I guess I was going more for the legal reasoning rather than technical. Yes, technically disabling a computer is trivial. I just can’t see how a company can do that when it’s legal property of somebody else. That’s just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
The car still functions so not fully bricked, but I see the argument that the purchased self driving function is bricked. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s language in the agreement that deems it as a service. Just another shitty business practice to increase bottom line.
aren’t teslas always connected to HQ, and they could easily be disabled?
Just like with the self driving thing, and when resold it was disabled for the new buyer even though the original purchaser paid for it
I guess I was going more for the legal reasoning rather than technical. Yes, technically disabling a computer is trivial. I just can’t see how a company can do that when it’s legal property of somebody else. That’s just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
why would laws and regulations stop muski ?
Just a guess, but perhaps it’s treated as a software license?
It might be tesla’s wishlist, but no way you can brick a car and use that as an excuse.
The car still functions so not fully bricked, but I see the argument that the purchased self driving function is bricked. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s language in the agreement that deems it as a service. Just another shitty business practice to increase bottom line.
Holy shit, they did this? How has there never been a lawsuit that made headlines? IMO, that’s theft.