←back to thread

650 points clcaev | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
metaphor ◴[] No.45063162[source]
> Immediately after the wreck at 9:14 p.m. on April 25, 2019, the crucial data detailing how it unfolded was automatically uploaded to the company’s servers and stored in a vast central database, according to court documents. Tesla’s headquarters soon sent an automated message back to the car confirming that it had received the collision snapshot.

> Moments later, court records show, the data was just as automatically “unlinked” from the 2019 Tesla Model S at the scene, meaning the local copy was marked for deletion, a standard practice for Teslas in such incidents, according to court testimony.

Wow...just wow.

replies(5): >>45063302 #>>45063632 #>>45063687 #>>45063980 #>>45064115 #
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.45063302[source]
I am trying to imagine a scenario under which that is defensible and does not raise various questions including compliance, legal, retention. Not to mention, who were the people who put that code into production knowing it would do that.

edit: My point is that it was not one lone actor, who would have made that change.

replies(3): >>45063366 #>>45063389 #>>45064252 #
jeffbee ◴[] No.45063389[source]
The artifact in question was a temporary archive created for upload. I can't think of a scenario in which you would not unlink it.
replies(3): >>45063557 #>>45063579 #>>45064000 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45063557{3}[source]
And then you delete the server copy?
replies(2): >>45063622 #>>45064025 #
1. semiquaver ◴[] No.45064025{4}[source]
They didn’t delete the server copy though. That’s what this article is about.

  > Tesla later said in court that it had the data on its own servers all along
replies(1): >>45064939 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45064939[source]
Wasn’t that after they’d been caught?
replies(1): >>45067742 #
3. semiquaver ◴[] No.45067742[source]
Yes.