Musk Wanted to Spy on Drivers to Defend Tesla from Lawsuits

https://cleanenergyrevolution.co/2023/09/18/musk-wanted-to-spy-on-drivers-to-defend-tesla-from-lawsuits/

by unsolved73 • 3 years ago

182 181 3 years ago

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

Yet another in the growing list of reasons to never buy a Tesla. I would go further, that this is an instinct that Musk has tells me strongly to avoid using anything Musk has his fingers in.

toss1• 3 years ago

Yup.

It might be OK if the drivers could also spy on Tesla's development, or at least the internals of it's cars, but Musk would certainly go into a rage against that...

On avoiding anything built by Musk, agree that is a hard NOPE. And I've defended Musk's accomplishments on here multiple times, but before he revealed his technical cluelessness and authoritarian sympathies. Sad, really.

oh_sigh• 3 years ago

When I learned about that interior camera in my Model Y, this is exactly what I thought might happen. But, I didn't want to cover it, because I wasn't sure if that would look suspicious in the case I was in an accident.

wasdfff• 3 years ago

Nothing like buying yourself a telescreen

tw042• 3 years ago

I wasn't sure if that would look suspicious in the case I was in an accident.

No reasonable person would fault you for covering the camera. Assuming you still have the car, you have endless ammo for doing so. Including the fact that tesla employees were caught sharing video that was supposedly private.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...

NegativeK• 3 years ago

It's suspicious if you habitually cover it right before the sensors show you're driving like a jackass.

I stuck a sliding webcam cover over it and have had no reason to uncover it.

FridayNightTV• 3 years ago

When I learned about that interior camera in my Model Y

Wait, Tesla cars video their users? Seriously?

I'm gobsmacked users tolerate and agree to this.

redox99• 3 years ago

But, I didn't want to cover it, because I wasn't sure if that would look suspicious in the case I was in an accident.

Now that's some chilling effect

mensetmanusman3• 3 years ago

All new cars have cameras, even ones that can see your eyes behind your sun glasses.

hindsightbias• 3 years ago

Could someone invent a hologram cover for the camera that fools it?

techdmn• 3 years ago

I covered mine with a bit of post-it note. I'm sure masking tape would do the trick as well.

rjzzleep• 3 years ago

That didn't stop people from using Uber did it...

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

I don't use Uber simply because I prefer to avoid doing business with companies that gleefully and intentionally break the law.

I'm not concerned with what others do. I only have control over my own decisions.

bigtex• 3 years ago

I am surprised he just doesn't ignore the FAA and launch his rocket anyways. Not like anyone is going to do anything about it.

haliskerbas2• 3 years ago

He got away with the weed thing which IIUC would have revoked someone’s security clearance. Maybe I’m misremembering.

vel0city4• 3 years ago

I mean he did before, I'm surprised he's not continuing to ignore them. Maybe the lawyers got through to the other investors in SpaceX.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-vi...

burkaman2• 3 years ago

He has done that of course: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/15/22352366/elon-musk-spacex.... And yes nobody did anything about it.

OrvalWintermute• 3 years ago

We have cockpit cameras in many vehicles - planes, some trains, other vehicles.

If we are going to have 4 cameras doing outward data collection, it makes sense we'd have them facing inward also.

The question to me isn't the presence of a camera or not for accident reconstruction, but if it is being actively used when not involved in an accident in a big brother sense, and if user data if being unfairly monetized, and if this permitted a user to disable it in most cases (except accidents), or if the driven is operating in a professional capacity and must have the camera enabled for personal safety reasons.

On the other hand I have a number of kids, and we have a plan for our au pair to drive the children. For this, it would be useful if we had in vehicle monitoring and tracking of speed, etc. We don't want an infant being driven to an appointment like the au pair is on the Indy 500.

toast0• 3 years ago

Those cockpit cameras are in the context of employment and also the context where all incidents are investigated with at least a stated goal of improving safety.

