It was not a software change.

 

 

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Literally not once ever made this claim for this story and this situation. And yes I can make this claim, this IS what's happening. But not in THIS story.

What are you on about? Did you not read the story?

The article says the change was done remotely over the Internet. Tesla also reverted the change remotely as well, over the Internet. The article even calls it a software-lock. The original author of the tweet even says it is software.

 

 

I honestly have no idea what kind of mental gymnastics you are doing in your head to interpret this as a hardware change. It was purely done in software. 

 

 

This is honestly the dumbest take I think I have ever seen you take.

Applying a software configuration is now considered a hardware change. I guess by this logic we actually can "download cars".

 

 

I am going to quote your exact wording so that you don't weasel yourself out of this:  

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Using software to change a piece of hardware and what that hardware can do is a hardware change, end of. This is my un-changeable stance on this.

 

Changing what hardware can do through software is still a software change. Saying anything else is quite frankly stupid and I am disappointed that you have such a ridicelous stance on this.

 

 

6 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

Still a bullshit argument. Once a manufacturer sells a vehicle, they have no claim to modify or change anything in the car unless any modifications directly violate safety or emissions rules and regulations. A higher-capacity battery does neither. Full stop. Car makers are starting this "subscription" bullshit simply to use features your car has, and that needs to stop too. No car manufacturer has the right to charge you to use features that were part of the purchase price.

Nice strawman.

All I said was that this was a software change, because it was. What was changed was a configuration parameter in the code that controls the battery. The hardware was never touched and as a result this was not a hardware change.

You can object to manufacturers being allowed to change software after the car has been sold if you want, but that was not the point I was discussing.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, the affected entity was the software that controls the battery. It was not a software change.

The affected entity was the battery, was the usable capacity of the battery changed? Is the battery a physical component of the vehicle, Yes? Hardware level change.

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The article even calls it a software-lock. The original author of the tweet even says it is software.

Software lock on a piece of hardware

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Changing what hardware can do through software is still a software change. Saying anything else is quite frankly stupid and I am disappointed that you have such a ridicelous stance on this.

When the material capability and function of hardware is changed, be it using dip switches, USB interface, serial port, TCP/IP then this is a hardware level change. I'm disappointed you'd try and refute this coming from a networking background.

[An0maly_76]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Nice strawman.

All I said was that this was a software change, because it was. What was changed was a configuration parameter in the code that controls the battery. The hardware was never touched and as a result this was not a hardware change.

You can object to manufacturers being allowed to change software after the car has been sold if you want, but that was not the point I was discussing.

No strawman. Just saying that even the fact that it was a software change is a bullshit argument to justify the impropriety of effectively reducing the vehicle's travel range just because they perceive somehow that they weren't paid for the added capacity. That would be like Ford, GM or any other ICE car manufacturer detuning your engine to get 30% less fuel economy because they think they weren't paid for the most fuel-efficient tune (which I'm pretty sure would fall under tampering with federal emissions equipment, a violation of federal law). Hence, a bullshit argument.

Edited July 30, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The affected entity was the battery, was the usable capacity of the battery changed? Is the battery a physical component of the vehicle, Yes? Hardware level change.

The directly affected entity was the software that controls the battery.

The indirectly affected entity was the battery.

 

The same applies to any software change, because all software sooner or later controls what hardware does.

When Microsoft patches Office, they indirectly affects the way the CPU works by changing the order of instructions. Likewise, changing the software that controls the battery indirectly affects the way the battery operates.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes? Hardware level change.

No, it would still be a software change.

Changing a parameter in a data file does not constitute a hardware change. Likewise, applying for example a license to a firewall to enable a coprocessor for let's say ISP function does not constitute a hardware change either. Applying a license, or changing a configuration file is always a software change.

If you change the way order of the 1s and 0s then you are doing a software change. If you change the transistors or other physical things then you are doing a hardware change.

In this story all that was changed was the order of the 1s and 0s. That is why it could be done remotely over the Internet.

 

 

 

Do you know what software is or how a computer works? How would you define "software" and how would you define "hardware"?

In which category would you put a file that stores a variable? Because that is what was changed here.

 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Changing a parameter in a data file does not constitute a hardware change

If that changes how a piece of hardware acts and functions then yes it is.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

No strawman. Just saying that even the fact that it was a software change is a bullshit argument to justify the impropriety of effectively reducing the vehicle's travel range just because they perceive somehow that they weren't paid for the added capacity. That would be like Ford, GM or any other ICE car manufacturer detuning your engine to get 30% less fuel economy because they think they weren't paid for the most fuel-efficient tune (which I'm pretty sure would fall under tampering with federal emissions equipment, a violation of federal law). Hence, a bullshit argument.

