55 ms·

Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

283 points by danso 2y ago

JohnFen 2y ago
> The police usually asks for the owner’s permission to access their Tesla’s Sentry Mode backup USB drive which is located in the glove box, and download the desired content. However, if the owners can’t be located, officers obtain search warrants and tow the EVs into evidence. Why don't the cops get a search warrant for that USB drive and take that rather than confiscating the entire vehicle of innocent people?
- izacus 2y ago
  What's so innocent about people running surveillance cameras and recording every person walking by on the street?
  - urda 2y ago
    You have no expectation of privacy in public. Your right to seclusion or privacy does not extend to public spaces.
    - thatguy0900 2y ago
      Honestly there are a lot of laws that don't really make sense given modern technology. It's one thing to say people have no expectation of privacy when people only have cameras, or even have to purposefully videotape you. It's another to say you will 100% be recorded in HD at all times in public and that data will be sold to any random third party to do whatever with and store forever
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        Or that the police might decide to confiscate your vehicle on the chance that one of its cameras recorded a crime you were not involved with.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be bad.
      - jstummbillig 2y ago
        But you can certainly do something illegal more easily if you have more privacy.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Well, you can do the illegal thing either way. Not getting caught is a different story. In general, though, I'd rather have privacy even though I'm not doing anything illegal and, though it pains me to say it, I'd rather they don't tow Teslas just for being nearby.
      - fallingsquirrel 2y ago
        Maybe so, but this isn't the way to fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Not the world I want to live in, thanks.
        ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Got some bad news for you about the average cop's knowledge of an understanding of the laws they enforce.
    - izacus 2y ago
      Where I live, I do.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        How does that work? People take photos and videos whenever they go right? In practice people will get caught in others’ footage all the time. So how can you ban public recording without also banning all photography?
        I_am_uncreative 2y ago
        In many cases, you're obligated to not record people in public without their permission. That's the norm, for example, in Sweden, apparently.
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        Do people really get permission though? Like what if you’re in some crowded area - for example taking photos of some landmark? You’re not going to be able to conceivably chase down 10+ people and get their permissions. I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        > I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media. Perhaps, but at least in countries that have reasonable laws about this, anyone who finds themselves in pictures/video they didn't consent to has some method of recourse.
        orwin 2y ago
        So basically in France, but i think this is from EU directives (directives are not laws, just "please we want to have at least this implemented in your country" but any country can ignore them if they want): - you can't record public places without being present (police is excluded, but private shop owners not, hence you can't have camera filing anything other than the inside of your shop) - You can't record children in any way without their explicit consent and, if they're younger than YY (i don't remember), their parent consent, if they can be identified. Anyway, you can't publish any record where a child can be recognized without explicit consent (you have to blur them even if you post it on a private group in social media ideally) (not 100% sure about that, i think you have at least 3 laws that intersect here) - You can record adults in public places. You cannot post your recording without explicit consent (blur them when in doubt).
    - mattmanser 2y ago
      An outdated argument that hasn't kept up with modern technology. Previously surveillance was expensive and hard, now it's cheap and easy. This argument was invented in modern times to justify stripping the anonymity of the crowd from the general populace and is destroying the freedom from constant surveillance we once took for granted.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    I'm talking about being innocent of the crime under investigation, not the larger societal issue. I agree with you that this ubiquitous surveillance is detestable, but that's a whole different discussion.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - randallsquared 2y ago
    Basically: “What’s so innocent about having your eyes open?” If you are somewhere where you might expect that people could see you, don’t pretend that they are supposed to not see you, or to forget what they saw. Thinking ypeopleshould have that kind of control over other people’s memories, even if stored in their stuff, seems dystopian.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > Basically: “What’s so innocent about having your eyes open?” This is in no way equivalent to video recording.
      - randallsquared 2y ago
        There is no sharp line with modern tech, and widespread neuralink and competitors will blur it even more.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        There is a sharp line. If I see something, what I see isn't recorded verbatim on some shareable media somewhere, nor is that data stored in a database. > widespread neuralink At this time, I don't see any reason to think this is a thing that neuralink or similar will be able to accomplish anytime soon. Massive video surveillance, on the other hand, is a problem that actually exists right now.
- frogblast 2y ago
  Without first hand knowledge, I'll take a guess: if the owner of the vehicle isn't available or cooperating, then getting access to the USB drive requires opening up the vehicle without a key, which could require some time or specialized tools, or cooperation from the manufacturer. But in general, this isn't really much new. If you have home cameras, and police can obtain a search warrant, then you can be compelled to provide the video, or they can seize any device (such as entire computer, your server closet, etc) that could reasonably contain the video.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > or cooperation from the manufacturer. I would have thought this was the path of least resistance (as well as doing less harm to the car owner) since they're getting a search warrant anyway.
    - frogblast 2y ago
      The path of least resistance is skipping the search warrant and asking the owner politely, which the article indicates is what is happening. But if that doesn't work, then preserving evidence is considered to be very important. For example, it would be a problem if the car owner deleted the video.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        I don't see how preserving evidence enters into the decision to seize the entire car rather than the drive.
        frogblast 2y ago
        The drive is inside the car. How do they get at it, and guarantee it isn't tampered with in the meantime?
        JohnFen 2y ago
        They have Tesla (the company) unlock the car, then remove the drive. They already have the search warrant, which could compel Tesla to assist. They have a cop babysit the car until the seizure is completed, like they have to do anyway.
neaden 2y ago
This seems pretty messed up on a couple levels. Yet another way we're all being surveiled with the addition of getting your property randomly confiscated.
- immibis 2y ago
  Sounds like your property won't be confiscated if you don't try to surveil everyone. Swings and roundabouts.
  - adamsb6 2y ago
    Having cameras on your house isn't an invitation for the police to come in and take the footage.
    - izacus 2y ago
      Those cameras aren't on your house, they're being confiscated because they're surveiling the public on the street.
    - dwaite 2y ago
      My understanding is they can get a warrant to seize footage from a camera on your house (but not I wouldn't call it an 'invitation).
- JohnFen 2y ago
  It's a great argument for not buying a Tesla, that's for sure.
  - al_borland 2y ago
    It’s a great argument for avoiding any purchase that involves always-on cameras.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      I agree, but it's even more important with personal transportation people rely on than most other things that might include such cameras.
piptastic 2y ago
not sure i buy this is a trend yet, the article talks about 3 cases: 1 - vehicle wasn't involved and was about to be towed for footage as the article implies (owner came by and gave them footage during tow process) 2 - tesla was towed along with 2 other vehicles from a shootout in the parking lot (probably the cars were shot or had other evidence on them) 3 - the crime happened inside the tesla (was going to be towed regardless)
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >1 - vehicle wasn't involved and was about to be towed for footage as the article implies Which is definitely something that shouldn't happen and is a violation of constitutional rights.
  - protimewaster 2y ago
    I agree that it shouldn't happen, and it feels like it should be unconstitutional. I'm wondering if it actually is unconstitutional, though. If they got a warrant to seize the vehicle, for example, it seems like it's probably constitutional. I think?
    - giantrobot 2y ago
      Unconstitutional warrants are issued all the time. The only way to contest them is to fight the very legal system that granted them in the first place. Unless you're 1) rich or 2) find a very sympathetic lawyer good luck.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      Depends on how truthful they were when filling out the warrant application. Cops often lie and exaggerate on warrant applications and hope for a sympathetic judge to not ask too many questions. In that example it's unclear why a warrant would even be needed, it was parked in a hotel parking lot and it appears that they made no effect to contact the owner before requesting the warrant. It'd be really interesting to see what their justification was for asking to seize someone's car instead of just walking inside and asking the desk clerk to call them so they could ask for the footage.
marricks 2y ago
If this happens enough/gets enough coverage you’ll have Tesla owners themselves asking to have their rights violated automatically without the need for towing!
will-burner 2y ago
[flagged]
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  The Model Y is the number 1 selling car in the world. I would hardly class that as a "Rich Person" in this day and age. Would you feel compelled to turn over your phone in the same circumstances? It could be assumed your phone "MAY" contain data relevant to criminal acts that have transpired is an easy way for them to grab all your data.
