Tesla said it didn't have key data in a fatal crash, then a hacker found it

If that is actually designed like this, the only reason I could see for it would be so that Tesla has sole access to the data and can decide whether to use it or not. Which really should not work in court, but it seems it has so far.

And of course I'd expect an audit trail for the deletion of crash data on Tesla servers. But who knows whether there actually isn't one, or nobody looked into it at all.

For the first kind of data, deleting the data from the car the moment there’s confirmation that it now is stored at Tesla can make perfect sense as a mechanism to prevent the car to run out of storage space.

Of course, if the car crashed, deleting the data isn’t the optimal, but that it gets deleted may not be malice.

This is not unlike what happens for flight data recorders after a crash. The raw data is not made public right away, if ever.

But in the end we wouldn't be discussing this at all if Tesla had simply handed over the data from their servers. If they can't find it, it isn't actually there or they deliberately removed it this affects how I view this process.

Two copies are better than one. If you immediately erase the data, you better be sure the transmitted data is safe and secure. And obviously it wasn't.

But the data was mostly unprotected on the devices, or it couldn't have been restored. And Tesla isn't exactly known for respecting the privacy of their customers, they have announced details about accidents publicly before.

And there is the potential conflict of interest, Tesla does have strong incentives to "lose" data that implicates Autopilot or FSD.

Anytime data is recorded legal is immediately asking about retention so they don't end up empty handed in front of a judge.

Every byte that car records and how it is managed will be documented in excruciating detail by legal.

All vehicle manufacturers have sole access to data. There isn't a standard for logging data, nor a standard for retrieving it. Some components log data and it only the supplier has the means to read and interpret it.

As is deleting data. Also, for, say, training data for Tesla’s software, I don’t see legal requirements for keeping it around,

> There's no chance such a decision is accidently made by reusing code.

At Tesla? I know about nothing about their software development practices, but from them, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this were accidental.

Edit: one scenario to easily introduce this bug is if the “delete data after upload” feature were added after the “on a crash, upload all data you have, in case the car burns down” feature.

Tesla's fairly notorious for casual treatment of customer car data (which they have a lot of). There was an article, recently, about how in-car video recordings were being passed around the office.

I know that at least one porn actress recorded a scene in a self-driving Tesla. I'll bet that recording made the rounds "for quality purposes."

In my experience, they are setting automated 90 deletion policies on email so they don't end up with surprises in discovery.

It's a disclaimer, but it also grants permission for you to record.

If your car has an EDR, what data it collects is legislated. There is not a standard interface for retrieving it, but the manufacturer is required to ensure that there is a commercially available tool for data retrieval that any third party can use.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...

I knew a guy who used to record all his calls with companies, and would let them know they were being recorded, if they didn't have that disclaimer.

He would say "This call is being recorded." He told me that most of the companies hung up immediately, when he said that.

I never heard him say that his recording ever did him any good, though.

If you selectively delete data, courts can assume that data is the worst possible thing for a court case against you.

Is this one of those "that's why big cars are cheaper to make" situations?

Like many things, the retention policy was actually a destruction policy

I don't know how accurate it is right now, but previously, people have had to sue Tesla to get telemetry data from their own vehicle, not to use against Tesla, but to use in accident lawsuits against other parties.

Meanwhile, without your consent, Tesla will hold press conferences using your telemetry data to throw you under the bus (even deceptively) to defend themselves. "The vehicle had told the driver to pay attention!" NHTSA, four months later: "The vehicle had issued one inattention alert, eighteen minutes prior to the collision." (emphasis mine)

From a quick search, it's technically possible to configure some model year F-150s to have a curb weight over 5,500 pounds with all the right options, but most are lower.

Also the rules I posted are only if the manufacturer chooses to equip a recorder. They can opt not to have one.

The point I was making is that the GP was just saying shit that had no basis in fact.

If someone calls you and declares that they're recording the conversation, you probably should hang up too. It's usually used as a threat by people who intend to use it against you legally somehow. Your friend may have been an exception, but there's no way for the people on the other end to know either.

If you're acting as a representative of a company on the phone, hanging up and informing your manager or legal counsel is a good idea.

As for customer service recording calls: I didn't understand this until I was on the other side of customer support. The number of people who tell lies about interactions with support is insane. These days it's mostly e-mail and therefore easy to look up. You wouldn't believe how many people would try to throw our customer support people under the bus ("Support said you'd give me a free replacement!") until they realize we can go back and check these things.

The EDR is optional. If the manufacturer chooses to install it, it must meet those standards.

I was just refuting the GPs assertion that they are all proprietary and that only the manufacturer can access the data.

Understatement of the year when employees are supposedly watching people in their homes from the car.

You should just assume that any phone call with stakes is being recorded and that anything you say can be considered binding. Verbal contracts are valid almost everywhere, so what you say on the phone does have legal consequences regardless of whether it was recorded. Courts will also accept your notes about a phone call as evidence in the absence of a recording.

If you cause an accident by driving distracted or being reckless I think it's only fair that the facts are known so that you can be punished accordingly. Certainly better than someone innocent having to share responsibility for your mistake.

I think that would probably make people think twice about being reckless and even if it doesn't at least they'll get what they deserve.

If not, I assume they'll keep losing all incriminating data.

It actually hasn't worked for them in court at all. They've always had to disclose the data under penalty of sanction (meaning fines, and possible adverse rulings). In most of the cases, the jury decided that the driver was at fault and that Musk's statements were just meaningless marketing fluff.

In the Miami case, if Tesla hadn't turned over the data the judge was prepared to issue an instruction to the jury that they could use Tesla's failure to provide evidence as per se evidence of Tesla's liability (meaning, that Tesla would have to present an affirmatively prove the opposite, which would necessarily entail providing the evidence it was attempting to keep hidden). Judges will frequently also prevent parties found to have hidden evidence from presenting defenses on the matters affected by the undisclosed evidence. In extreme cases, they simply rule against that party on the merits, and the case becomes about the size of damages.

In the Miami case, several of the jurors said that learning that Tesla had tried to hide the evidence from the crash was a big factor in finding Tesla liable, the reasoning being that Tesla wouldn't have tried to hide the evidence if they weren't liable.

There is no good privacy reason whatsoever to protect that data - the only possible way for the owner of the car to benefit by hiding it is if they caused the accident in the first place.

I don't care if GM or whoever wants to ship a buggy, ad-ridden, data-siphoning, subscription filled nightmare with new cars. That's their decision. But they should be banned from trying to exercise any kind of control over a piece of hardware that I own outright.

If Tesla are marking crash data to be deleted, then that's not designed to help the customer, but to protect Tesla.

Seems to me that smart car data is similar - in the event of a crash, a judge could issue a warrant for that data if it is deemed relevant to the case.

And either way, honestly, just don't drive like an idiot and this will never be a problem for you.

If technology can bring those people to justice I'm 100% for it, they deserve it and their victims deserve justice.

No, you don't. You have a 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. That means:

1. You must have committed a crime, which is not a given in a traffic accident.

2. You may not be coerced by the government into incriminating yourself. You are not protected from your property incriminating you. Imagine how absurd a world that would be: the government couldn't use a bloody knife as evidence of a knife attack because the knife was owned by the attacker.

Importantly, you'll also note that if you try not to provide evidence against yourself in civil discovery, you'll end up in a world of shit involving contempt of court.

I you are "100% for it" then you can move to China today.