Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway12757 | Hacker News Reader

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.

>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.

This really seems like the right way to go about it. If all Tesla sees are those pre-defined flags (EYES_OPEN, HEAD_DOWN, etc.) then I would consider the tradeoff worthwhile.

With an unrestricted video stream, car manufacturers can & will use that data to determine your insurance rate, whether your are using the car for personal vs. rideshare purposes, etc.

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

I talk to myself, a lot. And I talk to others as well. How is this not a privacy concern? I also look sad, or look happy. I really don't want anyone to be able to sell me things based on the days I smile the most.

Do Teslas (or other cars) phone home and report where they've been? (DriveNow BMWs, which are technically rentals, do that, so they have that capability.) Have you driven anywhere where -- if you were to run for office -- you wouldn't want the public to know? Or, how would you change your behavior and places you visited if you knew you were "being watched"?

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

I think detecting when a driver is falling asleep could be an amazing safety feature. You would need privacy guarantees about where camera data is going, but I think it would be worth the tradeoff.

> 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 labels on the Model 3/Y "selfie" camera:

BLINDED

DARK

EYES_CLOSED

EYES_DOWN

EYES_NOMINAL

EYES_UP

HEAD_DOWN

HEAD_TRUNC

LOOKING_LEFT

LOOKING_RIGHT

PHONE_USE

SUNGLASSES_EYES_LIKELY_NOMINAL

SUNGLASSES_LIKELY_EYES_DOWN

Maybe I'm missing something. But it seems like an apples to oranges in comparison to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but Comma.ai's driving monitoring feature is currently the only one in production that is comparable.

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.

False positives are a minor annoyance. False negatives are potentially catastrophic. So for this kinds of systems it makes sense to skew towards false positives. It is always a tradeoff.

They were definitely annoying alright. Even the collision detection on our previous MBenz SUV would go off at certain roads that were perfectly clear of obstacles.

Since OTA is not a thing on most cars. This becomes a permanent problem that a dealership cannot fix. Even if they wanted too.

With a Tesla (only one in the industry AFAIK), you can submit a bug report at the exact location via voice and a future software update might address it.

Open Pilot's driver monitoring could be improved. After the last update I got a ton of false positives when driving at night. Nighttime would make driver monitoring more difficult, but it's also when people are more likely to be distracted.

should be fixed in 0.7.9 https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/issues/2139

I agree. The great thing about software is you can always iteratively improve it over time. As long as you're not reaching the hardware limits.

Super Cruise also has a DM system which from what I hear is pretty good

Yes. Super Cruise is pretty good. The only caveat is that it only works on limited-access freeways.

https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/cadillac-to-increa...

Correction: atleast both seeing machines and smart eye has system in cars today that are more advanced. (GM, BMW etc)

I have actually tried BMW Smart Eye and GM super cruise. Comma.ai’s Open Pilot driver monitoring is far superior to both of those.

What OP was implying, is that the Tesla system mentioned on the article is on par with offerings from other OEMs from 14 years ago.

How did you try them? I thought they were hidden deep down away behind the OEM layers?

I have tried their the demo systems at several occasions, (they have been developong them in 20y) but not comma.ai's.

For example they calculate the opening speed of your eyelid with high precision, the gaze direction output is within a few degrees of error. You can almost cover your complete face and it will still track your head pose with extreme precision. The list of outputs are long. Pupils, glasses, faceid, blinks (velocity, duration), drowsiness /, perclose, the 3d geometry of the head, facemasks, gender, and a lotbof aggregatet values.

But comma.ai maybr has this too?

I don't believe you.

Open Pilot can't use your blindspot cameras or any other additional sensors in your car. If I try to merge into another lane, and someone is in my blind spot, Open Pilot will try (and will crash my car).

Super Cruise and Smart Eye don't have this problem.

And yes, I have an Open Pilot for my Lexus RX 450h.

I thought the topic of this thread was driver monitoring and driver drowsiness detection?

