Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Crime Transportation

Are Tesla's Cameras a Threat To Our Privacy? (msn.com) 101

"I love that my car recorded a hit-and-run on my behalf," writes a technology columnist at the Washington Post. "Yet I'm scared we're not ready for the ways cameras pointed inside and outside vehicles will change the open road..."

Long-time Slashdot reader Strudelkugel shared the Post's report: It's not just crashes that will be different. Once governments, companies and parents get their hands on car video, it could become evidence, an insurance liability and even a form of control... [I]t's not just the bad guys my car records. I've got clips of countless people's behinds scooching by in tight parking lots, because Sentry Mode activates any time something gets close. It's also recording my family: With another function called Dash Cam that records the road, Tesla has saved hours and hours of my travels -- the good driving and the not-so-good alike.

We've been down this road before with connected cameras. Amazon's Ring doorbells and Nest cams also seemed like a good idea, until hackers, stalkers and police tried to get their hands on the video feed... Applied to a car, the questions multiply: Can you just peer in on your teen driver -- or spouse? Do I have to share my footage with the authorities? Should my car be allowed to kick me off the road if it thinks I'm sleepy? How long until insurance companies offer "discounts" for direct video access? And is any of this actually making cars safer or less expensive to own? Your data can and will be used against you. Can we do anything to make our cars remain private spaces...?

Their design choices may well determine our future privacy. It's important to remember: Automakers can change how their cameras work with as little as a software update. Sentry mode arrived out of thin air last year on cars made as early as 2017... Tesla is already recording gobs. Living in a dense city, my Sentry Mode starts recording between five and seven times per day -- capturing lots of people, the vast majority of whom are not committing any crime. (This actually drains the car's precious battery. Some owners estimate it sips about a mile's worth of the car's 322-mile potential range for every hour it runs.) Same with the Dash Cam that runs while I'm on the road: It's recording not just my driving, but all the other cars and people on the road, too. The recordings stick around on a memory card until you delete them or the card fills up, and it writes over the old footage... Now imagine what Google or Facebook might want to do with that data on everywhere you drive...

Without Sentry Mode, I wouldn't have known what hit me. The city's response to my hit-and-run report was that it didn't even need my video file. Officials had evidence of their own: That bus had cameras running, too.

"Thank You St. Tesla," jokes Slashdot reader DenverTech, linking to a story in which a Tesla owner shared the video it recorded of another car struck in a hit-and-run accident in the parking lot of a Colorado Olive Garden. "It just makes me really thankful that there are cars out there, that can prove what happened so justice can happen," that car's owner told a local news station -- though the Tesla owner had also already written down the license number of the truck which struck her vehicle.

The news station also links to another story in which a man accused of dragging a knife across a parked Tesla "was also captured on the vehicle's built-in camera."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Tesla's Cameras a Threat To Our Privacy?

Comments Filter:
  • what privacy (Score:3, Informative)

    by sxpert ( 139117 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @06:41AM (#59783784)

    you have no expectation of privacy when on public roads, where cars are usually located.
    question is moot

    • by Anonymous Coward

      What if I park my Tesla so it's looking in your window?

    • Re:what privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:01AM (#59783956)

      >"you have no expectation of privacy when on public roads, where cars are usually located."

      1) It isn't always on the road. The car can be on private property, in a garage, etc.

      2) What about cameras INSIDE the car?

      3) The whole concept of "expectation of privacy" never faced the challenge of unlimited, connected, analyzed, uncontrolled video (or audio). And that is rapidly where we are now. Technology has posed a new paradigm to "privacy." It isn't just a few people observing something with their eyes. Or even those people with a few cameras and printed photos. It is a bunch of devices recording everything we do, everywhere we go, when we don't know it is happening, and storing this information forever, outside our control, and sharing it with who-knows, and for whatever purpose, and with computers able to analyze every frame and take whatever action. And which each year, it is getting worse.