  - will-burner 2y ago
    Someone driving a model y in oakland i would consider rich in the context of oakland yes. This is coming from someone that has spent over 6 years living in the oakland area and over 20 years living in the bay area. Also it's a joke.
scohesc 2y ago
I wonder if you're fairly compensated by the police department for your time without your vehicle, just because you told the police you don't want to give them access to your Tesla. Plus the time to go down to the station to pick your car up, because you know they're not going to courier it back to you. Plus any accidental damage done to the vehicle because an officer/towing company/whoever damages your vehicle during the tow/seizure of your property. I doubt it. Tesla should respond by making it harder/impossible for law enforcement to retrieve the data off the drive - maybe encryption at rest only unlockable with your tesla keyfob or phone connection, etc. etc.
- al_borland 2y ago
  What would you deem fair compensation? If I come home to find my car was stolen by the police, and I had plans, the compensation for that isn’t so straight forward. What if someone misses work and is fired? They had to leave for a trip and missed their flight? Missed a wedding? We’re a surgeon and the delay getting to the hospital led to a death? Had to pick up kids, and had no way to get them? Medication they need was in the car and without it they get extremely ill or die? If the owner actually committed the crime, I wouldn’t have much sympathy. However, when the driver’s only crime is owning a car with camera and parking it somewhere, that’s not good.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  Considering that people whose doors are broken down during a no-knock search that turns out to be the wrong address have to fix the damage out of their own pocket, I doubt it.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > I wonder if you're fairly compensated by the police department for your time without your vehicle, just because you told the police you don't want to give them access to your Tesla. Hah. No. Police have kicked in the wrong door (wrong house, number didn't match the warrant, wasn't the correct house), set off flash bangs, shot dogs, destroyed property... ... and when the owner (who was uninvolved in whatever the warrant was about, and it wasn't even meant to be his house searched) has requested reparations or repair work from the Police Department, they've laughed... ... and when the owner has subsequently sued the Police Department, the courts have ruled that they have no obligation to pay for any damage done, including by negligence.
jamesy0ung 2y ago
Hopefully Tesla implements encryption for the drive used, just to make it harder for the police department. This is stupid and it punishes the owner for happening to accidentally park their vehicle near a suspected crime.
- frumper 2y ago
  That sounds like it would just slow the process of returning the vehicle.
kazinator 2y ago
> A man was found on the back seat of his girlfriend’s Tesla, with a gunshot wound to the head, ending up in critical condition in the hospital. The police towed the vehicle for evidence, although no arrests have been made. This anecdote does squat all for main point in the clickbait article. It is not even remotely an example of an uninvolved Tesla being towed just for its incidental surveillance data. > The [Canadian tourist] permitted officers to download the footage without taking away the car, sparing him a visit to the police station. Not an example of an uninvolved car being towed for data. > The police obtained a search warrant to tow three vehicles – including a Tesla Model X – and gathered CCTV footage from a nearby market. The evidence led to two arrests for murder and other felonies – although it’s not clear if any of it came from the Tesla. Ditto. Not a single example of a confirmed tow of a Tesla for its data.
kdamica 2y ago
Definitely bad for the individual but if this is reserved for homicides, which are fairly rare, and helps solve the crimes, I’d say this is overall a good thing. There’s the potential for a slippery slope here but nothing about this seems alarming to me.
m0llusk 2y ago
It's happening. Cameras everywhere all the time. No more anonymity in public soon. Hopefully this will improve behavior generally, though at possibly great cost.
- righthand 2y ago
  People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras. The cities and policing are too aggressive with their big brother tactics, thinking FUD about crime is a good enough reason to take away privacy from people. It is actually a minority opinion that the country wants this but no one votes in local elections anymore so the minority wins.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones. Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and car cameras and CCTV cameras.
    - righthand 2y ago
      It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Please enlighten me where in the US you could legally shoot down someone else's drones. >Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it. If you're interested in protecting your privacy, why would it ever be a good idea to commit a bunch of felonies, by illegally discharging firearms to take down cameras? Even if you somehow didn't get caught, you're painting a big target on your back by committing all those crimes and putting everyone in the area on edge.
chacha102 2y ago
This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_ have inside of it. And the opposite, doing what Ring is doing and simply streaming it to the police directly, might be easier but I still believe a major privacy concern. Sure, it could be helpful. But at what cost?
- gruez 2y ago
  >This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_ have inside of it. From the article: >Therriault said he and other officers now frequently seek video from bystander Teslas, and usually get the owners’ consent to download it without having to serve a warrant. Still, he said, tows are sometimes necessary, if police can’t locate a Tesla owner and need the video “to pursue all leads.” They're not towing cars at first opportunity.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    The fact that they're doing it at all is completely unacceptable.
    - umeshunni 2y ago
      Sadly the politics of the Bay Area has led to a crime wave and most people feel differently.
    - gruez 2y ago
      Search warrants have existed forever, and allowed police to compel production of certain evidence. This includes breaking into residences or offices. I don't see how towing a car is any different. Unless you think search warrants themselves are "completely unacceptable", I don't see how towing teslas should be singled out.
      - snozolli 2y ago
        I don't see how towing a car is any different Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted, based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".
darth_avocado 2y ago
I used to keep my Sentry mode on all the time. Then my car got broken into twice. The police didn’t bother to follow up despite having a video footage of what happened. Now I never turn it on. And now police wants to tow vehicles for the footage.
- gruez 2y ago
  The article mentions that they tried towing a car because they were investigating someone who got shot and stabbed. While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type of crime, I don't see the contradiction between "police didn't follow up about your car being broken into despite footage" and "police towed a car to get footage about someone getting shot and stabbed"
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    > While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type of crime That’s literally their job, which they get paid for. But anyway, my comment was more referring to the fact that if they had done their job, I’d be more open to keeping my Sentry mode on.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > > While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type of crime > That’s literally their job, which they get paid for. It's literally not. Their job is to do a variety of things, including investigation, according to the priorities of the higher, within the financial constraints they are given and according to the priorities of the authority placed over them (which in many cases is the top leadership of the police department themselves, because lots of times they are given a broad degree of structural independence from the local government they are associated with.) What you say may be what you'd like their job to be, but it is not literally what their job is.
      - nox101 2y ago
        I agree with you that the police have limited resources. At the same time, the better they do their job the less of it there will be to do as word spreads that you won't get away with it. It could be arguably be much more efficient to take in user video, voluntarily offered, and prosecute all easily provable crimes and violations.
rbalicki 2y ago
Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete maniac. Are insurers unable to use this information? Are they afraid of the backlash from being the first to accept this information? Is there some legal reason this isn't doable?
- joshu 2y ago
  https://www.getnexar.com/ https://www.getnexar.com/
  - monkeywork 2y ago
    Just tossing a product link into the discussion without any context isn't overly useful - why are you recommending (or are you) and why should I be clicking on that?
    - joshu 2y ago
      They were built to do the things in the comment that I replied to.
- freejazz 2y ago
  >If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete maniac. People who drive like complete maniacs aren't doing so rationally. It's called "road rage" not "road reason."
  - gruez 2y ago
    Disagree. While "maniacs" could include road rage behavior (eg. brakechecking someone), it also arguably encompasses other risky behavior that's not obviously associated with "road rage", like speeding or aggressive weaving/lane changes.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Freedom requires both Liberty and Privacy. An all-seeing state will destroy Liberal society. Reform requires reform of both the government and industry. Industry will happily gather the data and the state will then buy it from industry as a means to circumvent the 4th amendment. https://reason.com/2024/08/20/how-the-feds-buy-their-way-around-the-fourth-amendment/ https://reason.com/2024/08/20/how-the-feds-buy-their-way-aro...
- Aloisius 2y ago
  What does that have to do with this article? The police are getting warrants for the video.
  - BenFranklin100 2y ago