What you're describing is the entire semi-automated driving system + driver monitoring feature. Another Apple to Oranges comparison...

It's obvious to anyone familiar with Open Pilot that it can't access OEM blindspot cameras since it only uses the Comma Two smartphone cameras and hooks into CANBUS. So I am not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

Seeing machines and Smart Eye are DMS (driver monitoring systems). They have only acces to 1 camera in these cars and outputs details of the driver (gaze direction, head pose, eyelid etc.). What and how the outputs are used for are up to the OEM.

> Not even close in terms of complexity.

You are asserting with no idea whatsoever, or relevance really given you're apparently ignoring that I was answering a very specific comment.

> 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. ️

One, it really is not, there's nothing impressive-looking so far. Two, tesla's record of "game changing" is mostly "game changing marketing", and while you should absolutely feel free to give them all the benefit of every doubt, I really don't feel so inclined.

> The "hacker" mentioned in this article discovered these detection labels on the Model 3/Y "selfie" camera:

These are just events it might be able to generate, it tells you nothing about how well the events are detected and how the consumer of those events integrates them.

What do you think exactly, that other manufacturers just get a magical yes/no blob?

> You are asserting with no idea whatsoever, or relevance really given you're apparently ignoring that I was answering a very specific comment.

I am directly addressing your comment about "DMS/DAM". How is that not relevant?

> One, it really is not, there's nothing impressive-looking so far.

What is impressive to you? That's what the critics said when the iPhone 1 was announced. That's what many also said about electric cars. Funny how the metrics (sales/safety) played out on that one.

> These are just events it might be able to generate, it tells you nothing about how well the events are detected and how the consumer of those events integrates them.

The fact that it can detect those events using a specialized redundant NPU hardware is a far cry from "Driver drowsiness detection" and "DMS/DAM" from "14 years ago". Hence, an apple to oranges comparison.

> What do you think exactly, that other manufacturers just get a magical yes/no blob?

It's interesting you ask that, because they mostly are binary logic if you look at the ECU firmware. Some "Driver drowsiness detection" (MBenz) systems will also just beep at random intervals after driving non-stop for 1 hour. But they still market them as being able to "detect" drowsiness.

George Hotz talked about this many times. They also don't have any firmware code signing whatsoever (esp Toyota) which presents a security risk.

Out of curiosity, which of the DMS/DAM systems do you have experience with?

If history is a teacher, Musk is going to invent it in few years.

An actual few years, or a "fully self driving cars are a few years away" few years?

There are a lot of features that are, in and of themselves, really great, but I would not use until the privacy and data sharing issues are resolved. This is unfortunately a growing problem that many device manufacturers and software makers are making worse.

You have to opt-in to send any of that to Tesla.

For now...

They legally can't change that unless the law changes.

I value technical impossibility much higher than legal prohibition.

A piece of electrical tape works very well. I don't see what the fuss is.

Then disconnect the modem or cut the antenna.

Then don't buy it?

The don't buy it argument has never held up. Look at phones, the options for a removable battery, sd card slot, 3.5mm jack are all gone on all but the most primitive/weird models of phones.

If the general public goes against your preference then your preference will no longer be an option. For cars this likely means that the only way to get a car that isn't spyware/ad tech will be buying an old car before this happened. That option eventually becomes more and more difficult until you give up and accept whatever the corporations are pushing.

This is a problem of society zeroing in on the most convenient technology. You still today are not forced to buy a phone nor a car, but if you want any chance of making a living more than 5 miles away from your home (well, depending on how far you can walk or bike) you need both a cell phone for receiving work-related communication and a car for getting to/from work on time. The problem is that 99%+ of society sees that receiving cooler, better tech (like a faster phone or a more efficient car) is a worthy tradeoff for the issues that only <%1 of consumers aren't happy with.

Better buy a bike then. I’m glad that a small minority of luddites can’t hold everybody else back from making progress.

I'd like technical progress to be in service of the user and all their rights, not of corporations that apparently value covering their asses above creating value for their clients. Legal measures ensuring the ability in all situations to physically turn off privacy-invading features, plus the right to repair and tinker, would be a good start. Forcing free software would be even better.