      So yes, we *do* have many expectations of privacy when we leave our homes. I don't expect some drone to follow me around and record everything I do every nanosecond. I don't expect my movements to be funneled to some corporation or government. I don't expect my conversations to be transmitted. Freedom cannot exist without privacy, and privacy cannot exist without freedom. I am not willing to give up either. I hope you are not. I hope most of us are not. Because if you think that others always have your best interests at heart- you need to think again.

      >"question is moot"

      No it isn't. Far from it.

      • 1) It isn't always on the road. The car can be on private property

        Then deal with it as you would any other camera and throw them off.

        2) What about cameras INSIDE the car?

        Why do you think you have an expectation of privacy inside MY space.

        3) The whole concept of "expectation of privacy" never faced the challenge of unlimited, connected, analyzed, uncontrolled video

        Yes it did, it's called "human vision".

        • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:19AM (#59784008)

          >>"3) The whole concept of "expectation of privacy" never faced the challenge of unlimited, connected, analyzed, uncontrolled video"

          >"Yes it did, it's called "human vision"."

          You are kidding, right?

          Human vision sees very little and retains even less. It can't be "saved" or "shared." It can't be used as solid evidence. It can't be "analyzed." It can't stare at location 24x7. It is unreliable and tainted. Comparing modern, connected video cameras to human eyes is like comparing a dog bark to a symphony and arguing "but they are both sound."

          • Human vision sees very little and retains even less.

            You are kidding, right?

            Throughout all of recorded history humans have relied on eye-witness testimony.

            If you retain almost nothing of what you see, I suggest buying more expensive vodka and maybe also cutting back to ten bottles a day or less.

            • Hi, to validate some of the points and I bet someone can recall this:

              a north eastern state university ( or college ) professor had "someone" steal
              a purse on purpose, without the class knowing. The professor went on to
              quiz students about this
              was it man or woman
              short hair long hair
              tall or short
              color of anything...
              point being was that few people could recall any details or any specifics.

              I myself recent had to deal with this when I witnessed an armed robbery,
              and I carefully jotted down what I felt was factual,

            • Do you ever get tired of being dead wrong and showing everyone your ignorance? I know you're on the internet due to your posting, so you have access to just about all of the knowledge mankind has ever written down. You could go check your knowledge before posting incorrect things that make you look bad. I do it all the time, and I think I'm a better person for it. I at least look like less of a clown than I otherwise would.

              Another poster here tried to help educate you, but you'd really likely learn more if

            • Human vision sees very little and retains even less.

              You are kidding, right?

              Throughout all of recorded history humans have relied on eye-witness testimony.

              If you retain almost nothing of what you see, I suggest buying more expensive vodka and maybe also cutting back to ten bottles a day or less.

              About two years ago, while discussing vision and memory of what we see, I quizzed my coworkers on simple things we see many times a day, every day at work for years. It was incredible how little they knew, despite seeing this stuff over and over.

              I doubt I would have done much better.

            • by hattig ( 47930 )

              Eye witness testimony is terribly unreliable, because people aren't very good at recollecting what they see, they likely weren't paying 100% attention to the incident unless there was an ongoing situation already, and they are also highly susceptible to suggestion.

              I'd prefer if a recording of the fact is available, rather than rely on someone's flawed memory - especially if that person has prejudices that might go against me.

      • That horse has bolted for the most part
        • Bullshit.
        • >"That horse has bolted for the most part"

          There is no reason to believe that because something is starting to become normalized that it should remain so. The key is education, awareness, and discussion. It is true that cameras are not going away, but how we deal with them can [and should] change.

      • Re:what privacy (Score:4, Informative)

        by lazarus ( 2879 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @11:58AM (#59784408) Journal

        It is a bunch of devices recording everything we do, everywhere we go, when we don't know it is happening, and storing this information forever, outside our control, and sharing it with who-knows, and for whatever purpose, and with computers able to analyze every frame and take whatever action.

        I think people get the idea that marauding herds of Teslas are uploading our lives into the corporate-controlled cloud and using it for nefarious purposes. I wish.