    They aren’t getting warrants to tow the vehicles. They have no right to seize private property, especially the private property of someone not even involved with the crime in question. And what if the Tesla owner, as is their right or at least should be, refuses to release the video footage? How long do the police keep the illegally seized vehicle while the owner sorts out the seizure before the courts and at what personal cost? And what is prevents the police from obtaining the video through extrajudicial means? Does Tesla itself have access to the video? Can they sell/give it to the police? Are there legal safeguards against this or is it an open market as the linked Reason article shows? All of the above applies to any aftermarket camera security system as well. Also, if the police get access to the car data by some means, can they use any of the data to file separate charges against an uncooperative owner as retribution if they desire? There are many questions along these lines when dealing with an intrusive police state.
    - davidt84 2y ago
      > They aren't getting warrants to tow the vehicles. Um, FTA: > “Based on this information,” Godchaux wrote, “I respectfully request that a warrant is authorized to seize this vehicle from the La Quinta Inn parking lot so this vehicle’s surveillance footage may be searched via an additional search warrant at a secure location.”
netsec_burn 2y ago
https://archive.is/M81lw https://archive.is/M81lw
neilv 2y ago
Who gave Tesla and their drivers the right to set up video surveillance cameras in public?
- snozolli 2y ago
  Unless they're parking in an area with a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a locker room, it's perfectly legal to record in the United States.
  - neilv 2y ago
    You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. For example, the upskirt "street photographers" have long argued one way, and eventually they get smacked down, legally.
    - SkyPuncher 2y ago
      It’s hard to take your argument serious when you choose a pretty absurd example. You walk around the street with a pair of eyes on your face, but that doesn’t mean you can just bend over and look up people’s clothing. The law clearly establishes a difference between capturing “normal” content in public and invading privacy.
      - neilv 2y ago
        Do the privacy laws regarding public surveillance speak of "content"? Because that sounds like something a techbro smug halfwit would say.
        SkyPuncher 2y ago
        Yes, and in California, where this article is based, there are explicit laws against this.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. No. The guy you're replying to isn't giving his opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, he's stating how the law works right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(United...
pbohun 2y ago
We've seen this type of thing happen with Ring, where the police want video from people's private cameras. Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against unreasonable searches and seizures?
- gruez 2y ago
  >Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against unreasonable searches and seizures? Search warrants specifically exist to give police the "legal right to access/take people's private property", and are widely accepted to be constitutional.
  - brvsft 2y ago
    You pretend this is some obvious fact, but obtaining a search warrant against a person or property that were uninvolved in the crime but may have only been 'witness' to it is not obvious or clear to me.
    - zerocrates 2y ago
      The standard for getting a search warrant is probable cause, and that includes just probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime at the place to be searched. Taking the witness analogy, even an actual person who's a mere witness can be compelled to testify with a subpoena.
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        No wonder people are not so willing to report a crime or be witnesses. They are getting punished for it.
        kayodelycaon 2y ago
        A lot of places, talking to police is a very bad idea both because of the police and the other people in the neighborhood. You could very easily get shot for doing so.
Silhouette 2y ago
[flagged]
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
To me, it's a bug not a feature that precedent can just expand infinitely as new capabilities in the world grow. There's a lot of people saying that search warrants have always allowed intrusion & seizure. But the fact that all these devices (cars, cameras, phones) are now potentially interesting data-rich objects to be seized, mined for ever larger total information awareness by the state seems like a massive defect & flaw of the system to me. I dont want old laws + new technology to automatically result in the state's eye of sauron (palantir) getting to better observe us.
- moate 2y ago
  The state’s first goal is to protect the state’s continued existence. Anything that can be seen as interfering with that can be labeled an enemy and relegated to subhuman/other/destroy on contact status. From there, state violence, and from there, nazis.
  - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    By far the most critical aspects of the state maintaining itself is to have the faith of the people, as a just and right entity that doesn't deserve to be smashed, whose blood is good for more than renewinf the tree of liberty This ever expanding invasiveness delegitimizes the state. Physical security is a positive, only when the power itself is used respectably & virtuously. Pursuing enemies at all cost makes you a bad state, that can't be believed in. Some balance is required. Some limit to intrusion is necessary, and to me, this violates the sovereign rights of the citizens, to have so much of our lives repurposeable & cooptable by the state with ever increasing scope and haste.
nonethewiser 2y ago
Autonomous vehicles will not be your property.
kepler1 2y ago
Here in California (and generally in the US, as well as other places where the cost of enforcing laws seems to be growing too costly/unpalatable), we seem increasingly interested in documenting and retroactively following up the aftermath of crimes. Rather than preventing them when / before they're happening. I'm surprised the police even care to watch video afterwards. (aside from the serious crime stuff like in the article)
- slt2021 2y ago
  [flagged]
aftbit 2y ago
Creepy stuff. Maybe we ought not to constantly record everything happening around us all the time.
- papichulo4 2y ago
  Seems like if it’s technically possible, it will happen, and we can’t stop technological progress. In fact, you and I are probably profiting from that progress. Hard to ask a guy to do something that goes against his paycheck. Even if we vote politically “correct,” whomever that may be, what are you and I voting for with our wallets?
  - Lammy 2y ago
    > Seems like if it’s technically possible, it will happen, and we can’t stop technological progress. ‘The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.’
    - eastbound 2y ago
      I don’t know. People have been living without reliable access to food and potable water, not even talking about sore deformations on their faces, for a thousand years. But somehow their lives were fulfilling?
      - throwaway894345 2y ago
        Yeah, I don’t see many of the people criticizing the Industrial Revolution opting into pre-industrial existences. I’m pretty minimalist, and I’ve grown up around the Amish and even they prefer to avail themselves of technology where they can. I think there’s a fair amount of romanticizing about a pre-industrial lifestyle. This obviously isn’t to argue that we should all live maximally consumerist lifestyles; I don’t think that’s true either.
mullingitover 2y ago
A large group of people will look at these stories of technology being used to get the worst people off the street and say "This is creepy stuff," and a lot of that same group will listen to politicians telling them "the solution to gun violence is for everyone to have guns" and nod thoughtfully in agreement.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Guns can't be used for surveillance.
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    mount a camera on them
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    A person who believes they'll be caught and face consequences for committing crimes is strongly affected by knowing there is heavy surveillance of their criminal activities. They're less likely to be deterred just knowing that a lot of other people will randomly have guns, in fact that makes them more likely to also have a gun and to shoot first (e.g.: that actor who was gunned down confronting someone who was stealing a catalytic converter).
- moate 2y ago
  Sure? But some people also don’t care about either and others people think too much focus is on preventing effects (crime) and not on addressing cause (material conditions) and plenty of pro-fascists quote 1984 to support policy that would have made Orwell want to shoot them in the head. People be crazy.
xyst 2y ago
Surveillance tech masquerading as “self driving vehicles”. Those Waymo vehicles are prime for this.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thunder-blue-3 2y ago
Will they though? Crime enforcement in the bay area is a joke - from alameda county into SF. I'm so happy to have moved out and into a state with actual community engagement and accountability.
- loteck 2y ago
  Where'd you move to?
  - thunder-blue-3 2y ago
    Connecticut - I've never felt safer walking around at 3 am and I've made more friends in the last 2 months (without trying) than I probably have in the last 6 years of living in the bay area.
    - libria 2y ago
      Good to hear! Are the comparable areas of similar population density? I'm wondering what incremental steps (non-partisan hopefully) can be brought to the Bay Area to slowly move it towards a similar environment.
      - thunder-blue-3 2y ago
        I lived in the Bay Area for about 30 years, so here's my (probably biased) opinion. The biggest issue is the lack of community, and in my experience, this is due to the high turnover of residents. From my high school graduating class of 400, fewer than 100 are still in the community; everyone else has moved to Florida, Phoenix, Austin, etc. You can't encourage long-term planning (good public education policies, systematic reductions in the drivers of crime, etc.) if the community changes every two decades. My personal opinion is that the Bay Area won't improve because everyone is out to get 'theirs' and then leave. While I do miss the weather, the lack of humidity, and, honestly, a more educated population, I believe raising children in a strong community is more important. So, I'm more than happy with the trade-offs for a better overall quality of life.
- 2y ago
reillys 2y ago
