Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 455 posts

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#31

Post by eulers_secret »

throwaway12757 wrote: post #3

Sadly, one of the reasons I will never buy a Tesla. The lack of privacy concerns me.

Privacy is already dead (or at least, on life support).

I'm personally not giving in easily, and certainly wouldn't buy a car with a camera I don't control pointed at my face. That is absurd to me.

However, most people just see this only as a safety issue. They're willing to compromise a lot of privacy for a little increase in safety.

That's not objectively wrong, but I disagree with it.

If I could audit my records, store everything locally, and be ensured there's no way to access this data without my consent, then I'd be more into the idea. But right now... I'm just going to keep my old Prius going for as long as I can.

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#33

Post by lm28469 »

motohagiography wrote: post #10

Hah, if the main barrier to autopilot for cars is liability and insurance, passive biometric monitoring of the driver is certainly one way to shift liability around. The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. The real problem is…

> The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on.

No amount of money makes up for human lives. You can pay a premium of $1mil per mile, if the car end up smashing into a family car at 80mph because the system was fooled by a shadow or a reflection it's still a net negative

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lm28469 wrote: post #33
motohagiography wrote: post #10

Hah, if the main barrier to autopilot for cars is liability and insurance, passive biometric monitoring of the driver is certainly one way to shift liability around. The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. The real problem is…

> The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. No amount of money makes up for human lives. You can pay a premium of $1mil per mile, if the car end up smashing into a family car at 80mph because the system was fooled by a shadow or…

> No amount of money makes up for human lives

Sure, but no human life is worth spending infinite resources to protect.

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#35

Post by pupdogg »

Comments on the site itself are pure gold as some are pointing out the various (mostly humorous) events that are not being actively tracked with their driver-facing camera. I will try to compile this list below:

- DRIVER_ON_PASSENGER_SIDE

- DRIVER_MISSING

- DRIVER_PICKING_BOOGERS

- DRIVER_SEAT_FULLY_RECLINED

- DRIVER_SNORING

- DRIVER_SHAVING

- DRIVER_VAPING

- DRIVER_LIVESTREAMING

- DRIVER_ADJUSTING_MAKEUP

- DRIVER_APPLYING_LIPSTICK

- PASSENGER_ON_DRIVER

- PASSENGER_UNDER_DRIVER

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#36

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

motohagiography wrote: post #10

Hah, if the main barrier to autopilot for cars is liability and insurance, passive biometric monitoring of the driver is certainly one way to shift liability around. The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. The real problem is…

You mean that you'd have the choice between using autopilot as is (with you having the liability, not allowed to text) or switch to Tesla having the liability and be free to text?

That would require the system to be safe enough to text while using it.

If you mean that the feature should always be pay-to-use, that seems ridiculous. Why try to minimize the use of a driver assist feature?

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#37

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

Bedon292 wrote: post #25
gamblor956 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per history: Tesla releases driver data whenever it suits them. See: every autopilot crash.

If you don't opt in, they shouldn't have the data to release. At least until they swap it to an opt out quietly.

Or worse, "can't use this feature without allowing data collection".

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#38

Post by falcolas »

dkonofalski wrote: post #17
gamblor956 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per history: Tesla releases driver data whenever it suits them. See: every autopilot crash.

They do not. They release their analysis of the data in question.

Like how they blamed the "gore" death on the driver for not having his hands on the wheel?

The data showed that the "hands on the wheel" alert preceded the crash by 8 minutes.

Tesla will absolutely use any data you send them to attack you, especially if you have the bad taste to die in their car with autopilot active.

Post reply on HN