5 ms·

> The Tesla Files episode revealed that the BEV maker instructs its technicians always to provide feedback orally. Internal documents obtained by Handelsblatt s

> The Tesla Files episode revealed that the BEV maker instructs its technicians always to provide feedback orally. Internal documents obtained by Handelsblatt stated: "Do not copy the report below into an email, text message, or leave it in a voicemail to the customer." I don't know how serious a crack in the front casting on a Tesla is, but this kind of policy is pretty egregious.

kramerger 3y ago
"Do this only orally" is always to hide evidence from a future court discovery. I don't think Tesla would do this unless management consider it very serious.
- peeters 3y ago
  That kind of policy should mean that in any court case where a customer's version of events/conversations differs from Tesla's, the customer is assumed to be telling the truth until definitely proven otherwise. The legal liability of this policy should be so great that no sane company would have this policy over just creating a paper trail in the first place.
  - jejeyyy77 3y ago
    lol, thats not how it works at all.
    - vikramkr 3y ago
      I think that's why the parent comment was using the word "should" a lot
      - Zarathustra30 3y ago
        For those unclear on the definitions, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      How would you interpret the following: if electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party fails to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information to use in the litigation may presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party.
- maffydub 3y ago
  In previous employment (as a software engineer), I've been told to do this too - mainly around inventions we were trying to patent. The reason is slightly less nefarious than you might think - for example, someone might casually say that some aspect of their patent is "obvious" but they're saying that as an expert in their field who may have spent months or years thinking about the problem and alternative solutions. However, if it came to court, "even the inventor said this was obvious" is a pretty hard thing to respond to.
  - HumblyTossed 3y ago
    I don't think these two scenarios are the same.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      I agree, and was originally going to downvote the parent comment for the same reason, but then realized I think they were replying to this more general point in the GP's post: > "Do this only orally" is always to hide evidence from a future court discovery. That is, I've followed enough court cases and news reports to have seen things taken egregiously out of context to agree there could be valid reasons to limit discoverable communications (though not in Tesla's specific case), especially because so few people seem to argue in good faith anymore. For example, lots of times in long email or slack threads people throw out ideas, even if they're not particularly well thought out, because that's part of what being in an open, healthy organization entails. And then I've seen these communications presented as some sort of official corporate position instead of brainstorming.
      - salawat 3y ago
        Counterpoint: What you're describing is still fine because a solid defense is to look at someone taking something out of context and going, "would you mind continuing reading?" where someone else follows up shooting down $controversial_thing because liability etc. The only reason not to create that record in the first place is because you weren't interested in compliance from the get go, and you were banking on the "naive first violation" defense. Been there, seen it in action, left because of it. Ethical abandonment, no matter how it is gussied up, is ethical abandonment. There is always time for doing what you should to keep your nose clean.
adionionio 3y ago
If it is legal where you live, you might want to get in the habit of secretly recording business dealings. I always have a recorder in my pocket when dealing with more than a few hundred dollars.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  Do it anyway. You can always not use the recording if the penalty for recording is going to be more than the benefit it gives you (unlikely).
  - adionionio 3y ago
    Secret recording may be a criminal offense. I am not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, but it appears to be a felony in parts of the US. Admitting to felonies in court is probably not a good legal strategy. Even if you don't get arrested I am not confident the evidence would be admissible. EDIT: I know there are places where secret recordings are illegal but don't know the expected penalties. Recordings are probably legal in a "one-party consent" state. Be wary; certain kinds of recording may be illegal even if recording is legal in general. In a lawsuit, you will be required to hand over all relevant records. It is illegal to destroy them or fail to hand them over. The penalties for doing so could be severe. But even if you get away with it, hiding evidence would be wrong. Don't respond to sleaze with yet more sleaze. Maybe you'll win the fight or maybe you'll lose it, but you will always lose something of yourself.
    - chalst 3y ago
      Secret recording is illegal in Germany. It violates Section 201 of the Criminal Code. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1922 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
    - kadoban 3y ago
      > But in any case it would be wrong. Don't respond to sleaze with yet more sleaze. Is it wrong, or just illegal some places? Is it only "sleaze" where it's illegal, or everywhere?
tamimio 3y ago
> but this kind of policy is pretty egregious. I said it before, musk himself is a big con, so I am not shocked that’s a policy in there.