If I or somebody else was the victim of a crime I would 100% support using every available source of information to solve that crime. I think we need adequate controls sure, but mostly we need to increase trust in government and police forces so we know we can trust the relevant people with our data. There is epic fear in the US about the government. That is the actual problem. Now the US gov is a shady piece of shit, so a lot of that is well founded, but that is the root of the problem. Solve that problem and actually trust the people who are supposed to be responsible and in charge to do the right thing and this data problem stops becoming as much of an issue. And no, building some kind of philosophical zero trust system is not going to solve anything, it is a prison you'll end up living in. Encourage transparency in Police forces and Government with strong legislation and strong support for whistleblowers and punishment of infractions and you have yourself a system that people can begin to trust.
- trompetenaccoun 2y ago
  It's not just the police. How could such a corrupt police exist without corrupt superiors higher up in the government? Fear of governments is justified, they're the most powerful entity in our world. They can get away with murder. The US is not Iceland, a simple fix that would just make people trust the police is impossible. Also as an aside, the police isn't your only problem. Tesla, Google & co are paving the way normalizing these mobile surveillance units. We'll have millions of them driving around everywhere with HD cameras, microphones, in some cases even LiDAR and radar. Recording constantly. Of course there's a bit of an issue if you are not a fan of mass surveillance. Even if corporations are the only ones in charge of that data. I know for example that the Tesla video feed can be accessed online, because owners can remotely view it with their app. And if they can do this, so can others in theory. All you need is a bug or Tesla servers getting hacked.
  - reillys 2y ago
    Well actually that brings up an interesting piece about how the US is structured. I think the reason your police can be more corrupt is because of the federated nature of policing. Cops are usually only answerable to the mayor of the city (and sometimes the electorate) rather than higher ups in the government. So there is a lack of authority and control there. If they were answerable to politicians and politicians were actually responsible for their actions you could take very firm political actions against those politicians - but in the states nobody in the Cabinet or Government is responsible for law enforcement. And I understand why this federated system was originally put in place, but this isn't the 1700s. In communication terms the US might as well be Iceland - you can communicate from one end of the land mass to the other instantly, so we don't need to have localized and federated decision making.
mvc 2y ago
So funny to watch the US competing with China to be the most authoritarian state.
akimbostrawman 2y ago
the driving panopticon is being used to spy. shocking
rd 2y ago
https://archive.is/zzMAr https://archive.is/zzMAr
pdar4123 2y ago
I have perhaps unpopular additional suggestion. If you break any traffic laws your tesla should automatically report u to the police. Shouldn’t a car w AI capabilities be committed to responsible, ethical, safe, law abiding behavior ? I’m tired of bay area Teslas not signaling, cutting me off, and near killing me while I’m walking or on my bike.
- cxvrfr 2y ago
  [dead]
- spacephysics 2y ago
  Nah that gets to a police state mighty fast. It works if the people in power align with your values, but the moment it doesn’t it becomes a problem
- simon_acca 2y ago
  They have this on airliners now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_operations_quality_assurance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_operations_quality_as...
rcpt 2y ago
So we're finally getting speed cameras?
harmmonica 2y ago
As a somewhat regular user of Waymo, these types of conversations seem like they're going to be more and more in the (sorry!) rearview mirror because we won't own the car nor the cameras that are recording the world as we "drive" around. That's not to say that we should give up fighting for some level of privacy even when we don't own the cars, but seems more likely that legislation would be passed that forces the vehicle owners/operators (Alphabet in the Waymo case) to blur peoples' faces. Then of course the state (police/gov/etc.) will clamor for a backdoor key that will unlock the blurred faces/bodies if a crime is suspected to have occurred. Speaking of, I wonder if Waymo already does blur people when they capture them through Waymo rides? I can't seem to find mention of it online. This commentary assumes self-driving cars are here to stay and become the de facto way we drive instead of driving ourselves. Still not sure how their adoption plays out over time because, at least in the US, people will fight against mandates to use self-driving cars because it compromises their freedom (note that the freedom crowd (no judgment) will be saying that, at first, because they will consider it their right to drive themselves, but once the privacy implications are clear there will be full-on (figurative?) wars fought over self-driving). Guessing a politician, in Texas or another red state, will sooner than later enshrine the right-to-drive-oneself into the state constitution.
- threecheese 2y ago
  I am hoping for an urban camouflage fashion revolution as a response to more pervasive monitoring: https://www.axios.com/2019/09/07/fooling-facial-recognition-fashion https://www.axios.com/2019/09/07/fooling-facial-recognition-... Public access to object recognition models may be important.
  - fasa99 2y ago
    surely there are simpler ways of course if you've dealt with most hoodish ruffians, as the names tells us, the people of the hood love to wear hoodies - which generally work quite well to hide from cameras, especially those above, if the hood sags forward and over the face somewhat or these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_glasses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_glasses or outside or alongside hoodies, these can be seen as socially acceptable (mostly) ; https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/mask-of-your-own-face.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/mask-of-your-own-fa...
forinti 2y ago
Not so bad if my car can drop me off at work and, go to court, and then pick me up at the end of the day to go home.
tiziano88 2y ago
"You have ad-blocker turned on" despite that being completely untrue.
btilly 2y ago
I'm sorry, but what happened to the 4th Amendment? Your car was parked in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though you followed all rules, we're taking it. Not without a judge.
hk-hater420 2y ago
My car ain’t no snitch
savrajsingh 2y ago
Free feature idea: - Tesla needs a public facing website that allows anyone to request a video for a cost — any location at any point in time - vehicle owners can review video footage and approve request - vehicle owner gets a cut, Tesla gets a cut, authority or person in fender bender or whatever gets video
nothercastle 2y ago
There are already plenty of cameras out there. It would not be very difficult to identify criminals. The problem is there is not sufficient motivation to do so and nobody knows what to do once the criminals are identified. My city just practices catch and release policing so laws only apply to those that will pay fines
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >so laws only apply to those that will pay fines. So, penalising the poors who are not as poor as the other poors.
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    The rich pay the fines too, it’s just that it’s not a meaningful deterrence. The poorest simply drive without plates or licenses so they are immune
personjerry 2y ago
Kinda sounds like we're heading for the authoritarian surveillance state that China has spearheaded, only with more steps
reissbaker 2y ago
LMFAO. My Tesla has been broken into multiple times in the Bay Area, with footage of the perpetrators and their license plate numbers, and the police have refused to investigate and were often unwilling to even accept the footage. And this isn't just me: literally everyone I know with a Tesla in the Bay Area has had a similar experience. The cops do not care, at all. Towing someone's car on the off chance it had video surveillance of a crime the police bother working on is insane overreach when they won't even investigate crimes to that owner's car in the first place.
- hiddencost 2y ago
  Refactor the police into micro services.
jimt1234 2y ago
I was once pitched a business where external-facing cameras would be provided to car owners, distributed through auto insurance companies. The business intended to make money from selling the video data to law enforcement. I'm skipping a lot of details, but one of the main objections is that the police wouldn't pay for the data, they would just take it.
x3haloed 2y ago
I’m sorry you’ve been inconvenienced by a murder… Or is that the country we’re living in now? “Murder happens, just don’t bother me.”
caseyy 2y ago
Did your house witness a crime? We already have cameras on many of our homes, so it should be roughly the same process. Towing sounds ridiculous. No one should be penalized for a crime someone else did. But taking away one’s car is a major penalty.
diebeforei485 2y ago
Hotels should maybe have cameras on their parking lots.
worik 2y ago
The video should not be stored. Have a 24 hour wiping cycle
paweladamczuk 2y ago
I wonder why the title of this HN posting was edited to only include the first sentence of the headline.
MichaelRo 2y ago
We got a new expression it seems. Used to have "drive-by shooting", now we're gonna have "drive-by witnessing" :)
squarefoot 2y ago
Phew... good thing that the eye recording implant hasn't been invented yet, or some of us would have their personal life turned into an evidence log.
bloomingeek 2y ago
I don't own a Tesla, and frankly, don't want to own anything associated with Musk. However, I do have dash cams in both my vehicles that will start recording when the car is not running. If I was driving in my car near a crime scene and discovered my dash cam recorded something that could be used as evidence, personally, I would call the local police and ask them if they were interested. However, to have the police discover my vehicle was in close proximity to the crime, and me not realizing my dash cam had recorded anything of value, and then the police try to impound my vehicle in a parking lot without my knowledge is outrageous! The above situation is the result of two major realities: once again technology has emerged without adequate laws to deal with the consequences.(I realize this is usually the norm, law makers MUST speed up the process to protect citizens.) Second, police reform has to bring local law enforcement up to date with current reality. (The seizing of a vehicle based on possible crime info isn't protecting citizens, it's theft. Contacting the vehicle owner and requesting the info is serving the citizens, if they're not willing there is a court system.)
aswanson 2y ago
There was a recent murder caught in HD by a Tesla in a hotel parking lot. The quality is unreal: https://youtu.be/ij85PgNjqAI?si=lGlJBOWdgLDSKSj7 https://youtu.be/ij85PgNjqAI?si=lGlJBOWdgLDSKSj7
p0w3n3d 2y ago
Sounds ridiculous. What happens if you have a home camera? Do they take your home? Really?