Personal vehicle accidents are rarely investigated, and when they are, it's almost always with a goal of assigning responsibility.

Why would I pay for something that is going to record me and most of the time be useful most for assigning responsibility to me?

If there was a culture that most/all traffic collisions would be investigated and remediations would be taken, then sure. But it's very rare to have an thorough investigation, and it's even rarer for remidiations to be taken. Many locales have 'known dangerous' intersections where there's no consideration of design change. There's no mechanism to provide ongoing training to drivers (in the US).

yincrash• 3 years ago

While avoiding a Tesla will avoid Musk, it won't avoid privacy nightmares - Mozilla did a report on every car brand, and every car brand is terrible on privacy "They’re all bad" - https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article...

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

Yes, this is why I won't be buying any modern cars. But my stance with Musk is deeper: I won't be buying anything from a Musk-involved company.

tbyehl• 3 years ago

They're all bad but I'm reasonably certain that any car company not ran by Musk won't respond to public complaints by combing through my data and publishing whatever they find to Twitter and calling me names.

katbyte• 3 years ago

Might be all bad but even from your own link some are more bad then others:

"Tesla is only the second product we have ever reviewed to receive all of our privacy “dings.” (The first was an AI chatbot we reviewed earlier this year.) What set them apart was earning the “untrustworthy AI” ding. The brand’s AI-powered autopilot was reportedly involved in 17 deaths and 736 crashes and is currently the subject of multiple government investigations."

gooseus• 3 years ago

I used to think that Musk and Tesla would die a death by a thousand cuts to their brand, but it turns out that public perception is more of an anti-fragile system, so every scandal they survive only makes them more resilient to the next scandal.

sircastor2• 3 years ago

I've had the same thought about some US politicians recently. I think there's an element of feeling shame that connects public perception about a scandal. More and more we're seeing people who refuse to publicly express remorse, or even acknowledge that something they did was wrong or should be considered wrong.

And the way that public perception works, if you have enough "True believers" who shout loudly when someone tries to speak ill of you, it all seems to be just water off a duck's back.

panick21_3• 3 years ago

Because about 90% of these 'cuts' are things most people simple don't care about.

One comment of Musk doing something that online 'leftist' don't like will have far, far, far more reach then some technical point about the driver monitor system or privacy concern.

And at the same time all the other companies have just as many 'cuts'. VW is still popular and they don't have cuts but rather literally holes in their brand.

User23• 3 years ago

What legally keeps them from just putting that you agree to be snooped on in the Terms of Service?

malermeister2• 3 years ago

In Europe, the GDPR.

hammock• 3 years ago

What does it cost to import to the US a Tesla made for Europe?

r053bud• 3 years ago

It’s already in the TOS that not a single Tesla owner read

pierat• 3 years ago

You mean the thing that pops up on the dashboard that threatens to revoke usage of your cellphone-on-wheels if you dont "accept", even after a bill of sale was made with respect to the state?

unforeseen9991• 3 years ago

I'd be surprised if it's not already there due to the fact there's already internal cameras?

ilyt• 3 years ago

Actual news would be him not wanting to do it.

kneel• 3 years ago

There are several videos on PH of ppl doing the deed while autopilot drives the car for them, not saying that excuses privacy concerns but this issue is complicated by a rollout of autonomous features.

Tesla wants your car to do most of the work but doesn't want to be liable if you're not paying attention and/or misusing the feature.

ElectricalUnion• 3 years ago

by a rollout of autonomous features

I thought no car had SAE driving automation 5 (steering wheel optional driving) yet, even thought Tesla specifically sells their SAE driving automation 2 (hands off driving) driver assistance as "Full Self-Driving".

paxys• 3 years ago

So every company that ever sells me anything should be able to install cameras in my house, because I could potentially use the product incorrectly and then sue them for it, and they need to protect themselves.

henry2023• 3 years ago

I bet Meta would love to be an intermediary between your in-house footage and those wonderful and benevolent corporations

sundarurfriend• 3 years ago

several videos on PH

Philippines? Seems unlikely that Tesla is that common there.

