> End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability.

Sure is - and that's absolutely no reason to lock a person out of a car that they own. They OWN it - they are responsible for modifications (and the liability that comes with them). Exactly the same as every car built without a computer - which was roughly ALL of them until the late 70s/early 80s.

Why not allow access to safety systems? ICE vehicles have allowed for all kinds of modifications over the years that are unsafe and maybe illegal. Why take the user’s choice away now? Because of some bogeyman safety issues that might affect a dozen people who actually want to tweak things? It’s happening today anyways.

When's the last time you saw Toyota in the headline for one of their cars catching on fire on the highway? Tesla has hype on the same level of Apple, so any time anything goes wrong with a car catching on fire or crashing, or having a terrible time with getting the car serviced, they're in the news. Tesla's first-party service centers are usually a plus for consumers, but Ford GM et al. benefit from dealerships being separate entities that take all the blame when something goes wrong.

I don’t understand how a business’s PR concerns should affect my freedom.

As far as I can tell nobody is stopping you from doing this. Just as you can legally hack iPhones if you figure out how, so can you hack your Tesla. The only slightly illegal thing might be the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, but you'd have to take that up with Howard Coble and the members of the 105th congress.

My comment is reasoning for why Tesla has a stake in protecting their reputation; if you don't like it, please don't support their practices by buying their cars.