283 points by danso 2y ago

> The police usually asks for the owner’s permission to access their Tesla’s Sentry Mode backup USB drive which is located in the glove box, and download the desired content. However, if the owners can’t be located, officers obtain search warrants and tow the EVs into evidence. Why don't the cops get a search warrant for that USB drive and take that rather than confiscating the entire vehicle of innocent people?

izacus 2y ago
What's so innocent about people running surveillance cameras and recording every person walking by on the street?
- urda 2y ago
  You have no expectation of privacy in public. Your right to seclusion or privacy does not extend to public spaces.
  - thatguy0900 2y ago
    Honestly there are a lot of laws that don't really make sense given modern technology. It's one thing to say people have no expectation of privacy when people only have cameras, or even have to purposefully videotape you. It's another to say you will 100% be recorded in HD at all times in public and that data will be sold to any random third party to do whatever with and store forever
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      Or that the police might decide to confiscate your vehicle on the chance that one of its cameras recorded a crime you were not involved with.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be bad.
    - jstummbillig 2y ago
      But you can certainly do something illegal more easily if you have more privacy.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        Well, you can do the illegal thing either way. Not getting caught is a different story. In general, though, I'd rather have privacy even though I'm not doing anything illegal and, though it pains me to say it, I'd rather they don't tow Teslas just for being nearby.
    - fallingsquirrel 2y ago
      Maybe so, but this isn't the way to fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Not the world I want to live in, thanks.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Got some bad news for you about the average cop's knowledge of an understanding of the laws they enforce.
  - izacus 2y ago
    Where I live, I do.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      How does that work? People take photos and videos whenever they go right? In practice people will get caught in others’ footage all the time. So how can you ban public recording without also banning all photography?
      - I_am_uncreative 2y ago
        In many cases, you're obligated to not record people in public without their permission. That's the norm, for example, in Sweden, apparently.
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        Do people really get permission though? Like what if you’re in some crowded area - for example taking photos of some landmark? You’re not going to be able to conceivably chase down 10+ people and get their permissions. I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        > I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media. Perhaps, but at least in countries that have reasonable laws about this, anyone who finds themselves in pictures/video they didn't consent to has some method of recourse.
        orwin 2y ago
        So basically in France, but i think this is from EU directives (directives are not laws, just "please we want to have at least this implemented in your country" but any country can ignore them if they want): - you can't record public places without being present (police is excluded, but private shop owners not, hence you can't have camera filing anything other than the inside of your shop) - You can't record children in any way without their explicit consent and, if they're younger than YY (i don't remember), their parent consent, if they can be identified. Anyway, you can't publish any record where a child can be recognized without explicit consent (you have to blur them even if you post it on a private group in social media ideally) (not 100% sure about that, i think you have at least 3 laws that intersect here) - You can record adults in public places. You cannot post your recording without explicit consent (blur them when in doubt).
  - mattmanser 2y ago
    An outdated argument that hasn't kept up with modern technology. Previously surveillance was expensive and hard, now it's cheap and easy. This argument was invented in modern times to justify stripping the anonymity of the crowd from the general populace and is destroying the freedom from constant surveillance we once took for granted.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  I'm talking about being innocent of the crime under investigation, not the larger societal issue. I agree with you that this ubiquitous surveillance is detestable, but that's a whole different discussion.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- randallsquared 2y ago
  Basically: “What’s so innocent about having your eyes open?” If you are somewhere where you might expect that people could see you, don’t pretend that they are supposed to not see you, or to forget what they saw. Thinking ypeopleshould have that kind of control over other people’s memories, even if stored in their stuff, seems dystopian.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > Basically: “What’s so innocent about having your eyes open?” This is in no way equivalent to video recording.
    - randallsquared 2y ago
      There is no sharp line with modern tech, and widespread neuralink and competitors will blur it even more.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        There is a sharp line. If I see something, what I see isn't recorded verbatim on some shareable media somewhere, nor is that data stored in a database. > widespread neuralink At this time, I don't see any reason to think this is a thing that neuralink or similar will be able to accomplish anytime soon. Massive video surveillance, on the other hand, is a problem that actually exists right now.
frogblast 2y ago
Without first hand knowledge, I'll take a guess: if the owner of the vehicle isn't available or cooperating, then getting access to the USB drive requires opening up the vehicle without a key, which could require some time or specialized tools, or cooperation from the manufacturer. But in general, this isn't really much new. If you have home cameras, and police can obtain a search warrant, then you can be compelled to provide the video, or they can seize any device (such as entire computer, your server closet, etc) that could reasonably contain the video.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > or cooperation from the manufacturer. I would have thought this was the path of least resistance (as well as doing less harm to the car owner) since they're getting a search warrant anyway.
  - frogblast 2y ago
    The path of least resistance is skipping the search warrant and asking the owner politely, which the article indicates is what is happening. But if that doesn't work, then preserving evidence is considered to be very important. For example, it would be a problem if the car owner deleted the video.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      I don't see how preserving evidence enters into the decision to seize the entire car rather than the drive.
      - frogblast 2y ago
        The drive is inside the car. How do they get at it, and guarantee it isn't tampered with in the meantime?
        JohnFen 2y ago
        They have Tesla (the company) unlock the car, then remove the drive. They already have the search warrant, which could compel Tesla to assist. They have a cop babysit the car until the seizure is completed, like they have to do anyway.

neaden 2y ago

This seems pretty messed up on a couple levels. Yet another way we're all being surveiled with the addition of getting your property randomly confiscated.

immibis 2y ago
Sounds like your property won't be confiscated if you don't try to surveil everyone. Swings and roundabouts.
- adamsb6 2y ago
  Having cameras on your house isn't an invitation for the police to come in and take the footage.
  - izacus 2y ago
    Those cameras aren't on your house, they're being confiscated because they're surveiling the public on the street.
  - dwaite 2y ago
    My understanding is they can get a warrant to seize footage from a camera on your house (but not I wouldn't call it an 'invitation).
JohnFen 2y ago
It's a great argument for not buying a Tesla, that's for sure.
- al_borland 2y ago
  It’s a great argument for avoiding any purchase that involves always-on cameras.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    I agree, but it's even more important with personal transportation people rely on than most other things that might include such cameras.

piptastic 2y ago

not sure i buy this is a trend yet, the article talks about 3 cases: 1 - vehicle wasn't involved and was about to be towed for footage as the article implies (owner came by and gave them footage during tow process) 2 - tesla was towed along with 2 other vehicles from a shootout in the parking lot (probably the cars were shot or had other evidence on them) 3 - the crime happened inside the tesla (was going to be towed regardless)

Suppafly 2y ago
>1 - vehicle wasn't involved and was about to be towed for footage as the article implies Which is definitely something that shouldn't happen and is a violation of constitutional rights.
- protimewaster 2y ago
  I agree that it shouldn't happen, and it feels like it should be unconstitutional. I'm wondering if it actually is unconstitutional, though. If they got a warrant to seize the vehicle, for example, it seems like it's probably constitutional. I think?
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    Unconstitutional warrants are issued all the time. The only way to contest them is to fight the very legal system that granted them in the first place. Unless you're 1) rich or 2) find a very sympathetic lawyer good luck.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    Depends on how truthful they were when filling out the warrant application. Cops often lie and exaggerate on warrant applications and hope for a sympathetic judge to not ask too many questions. In that example it's unclear why a warrant would even be needed, it was parked in a hotel parking lot and it appears that they made no effect to contact the owner before requesting the warrant. It'd be really interesting to see what their justification was for asking to seize someone's car instead of just walking inside and asking the desk clerk to call them so they could ask for the footage.

marricks 2y ago

If this happens enough/gets enough coverage you’ll have Tesla owners themselves asking to have their rights violated automatically without the need for towing!

will-burner 2y ago

[flagged]

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
The Model Y is the number 1 selling car in the world. I would hardly class that as a "Rich Person" in this day and age. Would you feel compelled to turn over your phone in the same circumstances? It could be assumed your phone "MAY" contain data relevant to criminal acts that have transpired is an easy way for them to grab all your data.
- will-burner 2y ago
  Someone driving a model y in oakland i would consider rich in the context of oakland yes. This is coming from someone that has spent over 6 years living in the oakland area and over 20 years living in the bay area. Also it's a joke.

