←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 | 6 comments | 29 Aug 25 11:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
metaphor ◴[29 Aug 25 12:25 UTC] 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 ◴[29 Aug 25 12:39 UTC] 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 #
colejohnson66 ◴[29 Aug 25 12:43 UTC] No.45063366[source]▶
Assuming no malice, I'd guess it's for space saving on the car's internal memory. If the data was uploaded off of the car, there’s no point keeping it in the car.
replies(5): >>45063520 #>>45063627 #>>45064037 #>>45064183 #>>45065363 #
OutOfHere ◴[29 Aug 25 13:08 UTC] No.45063627{3}[source]▶
That's 100% wrong. In standard practice, collision files are to be "locked", prevented from local deletion.
replies(2): >>45064021 #>>45064043 #
1. giancarlostoro ◴[29 Aug 25 13:43 UTC] No.45064043{4}[source]▶
I don't think its wrong, have you ever pushed code that was technically correct, only to find months later that you, your PM, their manager, their boss' boss, etc all missed one edge case? You're telling me no software developer has ever done this?
replies(2): >>45064475 #>>45064726 #
2. buran77 ◴[29 Aug 25 14:18 UTC] No.45064475[source]▶
You discover it the day you a person dies and your relevant data is not there. Next time it's no longer a "missed edge case".
replies(1): >>45064730 #
3. OutOfHere ◴[29 Aug 25 14:37 UTC] No.45064726[source]▶
It's not an edge case; it's wanton criminal sabotage, destruction of evidence, and it deserves a prison sentence for anyone facilitating it at any level.
replies(1): >>45064738 #
4. giancarlostoro ◴[29 Aug 25 14:38 UTC] No.45064730[source]▶
In a perfect world where developers are omnipresent and all knowing sure? This isn't a perfect world. Heck, how do you account for the developer who coded it leaving the company, and now that code has been untouched for half a decade if not more, because nothing is seemingly wrong with the code, what then? Who realizes it needs to be changed? Nobody. The number of obscure bugs I find in legacy code that stump even the most experienced maintainers never ends.
replies(1): >>45065448 #
5. giancarlostoro ◴[29 Aug 25 14:39 UTC] No.45064738[source]▶
This is assuming malice out of the gate without any evidence, which is not what we do here on HN. If this is in fact maliciously done, please provide evidence.
6. matthewdgreen ◴[29 Aug 25 15:33 UTC] No.45065448{3}[source]▶
There have been dozens of government investigations and lawsuits around Tesla crashes over the past decade (more likely hundreds or thousands, I'm just thinking of the ones that received significant national press and that I happened to notice.) In each of these cases, Tesla's data retention was questioned, sometimes by regulators and sometimes as a major legal question in the case. There is no way in 2025 that the retention process around crash data is some niche area of Tesla's code that the business leaders haven't thought about extremely carefully.

This is like saying "maybe nobody has recently looked at the ad-selection mechanism at Google." That's just not plausible.