Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

> The vehicles also record speed, accelerator pedal position, steering wheel angle and brake usage, and depending on how the vehicle is used, that data can be stored for over a year.

Tesla really seems to have an extreme amount of personal data capture combined with always-on remote access.

It’s fascinating to watch people swear off Amazon Echo and delete their Facebook over privacy concerns but then proudly drive around in a vehicle that records everything, stores everything, and gives opaque data access to the parent company. In this case, a parent company with a reputation for bending the rules to suit their needs.

Really goes to show how much the computing privacy debate is a matter of brand loyalties and each company’s position on the hype cycle more than anything else.

View on HN

I feel like there's only a very small intersection between the Facebook-avoiding, home assistant-eschewing crowd and the Tesla driving crowd.

Anecdotal I know, but most people I know who drive Teslas have multiple home assistants, Instagram/Facebook accounts, and little regard for personal privacy.

Most people I know in the social media/home assistant avoiding crowd talk about how they wish they could buy a car with 90s tech (but 2021 safety tech) to make it simpler and cheaper to repair, since they don't care about CarPlay or Android Auto or the million "convenience" features that don't work reliably.

I’d agree with that. We own Teslas but have no home assistants, use Facebook as little as possible, and buy Apple products because of their privacy stance. Nuance is important. I trust Tesla and Apple with my data, but not Facebook, Google, or Amazon.

Contributing in small part to the electrification of transportation is more important to us than any benefit I’d enjoy from Tesla collecting less or no data from our vehicles.

But why one companies and not the other in terms of trust? It’s not like there are inherently different types of people working at one company vs the other. I’m curious.

Tesla doesn’t make money via ad targeting and sales.

Yet. As soon as data is stored/archived, it can be used later for any purpose. Even if the original company has no desire to do so, acquisitions/mergers/sales/trusted-third-parties could.

The world is full of trade offs. Stuff that might happen in the future is less important than stuff that’s definitely happening today.

Time value of progress if you will.

No, stored data cannot be later used for any purpose.

In recent years there have been numerous laws and regulations passed concerning data rights and privacy. If you get consent for data usage in one way, but then use it in a way that differs with what the user consented to, that isn't in compliance with the law.

It would be fairer to say that even if the original company desperately had the desire to do so the legally required privacy compliance officer would reject their ability to do so. This is especially true at the bigger tech companies wherein they have things like external audits of their privacy compliance policies.

So why is it that so much of Hacker News as a community seems convinced that things aren't like this?

In the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling he talks about ten reasons that people get things wrong. One of them is that people assume that things stay the same rather than changing over time. One of the examples that he used for this is the widely held incorrect belief of a sharp distinction between third world and western countries. While there was once a sharp divide, the actual disparity greatly diminished. However, the legacy of that disparity continued to exist in the minds of people who weren't aware of the shifting distributions. As a result of these sort of shifting distributions one of the things he encourages in the book is regularly refreshing knowledge on a subject. I think something similar is happening here. A kind of nhilistic worldview in which things don't improve leads to people not updating their understanding of the world that changed in response to their frustration.

Your point is valid; however, I would say that something being legally possible and technically possible are two different things. I think there have been several data breaches in the past couple years that have shown data to be kept or used beyond its assumed intended purpose.

Even if the company itself followed the law completely, there's nothing technically stopping a bad actor (internal or external) from doing whatever they want with it if they access it.

Perfection shouldn’t be the enemy of improvement.

Not just most Tesla drivers, but most people in general have these things.

The recurring theme is just how terrible high tech people are at estimating what’s normal in the world.

The overwhelming majority of people don’t think or care about the privacy concerns of either. The overwhelming majority of Tesla drivers are not privacy oriented tech nerds.

My 2013 car is not particularly laden with gizmos and has been very easy to repair (no real breakdowns...).

It depends a lot on the car and the engine.

If you want a high-performance engine that meets modern emissions requirements, you're probably going to be looking at EFI and turbochargers. Changing the fuel injection maps on a modern car requires something akin to rooting/flashing an Android.

> If you want a high-performance engine that meets modern emissions requirements, you're probably going to be looking at EFI and turbochargers. Changing the fuel injection maps on a modern car requires something akin to rooting/flashing an Android.

It's also federally illegal, I don't know why you've veered this thread into ease of performing illegal modifications.

Not everyone lives in your jurisdiction. I don’t know why you would be quick to police the discussion, as talking about how something works is done does not mean you intend to do it (and is well within the scope of “Hacker” News).

Incidentally, rooting an android tablet is federally illegal too.

Are you referring to the DMCA?

The closest analog with smartphones to federal emissions laws is more like the FCC prohibiting hacking the baseband ostensibly to protect the cellular network.

EFI is pretty much all upside though. When things do go wrong, the engine just tells you what the problem is.

2021 safety tech includes back-up camera and associated LCD display, auto braking, lane keeping, LED headlight advancements, blind spot monitoring and numerous air bags, auto wipers and lights etc etc. plus structural improvement.

The car they want sounds like less well made 2021 car with 1990s fuel economy and performance and a drivetrain that is easier to maintain but needs more maintenance.

