Which is super scary. A couple years ago one of their firmware engineers had his NDA expire, and he posted some stories about his time there in some forum.
One of the stories that stuck with me is they were really sloppy with their updates. One time the pushed one that wasn't fully cooked (it might have bricked some, I can't remember), so one of the engineers literally wrote a script to SSH into each of the cars to roll back part of the update.
Update: here's the original source: https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hackers-return-high-speed...
Since the author remains anon, I always thought it was just a troll.
Full quote:
> model s and x use openvpn to talk to their backend. inside that backend there are metadata services that feed info to the system, one of those things being a ~20MB+ (generated by the worst erp system) json payload that describes supercharger shit for the map in the touchscreen. somebody was smart enough to do automated linting but forgot to validate against the custom parser the car runs which caused a segfault in the qt app that runs the ui, which in turn for a variety of reasons forces a reboot of that component. I think we clocked about 15 seconds before it read the file and faulted after boot. it was doing that for an hour before everyone panicked and got me and qa on the phone to fix it. i wrote a quick python/fabric script that ssh’d to as many cars as possible at a time to rm the file
- "On that note, China has a law in place that mandates all electric cars send real time telemetry to their government servers - Model S/X/3, NIO cars and any other electric car if they're driving already complies with that law to be road certified"
- "Don't be surprised if that becomes a mandate in other countries"
They regularly lambast HN via this thread. It would be great if more people read their criticisms of the community here.
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=39...
However, I believe consumers also have a way to laugh Tesla out of the room, eventually: public policy ideas like the first sale doctrine, or just straight up passing new laws saying that when you buy a car, the manufacturer must provide basic certain basic services (such as allowing the vehicle to run, and warranty for basic components) even if the purchaser elects to deactivate some of the data collection.
In the past few decades, we have really allowed power to accrue to large corporations, but I think that things like the right-to-repair movement show that the pendulum may swing the other direction, at least in some contexts. Regardless of overall political or economic ideology, as soon as a large portion of the population realizes that these OEMs are basically saying "yes, pay me a good chunk of your annual salary, and I'll let you use this vehicle as long as you don't piss me off," I think things will swing very quickly in favor of consumers. The reason it hasn't yet is because most people don't have to deal with vehicles with these restrictions.
I'm sure its not going to be long before you don't _own_ your car, you just purchased a license to use it for a period of time.
Have they updated the software such that this isn't possible?
>I work as an in-house counsel at a vehicle OEM
If you're really a lawyer, I'm surprised you'd write any of this, because it's blatantly false. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 makes it blatantly illegal to "void" a warranty for any modification, unless it can be proven that the modification caused the issue that the customer is making a warranty claim for.
But in any case, your post does strengthens my main point, which is that fear over surveillance of vehicles by OEMs, with no consumer recourse, is somewhat overblown.
EDIT:
Just read Magnusson-Moss, and I have a question since you seem to know about it - you said the act "makes it blatantly illegal to 'void' a warranty for any modification, unless it can be proven that the modification caused the issue that the customer is making a warranty claim for."
But the act itself says "the warrantor shall not impose any duty other than notification upon any consumer as a condition of securing remedy [...] unless the warrantor has demonstrated [...] that such a duty is reasonable." 15 U.S.C. § 2304(b)(1).
Based on what's actually in the text of the law, I could imagine Tesla or some other OE making the argument that it is "reasonable" to condition the warranty on the consumer continuing to feed the stream of telematics data to the OE, because it allows them to identify warranty issues before they require substantial repairs, thus potentially saving significant money for the OE, and significant time for the consumer - certainly a reasonable thing. I personally don't agree with that argument, but I'm curious how you would respond to it, and how you can be sure that a court would shoot it down.
As for your example, that sounds pretty contrived and ridiculous to me. Doesn't mean someone might not try it though; companies have tried lots of ridiculous legal tactics before, such as Oracle's current API lawsuit. But I imagine any decent court would shoot it down pretty quickly. Warranty claims are made because parts fail before the warranty expires; the absence of telematics isn't going to magically make some mechanical part fail faster. It might help identify it sooner, sure, but it's still a defective part for failing that quickly, so I don't see how the consumer disabling telematics absolves the manufacturer from covering this. In short, it's never been "reasonable" before this for car companies to have telematics to keep their machines working properly through the warranty period, so why is it suddenly required now? It's not reasonable for anything else either; does a new house need telematics for the house warranty to be valid? How about a blender or toaster in the kitchen? I don't see this argument going far at all.
I have never run into a situation where my current company tried to limit its warranty in legally interesting ways (and it wouldn't necessarily get to my desk anyway), so I never really had call to dig and find Magnusson-Moss. I suspect that knowledge of that law is probably more top-of-mind for DIYers than for OEM lawyers.
I still think that whether requiring telematics is a "reasonable" condition for a warranty is more complicated than you think, but what you're saying is exactly the counterargument I would make.
And, I hope I've provided some assurance that I am, in fact, a lawyer. Whether I'm a good one is perhaps up for debate. :)
That said, I believe that there is very limited legal recourse for a vehicle OEM who wants to prevent an end user from changing the data collection and upload features of their vehicles. The worst thing would be potentially voiding the warranty, but for 10-15 year old used vehicles, that's not an issue.
I work as an in-house counsel at a vehicle OEM (likely not one you've heard of). Our end customers are generally large companies, so it may be different for personal passenger vehicles, but we actively plan for the contingencies where our end users switch out their telematics module, or request to have the telematics data stream be directed to another service provider. Further, in our market, the idea that the customer wouldn't want telematics at all is not really likely, but we also plan for that possibility.
So, I don't believe the used market isn't as big of a deal as you may think. The real concern for personal vehicles is losing essential warranty or service options for new vehicles by turning off the data collection.