Product Hunt? Even if they added a video feature, this seems a weird thing to post there.

OH! PornHub!

neilv• 3 years ago

It's a little poetic: the techbros got the money to buy those Teslas through worse secret privacy violations of everyone else.

dmm2• 3 years ago

Every car will soon have inward facing cameras.

In the 2021 infrastructure bill, by 2026 cars have to include technology that must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”

The most straightforward way to implement this is with driver-facing cameras: "Sam Abuelsamid, principal mobility analyst for Guidehouse Insights, said the most likely system to prevent drunken driving is infrared cameras that monitor driver behavior."

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-te...

legitster4• 3 years ago

The guy interviewed about his camera technology was desperately trying to pitch it.

But I think this is honestly unlikely - watching driver behavior is probably the worst indicator for drunk driving. You are way better off just using the lane telemetry data.

dmm2• 3 years ago

watching driver behavior is probably the worst indicator for drunk driving.

I think surveillance is (mostly) the point. I guess we'll see. I'd be happy to be wrong.

jstarfish2• 3 years ago

But I think this is honestly unlikely - watching driver behavior is probably the worst indicator for drunk driving. You are way better off just using the lane telemetry data.

Yep. It's the lane drift that would give the cops probable cause to pull you over for DUI in the first place.

GPS could attest that you were recently parked at a bar.

The most the internal camera might see is an open container.

dilyevsky• 3 years ago

Pretty sure you’re wrong here. There are already gaze tracking systems deployed in cadillacs and other high end cars. It’s probably decently easy to tell if someone is passing out or just not paying attention with a neural net at this point

justinzollars• 3 years ago

"infrastructure" China builds infrastructure. The United States is simply Orwellian.

yardie2• 3 years ago

Drifting lanes, sluggish driving, aggressive driving, ignoring or delaying traffic control devices. These are all signs of impaired or distracted driving and none of it requires a camera being pointed at you.

tzs• 3 years ago

For cars with the various modern assistance features you could probably do driver impairment detection without any interior sensors. Here are some things that might help detect impairment, especially if the car can identify the driver and so compare their performance on this trip with prior trips.

• Data from the lane assist system about how much the driver is drifting side to side in their lane. An impaired driver will tend to drift more.

• Data from the automatic braking system about how quickly the driver is reacting to obstacles. An impaired driver will tend to come closer to needing the automatic braking system.

• For cars that are aware of traffic lights [1], how quickly the driver starts moving again when a red changed to green. Impaired drivers will tend to take longer.

• How quickly the driver starts moving after a car in front of them that was stopped starts moving. That most likely would happen at traffic lights, so similar to the previous item, but does not require the car to know about traffic lights. It just needs to know that there is something in the way and when it leaves, which the collision avoidance system or automatic braking system can likely sense.

• How much variation there is in speed in areas where the speed limit is not changing. How well the driver adjusts their speed when the speed limit changes. How much the driver is speeding. Impaired people are probably more likely to have large variations in speed, be slow to react to changes in speed limits, and more likely to speed.

If we throw in interior behavior too climate control settings might be useful. Some kinds of impairment change subjective impressions of climate, so if a person is setting the heating or cooling to values that are inconsistent with the current weather and their past history in those conditions it could point to impairment.

[1] I remember Audi once announced a system that would watch traffic lights to figure out a good speed to try to hit all the greens, but I don't know if that caught on, or if any other car makers found reasons to include traffic light sensors.

vel0city4• 3 years ago

Imagine a world where you're considered a drunk driver because you decided you wanted the AC a little cooler and you were a little slower off the line at a stop light than some historical average. Sounds like a wonderful future.

cge• 3 years ago

A problem with those types of indicators is that they can often alternatively indicate an attentive driver handling situations the assistance features don't understand.