Outside of airbags and structural/material improvements, most of that hasn't actually contributed much to safety.

Many brands have also seen a big decline in reliability and quality of craftsmanship. In fact Tesla's high-end models still don't match the quality control of Toyota's most basic cars. Sure tech has improved but construction and longevity has taken a hit.

No, just the airbags, structural improvements (including crumple zones), and ABS brakes. Most of the other things you listed are primarily or exclusively convenience features.

Those data items, speed and control position, don't seem equivalent to the data Google, Amazon and Facebook collect. They do seem like legitimate telemetry on a machine operated by a human though. If my pedal position differs from someone else's, that tells you nothing about me other than that was where the pedal was.

Those tell Tesla nothing about my personal habits, my political leanings, who my friends are, what organizations I donate to or participate in, etc.

Could be used to calculate the price of your car insurance.

If the data is distinct enough, it could be used to identify the driver (with some degree of probability). It then could be shared with car insureres / law enforcement agencies / private investigators / random concerned citizens.

For sure! https://www.tesla.com/support/insurance

They can't, without your consent. The problem with google & fb is not primarily that they will share their data with 3rd parties (without your consent). It's that they will use it against you. E.g. they'll show the right adverts to nudge your behaviour in directions you may not want but for what they are being paid for. E.g. imagine a political party wanting to efficiently gain new supporters by converting those who are most susceptible. FB and google will have a lot of information about a lot of aspects of your life and they can sell services (not the data!) to interested parties based on that knowledge.

Tesla will just know about your driving habits and probably won't be able to sell anything based on that. It's a huge difference. Law enforcement, now that's a different story. You'll probably want to keep the privacy laws of your country strict and not allow peeking into the memory or recording of your car too easily.

Tesla is a for-profit company. It will monetize your private data to the best of it's abilities.

While Tesla knows more info about how you use or operate the car, the big piece that matters to your privacy is arguable the vehicle location and that is not at all unique to Tesla. Many (most?) vehicles produced in the last decade have a GSM modem that pretty much continuously leaks your data at least to the cellular networks, and likely the vehicle manufacturer/operator. I used to physically remove the modem from my cars were possible.

Why did you stop if you 'used' to do it?

I cannot do it on Teslas. (Or at least the trade off is undesirable)

> It’s fascinating to watch people swear off Amazon Echo and delete their Facebook over privacy concerns but then proudly drive around in a vehicle that records everything, stores everything, and gives opaque data access to the parent company.

How does this give anyone more data on me than is already out there based on the cellphone in my pocket and the use of my credit/debit cards? Even if Tesla didn't collect it the LTE signal of the car is enough to track me when I leave my phone at home.

And if you don't have Tesla and your car has something like OnStar it can do this too.

All I see are people making a mountain out of a mole hill. The data on my accelerator pedal is not a threat to my privacy or freedom.

The massive number of safety features in this car are a net benefit for my physical safety, though. The number of times I've avoided collisions because the car took action when people I couldn't see were about to hit me is worth every penny.

I will never buy another car without the Tesla standard set of features ever again. I used to avoid doing things because of a long drive as I hate the fatigue. Now I don't even blink at the idea of going 300 miles for an event.

I've definitely been hesitant to buy a Tesla for exactly this reason. It's not clear if you can turn it off or avoid it by not using FSD either. It's a shame, would love to own one some day. But I'm guessing the option of buying a car that doesn't have this is slowly dying unfortunately. Consumers never win with this sort of stuff. The really ironic thing is that it is tied in with a more environmentally friendly car. Want to avoid being spied on? Then you need to use dirty fossil fuels.

I will continue to repair my ‘70s and ‘80s era vehicles, because newer models that incorporate electronics are all total garbage. Reason: embedded engineer for 30 years who has worked on automotive software.

old vehicles are very inefficient in terms of safety, fuel consumption, and exhaust gases, for this reason alone one should prefer electric or modern era ICE

The emissions cost of building a new car and shipping it halfway across the world will significantly affect this calculation. You can drive a less efficient car for many years on the carbon cost of building a new one, as long as you're not driving some huge pick up or other obscene gas guzzler.

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.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf

Excerpt:

—

Variables often overlooked by other lifecycle studies:

* Using Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel/energy consumption data (both of which overestimate fuel-economy and underestimate emissions) rather than real-world data;

* Not considering the higher energy efficiency of Tesla’s powertrains;

* Assuming the average EV needs a battery replacement at some point in its life;

* Not considering emissions generated through the oil refining and the transportation process; and

* Using outdated data for the carbon impact of cell manufacturing.

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. Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large consumption compared to the usual fuel economy of cars I've seen around me at least: it's basically 10 l/100 km, where the cars people around me own are at ~4-6 l / 100 km in real driving (maybe a difference between EU and US?).

Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric, it was about replacing an old ICE car with a newer ICE one.

I will also note that personally I have a a very low level of trust for any statements put out by Musk's companies - they have a clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news.

>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?