scohesc 2y ago

I wonder if you're fairly compensated by the police department for your time without your vehicle, just because you told the police you don't want to give them access to your Tesla. Plus the time to go down to the station to pick your car up, because you know they're not going to courier it back to you. Plus any accidental damage done to the vehicle because an officer/towing company/whoever damages your vehicle during the tow/seizure of your property. I doubt it. Tesla should respond by making it harder/impossible for law enforcement to retrieve the data off the drive - maybe encryption at rest only unlockable with your tesla keyfob or phone connection, etc. etc.

al_borland 2y ago
What would you deem fair compensation? If I come home to find my car was stolen by the police, and I had plans, the compensation for that isn’t so straight forward. What if someone misses work and is fired? They had to leave for a trip and missed their flight? Missed a wedding? We’re a surgeon and the delay getting to the hospital led to a death? Had to pick up kids, and had no way to get them? Medication they need was in the car and without it they get extremely ill or die? If the owner actually committed the crime, I wouldn’t have much sympathy. However, when the driver’s only crime is owning a car with camera and parking it somewhere, that’s not good.
HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
Considering that people whose doors are broken down during a no-knock search that turns out to be the wrong address have to fix the damage out of their own pocket, I doubt it.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> I wonder if you're fairly compensated by the police department for your time without your vehicle, just because you told the police you don't want to give them access to your Tesla. Hah. No. Police have kicked in the wrong door (wrong house, number didn't match the warrant, wasn't the correct house), set off flash bangs, shot dogs, destroyed property... ... and when the owner (who was uninvolved in whatever the warrant was about, and it wasn't even meant to be his house searched) has requested reparations or repair work from the Police Department, they've laughed... ... and when the owner has subsequently sued the Police Department, the courts have ruled that they have no obligation to pay for any damage done, including by negligence.

jamesy0ung 2y ago

Hopefully Tesla implements encryption for the drive used, just to make it harder for the police department. This is stupid and it punishes the owner for happening to accidentally park their vehicle near a suspected crime.

frumper 2y ago
That sounds like it would just slow the process of returning the vehicle.

kazinator 2y ago

> A man was found on the back seat of his girlfriend’s Tesla, with a gunshot wound to the head, ending up in critical condition in the hospital. The police towed the vehicle for evidence, although no arrests have been made. This anecdote does squat all for main point in the clickbait article. It is not even remotely an example of an uninvolved Tesla being towed just for its incidental surveillance data. > The [Canadian tourist] permitted officers to download the footage without taking away the car, sparing him a visit to the police station. Not an example of an uninvolved car being towed for data. > The police obtained a search warrant to tow three vehicles – including a Tesla Model X – and gathered CCTV footage from a nearby market. The evidence led to two arrests for murder and other felonies – although it’s not clear if any of it came from the Tesla. Ditto. Not a single example of a confirmed tow of a Tesla for its data.

kdamica 2y ago

Definitely bad for the individual but if this is reserved for homicides, which are fairly rare, and helps solve the crimes, I’d say this is overall a good thing. There’s the potential for a slippery slope here but nothing about this seems alarming to me.

m0llusk 2y ago

It's happening. Cameras everywhere all the time. No more anonymity in public soon. Hopefully this will improve behavior generally, though at possibly great cost.

righthand 2y ago
People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras. The cities and policing are too aggressive with their big brother tactics, thinking FUD about crime is a good enough reason to take away privacy from people. It is actually a minority opinion that the country wants this but no one votes in local elections anymore so the minority wins.
- Loughla 2y ago
  It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones. Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and car cameras and CCTV cameras.
  - righthand 2y ago
    It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Please enlighten me where in the US you could legally shoot down someone else's drones. >Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it. If you're interested in protecting your privacy, why would it ever be a good idea to commit a bunch of felonies, by illegally discharging firearms to take down cameras? Even if you somehow didn't get caught, you're painting a big target on your back by committing all those crimes and putting everyone in the area on edge.

chacha102 2y ago

This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_ have inside of it. And the opposite, doing what Ring is doing and simply streaming it to the police directly, might be easier but I still believe a major privacy concern. Sure, it could be helpful. But at what cost?

gruez 2y ago
>This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_ have inside of it. From the article: >Therriault said he and other officers now frequently seek video from bystander Teslas, and usually get the owners’ consent to download it without having to serve a warrant. Still, he said, tows are sometimes necessary, if police can’t locate a Tesla owner and need the video “to pursue all leads.” They're not towing cars at first opportunity.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  The fact that they're doing it at all is completely unacceptable.
  - umeshunni 2y ago
    Sadly the politics of the Bay Area has led to a crime wave and most people feel differently.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Search warrants have existed forever, and allowed police to compel production of certain evidence. This includes breaking into residences or offices. I don't see how towing a car is any different. Unless you think search warrants themselves are "completely unacceptable", I don't see how towing teslas should be singled out.
    - snozolli 2y ago
      I don't see how towing a car is any different Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted, based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".

darth_avocado 2y ago

I used to keep my Sentry mode on all the time. Then my car got broken into twice. The police didn’t bother to follow up despite having a video footage of what happened. Now I never turn it on. And now police wants to tow vehicles for the footage.

gruez 2y ago
The article mentions that they tried towing a car because they were investigating someone who got shot and stabbed. While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type of crime, I don't see the contradiction between "police didn't follow up about your car being broken into despite footage" and "police towed a car to get footage about someone getting shot and stabbed"
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  > While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type of crime That’s literally their job, which they get paid for. But anyway, my comment was more referring to the fact that if they had done their job, I’d be more open to keeping my Sentry mode on.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > > While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type of crime > That’s literally their job, which they get paid for. It's literally not. Their job is to do a variety of things, including investigation, according to the priorities of the higher, within the financial constraints they are given and according to the priorities of the authority placed over them (which in many cases is the top leadership of the police department themselves, because lots of times they are given a broad degree of structural independence from the local government they are associated with.) What you say may be what you'd like their job to be, but it is not literally what their job is.
    - nox101 2y ago
      I agree with you that the police have limited resources. At the same time, the better they do their job the less of it there will be to do as word spreads that you won't get away with it. It could be arguably be much more efficient to take in user video, voluntarily offered, and prosecute all easily provable crimes and violations.

rbalicki 2y ago

Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete maniac. Are insurers unable to use this information? Are they afraid of the backlash from being the first to accept this information? Is there some legal reason this isn't doable?

joshu 2y ago
https://www.getnexar.com/ https://www.getnexar.com/
- monkeywork 2y ago
  Just tossing a product link into the discussion without any context isn't overly useful - why are you recommending (or are you) and why should I be clicking on that?
  - joshu 2y ago
    They were built to do the things in the comment that I replied to.
freejazz 2y ago
>If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete maniac. People who drive like complete maniacs aren't doing so rationally. It's called "road rage" not "road reason."
- gruez 2y ago
  Disagree. While "maniacs" could include road rage behavior (eg. brakechecking someone), it also arguably encompasses other risky behavior that's not obviously associated with "road rage", like speeding or aggressive weaving/lane changes.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Freedom requires both Liberty and Privacy. An all-seeing state will destroy Liberal society. Reform requires reform of both the government and industry. Industry will happily gather the data and the state will then buy it from industry as a means to circumvent the 4th amendment. https://reason.com/2024/08/20/how-the-feds-buy-their-way-around-the-fourth-amendment/ https://reason.com/2024/08/20/how-the-feds-buy-their-way-aro...

