Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

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

    (www.washingtonpost.com)
    650 points clcaev | 14 comments | 29 Aug 25 11:15 UTC | HN request time: 1.362s | source | bottom
    1. pu_pe ◴[29 Aug 25 12:56 UTC] No.45063499[source]▶
    Volkswagen was caught cheating on its emission data and the CEO got fired, then prosecuted. Why shouldn't that be the case here?
    replies(6): >>45063541 #>>45063930 #>>45064747 #>>45065841 #>>45067080 #>>45069107 #
    2. JumpCrisscross ◴[29 Aug 25 13:00 UTC] No.45063541[source]▶
    You’d need a coalition of Democratic attorneys general to bring a case in the mould of Big Tobacco.
    replies(2): >>45063762 #>>45073512 #
    3. MangoToupe ◴[29 Aug 25 13:19 UTC] No.45063762[source]▶
    We'd need a third party if you'd actually want to fight american corporations. Unless you intended "small d" democratic
    replies(1): >>45064149 #
    4. rsynnott ◴[29 Aug 25 13:34 UTC] No.45063930[source]▶
    The really weird thing about the diesel emissions scandal was that someone actually got in trouble for it. It is _rare_ for companies to be punished, particularly criminally, for that sort of thing.
    replies(2): >>45063995 #>>45066228 #
    5. bobmcnamara ◴[29 Aug 25 13:39 UTC] No.45063995[source]▶
    Usually they'd get a DPA
    6. dagmx ◴[29 Aug 25 13:51 UTC] No.45064149{3}[source]▶
    Good news, the CEO of this American corporation is making a third party… (the monkey paw curls)
    replies(1): >>45065408 #
    7. csours ◴[29 Aug 25 14:39 UTC] No.45064747[source]▶
    Firing the CEO is nominally up to the board of directors.

    In Tesla's case, the board knows that the valuation of the company is wildly irrational, and they feel that the valuation is tied to the CEO.

    8. MangoToupe ◴[29 Aug 25 15:29 UTC] No.45065408{4}[source]▶
    A third party... that sounds exactly like the other two.

    Where is the anti-capitalism party? The anti-war party? The anti-corruption party? Aren't political parties supposed to represent DIFFERENT interests? Instead we're forced to choose between a party hates immigrants and a party that hates immigrants slightly more

    And like you can criticize republicans, but they actually invested in intel. Wrong company, but a step in the right direction.

    9. BurningFrog ◴[29 Aug 25 16:02 UTC] No.45065841[source]▶
    Because it's a completely different situation. The only commonality is that both involve a car company.

    Maybe the Tesla CEO should get fired and prosecuted, but not because the VW case sets some kind of precedent.

    10. fransje26 ◴[29 Aug 25 16:33 UTC] No.45066228[source]▶
    Well, it wasn't a US company so..
    11. buyucu ◴[29 Aug 25 17:36 UTC] No.45067080[source]▶
    Volkswagen is an European company. You simply can't do that to American companies.
    12. gitaarik ◴[29 Aug 25 20:36 UTC] No.45069107[source]▶
    > U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom, who presided over the case, said in an order that she did not find “sufficient evidence” that Tesla’s failure to initially produce the data was intentional. She ruled, however, that Tesla was required to reimburse the plaintiffs for all the costs related to retrieving the data themselves.
    replies(1): >>45070954 #
    13. ndsipa_pomu ◴[30 Aug 25 00:45 UTC] No.45070954[source]▶
    Seems like that's the wrong way round, that the court has to find sufficient evidence. I'd prefer it if Tesla had to provide sufficient evidence that their processes were followed correctly and that there was no intention to hide crash data.
    14. croes ◴[30 Aug 25 10:29 UTC] No.45073512[source]▶
    Usually it has to be a non US company