6 ms·

They are using it in court cases, so it would not be a secret anyway. The issue was that Tesla was only providing certain data that was being asked for. You w

They are using it in court cases, so it would not be a secret anyway. The issue was that Tesla was only providing certain data that was being asked for. You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more information, unless you knew they were collecting it. Now they know Tesla has this information they should be able to get it from them regardless if they have to decrypt it themselves or not. (Unless Tesla decides to stop collecting data for some reason.)

ajross 5y ago
> You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more information, unless you knew they were collecting it. Only if Tesla purjured themselves during discovery. That's not the way court cases work. You can ask "Do you guys record the accelerometer data anywhere else but on the MCU?" and they have to answer truthfully. What you write here mostly amounts to a conspiracy theory. You're taking the idea that Tesla is "hiding something nefarious" as a prior and then taking evidence that their storage was reverse engineered as evidence for that prior. But that's not how engineering works either.
- adfrhgeaq5hy 5y ago
  We know for a fact Tesla is doing something nefarious, i.e. the self driving scam. But I suppose Tesla isn't hiding anything nefarious. Most of their malfeasance is plain to see.
  - tenuousemphasis 5y ago
    As someone who actually purchased FSD and has yet to receive it, it's not a scam. It's just a really hard problem that I think Tesla will solve before anyone else.
    - lazide 5y ago
      If someone promises you’ll have it any day now, so you pay them a lot of money, but they delay it years and years - and you note it’s a really hard problem - at what point is it fraud? Most legal precedent I’ve seen says a lot less time than they’ve already delayed it, frankly.
      - ximeng 5y ago
        There are plenty of videos on Youtube showing the state and rate of progress of self-driving. It's clear it's got a long way to go but is improving quickly. Everyone knows that Elon Musk's twitter is not a reliable indicator of feature release dates.
        adfrhgeaq5hy 5y ago
        >It's clear it's got a long way to go but is improving quickly. First part yes, second part no. It has been in development since at least 2015 and still drives straight into walls. Meanwhile Waymo and Cruze are putting down tens of thousands of miles between interventions.
        ximeng 5y ago
        You can see the same route being driven better as new betas come out. There's just not the same openness from Waymo and Cruze as Tesla which has vehicles out there in varied conditions able to be recorded by members of the public.
      - ajross 5y ago
        > at what point is it fraud? It's fraud when someone is harmed. People like you who didn't buy the product and don't want it don't have standing here. People like me, who did, do. And almost without exception, we're all lined up to get the beta release. Offer me a $10k refund today in exchange for never getting access to FSD releases, and I'd turn it down. "People willfully paying for something I don't like" isn't fraud. Find a FSD owner willing to sue for a refund.
        karpierz 5y ago
        Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying self driving if/when it's released? I think that "pay now, maybe get it later" or "don't pay now, can't buy it later" is a false dilemma.
        5y ago
    - adfrhgeaq5hy 5y ago
      Tesla is miles behind everyone else. It is hard, yes, but it is even harder if you try to do it with hardware that is not up to the task.
- barney54 5y ago
  The article states, “Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) said it had discovered far more data than investigators had previously been aware of.” The implication is that Tesla has not shared all of this information with investigators before.
- lazide 5y ago
  Eh, that’s generally not how the procedure works. A defendant quite explicitly doesn’t need to proactively provide all information that could possibly incriminate themselves. If the plaintiff isn’t asking for something then, cool. The plaintiff COULD ask for ‘all self driving data’, but often that can be objected to and/or thrown out, as it’s a fishing expedition and that data is proprietary. So that can tie up things for a long time while everyone argues back and forth in court, and it’s likely they’d only get the bare minimum to address whatever the case is alleging. That is very expensive to do. If they know it’s there and can proactively argue it’s appropriate, that changes the equation dramatically.
  - ajross 5y ago
    You don't have to know it's there, you just have to understand the problem space enough to find it. You depose an engineer and you ask "do you store this information?", and they have to answer. Then you can ask "where do you store it?", and so on. There's complexity about some questions being procedurally allowed, etc... But that's how it works. Fundamentally this process isn't any different than reverse engineering. If a good hacker can figure out how something works based on knowledge of the problem domain and technology in use, then those same questions can be answered in a deposition and provided via discovery, by definition.
    - lazide 5y ago
      They can - but as evidence shows do not always, or even often. It will now more often of course as the information gets out.
      - ajross 5y ago
        > It will now more often of course as the information gets out. AGAIN you are arguing from a conspiracy as a prior. There is no "information" to "get out". The car stores telemetry and sensor input. We always knew that. This is a story about someone figuring out how to recover it.
        5y ago
specialist 5y ago
> You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more information, unless you knew they were collecting it. Totally. I've played this game with FOIA (public records requests). It's exhausting. Of course they had the data. But as a private citizen, I had to prove they had the data before I could request it.