Aloisius 2y ago
What does that have to do with this article? The police are getting warrants for the video.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  They aren’t getting warrants to tow the vehicles. They have no right to seize private property, especially the private property of someone not even involved with the crime in question. And what if the Tesla owner, as is their right or at least should be, refuses to release the video footage? How long do the police keep the illegally seized vehicle while the owner sorts out the seizure before the courts and at what personal cost? And what is prevents the police from obtaining the video through extrajudicial means? Does Tesla itself have access to the video? Can they sell/give it to the police? Are there legal safeguards against this or is it an open market as the linked Reason article shows? All of the above applies to any aftermarket camera security system as well. Also, if the police get access to the car data by some means, can they use any of the data to file separate charges against an uncooperative owner as retribution if they desire? There are many questions along these lines when dealing with an intrusive police state.
  - davidt84 2y ago
    > They aren't getting warrants to tow the vehicles. Um, FTA: > “Based on this information,” Godchaux wrote, “I respectfully request that a warrant is authorized to seize this vehicle from the La Quinta Inn parking lot so this vehicle’s surveillance footage may be searched via an additional search warrant at a secure location.”

netsec_burn 2y ago

https://archive.is/M81lw https://archive.is/M81lw

neilv 2y ago

Who gave Tesla and their drivers the right to set up video surveillance cameras in public?

snozolli 2y ago
Unless they're parking in an area with a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a locker room, it's perfectly legal to record in the United States.
- neilv 2y ago
  You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. For example, the upskirt "street photographers" have long argued one way, and eventually they get smacked down, legally.
  - SkyPuncher 2y ago
    It’s hard to take your argument serious when you choose a pretty absurd example. You walk around the street with a pair of eyes on your face, but that doesn’t mean you can just bend over and look up people’s clothing. The law clearly establishes a difference between capturing “normal” content in public and invading privacy.
    - neilv 2y ago
      Do the privacy laws regarding public surveillance speak of "content"? Because that sounds like something a techbro smug halfwit would say.
      - SkyPuncher 2y ago
        Yes, and in California, where this article is based, there are explicit laws against this.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. No. The guy you're replying to isn't giving his opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, he's stating how the law works right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(United...

pbohun 2y ago

We've seen this type of thing happen with Ring, where the police want video from people's private cameras. Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against unreasonable searches and seizures?

gruez 2y ago
>Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against unreasonable searches and seizures? Search warrants specifically exist to give police the "legal right to access/take people's private property", and are widely accepted to be constitutional.
- brvsft 2y ago
  You pretend this is some obvious fact, but obtaining a search warrant against a person or property that were uninvolved in the crime but may have only been 'witness' to it is not obvious or clear to me.
  - zerocrates 2y ago
    The standard for getting a search warrant is probable cause, and that includes just probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime at the place to be searched. Taking the witness analogy, even an actual person who's a mere witness can be compelled to testify with a subpoena.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      No wonder people are not so willing to report a crime or be witnesses. They are getting punished for it.
      - kayodelycaon 2y ago
        A lot of places, talking to police is a very bad idea both because of the police and the other people in the neighborhood. You could very easily get shot for doing so.

Silhouette 2y ago

[flagged]

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

To me, it's a bug not a feature that precedent can just expand infinitely as new capabilities in the world grow. There's a lot of people saying that search warrants have always allowed intrusion & seizure. But the fact that all these devices (cars, cameras, phones) are now potentially interesting data-rich objects to be seized, mined for ever larger total information awareness by the state seems like a massive defect & flaw of the system to me. I dont want old laws + new technology to automatically result in the state's eye of sauron (palantir) getting to better observe us.

moate 2y ago
The state’s first goal is to protect the state’s continued existence. Anything that can be seen as interfering with that can be labeled an enemy and relegated to subhuman/other/destroy on contact status. From there, state violence, and from there, nazis.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  By far the most critical aspects of the state maintaining itself is to have the faith of the people, as a just and right entity that doesn't deserve to be smashed, whose blood is good for more than renewinf the tree of liberty This ever expanding invasiveness delegitimizes the state. Physical security is a positive, only when the power itself is used respectably & virtuously. Pursuing enemies at all cost makes you a bad state, that can't be believed in. Some balance is required. Some limit to intrusion is necessary, and to me, this violates the sovereign rights of the citizens, to have so much of our lives repurposeable & cooptable by the state with ever increasing scope and haste.

nonethewiser 2y ago

Autonomous vehicles will not be your property.

kepler1 2y ago

Here in California (and generally in the US, as well as other places where the cost of enforcing laws seems to be growing too costly/unpalatable), we seem increasingly interested in documenting and retroactively following up the aftermath of crimes. Rather than preventing them when / before they're happening. I'm surprised the police even care to watch video afterwards. (aside from the serious crime stuff like in the article)

slt2021 2y ago
[flagged]

aftbit 2y ago

Creepy stuff. Maybe we ought not to constantly record everything happening around us all the time.

papichulo4 2y ago
Seems like if it’s technically possible, it will happen, and we can’t stop technological progress. In fact, you and I are probably profiting from that progress. Hard to ask a guy to do something that goes against his paycheck. Even if we vote politically “correct,” whomever that may be, what are you and I voting for with our wallets?
- Lammy 2y ago
  > Seems like if it’s technically possible, it will happen, and we can’t stop technological progress. ‘The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.’
  - eastbound 2y ago
    I don’t know. People have been living without reliable access to food and potable water, not even talking about sore deformations on their faces, for a thousand years. But somehow their lives were fulfilling?
    - throwaway894345 2y ago
      Yeah, I don’t see many of the people criticizing the Industrial Revolution opting into pre-industrial existences. I’m pretty minimalist, and I’ve grown up around the Amish and even they prefer to avail themselves of technology where they can. I think there’s a fair amount of romanticizing about a pre-industrial lifestyle. This obviously isn’t to argue that we should all live maximally consumerist lifestyles; I don’t think that’s true either.

mullingitover 2y ago

A large group of people will look at these stories of technology being used to get the worst people off the street and say "This is creepy stuff," and a lot of that same group will listen to politicians telling them "the solution to gun violence is for everyone to have guns" and nod thoughtfully in agreement.

userbinator 2y ago
Guns can't be used for surveillance.
- perching_aix 2y ago
  mount a camera on them
- mullingitover 2y ago
  A person who believes they'll be caught and face consequences for committing crimes is strongly affected by knowing there is heavy surveillance of their criminal activities. They're less likely to be deterred just knowing that a lot of other people will randomly have guns, in fact that makes them more likely to also have a gun and to shoot first (e.g.: that actor who was gunned down confronting someone who was stealing a catalytic converter).
moate 2y ago
Sure? But some people also don’t care about either and others people think too much focus is on preventing effects (crime) and not on addressing cause (material conditions) and plenty of pro-fascists quote 1984 to support policy that would have made Orwell want to shoot them in the head. People be crazy.

xyst 2y ago

Surveillance tech masquerading as “self driving vehicles”. Those Waymo vehicles are prime for this.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thunder-blue-3 2y ago

Will they though? Crime enforcement in the bay area is a joke - from alameda county into SF. I'm so happy to have moved out and into a state with actual community engagement and accountability.

loteck 2y ago
Where'd you move to?
- thunder-blue-3 2y ago
  Connecticut - I've never felt safer walking around at 3 am and I've made more friends in the last 2 months (without trying) than I probably have in the last 6 years of living in the bay area.
  - libria 2y ago
    Good to hear! Are the comparable areas of similar population density? I'm wondering what incremental steps (non-partisan hopefully) can be brought to the Bay Area to slowly move it towards a similar environment.
    - thunder-blue-3 2y ago
      I lived in the Bay Area for about 30 years, so here's my (probably biased) opinion. The biggest issue is the lack of community, and in my experience, this is due to the high turnover of residents. From my high school graduating class of 400, fewer than 100 are still in the community; everyone else has moved to Florida, Phoenix, Austin, etc. You can't encourage long-term planning (good public education policies, systematic reductions in the drivers of crime, etc.) if the community changes every two decades. My personal opinion is that the Bay Area won't improve because everyone is out to get 'theirs' and then leave. While I do miss the weather, the lack of humidity, and, honestly, a more educated population, I believe raising children in a strong community is more important. So, I'm more than happy with the trade-offs for a better overall quality of life.
2y ago

reillys 2y ago

If I or somebody else was the victim of a crime I would 100% support using every available source of information to solve that crime. I think we need adequate controls sure, but mostly we need to increase trust in government and police forces so we know we can trust the relevant people with our data. There is epic fear in the US about the government. That is the actual problem. Now the US gov is a shady piece of shit, so a lot of that is well founded, but that is the root of the problem. Solve that problem and actually trust the people who are supposed to be responsible and in charge to do the right thing and this data problem stops becoming as much of an issue. And no, building some kind of philosophical zero trust system is not going to solve anything, it is a prison you'll end up living in. Encourage transparency in Police forces and Government with strong legislation and strong support for whistleblowers and punishment of infractions and you have yourself a system that people can begin to trust.

