2 ms·
I think the really important part of the article is this: "The Vehicle Safety Act explicitly restricts NHTSA's ability to release what the companies label as c
by kwhitefoot 3y ago
I think the really important part of the article is this:
"The Vehicle Safety Act explicitly restricts NHTSA's ability to release what the companies label as confidential information. Once any company claims confidentiality, NHTSA is legally obligated to treat it as confidential unless/until NHTSA goes through a legal process to deny the claim."
This can't have been done merely at the behest of Tesla, there must have been other forces at work to get that put into the legislation. So while Tesla is the proximate cause in this case they are enabled by legislation that is hostile to road safety.
- abduhl 3y agoThis type of language is found in many public safety type laws. It’s to encourage companies to cooperate with the public safety investigation without having to fear that their confidential information will be released. It may seem hostile to public safety on its face but it really isn’t - it’s harmful to public knowledge, which is hardly a proxy for public safety. It’s certainly been abused by some companies but is likely beneficial on the whole because it encourages full disclosure and cooperation with the government public safety agencies. The opposite approach would be to not have the protection available and to have companies withhold information until forced to disclose by the government, most likely via a lawsuit of some kind which would take years to resolve. Years that could be used improving public safety.
- tiahura 3y agoThis type of language is found in many public safety type laws. See e.g., Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act.