I fully agree that, IF you buy a new car, you should buy an EV, at least in most places (in my country, EV infrastructure is really behind, so EVs are almost entirely relegated to city cars). My point was more about whether you should change your current ICE with a new car, and even more so, I was defending someone who was caring for their old ICE instead of buying a new ICE for 20 years (if you look further up the comment thread, this was the discussion I was chiming in on).

In the EU at least, there has been constant pressure not to do this on environmental grounds, and I believe this has been misguided (perhaps EVs will indeed change that).

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

They are doing good, but they constantly promise far more - Tesla Cybertruck, Tesla Semi, "FSD" (Elon promised in ~2018 that "very soon" you would be able to let your Tesla work as a robotaxi when you don't need it and recoup its cost within a year from all the money it would make!), solar tiles.

SpaceX has similarly claimed fantastic schedules that they are far from, fantastic price cuts for orbital flight (they claim Spaceship will be at least 50x times cheaper than the cheapest option so far), that they will offer commercial earth-to-earth space flights in the near future, and that they will maintain a fleet of 40k satellites, larger than all the current number of satellites combined.

SpaceX also has a history of lying to the FAA and EPA about their launch schedules and environmental risks (not talking about CO2 here, but rocket debris in protected swamp lands).

I like this youtube video that goes over various crossover points. The tesla beats the RAV4 prime at ~45k miles and a rav4 ICE at ~28k miles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs

I think 5k miles is a bit low, and using tesla as your only source biased.

I wouldn't count out the possibility that this YouTube channel is receiving affiliate commissions and is not as reliable a source as you think.

Putting that up against Tesla, which would have a lot to lose by putting the wrong analysis into their Impact Report, I would give Tesla more credibility despite the fact that they have a vested interest here.

Their vested interest is out in the open, not a secret… it's the mission of the company even.

Fuel consumption and carbon emissions - that very much depends. Small cars of 30-40 year ago are often very good, even better than today's models in some cases.

https://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/04/toyota-corolla-gas-mile...

Reasons for this are probably creeping sizes and weights and larger engines, larger tires and softer rides.

Some people care more about other things when choosing a vehicle. I suspect motorcyclists are far less worried about safety, for example. Performance enthusiasts too, although not to the same extent; and some just want a comfortable roomy ride with plenty of power as well as ease of repair and parts availability.

As the saying goes: "It's not about the miles per gallon, it's about the smiles per gallon."

And those extra costs are worth paying to avoid businesses that abuse their customers by making parts and service inaccessible or unaffordable, tracking their customer, and otherwise making cars more expensive and less enjoyable to own and use. And all carmakers are abusive these days, because the market has selected for that new status quo.

Though none of those cars track my personal data in the extreme or in fact at all. Remember the point of the GP thread...

In case of a crash, I rather have my butt position being tracked and in palantir's databases or equivalent than having the engine block crushing my body.

I have no idea why these are mutually exclusive and no I'd rather die in a flaming car accident than have myself tracked in Palentir's databases. Fortunately, I don't have a car-- nor need one -- so this is a pleasant day.

In my experience fuel injection is much more reliable than carburetors. Fuel injection requires zero adjustment. Many mid-90s cars have electronic fuel injection and ABS controllers and that’s it.

you can repair only as long as parts are avilable.

Parts are available because I am far from alone in this sentiment.

The really ironic thing is that it is tied in with a more environmentally friendly car. Want to avoid being spied on? Then you need to use dirty fossil fuels.

I see similar parallels with software. Want a sane UI with the functionality you need, or avoid being spied on? Then you have to use "insecure" older software.

There's an option in one of the menus for data sharing which should restrict some of the individualized data being generated. They'll still collect data on certain aspects off vehicle operation for diagnostic/monitoring purposes though.

This reminds me of the medical data issue.

We are learning that humanity can learn a lot about how to treat diseases with enough understanding (data).

It’s entirely foreseeable that level 5 FSD isn’t possible without data.

I agree with your general comment, but I don't think any of those things can be classified as "personal data". How are you gonna identify a user based on values from those parameters?

GDPR, while not perfect, describes "personal data" to be:

> The data subjects are identifiable if they can be directly or indirectly identified, especially by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or one of several special characteristics, which expresses the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, commercial, cultural or social identity of these natural persons.

https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/

Given enough of that data you should be able to trace which roads most users drive on and where they park their car. That seems like personal data to me. Don’t forget they should have a full database of VIN numbers they can already look up a list of owners.

From the preceding paragraph:

> Personal data are any information which are related to an identified or identifiable natural person.

Tesla already knows who you are so any data they capture is personal data.

> Tesla already knows who you are so any data they capture is personal data.

That's not how that works. Just because IP is personal data doesn't mean that the event "user clicked on this button" is personal data...

Fingerprinting? There is research around identifying users purely based on their keystroke patterns which are apparently fairly unique. I wouldn't be surprised if driving (and probably a lot of other activities involving physical movements) has the same potential for fingerprinting.

Is it not a necessary condition to collect that data in order to build and refine eventual FSD? I'm not making a blanket statement about bulk data collection but in Tesla's case, that data will eventually trickle back to the consumer in the form of car upgrades.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com