I am not saying "this was a software change so it is justified".

The person I am talking to is saying that Tesla changed the hardware of the car. I am trying to argue that what was changed was the software. What happened was that they remotely changed the code that controls the battery in the car. This happened over the Internet. Just because software controls hardware does not mean the software itself suddenly becomes "hardware". It was still a software change.

Whether or not the software change is morally or legally justifiable is a completely different conversation.

 

Do you agree that what happened was a software change?

What happened was that a file on the car's computer was changed remotely over the Internet.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If that changes how a piece of hardware acts and functions then yes it is.

So when I apply a software license to a firewall, inputs a string of characters in the CLI, would you say I changed the hardware?

 

If I upgrade Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro, is that also a hardware change and not a software change?

[leadeater]

Just now, LAwLz said:

So when I apply a software license to a firewall, inputs a string of characters in the CLI, would you say I changed the hardware?

Well that entirely depends on what is happening. If you change the port mode on a group of ports from 10Gb signaling mode to 25Gb signaling mode then yes I would call that a hardware level change. Yes you did this via CLI. But now if you put a 10Gb SFP+ in to the port it will not work, at all, and vice versa.

 

I define what things are by what is materially affected.

[An0maly_76]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not saying "this was a software change so it is justified".

The person I am talking to is saying that Tesla changed the hardware of the car. I am trying to argue that what was changed was the software. What happened was that they remotely changed the code that controls the battery in the car. This happened over the Internet. Just because software controls hardware does not mean the software itself suddenly becomes "hardware". It was still a software change.

Whether or not the software change is morally or legally justifiable is a completely different conversation.

 

Do you agree that what happened was a software change?

What happened was that a file on the car's computer was changed remotely over the Internet.

It really means jack shit whether it is a hardware or software change. Bottom line, once a vehicle is sold new, it no longer belongs to the manufacturer. Hence, they have zero right to change anything on that vehicle without the owner's consent unless it constitutes a violation of state or federal law. Battery capacity and travel range violate neither. Full stop.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that entirely depends on what is happening. If you change the port mode on a group of ports from 10Gb signaling mode to 25Gb signaling mode then yes I would call that a hardware level change. Yes you did this via CLI. But now if you put a 10Gb SFP+ in to the port it will not work, at all, and vice versa.

 

I define what things are by what is materially affected.

Nice way of subtilty changing your wording.

You went from using the words "hardware change" to "hardware level change".

  

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Using software to change a piece of hardware and what that hardware can do is a hardware change, end of. This is my un-changeable stance on this.

 

Would you call changing the speed of a port from 10Gbps to 25Gbps a "hardware change"? Not "hardware level change", but specifically a "hardware change"?

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

It really means jack shit whether it is a hardware or software change. Bottom line, once a vehicle is sold new, it no longer belongs to the manufacturer. Hence, they have zero right to change anything on that vehicle without the owner's consent unless it constitutes a violation of state or federal law. Battery capacity and travel range violate neither. Full stop.

Again, that is not what conversation I am having.

Whether or not it is a hardware or software change is literally what the conversation I am having is about.

Leadeater is saying that it is a "hardware change" and I am saying it is a "software change". That is the entire conversation. It is the only thing we are discussing. We are not discussing whether or not the change was justified. We are discussing which license the change should fall under.

 

Whether or not it is a hardware or software change is the only thing that matters in my conversation with leadeater. The conversation about whether or not it was allowed or the right thing to do is a completely different one. Feel free to have that conversation with someone else. It is not the conversation I am having.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Would you call changing the speed of a port from 10Gbps to 25Gbps a "hardware change"? Not "hardware level change", but specifically a "hardware change"?

Both, just how I wrote it each time. I'm happy with the wording of both.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Both, just how I wrote it each time. I'm happy with the wording of both.

So you think that it is correct to say I did a hardware change, not a "hardware level change", if I change a port from 10Gbps to 25Gbps?

I don't think many people will agree with you on that definition. 

 

 

Do you also think I change my hardware if I update from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro?

 

 

Your definition of "hardware change" seems very confusing. I think it is much better to just keep software and hardware clearly separated. Was the change to the instructions stored on a device, the order of 1s and 0s? Then it's a software change. Was the change done to a physical item? Then it's a hardware change.

Clean and simple.

