Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#221

Post by berdon » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #185

berdon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't reversing the question - it's asking an entirely different question. My question was about the value of the data to a consumer. Presumably, this data is a mixture of location history, sensor/actuator logs (maybe human readable?), and maybe various state data for ML algorithms. Depending on the human "readability" of this data - how could someone without proprietary knowledge find any value in it? That's my…

But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded. And even if it were, are you suggesting Tesla logs and stores data solely in a non-industry format for which there is not an ETL function that turns it into something less opaque? And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange? Because Tesla has a machine-learning heavy reputation? Google does far mo…

"But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded."

I never said it was. I'm not sure why you continue to try to come up with unrelated arguments to push your agenda in a discussion completely unrelated to what you're talking about.

"And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange?"

Because educated speculation can lead to positive and constructive discourse? I have a fair amount of experience in the ML and CS field and I could imagine a situation where the data is in fact difficult to analyze.

Also, logging geolocation data is a fair amount different than logging neural weights or other types of ML data. Without knowledge of the types and composition of ML algorithms those numbers simply won't help you. Which was my point to begin with.

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#222

Post by SilasX » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

robrenaud wrote: post #36

This is a bunch of PR nonsense. > When asked why Tesla has an apparent policy requiring drivers who want their own data to file for a subpoena, a spokesperson framed it as a privacy issue. > “We handle all customer data in accordance with our Owner’s Manual and privacy policy, which clearly outlines the type of data we collect and the lengths that we go to protect a customers’ privacy in the process,” Tesla said via…

I can understand not letting a rando off the street see the data, or taking extra measures to authenticate that you’re the actual owner at the time of the recording, but otherwise “privacy” doesn’t seem like a good enough reason.

More likely it’s “we want to be the only one who can see it.”

Semi-related: Reminds me of the time Amazon promoted a “recommend books to your friends” feature, and someone used it to make a recommendation to me with a vaguely threatening message attached. I asked them who it was and they screamed bloody murder about protecting customer privacy and I’m like “really? Privacy of your identity to a friend you’re recommending a book to? As a feature that you’re allowing to be repurposed into an anonymous messaging service?” (Eventually they relented.)

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#223

Post by kodablah » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

belril wrote: post #206

kodablah wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the media cycle. While usually starts from actual incidents, you can bet that they wouldn't repeatedly make the front page except by intention. I have a hard time knowing whether this, anti-FB, anti-Goog, anti-Twitter, anti-whatever is the result of a conspiracy or if it's just the simple fact that by building a furor the media can generate views. Surely the latter, but it's annoying and when it rains it pours f…

There's a third option that you're not considering: these companies receive significant scrutiny from the press because of their size and power, especially as it relates to our daily lives. That scrutiny leads to the disclosure of wrongdoing and controversy where it's found. In my experience with journalistic outlets, they're not writing stories out of a cynical desire for pageviews, or because of some massive conspi…

That option doesn't explain the ebb and flow. You are talking about the content, I am talking about prioritization. I also doubt the conspiracy, but we can't ignore the glaring coincidence of anomalous anti-X deluges that occur all at once. And we can't explain it away as simply a result of increased scrutiny. In fact, often the articles these outlets run are disguised op-ed pieces with no new information and the reader can have a hard time telling the difference.

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#224

Post by exabrial » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

It would appear that US law states that the owner of the vehicle owns the Event Data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#225

Post by danso » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #216

sxates wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only seems to happen for accidents that turn into national news, speculating that Tesla was at fault (or with drivers actively accusing them of fault). Their response is (understandably I think) to defend themselves when they can show they weren't at fault. I'd assume that if you have an accident and don't make it a media story, they don't publish your driving errors.

So something that is entirely outside of your control may determine if Tesla shames you in front of millions of people and violates your privacy? That's the defense you're arguing? Plus Tesla never releases the crash data, they release select snippets that make them look good. For example, the famous "six seconds" claim in the barrier incident but absolutely zero data on their automatic emergency braking's actions, w…

Worth noting that one of the issues is Tesla's data, such as sensing hand placement, might inherently be problematic. As r/teslamotors users pointed out in the wake of Tesla's response to the Utah crash, AutoPilot apparently has false negative problems: failing to detect when hands on the wheels:

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8jz5tl/tesla_r...

