5 ms·

So that vehicle owners can see who the hit and runner is. And just in general look how their car is, all from the comfort of their phone in real time.

Hardwired8976 3y ago
That makes sense but why should employees have easy access to it?
- adt2bt 3y ago
  Yeah there should definitely be a better governance structure preventing employee access without a structural justification like a law enforcement request, customer service request, etc. As an owner of a model Y, I’m beyond pissed off they’re so lackadaisical with this stuff, to the point where I may just buy a different car.
  - radicalbyte 3y ago
    It should be encrypted and the owner of the vehicle should be in control of the keys.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      That works right up until the user loses the key and demand access anyways. Or they sell the car and keep a copy of the key.
      - klyrs 3y ago
        Updating a car with a new key would fix both problems. Old recordings would be lost, of course, but customers hearing "I can't unlock that without your old key" may be necessary to re-establish trust.
      - radicalbyte 3y ago
        Absolutely and that is why you can't use an HSM. Thankfully generating keys on device and storing them on the cloud account encrypted by a passcode works. As the keys are a predictable size you can encrypt them multiple times with different passcodes.
    - coppsilgold 3y ago
      You can decouple the encryption and decryption keys such that the private key would never be present in any Tesla system at any point in time[1]. And you can introduce a ratchet such that compromising the Tesla car at time t0 would not enable the attacker to decrypt any encrypted data at t[n < 0]. [1] Asymmetric crypto KEM + ephemeral symmetric key + encrypted block. eg. <https://libsodium.gitbook.io/doc/public-key_cryptography/sealed_boxes https://libsodium.gitbook.io/doc/public-key_cryptography/sea...>
  - zaroth 3y ago
    Or just disable the data sharing option in the UI?
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If you trust that button is actually wired up to anything, then you put way more faith in people than I believe is warranted.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    > to the point where I may just buy a different car. I love this line of rhetoric. Seriously, I doubt that you will. If you consider all of the shenanigans that Tesla is known to do, you shouldn't have bought the car if you're concerned about privacy. Any car that has cameras on the car that looks at the interior of the car should not have been purchased in the first place. OF COURSE they will be looking at video when they shouldn't be. Has there ever been an example of a company that hasn't? Ring has done it. Roomba has done it. Open it to any data not just camera, and people like Uber have used that data for nefarious purposes. Any device that sends back data to the home office is just too ripe for misuse. Then, when it comes out in examples like this that it has occured, there is 0 liability for the company involved. Maybe the company makes an example out of the employees in various ways up to dismissal, but the company just shrugs it off.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  If it's not one of your core goals from the very start of your design, it's pretty hard to build a system where employees can't access data. Obviously you can do it, but it's not trivial and it's doubly not trivial to add after the fact.
- wodenokoto 3y ago
  They obviously shouldn’t.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
steelframe 3y ago
> So that vehicle owners can see who the hit and runner is. Arguably that benefits their insurance company more than it does them. For making sure liability is properly ascribed, I solved that problem by installing cameras that write to a MicroSD card that's under my physical control.
- zaroth 3y ago
  You can save it only locally in a Tesla too. You have to opt-in to sharing the video.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Insurance may benefit more, but I’m still quite interested in avoiding paying the deductible.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Yeah, unless the hit and run is performed by an excavator or something, that use case doesn't really require automatic uploading.
bitcurious 3y ago
A hit and run is detectable by accelerometer, and a half-dozen other sensors on the Tesla. There is no need to upload video unless an event like that is detected, and that scenario should be opt-in.
- crote 3y ago
  On the other hand, someone keying your car is a lot harder to detect.
- flutas 3y ago
  Yeah, not sure what that guy is talking about. Sentry mode (aka cam on while away, and detected using accelerometer and visual cues like you said) doesn't upload footage. AFAIK, the footage upload was a data sharing toggle, and the videos were supposed to be used as training data for FSD. Why garage videos, or any videos with the car not in motion are being uploaded is a big question.

Hardwired8976 3y ago

That makes sense but why should employees have easy access to it?

adt2bt 3y ago
Yeah there should definitely be a better governance structure preventing employee access without a structural justification like a law enforcement request, customer service request, etc. As an owner of a model Y, I’m beyond pissed off they’re so lackadaisical with this stuff, to the point where I may just buy a different car.
- radicalbyte 3y ago
  It should be encrypted and the owner of the vehicle should be in control of the keys.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    That works right up until the user loses the key and demand access anyways. Or they sell the car and keep a copy of the key.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Updating a car with a new key would fix both problems. Old recordings would be lost, of course, but customers hearing "I can't unlock that without your old key" may be necessary to re-establish trust.
    - radicalbyte 3y ago
      Absolutely and that is why you can't use an HSM. Thankfully generating keys on device and storing them on the cloud account encrypted by a passcode works. As the keys are a predictable size you can encrypt them multiple times with different passcodes.
  - coppsilgold 3y ago
    You can decouple the encryption and decryption keys such that the private key would never be present in any Tesla system at any point in time[1]. And you can introduce a ratchet such that compromising the Tesla car at time t0 would not enable the attacker to decrypt any encrypted data at t[n < 0]. [1] Asymmetric crypto KEM + ephemeral symmetric key + encrypted block. eg. <https://libsodium.gitbook.io/doc/public-key_cryptography/sealed_boxes https://libsodium.gitbook.io/doc/public-key_cryptography/sea...>
- zaroth 3y ago
  Or just disable the data sharing option in the UI?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If you trust that button is actually wired up to anything, then you put way more faith in people than I believe is warranted.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > to the point where I may just buy a different car. I love this line of rhetoric. Seriously, I doubt that you will. If you consider all of the shenanigans that Tesla is known to do, you shouldn't have bought the car if you're concerned about privacy. Any car that has cameras on the car that looks at the interior of the car should not have been purchased in the first place. OF COURSE they will be looking at video when they shouldn't be. Has there ever been an example of a company that hasn't? Ring has done it. Roomba has done it. Open it to any data not just camera, and people like Uber have used that data for nefarious purposes. Any device that sends back data to the home office is just too ripe for misuse. Then, when it comes out in examples like this that it has occured, there is 0 liability for the company involved. Maybe the company makes an example out of the employees in various ways up to dismissal, but the company just shrugs it off.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
If it's not one of your core goals from the very start of your design, it's pretty hard to build a system where employees can't access data. Obviously you can do it, but it's not trivial and it's doubly not trivial to add after the fact.
wodenokoto 3y ago
They obviously shouldn’t.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

steelframe 3y ago

> So that vehicle owners can see who the hit and runner is. Arguably that benefits their insurance company more than it does them. For making sure liability is properly ascribed, I solved that problem by installing cameras that write to a MicroSD card that's under my physical control.

zaroth 3y ago
You can save it only locally in a Tesla too. You have to opt-in to sharing the video.
sokoloff 3y ago
Insurance may benefit more, but I’m still quite interested in avoiding paying the deductible.
thfuran 3y ago
Yeah, unless the hit and run is performed by an excavator or something, that use case doesn't really require automatic uploading.

bitcurious 3y ago

A hit and run is detectable by accelerometer, and a half-dozen other sensors on the Tesla. There is no need to upload video unless an event like that is detected, and that scenario should be opt-in.

crote 3y ago
On the other hand, someone keying your car is a lot harder to detect.
flutas 3y ago
Yeah, not sure what that guy is talking about. Sentry mode (aka cam on while away, and detected using accelerometer and visual cues like you said) doesn't upload footage. AFAIK, the footage upload was a data sharing toggle, and the videos were supposed to be used as training data for FSD. Why garage videos, or any videos with the car not in motion are being uploaded is a big question.