You bought a car with always-on cameras and always-on telemetry. What did you expect?
Are you really victim blaming here? Nasty.
Sure sounds like it.
It's available to anyone to review before purchase. If you don't want it, don't buy a Tesla.
Edit: I'm open minded; in addition to downvoting, I'm genuinely curious why folk might think that I am incorrect here. Happy to correct my thought process.
Their product line spells out "S3XY." Public technical failures are glossed over or ignored. Anyone expecting integrity from this company needs a reality check.
It's OK that some people are ignorant to what you, myself and many others are already well aware of. It doesn't make it their fault.
We should hold the companies accountable. But maybe we shouldn't be so quick to reassure people that they couldn't have prevented things like this, so that when the next predatory company puts out a predatory product, there will be a sort of collective knowledge that relying on a corporation's good will is probably not a great idea.
Then we might actually have people reject products that do user hostile nonsense, and the market will have to respond.
In other words, this kind of thing is the teachable moment that can make it so everyone can be aware of the things that we are.
By the way, the Tesla privacy notice specifically says "no one but you would have knowledge of your activities, location, or history" but this article proves that's a lie.
Yes. This is why I physically removed the GSM radio from my car, host my own email, use an outbound firewall on my computer, and don't have an OpenAI account.
The terms matter. Clicking past them as if they don't exist isn't a reasonable action.
There's room for both acknowledging that someone is a victim, and that this was fairly predictable. Just as a mugging victim doesn't deserve a mugging, they probably shouldn't walk down dark alleyways at night. And if they didn't know better ... well, that's a problem too.
Yes, but not necessarily their fault.
Which says to me that the situation should have been predicted by the legal and HR teams before this division got fired up, leading to a robust code of conduct and compliance that would prevent this from happening in the first place, with heavy penalties for abuses and breaches.
It's not one or the other.
The alternative is easily classified as naiveté.
Cf. Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
I'm not advocating that we accept the status quo, but I do take issue with not seeing the status quo for what it is.
When a friend's car gets stolen, I reserve the right to condemn the thief and tut-tut at her for leaving the doors unlocked.
That's a jerk move. And a terrible analogy. Using the car as intended and having the manufacturer use the cameras for something other than their intended use is not the same thing at all as failing to use the locks for their intended purpose.
Might as well tut-tut at you for using the Internet the next time one of your devices gets compromised.
Ones that aren't ran by adults get sued, and deserve everything they get coming to them.
It's one thing to say, "It's expected at this point but they should have upheld their agreement to maintain privacy and respect for their customers," vs. blaming those whose privacies were betrayed.
No?
Edit: why disagree?