You absolutely have the right to use the power of your wallet to try to force those changes. However, again, the vast majority of consumers have voted with their wallets and they do not care for the same set of features that you care about. The vast majority feel that it would make the product experience significantly worse. What use do I have for a headphone jack when I have AirPods? What use do I have for a replaceable battery when it would make my device thicker, heavier, and much less pleasant to use?

It’s a good thing indefatigable contrarians like you don’t get to drive product decisions.

I somewhat agree its a good thing that all tech is not driven by complaints but the problem is virtually every single phone is the same thing. When changes something and you don't like it, you better get used to it because next year every single android phone will have the same change because they all target the mass market unless you look at ultra budget android go phones.

The AirPods might be really nice and not nearly as problematic as the initial reactions predicted but they are still massively more expensive than wired headphones and made a huge collection of existing working headphones obsolete.

Indeed, another problem is the infinite stream of waste being produced.

Not everyone would agree that active cameras pointed at you and phoning home in otherwise semi private situations is progress.

There’s an easy solution if you don’t like it: put a piece of tape over the lens. I’m not sure what y’all are doing in your cars but if you like to get wild then by all means do so, just take precautions.

Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is just about the most compelling reason one should have to sacrifice privacy like this.

People have, on the whole, emphatically demonstrated their complete inability to drive responsibly. ~40k deaths, hundreds of thousands of serious injuries, and nearly a trillion dollars in costs every year. Overwhelmingly due to driver error and negligence.

Per the article: This is opt in.

It seems like they're working on an on-board system to detect distracted drivers.

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

Yep. You're right. This is why I put a piece black electrical tape over the rear-facing camera in my Model Y.

Does that mean you have no backup camera now?

No. They have a rear-facing camera that shows the interior of the car and then they have one that is located above the license plate.

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.

Right. Should.

But given Tesla's history of skirting other legal rules, and their history of releasing driver data from autopilot accidents, I would expect the opt-out to operate more as "we record anyway and then delete it after the fact if you opt out and we don't need the data to protect Tesla."

~85% of cars have EDR (event data recorders) which are always recording locally.

NHTSA requires cars with EDRs to record 15 specific attributes. They’ve also considered making EDRs mandatory, but basically didn’t bother since the vast majority of cars already have them.

You need an EDR to implement ADAS features, and some of those are becoming mandatory.

The only thing opt-in is remote data sharing.

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

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.

What data did they release from any accident? If you're going to keep spamming the comments of this thread with claims that Tesla releases the data it collects, you need to support those claims.

Tesla has never released the data from an accident. They only release their assessment of the data to authorities and authorities have decided whether to communicate that to the public.

Tesla's public statement as posted in their blog:

> The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision. The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator, but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...

This is from March 30 2018 (the accident occurred on March 23). The NTSB and Tesla dissolved the commitment to investigate in parallel as a consequence of this premature release of data in an attempt to exonerate themselves.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/12/17229518/tesla-ntsb-autop...

It's also quite telling that part of Tesla's statement to the press at that time included of the following:

> Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect ... yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location

The NTSB report didn't come out until Feb 11, 2020.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20200211.as...

Tesla absolutely intentionally released log data on their own.

EDIT: "If you're going to keep spamming the comments of this thread" This was both unnecessary and untrue. With this comment, I'm up to a grand total of two comments in this entire article's discussion thread.

Last I checked, releasing a summary of selective data points from a vehicle's recording device is...releasing data.

Tesla may not release all of the data (and it's clear from their selection of data that they do not), but they definitely do release some data.

Indeed, Tesla's release of data is worse than nothing, because they only release data that slanders the deceased drivers when autopilot was the cause of the crashes in all cases.

> This is opt in.

It's opt-in until an insurance company mandates it (or heavily encourages it).

I see this as a safety measure just to ensure driver isn’t distracted or sleeping for the car to alert.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com