trompetenaccoun 2y ago
It's not just the police. How could such a corrupt police exist without corrupt superiors higher up in the government? Fear of governments is justified, they're the most powerful entity in our world. They can get away with murder. The US is not Iceland, a simple fix that would just make people trust the police is impossible. Also as an aside, the police isn't your only problem. Tesla, Google & co are paving the way normalizing these mobile surveillance units. We'll have millions of them driving around everywhere with HD cameras, microphones, in some cases even LiDAR and radar. Recording constantly. Of course there's a bit of an issue if you are not a fan of mass surveillance. Even if corporations are the only ones in charge of that data. I know for example that the Tesla video feed can be accessed online, because owners can remotely view it with their app. And if they can do this, so can others in theory. All you need is a bug or Tesla servers getting hacked.
- reillys 2y ago
  Well actually that brings up an interesting piece about how the US is structured. I think the reason your police can be more corrupt is because of the federated nature of policing. Cops are usually only answerable to the mayor of the city (and sometimes the electorate) rather than higher ups in the government. So there is a lack of authority and control there. If they were answerable to politicians and politicians were actually responsible for their actions you could take very firm political actions against those politicians - but in the states nobody in the Cabinet or Government is responsible for law enforcement. And I understand why this federated system was originally put in place, but this isn't the 1700s. In communication terms the US might as well be Iceland - you can communicate from one end of the land mass to the other instantly, so we don't need to have localized and federated decision making.

mvc 2y ago

So funny to watch the US competing with China to be the most authoritarian state.

akimbostrawman 2y ago

the driving panopticon is being used to spy. shocking

rd 2y ago

https://archive.is/zzMAr https://archive.is/zzMAr

pdar4123 2y ago

I have perhaps unpopular additional suggestion. If you break any traffic laws your tesla should automatically report u to the police. Shouldn’t a car w AI capabilities be committed to responsible, ethical, safe, law abiding behavior ? I’m tired of bay area Teslas not signaling, cutting me off, and near killing me while I’m walking or on my bike.

cxvrfr 2y ago
[dead]
spacephysics 2y ago
Nah that gets to a police state mighty fast. It works if the people in power align with your values, but the moment it doesn’t it becomes a problem
simon_acca 2y ago
They have this on airliners now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_operations_quality_assurance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_operations_quality_as...

rcpt 2y ago

So we're finally getting speed cameras?

harmmonica 2y ago

As a somewhat regular user of Waymo, these types of conversations seem like they're going to be more and more in the (sorry!) rearview mirror because we won't own the car nor the cameras that are recording the world as we "drive" around. That's not to say that we should give up fighting for some level of privacy even when we don't own the cars, but seems more likely that legislation would be passed that forces the vehicle owners/operators (Alphabet in the Waymo case) to blur peoples' faces. Then of course the state (police/gov/etc.) will clamor for a backdoor key that will unlock the blurred faces/bodies if a crime is suspected to have occurred. Speaking of, I wonder if Waymo already does blur people when they capture them through Waymo rides? I can't seem to find mention of it online. This commentary assumes self-driving cars are here to stay and become the de facto way we drive instead of driving ourselves. Still not sure how their adoption plays out over time because, at least in the US, people will fight against mandates to use self-driving cars because it compromises their freedom (note that the freedom crowd (no judgment) will be saying that, at first, because they will consider it their right to drive themselves, but once the privacy implications are clear there will be full-on (figurative?) wars fought over self-driving). Guessing a politician, in Texas or another red state, will sooner than later enshrine the right-to-drive-oneself into the state constitution.

threecheese 2y ago
I am hoping for an urban camouflage fashion revolution as a response to more pervasive monitoring: https://www.axios.com/2019/09/07/fooling-facial-recognition-fashion https://www.axios.com/2019/09/07/fooling-facial-recognition-... Public access to object recognition models may be important.
- fasa99 2y ago
  surely there are simpler ways of course if you've dealt with most hoodish ruffians, as the names tells us, the people of the hood love to wear hoodies - which generally work quite well to hide from cameras, especially those above, if the hood sags forward and over the face somewhat or these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_glasses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_glasses or outside or alongside hoodies, these can be seen as socially acceptable (mostly) ; https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/mask-of-your-own-face.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/mask-of-your-own-fa...

forinti 2y ago

Not so bad if my car can drop me off at work and, go to court, and then pick me up at the end of the day to go home.

tiziano88 2y ago

"You have ad-blocker turned on" despite that being completely untrue.

btilly 2y ago

I'm sorry, but what happened to the 4th Amendment? Your car was parked in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though you followed all rules, we're taking it. Not without a judge.

hk-hater420 2y ago

My car ain’t no snitch

savrajsingh 2y ago

Free feature idea: - Tesla needs a public facing website that allows anyone to request a video for a cost — any location at any point in time - vehicle owners can review video footage and approve request - vehicle owner gets a cut, Tesla gets a cut, authority or person in fender bender or whatever gets video

nothercastle 2y ago

There are already plenty of cameras out there. It would not be very difficult to identify criminals. The problem is there is not sufficient motivation to do so and nobody knows what to do once the criminals are identified. My city just practices catch and release policing so laws only apply to those that will pay fines

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
>so laws only apply to those that will pay fines. So, penalising the poors who are not as poor as the other poors.
- nothercastle 2y ago
  The rich pay the fines too, it’s just that it’s not a meaningful deterrence. The poorest simply drive without plates or licenses so they are immune

personjerry 2y ago

Kinda sounds like we're heading for the authoritarian surveillance state that China has spearheaded, only with more steps

reissbaker 2y ago

LMFAO. My Tesla has been broken into multiple times in the Bay Area, with footage of the perpetrators and their license plate numbers, and the police have refused to investigate and were often unwilling to even accept the footage. And this isn't just me: literally everyone I know with a Tesla in the Bay Area has had a similar experience. The cops do not care, at all. Towing someone's car on the off chance it had video surveillance of a crime the police bother working on is insane overreach when they won't even investigate crimes to that owner's car in the first place.

hiddencost 2y ago
Refactor the police into micro services.

jimt1234 2y ago

I was once pitched a business where external-facing cameras would be provided to car owners, distributed through auto insurance companies. The business intended to make money from selling the video data to law enforcement. I'm skipping a lot of details, but one of the main objections is that the police wouldn't pay for the data, they would just take it.

x3haloed 2y ago

I’m sorry you’ve been inconvenienced by a murder… Or is that the country we’re living in now? “Murder happens, just don’t bother me.”

caseyy 2y ago

Did your house witness a crime? We already have cameras on many of our homes, so it should be roughly the same process. Towing sounds ridiculous. No one should be penalized for a crime someone else did. But taking away one’s car is a major penalty.

diebeforei485 2y ago

Hotels should maybe have cameras on their parking lots.

worik 2y ago

The video should not be stored. Have a 24 hour wiping cycle

paweladamczuk 2y ago

I wonder why the title of this HN posting was edited to only include the first sentence of the headline.

MichaelRo 2y ago

We got a new expression it seems. Used to have "drive-by shooting", now we're gonna have "drive-by witnessing" :)

squarefoot 2y ago

Phew... good thing that the eye recording implant hasn't been invented yet, or some of us would have their personal life turned into an evidence log.

bloomingeek 2y ago

I don't own a Tesla, and frankly, don't want to own anything associated with Musk. However, I do have dash cams in both my vehicles that will start recording when the car is not running. If I was driving in my car near a crime scene and discovered my dash cam recorded something that could be used as evidence, personally, I would call the local police and ask them if they were interested. However, to have the police discover my vehicle was in close proximity to the crime, and me not realizing my dash cam had recorded anything of value, and then the police try to impound my vehicle in a parking lot without my knowledge is outrageous! The above situation is the result of two major realities: once again technology has emerged without adequate laws to deal with the consequences.(I realize this is usually the norm, law makers MUST speed up the process to protect citizens.) Second, police reform has to bring local law enforcement up to date with current reality. (The seizing of a vehicle based on possible crime info isn't protecting citizens, it's theft. Contacting the vehicle owner and requesting the info is serving the citizens, if they're not willing there is a court system.)

aswanson 2y ago

There was a recent murder caught in HD by a Tesla in a hotel parking lot. The quality is unreal: https://youtu.be/ij85PgNjqAI?si=lGlJBOWdgLDSKSj7 https://youtu.be/ij85PgNjqAI?si=lGlJBOWdgLDSKSj7

p0w3n3d 2y ago

Sounds ridiculous. What happens if you have a home camera? Do they take your home? Really?