 

In this particular news story, what was changed were the 1s and 0s stored on the onboard computer's storage. Therefore, it is a software change. I am sure 99/100 people with a firm understanding of hardware and software and how they interact will agree with me. Ask for example your average software developer if changing an int variable from 60 to 90 is a hardware or software change. I am sure they will say it's a software change.

[wanderingfool2]

37 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

No car manufacturer has the right to charge you to use features that were part of the purchase price.

The feature part of the purchase price was 60 kWh sold by Tesla.  Someone else sold him the vehicle with the stated 90 kWh range.  Tesla simply reverted the software to the 60 kWh specified by the original sale of the vehicle.  If he wants to take it up with someone, he should pursue the seller who misrepresented the vehicle.

 

37 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

Who said they didn't? But we aren't talking about GM, Ford or any other automaker scandals. We're talking about Tesla.

But if all other manufactures is also an "idiot" move, and if there are no better options then it's not an idiot move.

 

40 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Irrelevant, not a requirement to fall under "Hardware level change":

 

Die on this hill if you want, I'll die on this hill as well. Your argument thus far did not pass muster.

You were the one who kept saying that Tesla had no right to; and you are still twisting it.

 

The fact is, Tesla clearly is authorized to change their software.  This was done within the software, thereby they are allowed doing it [as long as it doesn't violate any of the other contractual obligations].  It doesn't matter that you think that a software change relates to hardware, so all that time of you trying to argue that Tesla doesn't have the right to when they clearly do.

[An0maly_76]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, that is not what conversation I am having.

Whether or not it is a hardware or software change is literally what the conversation I am having is about.

I don't think anyone here gives a flying **** whether it's a software or hardware change. The manufacturer is still making modifications to a customer's vehicle without their authorization. Calling it a software change doesn't make it any more legal. As I said, if an ICE's tuning were tampered with to change the efficiency and travel range, that would be a federal violation. And calling it a software change wouldn't make THAT any more legal, either. Again, full stop.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You were the one who kept saying that Tesla had no right to; and you are still twisting it.

 

The fact is, Tesla clearly is authorized to change their software.  This was done within the software, thereby they are allowed doing it [as long as it doesn't violate any of the other contractual obligations].  It doesn't matter that you think that a software change relates to hardware, so all that time of you trying to argue that Tesla doesn't have the right to when they clearly do.

I'm not sure how or why you think I'm conceding this point, I assure I am not. I do not call this a software change, I do not agree the sale contract covers this. I do not believe Tesla has the right to make this change without consent of the owner.

 

I clearly believe they do not.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So you think that it is correct to say I did a hardware change, not a "hardware level change", if I change a port from 10Gbps to 25Gbps?

I think you can use your own comprehension to figure out what is said and meant without dragging this is on a grammar and dictionary debate. Written both ways means the exact same thing to what is being said.

[An0maly_76]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The feature part of the purchase price was 60 kWh sold by Tesla.  Someone else sold him the vehicle with the stated 90 kWh range.  Tesla simply reverted the software to the 60 kWh specified by the original sale of the vehicle.  If he wants to take it up with someone, he should pursue the seller who misrepresented the vehicle.

As I've said, modified or not, an ICE automaker cannot legally detune or otherwise change a vehicle's efficiency and travel range without violating federal law, so long as such modification does not impact the vehicle's safety or emissions standards. There's zero reason Tesla should get to do so.

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

But if all other manufactures is also an "idiot" move, and if there are no better options then it's not an idiot move.

Except there are better options. Is anyone here aware that the average cost of battery replacement for EVs and hybrids far outweighs any savings on fuel? That this simple fact has led to many being scrapped or sold at a loss? That more emissions are created in EV / hybrid manufacture than any of them will save in five lifetimes? That actual EV owners are experiencing buyers' remorse after finding out that they generally have to spend $1000-$2000 to get set up to charge their vehicle at home? That Tesla has started charging high rates to use their "SuperCharger" feature (I guess that's a subscription service, too, now, another bullshit power move).

 

CNG and LPG have long been a viable alternative to gasoline or diesel, as well as EVs. Hydrogen is fast becoming a viable alternative as well.

 

The whole problem with EVs is and has always been travel range. By ransoming that range just because the vehicle was not sold as it exists, Tesla is shooting itself in the foot by undermining its one merit -- extended range. It's not enough that the customer has to pay a little more in electricity to full charge the extended battery, but then they're forced to pay extra to unlock the extra capacity when it wasn't purchased with such limitation? I'd say that's a lawsuit.

