Fair enough.
What should the term be?
Comment on Tesla recalls all 3,878 Cybertrucks over faulty accelerator pedal - The Verge
inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 7 months agoI dont disagree with anything you said, I just think there should be a different, but equally severe term for clarity. It’s not hurting Tesla so much as devaluing the word “recall”.
JustZ@lemmy.world 7 months ago
deranger@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m saying upgrade what it’s considered to recall. No OTA hot fix, car goes back to the shop. A proper recall just like any other recall. A software issue is just as dangerous as a hardware issue for something like an accelerator pedal. To be clear, this isn’t Tesla hate, this is modern “sell unfinished products” hate. I’d say the same thing for any other manufacturer.
If the blinker pattern needs to be updated, that’s fine for OTA in my opinion. The accelerator, brakes, steering, anything safety critical - nah. Recall for that, proper recall.
DoomBot5@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Recalls still require the customer to take action. They’re much less likely to go into the shop to have it fixed than press a button on their phone and have the car fix itself overnight.
Your suggestion for not allowing safety software fixes OTA is dangerous.
fubo@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Other way around. Unsupervised OTA updates are dangerous.
First: A car is a piece of safety-critical equipment. It has a skilled operator who has familiarized themselves with its operation. Any change to its operation, without the operator being aware that a change was made, puts the operator and other people at risk. If the operator takes the car into the shop for a documented recall, they know that something is being changed. An unsupervised OTA update can (and will) alter the behavior of safety-critical equipment without the operator’s knowledge.
Second: Any facility for OTA updates is an attack vector. If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer. Because the car is safety-critical equipment — unlike your phone, it can kill people — it is unreasonable to expose it to these attacks.
loobkoob@kbin.social 7 months ago
There's potential for a very dystopian future where we see people assassinated, not via car bomb but via the their cars being hacked to remove braking functionality (or something similar). And then a constant game of security whack-a-mole like we see with anti-virus software. And then some brilliant entrepreneur will start selling firewalls for cars. And then it'll be passed into law that it's illegal to use a vehicle that doesn't have an active firewall/anti-virus subscription.
It almost feels like the obvious path things will go down. Yay, capitalism...
I'm not totally opposed to software being used in cars (as long as it's tested and can be trusted to the degree mechanical components are) but yeah, OTA updates just seem like a terrible idea just for a little convenience. I'd rather see updates delivered via plugging the car in (and not via the charging port - it would need to be a specific data transfer port for security reasons). Alert people when there's an update, and even allow the car to "refuse to boot" if it detects it's not on the latest version. But updates should absolutely be done manually and securely.
Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Wow man, I never thought about your 2nd point before. Every car like this is a kinetic drone weapon waiting to be activated. And I was worried about the “self driving” mode…
kinkles@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I don’t think anyone will disagree with you about unsupervised OTA updates.
To your first point- I agree that any update that changes the behavior of any system in a car is pretty reckless. Especially ones that increase a car’s acceleration. I don’t know why those sorts of updates aren’t being regulated harder. OTA updates should be for mundane things like infotainment updates or, in more serious cases, to fix systems that aren’t functioning properly. It shouldn’t otherwise be used to alter how the car functions as a car.
However, to your second point, cars are smart now and there’s no going back. So cars do need software updates to close attack vectors.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Um, what city do you live in? Can I live there please? Not many skilled drivers around here.
DoomBot5@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You do realize your entire first point is invalidated by the comment you’re replying to? I just said the customer has to press a button on their phone to initiate the update. On that same phone they can view release notes that clearly outline the recall. Additional on first use, the car will display those same release notes on the screen.
Sure, safety vs convenience is a huge factor in software development. The biggest factor to safety is unpatched software. You know, the kind that requires significant effort to update, such as needing to bring your car into the shop to apply.
Overall your doom and gloom argument against OTA safety updates is pretty weak.