Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

lm28469 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#42

Post by happytoexplain » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

bArray wrote: post #26

umvi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop making of big deal (tm) out of every word that has even the flimsiest connections with race or racism?

It was a joke, not a real call-out. I was just making the point that as programmers we should be careful about naming things in code, because one day they might be taken out of context.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "it" was a joke, but also the point you were making was not a joke. What is "it" if not the point being made by the comment?

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

#43

Post by lm28469 » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

lm28469 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is no need to spend infinite resources. Look at the driver facing camera when the accident occurs. Either the driver was paying attention or he was doing something else. It's a legal issue, not a technical issue.

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

#44

Post by blacksmith_tb » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

xedeon wrote: post #27

masklinn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think detecting when a driver is falling asleep could be an amazing safety feature. Welcome to 14 years ago, which is when Toyota first introduced their DMS/DAM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System More generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection

Not even close in terms of complexity. I used many of the "Driver Drowsiness" detection from Toyota, BMW and MBenz on my previous cars. They always had false positives, inconsistent and pretty rudimentary. What you're implying is akin to saying Nokia/Ericsson/Palm had smartphones before the iPhone 1 came along. Therefore the iPhone is a non-event. ️ The "hacker" mentioned in this article discovered these detection la…

Hmm, "HEAD_TRUNC" presumably means out of the frame, but given we're talking about hurtling pieces of metal, it conjures up nastier images for me somehow.

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

#45

Post by thedrbrian » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

lm28469 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You obviously aren’t a part of the government coronavirus response

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

#46

Post by fudged71 » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

Tesla has a history of using remote diagnostics to snitch on drivers instead of allowing investigators to do their job.

It’s a valid concern that your car manufacturer will use the interior cameras to blame a crime on you.

These automatic tagging features also bring to question the bias in algorithms. What does this mean for drivers with disabilities? Is it possible that a safe driver with ADHD or Turrets etc might be flagged as inattentive during an autopilot crash and therefore at fault?

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

#47

Post by Gys » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

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.

In that case we should not allow cars driven by humans either?

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

#48

Post by motohagiography » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #36

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?

A car you can drive drunk is the only meaningful definition of a self-driving car, imo.

I mean both, and specifically that driver assist should be pay to use to offset usage because it is likely higher net risk for a collision than a human. Free driver-assist has a "tragedy of the commons" problem, or a moral hazard, where there is no cost to over-using it and courting a collision event, so this overall risk can be reduced by metering its use.

Also, yes, the system should be safe enough to text while using it. That's what "self driving car" should mean. Another criteria would be that a person should be able to use it with a blood alcohol level higher than is legal today as well, and that it absolves people of an "impaired driving" charge. There is a division between driver assist and full autonomous self driving, but these are features that could be pay per use based on relative actuarial risk.

To people who say you can't put a price on human life, clearly you do not have auto insurance?

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

#49

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #36

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?

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by GordonS » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

pupdogg wrote: post #35

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_AP…

> - DRIVER_SHAVING > - DRIVER_ADJUSTING_MAKEUP > - DRIVER_APPLYING_LIPSTICK

I've actually seen drivers doing all 3 of these. The shaving (with an electric razor, obviously) I only saw once, but I frequently see women applying makeup and lipstick.