kramerger 3y ago

"Do this only orally" is always to hide evidence from a future court discovery. I don't think Tesla would do this unless management consider it very serious.

peeters 3y ago
That kind of policy should mean that in any court case where a customer's version of events/conversations differs from Tesla's, the customer is assumed to be telling the truth until definitely proven otherwise. The legal liability of this policy should be so great that no sane company would have this policy over just creating a paper trail in the first place.
- jejeyyy77 3y ago
  lol, thats not how it works at all.
  - vikramkr 3y ago
    I think that's why the parent comment was using the word "should" a lot
    - Zarathustra30 3y ago
      For those unclear on the definitions, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    How would you interpret the following: if electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party fails to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information to use in the litigation may presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party.
maffydub 3y ago
In previous employment (as a software engineer), I've been told to do this too - mainly around inventions we were trying to patent. The reason is slightly less nefarious than you might think - for example, someone might casually say that some aspect of their patent is "obvious" but they're saying that as an expert in their field who may have spent months or years thinking about the problem and alternative solutions. However, if it came to court, "even the inventor said this was obvious" is a pretty hard thing to respond to.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  I don't think these two scenarios are the same.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    I agree, and was originally going to downvote the parent comment for the same reason, but then realized I think they were replying to this more general point in the GP's post: > "Do this only orally" is always to hide evidence from a future court discovery. That is, I've followed enough court cases and news reports to have seen things taken egregiously out of context to agree there could be valid reasons to limit discoverable communications (though not in Tesla's specific case), especially because so few people seem to argue in good faith anymore. For example, lots of times in long email or slack threads people throw out ideas, even if they're not particularly well thought out, because that's part of what being in an open, healthy organization entails. And then I've seen these communications presented as some sort of official corporate position instead of brainstorming.
    - salawat 3y ago
      Counterpoint: What you're describing is still fine because a solid defense is to look at someone taking something out of context and going, "would you mind continuing reading?" where someone else follows up shooting down $controversial_thing because liability etc. The only reason not to create that record in the first place is because you weren't interested in compliance from the get go, and you were banking on the "naive first violation" defense. Been there, seen it in action, left because of it. Ethical abandonment, no matter how it is gussied up, is ethical abandonment. There is always time for doing what you should to keep your nose clean.

adionionio 3y ago

If it is legal where you live, you might want to get in the habit of secretly recording business dealings. I always have a recorder in my pocket when dealing with more than a few hundred dollars.

IshKebab 3y ago
Do it anyway. You can always not use the recording if the penalty for recording is going to be more than the benefit it gives you (unlikely).
- adionionio 3y ago
  Secret recording may be a criminal offense. I am not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, but it appears to be a felony in parts of the US. Admitting to felonies in court is probably not a good legal strategy. Even if you don't get arrested I am not confident the evidence would be admissible. EDIT: I know there are places where secret recordings are illegal but don't know the expected penalties. Recordings are probably legal in a "one-party consent" state. Be wary; certain kinds of recording may be illegal even if recording is legal in general. In a lawsuit, you will be required to hand over all relevant records. It is illegal to destroy them or fail to hand them over. The penalties for doing so could be severe. But even if you get away with it, hiding evidence would be wrong. Don't respond to sleaze with yet more sleaze. Maybe you'll win the fight or maybe you'll lose it, but you will always lose something of yourself.
  - chalst 3y ago
    Secret recording is illegal in Germany. It violates Section 201 of the Criminal Code. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1922 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
  - kadoban 3y ago
    > But in any case it would be wrong. Don't respond to sleaze with yet more sleaze. Is it wrong, or just illegal some places? Is it only "sleaze" where it's illegal, or everywhere?

tamimio 3y ago

> but this kind of policy is pretty egregious. I said it before, musk himself is a big con, so I am not shocked that’s a policy in there.