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

351–360 of 455 posts

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

#351

Post by ghaff »

damnyou wrote: post #184
gamblor956 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need you driver license for your job, without you will lose everything. This is why they provide ID cards that do not grant driving privileges. And why public transportation exists.

Public transportation does not in fact exist in large parts of the US. Our society puts so many people in impossible binds. This discussion needs a great deal more empathy for them.

There are large areas of the world where public transportation is pretty limited as a day-to-day thing.

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

#353

Post by missosoup »

pessimizer wrote: post #328
missosoup wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moment you begin endangering other people's lives is the same moment that backgrounds, poorly-disadvantaged or not, become meaningless. Spoken life someone who never had to decide between rolling the 0.000001% chance dice on driving to work tired, and their kids going hungry or potentially getting taken away if they lose their job. People do what they need to do to survive and take care of their loved ones. Peo…

What if the person you kill is also a human being with a family and problems? Should they get a say in what you think is an acceptable risk? Or should we just treat everybody we don't know as obviously spoiled people who live in a bubble of privilege, have nothing to lose, have never missed a meal, love no one and have no one who depends on them, and only have an opinion on what you do in order to feel superior to yo…

It's not quite a direct comparison, but in law there is a 'heat of passion' defence which affords leniency for crimes committed when e.g. a parent walks in on their child being harmed and murders the assailant.

The reason this defence (and a line of other similar) exist is because as society we have accepted the fact that people will act in self interest, self protection, and above all protection of their children. No amount of education or indoctrination overrides that. (Fun fact, in some countries, escaping from jail is not illegal/punishable - assuming you don't commit other crimes in the act. Because, once again, we as society recognise that it's human nature to seek freedom and it cannot be overriden, therefore punishing it achieves nothing.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if you think a parent driving to work tired is acceptable or not, because we already know that they absolutely will. The only question is how do you mitigate the damage of driving to work tired, and whether your mitigation strategy is a net benefit or net loss to society.

'Make it compulsory for cars to detect sleeping/unconscious/seizing/microsleeping driver and pull over' is an infinitely better strategy in every regard imaginable compared to 'ban up to 50% of the population from driving'. And note that only one of those 4 situations would be avoidable with a ban, the other 3 can strike at any time with no warning or history.

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

#354

Post by BoorishBears »

judge2020 wrote: post #346
fudged71 wrote: post #46

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 b…

> It’s a valid concern that your car manufacturer will use the interior cameras to blame a crime on you. Don't see when they would ever be responsible for a crime legally, outside of being 'blamed' in dozens of national news headlines; the current legal landscape has continued to uphold that you are responsible for the car even when it's trying to drive itself. Even with Navigate on Autopilot, you have to continuousl…

When the creator of your car makes comments like

"Your hands are just there for regulatory reasons"

Then turns around and blames you for acting like that's true when a known defect kills your wife

(aside: Why do you think Mobileye had the same tech as AP1 in multiple other cars but never turned it on continuously? Why do you think it was always limited to highway speeds and correcting a lack of input? Well that's because it can't tell an overhead sign from a stopped firetruck very well...)

Are we really then allowed to go back and go "well they had a nice disclaimer".

-

It's funny really, because calling it Autopilot wasn't enough (spare me the airplane comparisons). Now there's a feature list called "Full Self Driving... capability"

Like, the term FSD is used as part of a label for a collection of features, of which NOT A SINGLE ONE is even a COMPONENT of self driving, because EVERY SINGLE ONE requires full time driver attention.

They're literally using the fact that theoretically, one day, the SENSORS MIGHT OVERLAP WITH WHAT FSD REQUIRES to sell it as... not FSD. FSD capability.

What a joke.

-

Tesla has gotten away with homicide, and I guess we're ok with them continuing to.

The useless comparisons about "Tesla with AP is safer than Tesla without", show me the comparison that Tesla with AP is safer than AEB+LKA+ACC (pretty much AP, minus the party trick that lulls drivers into a false sense of security), and I'll show you a made up study.

Because that would be AP being exactly what it already is, minus the one mode where the driver is supposed to be a safety net for the computer. Where the driver already has responsibility to make sure it doesn't crash! It's literally like removing the ability to steer your bike with the training wheels, the training wheels are still there!