> Ok so here's what bugs the shit out of me: The overwhelming majority of the time that my car nags me to put my hand on the wheel, my hand's already on the wheel, I'm just not applying enough torque for the car to "see" that because my left elbow is resting on the window sill and my hand is resting on the 9oclock position. So I give it a quick wiggle and then we're friends again. This means the car logged a "no hands" event.

In the case of the fire truck, the driver pretty much admitted to fault. But what about the California man (i.e. the "six seconds" incident) who died by running into a median? We don't know for sure if his hands were on or off, or when, or if the car properly detected it. Tesla was kicked off the NTSB investigation for releasing data. Tesla's argument was that it had the right to make a defense, but I think it's reasonable to argue that NTSB's rule is to prevent such selective release and framing of data:

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180412.as...

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#226

Post by taejo » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

cataphract wrote: post #200

smnrchrds wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having the choice to not buy a Tesla. If Tesla's business model proves successful, all other car makers will copy it, and then it doesn't matter which brand you buy. Look at the TV market. You technically have the choice not to buy a "Smart TV," which sells your info to god-knows how many third-parties and spies on you 24/7. But good luck finding one. Sony, Samsung, LG? They all have the same spyware features. Your…

Can't you just not connect them to the Internet?

You can try. I recently learned that Ethernet-over-HDMI is a thing: now that you know that, you can potentially disable it on the other end of the connection, but lots of people are connecting their TVs to the internet without even knowing.

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#227

Post by tzs » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

breakingcups wrote: post #195

tzs wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tesla has a branch or subsidiary or something similar in the EU, then GDPR applies regardless of where the data is actually processed or where the data subject is.

No. If you're a US citizen* doing business with a US-based company you don't have the right to request your own data, even if that company also does business in Europe. * and there are European citizen dual passport shenanigans

If it is a US company that does business in Europe, but is not established in the Union, you are correct.

If the company is established in the Union, then GDPR applies to all personal data processing it does. See Article 3(1): "This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not."

The question, then, is Tesla merely a company that is offering goods and services to people in the Union, but not itself established in the Union, or is Tesla established in the Union?

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#228

Post by danso » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

berdon wrote: post #221

danso wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded. And even if it were, are you suggesting Tesla logs and stores data solely in a non-industry format for which there is not an ETL function that turns it into something less opaque? And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange? Because Tesla has a machine-learning heavy reputation? Google does far mo…

"But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded." I never said it was. I'm not sure why you continue to try to come up with unrelated arguments to push your agenda in a discussion completely unrelated to what you're talking about. "And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange?" Because educated speculation can lead to positive and constructive d…

You've proposed a reason for Tesla's reluctance to release data that Tesla itself has not used, so it's you that's bringing up unrelated arguments. Why speculate on the proprietary formats Tesla may or may not use when Tesla doesn't appear to have argued that the data was proprietary?

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#229

Post by dsr_ » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #85

dsr_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the copying right, not the moral right. The moral right is the right to be identified as the creator and the right to maintain the integrity of the work in subsequent copying.

So, they can't sell that, as the GP is proposing, or they generally just don't under the current economic system? Because I'm pretty sure Dean Koontz does a variation of this, where he outlines the story but someone else actually writes the book, and it's published under his name.

That's a work-for-hire, in which the authorship of the work (and thus the moral rights) is agreed by all participants before the work starts to be FooCorporation.

Classic work-for-hire includes ghostwritten novels and autobiographies, corporate reports, web pages, and most likely every line of code you've ever written while employed by a corporation.

There are jurisdictions where moral rights cannot be sold, and others where they can, but work-for-hire nearly always sidesteps the issue.

Re: Tesla won’t give drivers their own crash data without a court order

#230

Post by berdon » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #228

berdon wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But Tesla's defense is not that the data is in a proprietary format that can't be decoded." I never said it was. I'm not sure why you continue to try to come up with unrelated arguments to push your agenda in a discussion completely unrelated to what you're talking about. "And what do you base this speculation that Tesla does something so strange?" Because educated speculation can lead to positive and constructive d…

You've proposed a reason for Tesla's reluctance to release data that Tesla itself has not used, so it's you that's bringing up unrelated arguments. Why speculate on the proprietary formats Tesla may or may not use when Tesla doesn't appear to have argued that the data was proprietary?

You're the only one talking about Tesla in this situation. I never mentioned Tesla's reluctance to release data. That's your fabrication.

I'm talking about data that's incapable of being analyzed in a meaningful way without contextual / proprietary knowledge of how that data was created, is used, and is stored. In reality, I'd wager that most companies have more of that type of data than not.