NOTE: I am talking about what the company's perspective may be, not my own view of the risks.
So... does this mean I could sue Ford if someone modified a Ford car with a nitrous oxide booster? Could Ford sue the modifier for ruining the reputation of Ford when they crashed a modified Ford car? Will the state sue Ford for allowing such modifications, commonly used in street races? Can there be a civil suit against ford for anyone harmed by such modification?
To me, all those questions has a clear answer, and that answer is No. It also has a historical proof, as there hasn't been any lawsuits against Ford for failing to prevent such modifications. If the owner of a car modify their own car, then that person is fully responsible of any consequences of that action.
"It is the socially responsible thing for Tesla to make guarantees about their car software performance and prevent tampering in order to keep our streets safe."
"It's my product, I own the car; I have the right to tinker with all of it."
I observe that we constantly have this same debate: can we be responsible and take care of ourselves or do we need some ruling class to take care of us and micromanage our decisions for us? Or philosophically, can mankind be perfected through laws?
Half-measures and exceptions in the self-determination debate always strike me as lacking wisdom. Culturally, we should be strongly predisposed one way or the other.
"We're allowing you to unlock your bootloader, but if you do, you're voiding your warranty."
Similarly car makers could say as soon as the user unlocks the car's systems for modification, the company is no longer responsible for any accident that might happen.
It seems like a rather good compromise to me.
Check out the Fast and Furious movies if you're interested.
We can't let these hypothetical worst-case scenarios be an excuse to stifle innovation.
What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses his to give kids cancer!?!?
What if we let people tinker with their toasters and somebody uses one to electrocute a pool full of kids!?!?
Please, think of the children!
I know this was said in jest, but given the (generally unfounded) fears some people have about microwaves and cellphones I want to point out that exposure to unshielded microwave radiation isn't going to cause cancer (at least not any more than anything else that heats you up could somehow cause cancer) because microwave radiation is non-ionizing; you would need at least ultraviolet light for that (and UV-C or X-rays would be most effective).
The biggest danger with strong microwave radiation would be boiling your eyeballs as they lack the cooling most of your body has but contain significant amounts of water.
Sauna heat does not preferentially target liquid for heating.
By the time you have to worry about specific non-brain parts being overheated, your overall temperature is such that you're braindead.
Pretend my original comment ended with "Past that, you basically fell in a fire and it doesn't matter what is heating you." Is there anything wrong with that? Or the rejection of the idea that bone marrow is at risk?
Well, given that the Earth could be wiped out at any moment with the nuclear weapons and stuff we stockpiled, long term this idea might prove to be laughably wrong.
Yes, we sure can.
I don't want your "innovation" killing a bunch of people.
If you can't innovate without endangering people, you need to "innovate your innovation" and come up with a way you can do it safely.
You shouldn't be able to sue a tool manufacturer for misuse of a tool.
If you cannot sue Mercedes for a case when a driver with after market tuning kills someone in a crash, why should Tesla be liable?