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

Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 139 posts

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#121

Post by lazide »

ajross wrote: post #37
lazide wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, that’s generally not how the procedure works. A defendant quite explicitly doesn’t need to proactively provide all information that could possibly incriminate themselves. If the plaintiff isn’t asking for something then, cool. The plaintiff COULD ask for ‘all self driving data’, but often that can be objected to and/or thrown out, as it’s a fishing expedition and that data is proprietary. So that can tie up thing…

You don't have to know it's there, you just have to understand the problem space enough to find it. You depose an engineer and you ask "do you store this information?", and they have to answer. Then you can ask "where do you store it?", and so on. There's complexity about some questions being procedurally allowed, etc... But that's how it works. Fundamentally this process isn't any different than reverse engineering.…

They can - but as evidence shows do not always, or even often. It will now more often of course as the information gets out.

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#122

Post by lazide »

speedgoose wrote: post #43
lazide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if it doesn’t follow the setting, either due to a bug or misinterpreting something (bad sensor, bad sensor reading)?

It's the driver fault to not detect the event and to not take control, press the brake pedal, as far as I know. When you engage the adaptive cruise control on any car brand, you are still very much responsible to not crash in the front car.

Pretty sure there are some civil litigators out there that disagree, which is the point of the article?

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#124

Post by natch »

tsimionescu wrote: post #116
natch wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second part of what you said is a widespread myth. There is a crossover point after you drive a certain number of miles in an EV, after which the lifetime carbon cost is lower than that of an equivalent ICE car. For Model 3 the crossover point is estimated at around 5,000 miles. Not "many years." The sources and methodology for this estimate are discussed in detail in Tesla's 2020 Impact Report. https://www.tesla…

That report compares the total lifetime emissions of a Tesla with an ICE, as far as I can tell. Also, I don't see any discussion of the cost of mining, smelting, etc the chassis and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired and not included in the production costs. Furthermore, it assumes that the car is locally built, it doesn't seem to include the cost of transporting the car and/or parts long distance. Finall…

>mining, smelting, etc the chassis

Perhaps chassis costs (meaning carbon costs of making the chassis) are roughly comparable between ICE and EVs, so I suppose there was no need to focus on this in the report.

>and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired

Tesla motors are wound and made from scratch from raw materials on site. This data point would not be in favor of ICE cars, for the reasons you mention. Batteries on the other hand do increase the carbon cost and that's why EVs start off behind ICE cars at the start of their lifetime, catching up in terms of lower carbon used only after some period of use.

>Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large

They go by real world consumption, not manufacturer claims. Remember VW Dieselgate? Credibility is not a given in ICE circles. But you have a good point it's probably more about the EU/US difference here with US cars being gas hogs, due to size and possibly the impact of different emissions equipment in some states.

>Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric

OK. It was one line, not so much a discussion, but it did come from you to be fair, so although I didn't read it that way, you get to decide. Still, I believe the comparison makes most sense against an EV, although it may not have been what you had in mind. If one cares enough about carbon to even make the comparison, and to try to defend the position that driving an older car is better for the environment, it doesn't make much sense to ignore the cars that are indeed better.

>clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news.

SpaceX and Tesla are legitimately doing great as far as I can see. Which good news were you talking about?

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#125

Post by 05 »

jdsully wrote: post #119
GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #83

I'm not sure folks understand the comm arch in a Tesla. CAN probably still is the main way data are slogged around between ECUs (this info is five years old). CAN works by broadcasting data values at some periodic rate (1 PPS, 10 PPS, 100 PPS usually) and there is no 'publish/subscribe' except that all data are 'published' and any ECU can listen. What the other ECU does with the data, the originator doesn't know. If…

If every ECU has OTA update capability then how could the secure bus possibly be air gapped? You could attack it remotely via OTA updates to an ECU on that bus.

It can if the only ECU on both buses has read only access (e.g. uses a receive only transceiver or if the TX pin of that transceiver is grounded). Also signed updates aren’t rocket science and work well enough if you keep the verification code minimal, well reviewed and formally verified if possible.

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#126

Post by zibzab »

driverdan wrote: post #89
csours wrote: post #5

Disclaimer: I work for a Tesla competitor. To combat fundamental attribution error, whenever you read an article about Tesla, try replacing the word 'Tesla' with your least favorite car or consumer product company. 'Brand X' has a bunch of data about accidents, and they are motivated to not share all of it with authorities. When they do share data they are motivated to share the data that presents them in the best li…

> How would it feel if there was data about a crash you were involved in that you could not get access to? I'd be angry that data was recorded in the first place. No data should be recorded without the driver's explicit consent.

Oh man... where do you think Tesla got their self-driving datasets from?

Why do you think they had all those sensors in the early models without the software to use it?

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#127

Post by lazide »

ajross wrote: post #51
karpierz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying self driving if/when it's released? I think that "pay now, maybe get it later" or "don't pay now, can't buy it later" is a false dilemma.

> Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying self driving if/when it's released? It wouldn't. It would be an existence proof that this isn't fraud : I want the product, they offer it as a pre-purchase with disclaimers, I bought it, ergo I wasn't harmed. Getting a refund now for a product a fully intend to purchase again in the future is called a "loan". Again, fraud is a crime. It requires damages. I have to…

Crimes DO NOT require concrete damages. Civil claims do require concrete damages.

Being convicted of drug possession being one really clear example - there is often no need to even prove the person was aware of the existence of the drugs. Mere actual possession is usually enough (depending on the jurisdiction). And there is no need to prove the person intended to sell, distribute, harm, or even do anything with them. Even if the person literally was taking them to be destroyed, they can still be convicted of the crime.

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#128

Post by lazide »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #114
ajross wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at what point is it fraud? It's fraud when someone is harmed. People like you who didn't buy the product and don't want it don't have standing here. People like me, who did, do. And almost without exception, we're all lined up to get the beta release. Offer me a $10k refund today in exchange for never getting access to FSD releases, and I'd turn it down. "People willfully paying for something I don't like" isn't fr…

My admittedly layman understanding of 47 USC §1001 is that no actual harm needs to be demonstrated for it to be an instance of fraud: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a ma…

And considering that it isn’t clear that a legally viable FSD implementation will ever be possible on the hardware Tesla sold, it’s a pretty ballsy move for anyone but a time traveler.

And given the length of time it’s been going, at some point someone is going to call time and it’s going to be a big mess for Tesla. Unless they actually deliver it.

No pressure!

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#129

Post by ajross »

lazide wrote: post #121
ajross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to know it's there, you just have to understand the problem space enough to find it. You depose an engineer and you ask "do you store this information?", and they have to answer. Then you can ask "where do you store it?", and so on. There's complexity about some questions being procedurally allowed, etc... But that's how it works. Fundamentally this process isn't any different than reverse engineering.…

They can - but as evidence shows do not always, or even often. It will now more often of course as the information gets out.

> It will now more often of course as the information gets out.

AGAIN you are arguing from a conspiracy as a prior. There is no "information" to "get out". The car stores telemetry and sensor input. We always knew that. This is a story about someone figuring out how to recover it.

Re: Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data

#130

Post by jdsully »

05 wrote: post #125
jdsully wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every ECU has OTA update capability then how could the secure bus possibly be air gapped? You could attack it remotely via OTA updates to an ECU on that bus.

It can if the only ECU on both buses has read only access (e.g. uses a receive only transceiver or if the TX pin of that transceiver is grounded). Also signed updates aren’t rocket science and work well enough if you keep the verification code minimal, well reviewed and formally verified if possible.

The RF path is not via the secondary bus though. The RF path is via the remote update path directly to the secure bus.
Post reply on HN