It's simple really, Tesla has put marketability of a safety feature, over the actual safety benefits, at the cost of human lives.

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

#355

Post by sellyme »

lm28469 wrote: post #158
ogre_codes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This is a metric human drivers fail to hit every single day. There is some acceptable level of risk in shifting driving to a robot. How you draw that comparison and draw the line is tough. It's…

> This is a metric human drivers fail to hit every single day. Yes exactly, and when they fuck up they suffer the consequences. Which if you were reckless will most likely be years in prison. You shouldn't be able to get away by paying money which is what the comment I replied to asks for.

You're not "getting away" with anything. You're paying someone else to do a job, and that other person writes software to do the job. They're the ones responsible for the software at that stage.

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

#356

Post by VRay »

huid827 wrote: post #138
eulers_secret wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

What do you people do in your cars that concerns you so much from a privacy standpoint, other than pick your nose?

I attend meetings to plot the overthrow of the government if it impinges my freedom

Relevant: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=uighurs&iar=news&ia=news

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

#357

Post by zaroth »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #178
jlarocco wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I'm not understanding your point here, and you seem to contradict yourself a little bit. A driver with a disability that makes them inattentive ca…

>A driver with a disability that makes them inattentive can't be a "safe driver." A driver with a disability that makes a computer system classify them as an inattentive driver is not the same thing as a driver with a disability that makes them inattentive.

This could certainly cause the UI to falsely show alerts or refuse to enable the autopilot.

But when it comes to actually reviewing a case in an accident, you would want to review the actual footage, not just the metadata.

Looking at just the metadata is already problematic. For example, the “hands on wheel” metadata in a Tesla is based on angular force detected on the wheel, not actual hands on the wheel. Tesla will report that the driver didn’t touch the wheel in X seconds, when it would be more accurate to say the driver didn’t apply angular force, although their hands might have been resting on the wheel the whole time.

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

#358

Post by gfody »

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.

well this seems inevitable now - the amount you pay out of pocket for body damage repairs depending on the machinations of high-speed-trading algorithms acting on the sensor data streaming out of your car. not just the price of autopilot fluctuates but every non-essential function distracting enough to influence the actuarial tables. want to listen to music? in this traffic? too expensive!

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

#359

Post by slg »

deviation wrote: post #340
fudged71 wrote: post #46

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 b…

What do you mean by snitch? I think it's a perfectly valid reason to "snitch" if the driver was truly at fault. There's some great reasons for driver-facing cameras- and if one of those trade-offs is that drivers are less likely to "get away" with causing a crash, then that's fine in my books. Bias feels like a different argument entirely, though I do share your concern about it...

>What do you mean by snitch? I think it's a perfectly valid reason to "snitch" if the driver was truly at fault.

The driver is always truly at fault in the current legal environment. A driver can't just blame it on the car to escape liability. The comments here talking about the legal ramifications for these tags are misguided. For these tags to matter, there would need to be legislative changes to shift the liability to the autonomous system and that would likely only happen once we reach at least level 4 autonomy. Plus once we get to that point, whether the driver is paying attention or not shouldn't matter anyway.

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

#360

Post by dbcurtis »

gravitas wrote: post #162
fudged71 wrote: post #46

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 b…

> What does this mean for drivers with disabilities? You mention ADHD and Turrets; a leg-disabled person (e.g. paralyzed waste down) can still drive just fine, special hand-operated equipment is installed to a car to allow the hands to take over for the foot pedals. By design this driver may be looking down frequently at their controls (let's assume not everyone is a pro driver yet and knows them by heart) which coul…

> By design this driver may be looking down frequently at their controls

Actually not, for hand controls. No more than you look at the pedals. It goes into muscle memory just as much.

I have been a passenger with two different hand-control drivers. Both were as smooth as a driver using foot pedals. I once moved their car for one of them —- in a tiny town on a quiet street, for about 5 blocks at low speed. It was difficult for me — zero muscle memory and zero “feel” for the car. It does take some practice, I will give you that, but you never have to look at the lever, even as a noob.

Post reply on HN