Most active commenters
  • sanex(4)
  • sfn42(4)

←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 | 23 comments | 29 Aug 25 11:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
fabian2k ◴[29 Aug 25 12:38 UTC] No.45063298[source]▶
Do I understand it correctly? Crash data gets automatically transmitted to Tesla, and after it was transmitted is immediately marked for deletion?

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.

replies(7): >>45063548 #>>45063617 #>>45064088 #>>45064532 #>>45065580 #>>45067599 #>>45069859 #
lgeorget ◴[29 Aug 25 13:07 UTC] No.45063617[source]▶
I guess one charitable way to look at it is that after a crash, external people could get access to the car and its memory, which could potentially expose private data about the owner/driver. And besides private data, if data about the car condition was leaked to the public, it could be made to say anything depending on who presents it and how, so it's safer for the investigation if only appointed experts in the field have access to it.

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

replies(2): >>45063651 #>>45063981 #
1. fabian2k ◴[29 Aug 25 13:11 UTC] No.45063651[source]▶
If Tesla securely stored this data and reliably turned it over to the authorities, I wouldn't argue much with this.

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.

replies(1): >>45063764 #
2. sanex ◴[29 Aug 25 13:20 UTC] No.45063764[source]▶
I would rather my cars not automatically rat me out to the authorities, personally.
replies(5): >>45064121 #>>45064171 #>>45066355 #>>45067755 #>>45072567 #
3. gmd63 ◴[29 Aug 25 13:50 UTC] No.45064121[source]▶
I wouldn't want them to have selective memory in favor of juicing Elon's marketing scams either.
4. souterrain ◴[29 Aug 25 13:53 UTC] No.45064171[source]▶
Your property isn't ratting you out. The software you license from Tesla is ratting you out.
replies(1): >>45064380 #
5. salawat ◴[29 Aug 25 14:10 UTC] No.45064380{3}[source]▶
Such a pity there is no way to get an electronics minimal car control unit. Funny how conspicuously unimplemented functionality works.
replies(2): >>45066277 #>>45067141 #
6. MetaWhirledPeas ◴[29 Aug 25 16:36 UTC] No.45066277{4}[source]▶
When you go to an electrical drive train you quickly realize you need computers for things like battery conditioning, efficiency, forward/reverse, charging, route planning, stop/start, and on and on and on. It's not as simple as engine on, engine off. Tesla (rightly, IMO) chose to lean into this. It will be interesting to see what a company like Slate chooses to do.
replies(1): >>45067086 #
7. sfn42 ◴[29 Aug 25 16:43 UTC] No.45066355[source]▶
I think a world where drivers are held accountable for their actions sounds like a just and probably safer world.

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.

replies(1): >>45069638 #
8. salawat ◴[29 Aug 25 17:36 UTC] No.45067086{5}[source]▶
Note I said minimal. If manufacturers were content to just restrain integrated circuits to those purposes without widespread telemetry or phoning home, or creating software lockouts we'd meet my definition of minimal. Just what it takes to make a functioning device. Instead, we see software used as load bearing supports for predatory or exploitative/surveillance oriented architectures. That is not minimal to me.
replies(1): >>45068363 #
9. connicpu ◴[29 Aug 25 17:40 UTC] No.45067141{4}[source]▶
If you do an aftermarket EV conversion the car will mostly be built using hardware that you can nearly fully reason about and won't include snitch boxes.
10. SR2Z ◴[29 Aug 25 18:32 UTC] No.45067755[source]▶
If you (or anyone else) has been in a crash, I fully believe that your car should report what you were doing right before to anyone with physical access.

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.

11. SR2Z ◴[29 Aug 25 19:30 UTC] No.45068363{6}[source]▶
IMO the rules should be simple: manufacturers of electronics need to be required to provide private keys for the electronics, plus a source-available MVP firmware for getting the thing to work.

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.

12. atq2119 ◴[29 Aug 25 21:32 UTC] No.45069638{3}[source]▶
I think this is the right way to look at it. Privacy is extremely important to me, but cars are basically lethal weapons. Using them on public roads has to come with a certain amount of responsibility that balances privacy against other goods.
replies(2): >>45074212 #>>45077594 #
13. renox ◴[30 Aug 25 07:13 UTC] No.45072567[source]▶
That is a dumb réaction, sorry. The cars who 'rat' on you can also rat on the other driver or show that you didn't do anything wrong..
replies(1): >>45074204 #
14. sanex ◴[30 Aug 25 12:51 UTC] No.45074204{3}[source]▶
If it's not my fault then I'll gladly release the data. If it is then I have a 5th amendment right not to. If I'm incapacitated then I don't care and my estate can release it.
replies(2): >>45078512 #>>45090350 #
15. sanex ◴[30 Aug 25 12:52 UTC] No.45074212{4}[source]▶
Personally I believe the fifth amendment should protect me from self incrimination.
replies(1): >>45074410 #
16. sfn42 ◴[30 Aug 25 13:20 UTC] No.45074410{5}[source]▶
If you had security cameras at your home, a judge could issue a warrant for that footage.

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.

17. miohtama ◴[30 Aug 25 20:06 UTC] No.45077594{4}[source]▶
Cars have been used on public roads a century without trackers
replies(1): >>45078307 #
18. sfn42 ◴[30 Aug 25 21:51 UTC] No.45078307{5}[source]▶
Yeah and a lot of innocent people have been financially screwed, injured and killed by idiots who don't appreciate the responsibility that comes with driving a car.

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

replies(1): >>45081848 #
19. mjx0 ◴[30 Aug 25 22:21 UTC] No.45078512{4}[source]▶
> If it is then I have a 5th amendment right not to.

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.

replies(1): >>45079601 #
20. sanex ◴[31 Aug 25 01:45 UTC] No.45079601{5}[source]▶
I think where I take issue is the fact that I believe I should have control and ownership of the data from my vehicle and that such data should be protected by the fifth amendment. The government obviously should be able to look at the car itself or the bloody knife.
21. miohtama ◴[31 Aug 25 09:40 UTC] No.45081848{6}[source]▶
If you want a society where everything and everyone is tracked, we already have it today. It's called China. No privacy comes with some trade offs.

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

replies(1): >>45082478 #
22. sfn42 ◴[31 Aug 25 11:53 UTC] No.45082478{7}[source]▶
I think it's pretty clear that this is not what I'm suggesting, if you can't see that then you're not arguing in good faith and I think my time is better spent on other things than discussing this with you.
23. renox ◴[01 Sep 25 07:28 UTC] No.45090350{4}[source]▶
And if it is the fault of the other driver and they refused to provide the data?