4 ms·
Sure it's moral - in fact, it's great. The question of morality only arises if there's asymmetric access to the data. In the event of a claim being made by th
by dgacmu 10y ago
Sure it's moral - in fact, it's great. The question of morality only arises if there's asymmetric access to the data. In the event of a claim being made by the driver against the company, both sides should have complete access to the logs data to make their case more firmly. What shouldn't happen is ONLY one party being able to inspect the data.
But this is unlikely to happen in practice. A lawyer for the driver would undoubtedly subpoena Tesla for access to the data. And a reasonable judge would probably concur. IANAL and IANAJ, so the latter is a guess. :)
- dragontamer 10y ago> But this is unlikely to happen in practice. A lawyer for the driver would undoubtedly subpoena Tesla for access to the data. And a reasonable judge would probably concur. IANAL and IANAJ, so the latter is a guess. :) So what's the process here? You're going to start suing Tesla so that you hope you can officially subpeona them of the data you don't have access to? Its asymmetric no matter what. The role of these logs should be reversed: the driver ought to have first-dibs at the logs to determine if he has a legitimate case to bring forth against Tesla. Then Tesla should subpeona the data once they start getting sued. In any case, Tesla holding the data so that they have the information-advantage against their own customers is a bit fishy.
- dgacmu 10y agoYes, that's exactly what you do when you sue anyone and you believe they have data relevant to the case. It's called discovery. First you have to have a reasonable basis for doing so, and a claim that their car auto-drove into the wall is such a basis.