 

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The fact is, Tesla clearly is authorized to change their software.

They are NOT, however, authorized to affect a customer's vehicle adversely when the vehicle is in compliance with safety and emissions standards. Full stop. The way you're defending this position, it makes one think you were involved in this situation and trying to justify your actions (or what the boss told you to do).

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They connect to the service, Tesla is entitled to.

No,  simply no.  I connect to the internet, does that give my ISP rights to block content they have no contract with? nope.

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Tell me (and I know this isn't quite how digital boxes work, but to an extent they could work like this), if your neighbour sold you a digital box which internally contained the ID/decryption keys.  You are using the cable providers server.  Do you really think the cable provider has zero right to send a signal to the digital box to re-write the ID/decryption keys?

You are conflating a service with a product again.  Only this time you are insinuating that stealing cable is the same thing. it is not.  No one stole the batteries.  

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also the literal other owner made an effort to get the vehicle connected back into the Tesla network.

Connecting to the tesla network does not give them the right to downgrade performance.   The only right Tesla might have (big might too) is to deny use of the tesla network while the batteries are not locked to 60Kw.   

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  Tesla you bet has full rights to adjust a configuration.

Nope.

[tikker]

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

In this case though, I am imaging that Tesla will appeal.  I mean I wouldn't go as far as to say they were found guilty...they in the literal sense didn't submit documents to the courts, so it was a default judgement. (So it's not a precedent setting case).  Much like how I can sue you for stealing my house (even though you didn't), and if you don't defend yourself you would be "found guilty".

They can just as well dismiss the case if they consider your claim unbelievable. If they let it go to court then at least the accusing side has something to bring to the table beyond a random accusation. That aside, Tesla did appeal it seems (couldn't find anything immediate on it when I posted earlier) and it looks like it's scheduled to be heard in 2023: https://driveteslacanada.ca/model-s/tesla-is-appealing-a-norwegian-conciliation-board-decision-over-slow-charging/

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Ah yes, this is the one that I was talking about.  In this case I sort of agree though, but I would hardly relate what happened there with what happened here.  That case affected about 2k vehicles, and owners could argue that they have a material change (from what they purchased and were essentially guaranteed from Tesla).  In this case though they were simply restoring it to what it should be.  The guy lost access to the 30 kWh, but the vehicle itself was only suppose to have access to 60 kWh in the first place (and was initially sold as such)

I still think it's similar. There was a material change from what they purchased (90) to something else (60) after an unrelated service. The battery is said to have been replaced years ago. With digital things the time within discrepancies can be found is basically infinite, so I think this simultaneously should raise the bar for how much ignorance a company should be able to claim. I find it hard to believe that Tesla has not had a single chance in any of those years to check if the warranty replacement went ok and that the battery was actually set to 60. That is something they should have done immediately or within a few weeks after at most. in my opinion.

 

The overarching question for me here is how long into the future companies should be able to claim mistakes, which in my opinion should be limited. The longest term claims I can make that come to mind are taxes and direct debits. I or the government can claim taxes for up to 5 years back and banks allow automatic withdrawals to be contested up to a year after the fact. There has to be a line where Tesla's mistake transitions into a "you had your time to notice this". I'd even be fine with the software just warning you to see a dealer due to the capacity-model mismatch, just not changing something you did wrong years ago without asking a customer you didn't even do it for.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

 I find it hard to believe that Tesla has not had a single chance in any of those years to check if the warranty replacement went ok and that the battery was actually set to 60. That is something they should have done immediately or within a few weeks after at most. in my opinion.

 

 

Whilst I agree, again we find people defending the indefensible.  If telsa want to limit the batteries to 60Kw then they should install 60Kw batteries (it's cheaper for them and lighter for the customer).   They are not saving money or doing the customer any favors by installing a heavy $4500 option every time and then hoping enough customers pay to use it.   

[kirashi]

Welp, looks like the one and only Louis Rossmann has uploaded his take on the situation.

 

I've been silent whilst watching this thread up until now, mostly trying to come to my own conclusion on the matter.

 

The only conclusion I can formulate so far is that the human species will destroy itself through the existing socio-economic policies built since the industrial revolution. If we don't heavily change things to minimize needless waste and ensure all humans have access to the equity required to prosper for centuries to come, I foresee things continuing to spiral until they're so far out of control that nobody has the ability to stop them.

 

I'll stop there because a tech forum really isn't the time or place to open salty maggot-infested geo-political cans of worms.