5 ms·

Do I understand it correctly? Crash data gets automatically transmitted to Tesla, and after it was transmitted is immediately marked for deletion? If that is a

• Someone 1y ago
  Another reason is if there’s other kinds of data that gets uploaded to Tesla, and the code for uploading crash data reuses that code. For the first kind of data, deleting the data from the car the moment there’s confirmation that it now is stored at Tesla can make perfect sense as a mechanism to prevent the car to run out of storage space. Of course, if the car crashed, deleting the data isn’t the optimal, but that it gets deleted may not be malice.
  • fabian2k 1y ago
    Deleting after a certain time makes sense, certainly. Deleting immediately seems dubious to me. Though the descriptions in the article are vague enough that we might be missing some big aspects. But in the end we wouldn't be discussing this at all if Tesla had simply handed over the data from their servers. If they can't find it, it isn't actually there or they deliberately removed it this affects how I view this process. Two copies are better than one. If you immediately erase the data, you better be sure the transmitted data is safe and secure. And obviously it wasn't.
  • cube00 1y ago
    Data retention is legal's bread and butter. There's no chance such a decision is accidently made by reusing code. Anytime data is recorded legal is immediately asking about retention so they don't end up empty handed in front of a judge. Every byte that car records and how it is managed will be documented in excruciating detail by legal.
    • Someone 1y ago
      > Data retention is legal's bread and butter. As is deleting data. Also, for, say, training data for Tesla’s software, I don’t see legal requirements for keeping it around, > There's no chance such a decision is accidently made by reusing code. At Tesla? I know about nothing about their software development practices, but from them, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this were accidental. Edit: one scenario to easily introduce this bug is if the “delete data after upload” feature were added after the “on a crash, upload all data you have, in case the car burns down” feature.
      • SoftTalker 1y ago
        Agreed. Tesla axed their marketing department, why assume they have much of a legal department overseeing how the data uploads are managed?
      • Retric 1y ago
        > I don’t see legal requirements for keeping it around, If you selectively delete data, courts can assume that data is the worst possible thing for a court case against you.
    • mattmcknight 1y ago
      > Anytime data is recorded legal is immediately asking about retention so they don't end up empty handed in front of a judge. In my experience, they are setting automated 90 deletion policies on email so they don't end up with surprises in discovery.
      • Someone 1y ago
        Many large companies nowadays have 90 day deletion policies.
    • sidewndr46 1y ago
      Not sure where you've worked by the "data retention policy" at places I worked made it abundantly clear that we were not to be retaining any data unless personally ordered to by a court. If a line manager, C-Level executive or board member requested me to retain data, I could refuse it under the policy. Like many things, the retention policy was actually a destruction policy
  • ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    I've got front and rear cameras on my bicycle and both of them have a simple crash protection feature. If the cameras detect the bike falling over, they'll mark the current video segment (typically split into 5/15 minute segments on the SD card) as protected and won't be overwritten when the SD card fills up which is the usual operating mode. If Tesla are marking crash data to be deleted, then that's not designed to help the customer, but to protect Tesla.
• lgeorget 1y ago
  I guess one charitable way to look at it is that after a crash, external people could get access to the car and its memory, which could potentially expose private data about the owner/driver. And besides private data, if data about the car condition was leaked to the public, it could be made to say anything depending on who presents it and how, so it's safer for the investigation if only appointed experts in the field have access to it. This is not unlike what happens for flight data recorders after a crash. The raw data is not made public right away, if ever.
  • fabian2k 1y ago
    If Tesla securely stored this data and reliably turned it over to the authorities, I wouldn't argue much with this. But the data was mostly unprotected on the devices, or it couldn't have been restored. And Tesla isn't exactly known for respecting the privacy of their customers, they have announced details about accidents publicly before. And there is the potential conflict of interest, Tesla does have strong incentives to "lose" data that implicates Autopilot or FSD.
    • sanex 1y ago
      I would rather my cars not automatically rat me out to the authorities, personally.
      • souterrain 1y ago
        Your property isn't ratting you out. The software you license from Tesla is ratting you out.
        • salawat 1y ago
          Such a pity there is no way to get an electronics minimal car control unit. Funny how conspicuously unimplemented functionality works.
          • MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
• phkahler 1y ago
  >> Tesla has sole access to the data All vehicle manufacturers have sole access to data. There isn't a standard for logging data, nor a standard for retrieving it. Some components log data and it only the supplier has the means to read and interpret it.
  • __alexs 1y ago
    There is a world of difference between "you need our special hardware and software to read the data" and "we deleted it lol".
  • dghlsakjg 1y ago
    Mostly incorrect. At least for the US. If your car has an EDR, what data it collects is legislated. There is not a standard interface for retrieving it, but the manufacturer is required to ensure that there is a commercially available tool for data retrieval that any third party can use. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-563 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
    • onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
      Does it legislate that you can't "accidentally" delete all incriminating data?
      • dghlsakjg 1y ago
        Depends on the severity of the crash. If it meets certain thresh-holds (air bag deployment) the recording memory must be permanently locked in the onboard recorder.
        • onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
          Is the penalty for "oops, we had a bug, and it's gone," similar to the >$100M penalty they got? If not, I assume they'll keep losing all incriminating data.
    • 1y ago
• ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  It's probably a bit like "This call may be recorded for quality purposes." That's a disclaimer that's usually required by the authorities, to let you know that you're being recorded, but it lets them off the hook, if the recording would be inconvenient to them. If it supports their side, they 100% always have it, but if it supports the caller's side, then it seems they didn't actually record that call ...so sorry... Tesla's fairly notorious for casual treatment of customer car data (which they have a lot of). There was an article, recently, about how in-car video recordings were being passed around the office. I know that at least one porn actress recorded a scene in a self-driving Tesla. I'll bet that recording made the rounds "for quality purposes."
  • criddell 1y ago
    > "This call may be recorded for quality purposes." It's a disclaimer, but it also grants permission for you to record.
    • ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      This is true. I knew a guy who used to record all his calls with companies, and would let them know they were being recorded, if they didn't have that disclaimer. He would say "This call is being recorded." He told me that most of the companies hung up immediately, when he said that. I never heard him say that his recording ever did him any good, though.
      • Aurornis 1y ago
        > He would say "This call is being recorded." He told me that most of the companies hung up immediately, when he said that. If someone calls you and declares that they're recording the conversation, you probably should hang up too. It's usually used as a threat by people who intend to use it against you legally somehow. Your friend may have been an exception, but there's no way for the people on the other end to know either. If you're acting as a representative of a company on the phone, hanging up and informing your manager or legal counsel is a good idea. As for customer service recording calls: I didn't understand this until I was on the other side of customer support. The number of people who tell lies about interactions with support is insane. These days it's mostly e-mail and therefore easy to look up. You wouldn't believe how many people would try to throw our customer support people under the bus ("Support said you'd give me a free replacement!") until they realize we can go back and check these things.
• FireBeyond 1y ago
  Absolutely so. I don't know how accurate it is right now, but previously, people have had to sue Tesla to get telemetry data from their own vehicle, not to use against Tesla, but to use in accident lawsuits against other parties. Meanwhile, without your consent, Tesla will hold press conferences using your telemetry data to throw you under the bus (even deceptively) to defend themselves. "The vehicle had told the driver to pay attention!" NHTSA, four months later: "The vehicle had issued one inattention alert, eighteen minutes prior to the collision." (emphasis mine)
• gamblor956 1y ago
  Which really should not work in court, but it seems it has so far. It actually hasn't worked for them in court at all. They've always had to disclose the data under penalty of sanction (meaning fines, and possible adverse rulings). In most of the cases, the jury decided that the driver was at fault and that Musk's statements were just meaningless marketing fluff. In the Miami case, if Tesla hadn't turned over the data the judge was prepared to issue an instruction to the jury that they could use Tesla's failure to provide evidence as per se evidence of Tesla's liability (meaning, that Tesla would have to present an affirmatively prove the opposite, which would necessarily entail providing the evidence it was attempting to keep hidden). Judges will frequently also prevent parties found to have hidden evidence from presenting defenses on the matters affected by the undisclosed evidence. In extreme cases, they simply rule against that party on the merits, and the case becomes about the size of damages. In the Miami case, several of the jurors said that learning that Tesla had tried to hide the evidence from the crash was a big factor in finding Tesla liable, the reasoning being that Tesla wouldn't have tried to hide the evidence if they weren't liable.
• aaron695 1y ago
  [dead]