ajross 5y ago

> You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more information, unless you knew they were collecting it. Only if Tesla purjured themselves during discovery. That's not the way court cases work. You can ask "Do you guys record the accelerometer data anywhere else but on the MCU?" and they have to answer truthfully. What you write here mostly amounts to a conspiracy theory. You're taking the idea that Tesla is "hiding something nefarious" as a prior and then taking evidence that their storage was reverse engineered as evidence for that prior. But that's not how engineering works either.

adfrhgeaq5hy 5y ago
We know for a fact Tesla is doing something nefarious, i.e. the self driving scam. But I suppose Tesla isn't hiding anything nefarious. Most of their malfeasance is plain to see.
- tenuousemphasis 5y ago
  As someone who actually purchased FSD and has yet to receive it, it's not a scam. It's just a really hard problem that I think Tesla will solve before anyone else.
  - lazide 5y ago
    If someone promises you’ll have it any day now, so you pay them a lot of money, but they delay it years and years - and you note it’s a really hard problem - at what point is it fraud? Most legal precedent I’ve seen says a lot less time than they’ve already delayed it, frankly.
    - ximeng 5y ago
      There are plenty of videos on Youtube showing the state and rate of progress of self-driving. It's clear it's got a long way to go but is improving quickly. Everyone knows that Elon Musk's twitter is not a reliable indicator of feature release dates.
      - adfrhgeaq5hy 5y ago
        >It's clear it's got a long way to go but is improving quickly. First part yes, second part no. It has been in development since at least 2015 and still drives straight into walls. Meanwhile Waymo and Cruze are putting down tens of thousands of miles between interventions.
        ximeng 5y ago
        You can see the same route being driven better as new betas come out. There's just not the same openness from Waymo and Cruze as Tesla which has vehicles out there in varied conditions able to be recorded by members of the public.
    - ajross 5y ago
      > at what point is it fraud? It's fraud when someone is harmed. People like you who didn't buy the product and don't want it don't have standing here. People like me, who did, do. And almost without exception, we're all lined up to get the beta release. Offer me a $10k refund today in exchange for never getting access to FSD releases, and I'd turn it down. "People willfully paying for something I don't like" isn't fraud. Find a FSD owner willing to sue for a refund.
      - karpierz 5y ago
        Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying self driving if/when it's released? I think that "pay now, maybe get it later" or "don't pay now, can't buy it later" is a false dilemma.
        5y ago
  - adfrhgeaq5hy 5y ago
    Tesla is miles behind everyone else. It is hard, yes, but it is even harder if you try to do it with hardware that is not up to the task.
barney54 5y ago
The article states, “Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) said it had discovered far more data than investigators had previously been aware of.” The implication is that Tesla has not shared all of this information with investigators before.
lazide 5y ago
Eh, that’s generally not how the procedure works. A defendant quite explicitly doesn’t need to proactively provide all information that could possibly incriminate themselves. If the plaintiff isn’t asking for something then, cool. The plaintiff COULD ask for ‘all self driving data’, but often that can be objected to and/or thrown out, as it’s a fishing expedition and that data is proprietary. So that can tie up things for a long time while everyone argues back and forth in court, and it’s likely they’d only get the bare minimum to address whatever the case is alleging. That is very expensive to do. If they know it’s there and can proactively argue it’s appropriate, that changes the equation dramatically.
- ajross 5y ago
  You don't have to know it's there, you just have to understand the problem space enough to find it. You depose an engineer and you ask "do you store this information?", and they have to answer. Then you can ask "where do you store it?", and so on. There's complexity about some questions being procedurally allowed, etc... But that's how it works. Fundamentally this process isn't any different than reverse engineering. If a good hacker can figure out how something works based on knowledge of the problem domain and technology in use, then those same questions can be answered in a deposition and provided via discovery, by definition.
  - lazide 5y ago
    They can - but as evidence shows do not always, or even often. It will now more often of course as the information gets out.
    - ajross 5y ago
      > It will now more often of course as the information gets out. AGAIN you are arguing from a conspiracy as a prior. There is no "information" to "get out". The car stores telemetry and sensor input. We always knew that. This is a story about someone figuring out how to recover it.
      - 5y ago

specialist 5y ago

> You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more information, unless you knew they were collecting it. Totally. I've played this game with FOIA (public records requests). It's exhausting. Of course they had the data. But as a private citizen, I had to prove they had the data before I could request it.