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.
"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."
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.
This is because US politicians are loath to take action against their colleagues in legislative chambers, fearing retaliation. So they depend on shame, or "the honor system", hoping that the bad apples will simply step down.
If they actually did this, then I'd think twice. But I think what you are seeing is more that the true haters who bring these "didn't actually happen" things up all the time don't have a huge affect on people buying the product.
The closest thing that actually worried me was the recording of the external cameras. Yes they can record stuff in your garage which isn't great. But I don't actually care at all about them recording stuff on the street around me and sharing that. I WANT them to do that to improve the system.
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.
https://www.criminallawyersandiego.com/california-marijuana-...
Absolutely no law is enforced 100% of the time on everyone equally. There's always a political/social calculation being made and balanced. It's childlike naivety to believe that perfect enforcement ever could (or should) be the case. Akin to believing Santa knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake.
The security clearance in question is federal.
I only ask because a relative of a prominent political figure is currently having the book thrown at them for owning firearms and doing drugs.
(It goes without mentioning that the host of the podcast in question definitely owns guns, and definitely consumes illegal, Schedule 1 drugs. That's a five-year-minimum-prison-term felony, yet somehow, he's still on the air...)
By the way, do you think a security clearance should be revoked for consuming marijuana?
Would you be making this argument if it was anyone else?
Since there’s no case of drug decriminalization or other substances in the USA, I don’t think this is particularly relevant. There’s a reason people are up in arms about MJ scheduling alongside these other substances. Additionally, I know this might sound very general, but the security clearance process is extremely subjective. There is no published set of circumstances for what gets a clearance denied or revoked and what simply gets addressed and mitigated. And I think that’s a good thing. In this case, I don’t think Elon’s partaking in any way indicates, jeopardizes or threatens his loyalty to the US, the likelihood that he could be blackmailed, or his ability to keep secure data secure.
Would you be making the same argument if it wasn’t Elon, but a close friend from school that hit a doobie on his buddy’s local team’s podcast?
Sorry for the ramble, but the clearance process is one I’m very familiar with, and I just see a lot of assumptions and misunderstandings in these threads.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-vi...
I'm not concerned with what others do. I only have control over my own decisions.
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.
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...
Tesla employees being overprivileged with regards to consumer data access is a corporate policy, legal, and governance issue, not a tech issue. Like any other company, if consumer data is accessed in a way exceeding legitimate business purposes, someone should be fired.
EDIT:
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-EDAD116...
> The cabin camera can determine driver inattentiveness and provide you with audible alerts, to remind you to keep your eyes on the road when Autopilot is engaged.
> By default, images and video from the camera do not leave the vehicle itself and are not transmitted to anyone, including Tesla, unless you enable data sharing. If you enable data sharing and a safety critical event occurs (such as a collision), Model Y shares short cabin camera video clips with Tesla to help us develop future safety enhancements and continuously improve the intelligence of features that rely on the cabin camera. Data may also be shared if diagnostics are required on cabin camera functionality. Cabin camera does not perform facial recognition or any other method of identity verification. To protect your privacy, cabin camera data is not associated with your vehicle identification number.
> To adjust your data sharing preferences touch Controls > Software > Data Sharing > Allow Cabin Camera Analytics. You can change your data sharing settings at any time.
(own Teslas, you are prompted to agree to different data sharing configurations before it is enabled)
Tesla took the cheap way out. Ford Bluecruise uses IR sensors to detect whether you're paying attention or not, as does GM Supercruise. They don't produce potentially embarrassing photos and videos. They also don't send that video back to a mothership for employees to share your private/embarrassing moments.
I stuck a sliding webcam cover over it and have had no reason to uncover it.
Wait, Tesla cars video their users? Seriously?
I'm gobsmacked users tolerate and agree to this.
Now that's some chilling effect
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.
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).