        In order to record ANY video with your Tesla (at least the Model 3), you need to have a high-speed USB SSD installed. And all the video goes there and nowhere else. When you get back to your car and sentry mode has left you a note that you have events, you actually have to remove the USB stick and put it in a computer and sift through the video. You can't even view it in your car.

        It's a lot more low-tech than people think. I don't think Tesla wants to pay the carrier costs to stream petabytes of data every day to the cloud. What would they even do with it? Their business is selling cars (and solar roofs and battery packs).

        Maybe when Google builds a car we'll find out.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          And all the video goes there and nowhere else.

          This is not correct. From TFA:

          ‘And Tesla, by default, uploads clips from its customer cars’ external cameras. A privacy control in the car menus says Tesla uses the footage “to learn how to recognize things like lane lines, street signs and traffic light positions.”’

          Basically, if you want access to the video, you need to install an SSD and then monitor it yourself. Tesla can - and does - obtain video from the cameras regardless.

        • >"In order to record ANY video with your Tesla (at least the Model 3), you need to have a high-speed USB SSD installed. And all the video goes there and nowhere else."

          Perhaps, and only for now...

          Of course my comments were about all kinds of cameras (and microphones), in all kinds of products, both now and in the future. The direction we are headed is pretty clear.

        • by psergiu ( 67614 )

          In order to record ANY video with your Tesla (at least the Model 3), you need to have a high-speed USB SSD installed. And all the video goes there and nowhere else. When you get back to your car and sentry mode has left you a note that you have events, you actually have to remove the USB stick and put it in a computer and sift through the video.

          OR a Raspberry Pi Zero W with a fast high-endurance uSD card with the TeslaUSB distro installed on it.
          It emulates 2 USB storage devices. Upon reaching home, as soon as it's able to connect to the home WiFi it will upload all contents of the dash-cam emulated device to a SMB or NFS share and (optionally) rsync contents of the music device with another share.
          Has also an optional AP mode so you can browse the recorded media from another device (or even the Tesla built-in browser) while in the car.

      • I don't expect some drone to follow me around and record everything I do every nanosecond.

        You don't expect it, but there is nothing illegal about it without you issuing a restraining order on the operator of the drone, and even then, that's only good if your state has an electronic surveillance law, which most states do not. You stepped outside your house, you do not have an expectation of privacy and the only reason the bounds of that haven't been tested isn't because there was a legal limit, just a technological one.

        I don't expect my movements to be funneled to some corporation or government. I don't expect my conversations to be transmitted.

        Correct, but for the vast majority of what we're talking about here. These p

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Meh, I feel this answer is overly simplistic. What if Tesla added number plate recognition to their cars and started uploading every observation to a database, would that be okay with you? What if they made a public search engine out of it? Privacy has an English meaning and a legal meaning, after an accident when the deceased family asks that you respect their privacy they're not talking about setting up toilet cams. Being unable to move in public space without being tracked by license plate readers and fa

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by stabiesoft ( 733417 )
        This. I see outrage all the time on /. about license plate readers on police vehicles. I am afraid we have turned into a nation of idolizers. If you are on Team Musk, anything they do is ok, Team Trump, anything he does is ok, Team Google ..., Team Microsoft ..., Team Open source ... Balance and nuance has become lost.
        • Indeed. Musk has no bigger fan than I* but I won't hesitate to call out Tesla on their poorer decisions, which to their credit, they seem to make far fewer of than possibly any other organization one can think of.

          *Perhaps it should be the other way around, as it was my idea for a mag-lev-capsule-in-tube based transit system that gained me admission into an Ivy League mech. engineering masters program in '90 while still in highschool... which, incidentally, I graduated from with a GPA of 1.7 (grin)...

      • > What if Tesla added number plate recognition to their cars and started uploading every observation to a database, would that be okay with you? What if they made a public search engine out of it?

        Sure. I think you'd get bored as hell of seeing me drive to & from work and the grocery store, though.

        Meanwhile, all the idiots who were driving recklessly would get caught and sent to driver's ed again, so the roads would be safer, like that one guy who went into a turn lane going the wrong way to pass so

        • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

          >Why would you care if people could see that you were going to & from work all the time, anyway?

          Casing. Maybe someone wants to break into your house, or maybe they just want to steal packages off your porch. If they can confirm that you are not there, AND so far away that you can't possibly get back before they complete their deeds, they have a leg up. You could argue they could watch anyhow, and this is true. But now ONE PERSON can watch multiple locations simultaneously and pick the low-hanging fru

          • Yeah, but my cameras would catch that person.

            • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

              And they'd know to show up in a white van wearing a black balaclava and a black turtleneck. Go ahead and record it, getting caught by an actual human is much more of a problem -- folks know what's up when they see a balaclava in a place it doesn't make sense.

        • Meanwhile, all the idiots who were driving recklessly would get caught and sent to driver's ed again, so the roads would be safer, like that one guy who went into a turn lane going the wrong way to pass someone, accelerating towards me when I was stopped, waiting to turn.

          Thinking back to my teens, this sort of shit would royally fuck me. But honestly, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for myself or the people around me.

          Generally, most traffic offenses go unpunished. But they're what causes a lot of our traffic woes in the first place. As much as I hate moving to a surveillance state, I think I hate jackasses fucking up traffic more, inconveniencing myself and dozens to hundreds of other people in the process. If people actually got punished for cutting people off, dang

      • Scenario: Kid is kidnapped, police see video from Ring showing the license plate. Police queue live database, find the car was just scanned by a connected car on i80 mile marker 127 Southbound 5 minutes ago. Minutes later police stop the vehicle, kid is saved.

        Now tell me if that's worth the privacy?

        By the way, what I described was presented at a tech event at my college over a decade ago.

    • It's about the expectation of privacy, and you're obviously not familiar with laws that regulate the use of recording devices, namely the concepts of one and two party consent, the former which Teslas violate every time they record while unattended and the latter which they violate continuously.

      While the laws - as opposed to Tesla themselves - may be "the problem" here, there's a problem nonetheless and a settled matter it certainly isn't.

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        namely the concepts of one and two party consent,

        That only applies to sound recordings, not video in a public place. Don't like that law? Go ahead and try to get it changed.

    • you have no expectation of privacy when on public roads, where cars are usually located. question is moot

      You answered your own question. The key word there is "usually". Usually is not the same thing as always. Do the cameras shut off when you're in your garage or a private estate or campground?

      • No. But they are off until you turn them on. So it's pretty much the same thing.

        Any jackass can leave a camera recording stuff where it shouldn't be. Doesn't matter if it's a regular camera, cell phone, spy camera, laptop, or car.

    • by hattig ( 47930 )

      It's not like dash cams are uncommon anyway.

      With a warrant, I'm sure any dash cam contents could be requisitioned, and as the car is driving on public property, nobody should have an expectation of privacy just because the car is keeping a recording of the trip that in 99.99% of cases will go unwatched until deletion.

      Yes, you should be able to see what anyone else driving your property is up to.

      And yes, if the car has an AI that can detect that you are absolutely unfit to be driving, then it absolutely shou

  • by johnlcallaway ( 165670 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @07:19AM (#59783812)

    No one has ever had a right to privacy in public. At least, not in most countries. Yep .. they could look in your window. So could the creepy guy down the street, close your curtains on the public side of your house. Like most people do that don't want anyone looking in.

    As for the government getting hold of it, get over yourself. I worked in a paging/mobile phone company in the 80s and we always had one channel of the voice pagers and mobile phone on at all times in the equipment room so we could monitor them. One thing I learned about working there is people are BORING! No one cares where you go or where you have been. Tone down your overly self-important attitude and you'll discover you really don't care if someone is watching or listening in public.