A driver may seem to be drifting in lanes because the car's sense of the lanes may be wrong, or may not fit what traffic is actually doing. Large variations in speed in areas where the speed limit isn't changing could indicate difficult traffic or road conditions. Slow reactions to green lights could indicate congestion, obstructions or heavy pedestrian traffic (eg, needing to wait for late crossers at each intersection in a busy city). Climate could be an indication of the condition of passengers, especially for people who specifically drive groups because they aren't impaired when the rest of the group is.

throw10920• 3 years ago

If true, this is horribly dystopic. Why aren't privacy activists up in arms about this?

legitster4• 3 years ago

By recording driver behavior, Musk could argue that driver error led to the accidents rather than Tesla technology

We really need the US government to iron out the liability questions around self-driving. It's kind of a joke at this point.

Tesla is offering people the ability to NOT DRIVE. In the case of an accident, they want to prove that the driver was being negligent by NOT DRIVING.

Or you can take GM's approach and literally have cameras pointed at your eyes to make sure they are looking at the road and a steering wheel that can tell when you let go. And disable your ability to NOT DRIVE, whenever they detect you NOT DRIVING.

In comparison, Tesla is at least being an "honest liar". They are giving you what you want, which is borderline illegal, and will rat you out for using it the first chance they get.

misiti3780• 3 years ago

I recommend you read the biography and not some blog taking an entire chapter and turning it into a few sentence out of context, there was a lot more nuance in the book

nanidin2• 3 years ago

FSD does use the internal camera to enforce eyes on the road hands on the wheel. It’s actually worse for road-trips on the highway than plain autopilot for this reason, aside from the fact that FSD will automatically pass and change lanes.

loandbehold• 3 years ago

Autopilot will nag you every 30 seconds if it doesn't detect hands on steering wheel.

onlyrealcuzzo• 3 years ago

Who could possibly imagine something called Autopilot wouldn't require you to be in full control of car at all times?

anonymousab• 3 years ago

An interesting bit of history is that autopilot was one of the first common terms for cruise control, and was in use until at least the mid 60s.

That is far enough back to not have any relevance to Tesla's current customer demographic though.

adrr5• 3 years ago

Article is referring to Tesla's Full Self Driving feature not Autopilot.

avgcorrection• 3 years ago

Yeah I hate the idea of semi-autonomous vehicles (a vehicle that can handle any kind of situation all by itself [terms and conditions may apply]). You can't make a 95% solution in this space.

nomel• 3 years ago

I suspect the "out of the loop" problem [1] is going to make the last 10% very dangerous.

The out of the loop performance problem arises when operators suffer from complacency and vigilance decrement

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.0054...

hcurtiss6• 3 years ago

True, but what about 99.999%? https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-autopil...

nradov• 3 years ago

Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE". They might do so eventually, but all that they actually offer today is an advanced driver assistance system.

There is no need for the US government to make any changes to liability laws. Almost all such cases are handled at the state level.

Mercedes-Benz has gone quite a bit further and is now offering a true SAE level 3 autonomous driving system. It is significantly more advanced and reliable than the Tesla system. And they stand behind it by assuming liability for collisions.

https://media.mbusa.com/releases/release-1d2a8750850333f086a...

outworlder• 3 years ago

Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE". They might do so eventually, but all that they actually offer today is an advanced driver assistance system.

That's not really what they are selling though, and that's one of the problems.

hnburnsy• 3 years ago

Mercedes-Benz has gone quite a bit further and is now offering a true SAE level 3 autonomous driving system. It is significantly more advanced and reliable than the Tesla system.

Is it? From your link...

On suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic density, DRIVE PILOT can offer to take over the dynamic driving task, up to speeds of 40 mph...DRIVE PILOT available in the U.S. for model year 2024 S‑Class and EQS Sedan models, with the first cars delivered to customers in late 2023

So very limited driving scenarios and extremely limited product availability.

acdha2• 3 years ago

Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE"

This is technically correct but they, and especially Musk’s public comments, are pretty fast and loose around that. He’s been claiming L5 will be available in 1-2 years since 2016:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-directo...

Remember when they claimed that the driver in their promotional video was only there for legal reasons because the car was driving itself? Someone who paid extra for FSD back then has probably already sold the vehicle without ever getting it:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/elon-musk...

kwhitefoot3• 3 years ago

It is restricted to 40 mph (70 km/h) and it is restricted to just a few limited access roads (just a few sections of the autobahn).

This means that it is useful only dense, slow moving, traffic. That is scarcely better in practice than my 2015 Model S with first generation Autosteer.

tensor3• 3 years ago

As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING. It is advanced cruise control and you need to be attentive. Even full self driving does many many things imperfectly, requiring you to take over. I'm not even talking about dangerous situations, just regular driving. It often won't move over when you want, it's too rough taking off ramps, and so on.

If you want to go down the road of regulation, I would like to see ALL driving assists subjected to the same laws. So no cruise control for you without cameras watching your eyes and all the rest. Though personally, I think it's fine as it is, making it very clear that you are still driving. Tesla doesn't do well at the latter in their marketing.

burnte• 3 years ago

As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING.

And yet they're allowed to market it as "auto pilot" which is clearly an "I'm not required to be attentive" message. I agree, though, it's advanced cruise but not true driverless driving. It's not even worth it, to me. If I have not only monitor the road but "someone else's" driving, that's more work than just driving.

nlh2• 3 years ago

Serious question for fellow Tesla drivers: Does anyone currently use FSD? What's the value prop? I just got a Model Y and tried it out (it came with a 3 month free trial) and found it awful. To the point of this comment -- it's called "Autopilot" but it yells at you (and punishes you!) if you look at your phone or stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel.

I just can't imagine this being something I'd pay an extra $199/month (or $15,000) for after the trial's over.

I much prefer the Waymo / Cruise vision of a car I can sit in as a passenger, not this weird hybrid "still need to pay full attention but have none of the control of being an actual driver" version Tesla is offering.

But maybe I'm missing something...?

EDIT: I'm a terrible nerd and confused FSD and Autopilot. What I'm really asking about is FSD (Full Self Driving). Sorry about that!

vel0city4• 3 years ago

But maybe I'm missing something...?

I think so, because FSD != Autopilot, and if its nagging you constantly about paying attention you're not in FSD.

I'm not arguing that FSD is any good or with it, I'm just suggesting you didn't actually use Tesla "FSD".

fragmede• 3 years ago

Waymo / Cruise is limited to San Francisco, and isn't generally available right now. FSD is available today and can access freeways for long distance driving. SF to LA or NYC to Boston, say. FSD > Autopilot. Even if you have to pay attention, it still makes the drive easier - at the end of the drive you're less exhausted.

csa3• 3 years ago

it's called "Autopilot" but it yells at you (and punishes you!) if you look at your phone or stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel.

There are many things to break down here:

1. FSD sucks mostly sucks (as commenters have alluded to). Autopilot is quite good, although it does “fuss at you” for things you mentioned.

2. Autopilot is a misnomer. What the feature as documented does versus what the name suggests are not the same. Imho, this is actually a marketing failure by Tesla — calling it “Advanced Cruise Control” or some made up name would have been just fine.

3. You should keep your eyes on the road when using advanced cruise control.

4. Related, you should not be looking at your phone while you are driving (with the exception of maybe a quick look at a message when you’re stopped).

5. You actually can take your hands off the wheel, often for quite a bit of time, while in autopilot. Also, just touching it is not enough — there needs to be some tension on the wheel. This is not hard to do, and is a reasonable ask imho.

6. To stop the car from fussing at you about a few things, I recommend getting a little slide cover to cover the interior camera that you can get on Amazon for $5-10. Works like a charm.

FireBeyond2• 3 years ago

will rat you out for using it the first chance they get

In one fatal collision, Tesla held a press conference to throw blame at the driver and away from their autonomous systems.

They pulled telemetry and stood up at the conference and said that Tesla was not at fault because "the driver had been inattentive and the vehicle had warned him of this".

What later came out was that the vehicle had warned him to keep his hands on the wheel...

Once. Eighteen. Minutes prior to the collision.

Jensson• 3 years ago

But the way human bias works it doesn't matter much whether the statement was correct for tribal disagreements, the fanboys will believe it and the haters wont, at least short term.

Musk was smart to spend that much time cultivating a fanbase who will believe stuff like that.

_ea1k5• 3 years ago

If you are a driver suing, wouldn't you want this data to prove your case? That the company recognizes it would help their case instead and the accusers wouldn't want it is itself interesting.

Also, these cameras shouldn't exist in non-robotaxi use cases. And since Teslas don't exist as robotaxis, that means these cameras shouldn't exist too.

chihuahua• 3 years ago

Whenever the video helps the company, it will be used in any lawsuit.

Whenever the video would help the driver, it was mysteriously lost due to an unforseen technical glitch.

_ea1k5• 3 years ago

AFAIK, these are stored locally. I think some third party shops are able to recover them? At least they can for the other cameras.

mensetmanusman3• 3 years ago

The government is requiring they exist for driver monitoring.

_ea1k5• 3 years ago

I don't think the government requires storage or transmission. Competing systems don't all do it in as intrusive of a way.

CP3f6kMA• 3 years ago

I would rather I have control and the data never leaves my possession unless absolutely required.

_ea1k5• 3 years ago

I completely agree.

travisporter• 3 years ago

I wish there was like a debunking or common counterarguments website or something to everyone who gives the same excuses to forgive this behavior - I have nothing to hide, everyone’s doing it, I’m not significant enough for them to spy on me, they have to make money somehow etc. As it stands, I feel like even if they started live-streaming every camera on YouTube, people would still not care

throwaway1281282• 3 years ago

From the book on Musk:

Musk was not happy. The concept of “privacy teams” did not warm his heart. “I am the decision-maker at this company, not the privacy team,” he said. “I don’t even know who they are. They are so private you never know who they are.” There were some nervous laughs. “Perhaps we can have a pop-up where we tell people that if they use FSD [Full Self-Driving], we will collect data in the event of a crash,” he suggested. “Would that be okay?”

The woman thought about it for a moment, then nodded. “As long as we are communicating it to customers, I think we’re okay with that.”

Glad this guy is the richest man in the world, we are in good hands. It's so comforting to see Musk's attitude when he found out about the privacy team and their temerity to bind him with silly "privacy rules".

hn1986• 3 years ago

Curious why so many people who are sensitive to privacy issues here ignore massive data collection and privacy flaws in Tesla?

throwaway1281282• 3 years ago

Cognitive dissonance

rchaud2• 3 years ago

Musk proposed a pop-up message, informing customers that data would be collected if they used the Full Self-Driving Beta feature. This placated the manager.

Anybody building Ublock Element Zapper for TeslaOS?

mensetmanusman3• 3 years ago

First they used the data to defend Tesla from NYT reporters:

https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/14/elon-musk-lays-out-his-evi...

This is our future unless the govt demands companies stop spying.

mcpackieh3• 3 years ago

Didn't Tesla also use car telemetry data in their feud with Top Gear? I think this goes way back.

FireBeyond2• 3 years ago

And to attempt to throw the driver in a fatal collision under the bus, holding a press conference to let the public know the vehicle was warning him about being inattentive, but not mentioning that it had warned him once, and that that was nearly eighteen minutes before the collision.

malermeister2• 3 years ago

This is what the GDPR is for, the same regulation this site loves to hate.

pupppet• 3 years ago

Is autopilot really that important to everyone? I can't say I've ever been driving thinking I wish I could be doing absolutely nothing right now.

jstarfish2• 3 years ago

Traffic is a fucking nightmare in Atlanta and Los Angeles, and Atlanta's mass transit sucks bigtime. Having FSD crawl along in low gear while you read the news or finish getting dressed would make for a way more tolerable commute.

yomlica8• 3 years ago

Which, ironically, will make traffic worse by increasing the maximum amount of it a person can endure.

kayodelycaon• 3 years ago

My car has lane centering and radar cruise control. I use it frequently on dry, well-marked highways. It allows me to drive with less mental energy because I don’t have to steer the car or maintain speed.

My hands are always on the wheel and I’m still watching everything as if I was driving. It does a good job under ideal conditions.

This may not seem like much but it adds up over a multi-hour trip.

In rain or snow, I tend to avoid any automation to keep continuous awareness of how much traction my tires have. Too many people have died when automation hides problems until failure and then squishy thing behind the controls gets surprised.

yardie2• 3 years ago

I use it because the Tesla infotainment system is garbage and quite limited compared to Carplay/Android Auto. And I need to look away and at my phone to use proper apps like Waze, Apple Maps, Overcast, etc.

The onboard Spotify app, for example, doesn't do HD audio and doesn't load playlists completely. Tesla, rather than giving customers what they want, would prefer they deal with their limited inhouse system.

$12/15k for FSD never made sense to me. Tesla is moving to subscriptions where development comes at $200/mo and customers don't have to assume all the risk.

adrr5• 3 years ago

Funny thing is if you paid for FSD in full, you'll never get a car that will be able to have self driving. They are upgrading the hardware again which includes new cameras. I bet it goes two or three more iterations before we have level 3. I have FSD but it was only $1500 or so not $15k. I have come to the realization my car will never be able to drive by itself.

jrflowers2• 3 years ago

I’ve had several conversations on this very website wherein people declined to ballpark the number of deaths caused by self-driving cars that would be unacceptable in pursuit of the imminent self-driving utopia, which they declined to describe or make a guess to when (or if) it might come to be.

There is a very vocal group of people that are adamant that the ability to fully dedicate themselves to perineum sunning along the I-5 corridor is a societal Good that eclipses any amount of loss of life, and certainly any other safety or privacy concerns.

cs702• 3 years ago

The road to privacy hell is paved with... financial motives.

(Paraphrasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with... )

panick21_3• 3 years ago

Is it just me or is it totally reasonable in a review the cars sensor data in a case of an accident?

moogly• 3 years ago

By an independent, third party, yes.

panick21_3• 3 years ago

That exactly what happening here. This is how a lawsuit or investigation should be handled.

mannyv• 3 years ago

It's not spying if consent is given.

The good thing is that every idea is considered. The bad thing is that every idea is considered.

The difference, in Musk organizations, is that ideas are aired out. You might think that's a bad thing, but would you rather have this executives slipping backdoors into your products without anyone knowing?

If you notice, the manager in question wasn't afraid to push back on Musk. That's a big difference between Musk companies and your company: in your company a manager would probably fold and just do it.

GaryNumanVevo2• 3 years ago

Not to mention Tesla employees were sharing pictures and videos of customer's external cameras. Including Elon's own Tesla.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...

nojvek• 3 years ago

Tesla has good ideas, but stupid execution.

Comma.ai has driver monitoring, GM cars have driver monitoring, Hyundai/Toyotas and probably many others yell at you if the hands are not on the steering wheel.

Tesla pure vision based autopilot makes a ton of bad decisions and sudden turns that no sane human will ever make.

Yes, on principle I agree that vision via cameras should be sufficient for perception. However the algorithms and training are not there yet.

Kudos to Waymo and Cruise getting license to operate in California without drivers 24/7 and doing 100s of successful rides per day. We can shit on them for using 250,000 lidar rigs that only companies blessed by infinite VC money can afford but they passed that objective milestone. Tesla has not and probably unlikely for next 5 years.

Waymo and Cruise have shown that they actually give a fuck about safety, while Tesla has their heads in sand ignoring what their system is actually capable of offloading risk to their drivers.

Musk Wanted to Spy on Drivers to Defend Tesla from Lawsuits

Related Stories