If I were implementing such a system (and I have), I could see myself deleting the temporary without much thought. I would still have built a way to recreate the contents of the tarball after the fact (it's been a requirement from legal every time I've scoped such a system). Tesla not only failed to do that, but avoided disclosing that any such file was transferred in the first place so that the plaintiffs wouldn't know to request it.
Given storage is a finite resource, removing the tar after it was confirmed in the bucket is pure waste.
Even in that case though, you would still have a way to produce the data because it would have been specced in the requirements when you were thinking about the broader organizational context.
*: I can't work out from the article whether this file was erased, or just unlinked from the filesystem: they quote someone as saying the latter, but it looks like it was actually the former.
Fundamentally, flash memory is a bunch of pages. Each page can be read an infinite number of times but there are quite relevant limits on how many times you can write it.
In the simplistic system lets say you have 1000 pages, 999 hold static data and the last one keeps getting a temporary file that is then erased. All wear occurs on page 1000 and it doesn't last very long.
In the better system it notes that page 1000 is accumulating a lot of writes and picks whatever page has the least writes, copies the data from that page to page 1000 and now uses the new page for all those writes. Repeat until everything's worn down. Note the extra write incurred copying the page over.
In the real world a drive with more space on it is less likely to have to resort to copying pages.
Your implicit claim is that there exists a resale market for wrecked Teslas, meriting such product and engineering interest from the company that the car's data storage, in the immediate wake of a disabling collision, preemptively and correctly destroys information of use to crash investigators, so that the company can cannibalize the wrecked hulk for items which Tesla then goes on to sell as new OEM repair parts.
Isn't it embarrassing to go to all this? It certainly seems like it should feel that way, for as degrading as it looks from the outside. If you can explain it, I would like to understand what makes it seem worth your while.
Okay, then your contention appears that Tesla is content with not bothering at all to refurbish the junkyard pulls it sells through OEM channels as OEM repair parts, thus denying themselves any opportunity to manually wipe sensitive data - potentially to include video of the prior owner's violent death! - as part of any remanufacturing or even basic QC process. But - as has now been made a matter of public record, in consequence of their fighting and losing this wrongful death case - Tesla do make sure to keep a copy for themselves, one of an apparently large collection of same which they went far out of their way for years to keep anyone else from discovering even exists.
Is there anything you care to add to that? Feel free to take your time. You've said quite a lot already.
Oh, obviously.
I've made no contention, but if I had, it would be that whoever signed off on this design had better not have a PE license that they would like to keep, and we as an industry would be wise not to keep counting on our grandfather-clause "fun harmless dorks" cultural exemption now that we manufacture machines which obviously kill people. If that by you is conspiracy theory, you're welcome.
ETA: Restate your conspiracy theory in the hypothetical case that they had used `tar | curl` instead of the intermediate archive file. Does it still seem problematic?
I'm not going to argue with someone who throws gratuitous insults. Rejoin me outside the gutter and we'll continue, if you like. But the answer to your question is trivially yes, that is as professionally indictable, as might by now have been clarified had you sought conversation rather than - well, I suppose, rather than whatever this slander by you was meant to be. One hopes we'll see no more of it.
Don't Talk to the Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Should companies be intentionally misleading to law enforcement about what data they have on fatal accidents like Tesla?
This comment takes as fact a claim made by the police, which might be wrong, either by error or purpose.
One thing is for certain though, the police’s initial investigation was criminal. That is to say it was to establish the fact of who was the driver, etc. It was totally separate from the civil litigation that later established Tesla to be at 30% fault for the wreck using computer records establishing that ADAS was engaged.
Leaving Tesla out of it, suppose there was some other automaker with some other problem. A cop comes to them and says “what do I need to ask you to establish the facts about an accident?” Since when do police just accept “oh, the potentially adversarial lawyer gave me advice on what they can tell me without getting a subpoena. Guess that’s all I can do?” That’s absurd.
Don’t talk to the police: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE