←back to thread

650 points clcaev | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fabian2k ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
fabian2k ◴[] 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 #
sanex ◴[] No.45063764[source]
I would rather my cars not automatically rat me out to the authorities, personally.
replies(5): >>45064121 #>>45064171 #>>45066355 #>>45067755 #>>45072567 #
renox ◴[] 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 #
sanex ◴[] No.45074204[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 #
mjx0 ◴[] No.45078512[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 #
1. sanex ◴[] No.45079601[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.