I saw this article earlier:
Tesla ‘going bankrupt’ is endpoint of protests, says local organizer
In the spirit of right to repair, self-hosting, giving a second life to old devices, and limiting data collection by car companies:
- What are some considerations?
- Are there any projects worth keeping an eye on?
An example that came to mind was Valetudo, which is a cloud replacement for vacuum robots enabling local-only operation. Some robot vacuums are easy to install this on, and others require more invasive modifications.
What I’ve found so far:
Depends what you want to do. They don’t require a network connection to operate as a vehicle. So if you don’t care about the remote app features (local ones such as lock/unlock still work over BLE), live traffic, streaming music or updates, then a network connection isn’t necessary.
If you do want any of those features, then you would need to either get root access to the gateway and infotainment systems to modify the endpoints or take over the C&C server (formerly named “mothership”) domains and certificates.
Something else that people don’t think about besides the backend server is the connectivity. A lot of these cars use LTE with eSIMs that can’t be replaced, and getting an internet package for it will be next to impossible since Tesla gets them at bulk rates. Once upon a time cars did allow “bring your own SIM cards” but not anymore. Also as cars get older the cell networks get shut down. Some companies did offer upgrades but that was few and far between. Most just said “sorry, you’re SOL”.
So even if you could hack your car, your car won’t have any way of talking to a custom endpoint.
And this is another reason why putting internet on cars is a bad idea
I mean, what’s the alternative? It’s not like it has to have internet. Anything internet connected is mainly quality of life:
- Traffic
- Remote (app) features
- Music
Except maybe Teslas, damned if I know what they do. But they’re nice to have things that generally require realtime updates but the car functions just fine as a car without it.
- Traffic
- Phone (CarPlay/Android Auto (yes I know Tesla doesn’t have them, a garbage decision you’ll have to live with if you bought one))
- Remote (app) features
- Don’t care/want/need, plus security risk. If you really can’t do without, use WiFi when at home, and no-idea-what for when on the go.
- Music
- See point 1, also “dumb” media devices via Bluetooth/USB should be possible.
Again though, they are all quality of life things. You don’t have to use it on most cars. Don’t want it, don’t pay for it and don’t use it. So just like giving people the choice of AA/CP, what’s wrong with giving them the choice of using those features?
Just cause you opt out of those features doesn’t mean the car doesn’t have other mandatory shit that connects to the internet to, say, sell data like the exact times and locations of when you have sex.
Inb4 “but I don’t have to worry about it cause I don’t have sex” we know, but that’s not the only thing they gather data on.
The right to repair. It’s going to require the ability to make changes to the software on the vehicle. At a minimum the ability to replace the public encryption keys used to communicate with the servers. The bootloader and software is probably locked behind signing keys; so you need to be able to disable or add your own keys. I doubt anyone has access to the full protocols used to communicate with the servers. So, the full technical standard need to be released (which is never going to happen) or reversed engineered through unencrypted traffic analysis and reverse engineering the software.
A good right to repair law could require some of that be releasable while the company is still active or all if the company goes belly up. IIRC there was a smaller EV company that went bankrupt and there was a concern that once the servers were shutdown the vehicles would be bricked. Not sure what happened in the end. In any case, cars as IOT is the stupidest idea ever created.
First, second and third most important point is : Tesla needs to allow the connection to an alternative server.
The fourth should be access to the api and data that are exchanged.
You shouldn’t mess with the FW of your own car even for some innocent feature like this one, you don’t know/understand the interactions that may happen between different Sw components and the hw layer, you can not provide a similar of level of testing, including some worst case scenarios, that can make your car unsafe during some problems or unforeseen conditions. And perhaps also, the car could loose its license for driving…
If tesla allows that, then we can start speaking about it. But last time I check on that was not possible
That mentality is how we got here in the first place. A person should have a right to understand and repair/modify everything happening in devices they own. Because they don’t, we get stuck in the shitty situation where Elon Musk can unlock any Tesla he pleases and I can’t refuse to send my data to him. Or any other car manufacturer. Or tractor manufacturer. Or IoT manufacturer.
Mixed feelings on this. Yeah, you buy it you should own it. But if your ability to fuck with a two-ton rolling death machine puts my ass at risk, we’ve got a fucking problem.
I have some bad news for you - any random idiot with a driver’s license and a two-ton death machine already puts your ass at risk, all the time. We call it “traffic” because we’ve just gotten used to it
![[Discussion] What would it take to selfhost some of the backend that Tesla's connect to?](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/58e8ff1a-930a-4e1e-8c7c-da3bcc7dc88b.jpeg){kind=link}