    If someone is concerned the cameras could catch them breaking traffic laws, then they shouldn't break traffic laws. There could be a police car right behind them that they didn't notice. That's why we have laws, so idiots that are too stupid to realize police cars could be anywhere can get caught and punished. Normal people don't need laws to know not to run red lights or speed excessively. And responsible people stop for traffic accidents and take ownership if they screwed up.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      As for the government getting hold of it, get over yourself. I worked in a paging/mobile phone company in the 80s

      Yeah that was the 1980s when STASI almost drowned in paper trying to keep a file on everyone in the DDR. You may have missed the last 30 years in computing, today keeping detailed records on everyone is no problem, with search engines, data mining and risk scoring running on top. Of course nobody cares if you don't register as a threat, then you're just a good little peon and they need those. You could live in North Korea that way. It's just that in North Korea that's the only way you'd stay alive for very

    • So you've never gone 31 in a 30? They installed a temporary speed sensor on a road near me where I walk. I have never seen anyone drive the speed limit. Limit is 30 and by far most are doing 35+. After 35 it just flashes. Which I think is wise, because I imagine some might try to see how high they can hit like a video game. You might want to take at all the laws on the books. Basically if you look hard enough, I'd imagine an officer could cite nearly everyone.
      • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        I've driven a vehicle which had recently had its speedometer calibrated professionally (it was a work vehicle, they cared), and confirmed that every flashing road sign with a radar gun consistently read 2-3 mph faster than I was actually going, even if I was the only car on the road.

    • No one cares where you go or where you have been

      Not true. Your SO might want to know why you keep working late or why it took you so long to get the gallon of milk. Needless to say, the government now treats everyone like a criminal (witness the fiasco of the TSA and Real ID) and they most certainly want to know not only who you are but where you've been, who you've associated with, and what you've purchased. The same could be said of your SO, if they're psychotic enough.

    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Most countries have laws against stalking. Try following some cute girl (especially one underage) around all day filming her and you may find yourself charged as a criminal even though all the stalking is in public.
      This is similar except it is a relay of cameras stalking people.

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      If someone is concerned the cameras could catch them breaking traffic laws, then they shouldn't break traffic laws.

      Do you often confuse what's legal with what's ethical?

    • No one has ever had a right to privacy in public.

      This is a common misconception, but it is false. Sure, if you're moving around in public, someone might see you. However, people have always assumed that their actions as a whole are largely anonymous. Which shops you visited, which routes you drove, which people you talked with - lost in the crowd. Small incidents that happen: dropping an ice cream cone on your shoe, tripping over the curb, whatever - did not make the headline news.

      With ubiquitous video and

  • Oh come on (Score:4, Funny)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @07:22AM (#59783816)

    We ought to have the right to vandalize vehicles in public without being caught on camera. Crime is a very private act, criminals feel violated if someone witnesses them doing a crime. It can cause a very real psychological effect. I mean, if I steal your car and someone sees me doing it .. that could make me upset for days wondering if the police was gonna come get me or whether my reputation would be harmed and thatâ(TM)s on top of all the other stress and hardships a criminal has to endure.

    • >" It can cause a very real psychological effect."

      And what is the psychological effect of feeling or KNOWING you are constantly being recorded all the time? That everything you do is being watched, analyzed, shared, saved, in a "perfect" manner, and could frame you at any moment now or in the distant future? How does this affect your freedom? Your self-esteem? Your outlook on life?

      Doing what is right only because you might get caught or seen is a fragile, and false "morality."

      • >" It can cause a very real psychological effect."

        And what is the psychological effect of feeling or KNOWING you are constantly being recorded all the time? That everything you do is being watched, analyzed, shared, saved, in a "perfect" manner, and could frame you at any moment now or in the distant future? How does this affect your freedom? Your self-esteem? Your outlook on life?

        Doing what is right only because you might get caught or seen is a fragile, and false "morality."

        This sounds word for word like an argument against social media far more than cameras in Teslas.

        • >"This sounds word for word like an argument against social media far more than cameras in Teslas."

          Well, I am no fan of social media, either.

      • a lot of US jobs record everything you do already. not just cameras but computer-usage event recorders. the trend is growing.

        so if your theory is correct then it already applies to a large chunk of businesses and employment.

    • We ought to have the right to vandalize vehicles in public without being caught on camera.

      If you try really hard, you can come up with an even more pathetic strawman than that; I just know it.

      Let's see what you've got; I crave the amusement!

    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Don't forget your right to follow and film little kids around all day while they're in public.

    • Hi, I represent Dewey, Cheetham and Howe EQS
      an affiliate of the great team of Ditcher, Quick, and Hyde ESQ

      Your case sounds reasonable. we would like to hear more of this
      mental issue and psychological effects.

      Thank you,

      I. Fleecem ESQ

  • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:32AM (#59783932)

    >"Once governments, companies and parents get their hands on car video, it could become evidence, an insurance liability and even a form of control."

    The solution is simple. Give the users control. "Dash cams" don't need to be "connected cameras" nor long recordings, they just need to be a few minutes of buffered video that is overwritten. If there is a need, the OWNER can then save or share the video. This is true for positional/car control nav video.

    Same thing with security mode- it only needs to record movement, and only for a short time, and only if directed to do so. And it shouldn't need a third party involved to provide an alert or local, temporary storage.

    Sleep monitoring- same as above. Except in that case, inside cameras need no recording at all, just local analysis and action if necessary. And "off" can really be a thing.

    We, who are buying these things, need to make it clear what we want and do not want. Cameras can be a good thing, if we are the owners of what they do and how they work.

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:38AM (#59783936)

    Also in public areas of federal buildings, foyers etc.

    The Post-office even has Poster 7 hanging in your post-office allowing you to video anybody in there.

    Homeland security also instructed all federal personnel.

    https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa... [dhs.gov]

  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @08:44AM (#59783944)
    From the car cams they all use, not the form of government. Most of the car crash videos hosted on Youtube are from Russia, due to Russians having to constantly sue each other over these events. Side benefit is it did give us great coverage of the Chelyabinsk meteor.
  • But most idiots have already given up on it. I can't imagine owning a cellphone that has NOT had it's GPS set to a fake location.

  • I can see a developing problem when cars are fuly automated: carjackers will figure out a safe distance to jump in front of such cars, triggering the emergency stop reflex, whereupon the car can be swarmed by his accomplices. Knowing that all activity near the car is being recorded could be a powerful deterrent to this kind of crime.

  • No. [wikipedia.org]

  • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
    Like a dash cam and all that city wide CCTV was?
  • To sum up... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:38AM (#59784032) Journal

    People are worried they may have to actually be responsible for their actions in spaces they may impact others. They worry about losing the ability to bald-faced lie and not get caught.

    Fuck those people. Grow up and take responsibility.

    • Re:To sum up... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Sunday March 01, 2020 @09:44AM (#59784050) Homepage Journal

      > Fuck those people.

      Yeah, YouTube is full of people keying Teslas, pretending to be hit, etc. They should be exiled.

      The real, underlying, fear is the democratization of power. With centralized surveillance, the politically-connected can make problematic footage go away. Also, Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

      • The real, underlying, fear is the democratization of power.

        In other words, mob rule. Twitter Cancel Culture is "democratization of power", it's pretty good for society, no?

    • You autists are going to turn the world into a Lawful Good hellscape. All in the name of utilitarianism, like a fucking lizard person.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @10:40AM (#59784196)

    The landscape has definitely changed. Cameras used to be heavy, bulky intrusive things that if you were lucky had grainy SD footage of something you wanted to look back on. Noe everyone is walking around with one in their pocket 24/7, cars have them, basically every public place has them, etc. And, they're all capable of producing clear-as-day output that, when combined with a surveillance cloud, makes facial recognition and pattern identification automatic and easy. I know Microsoft has an "AI facial recognition as a service" offering in Azure and it's not too hard to get a developer to snap some JavaScript LEGO together to make surveillance apps.

    We just have to figure out how we're going to deal with this. No one mentions the downsides when they talk about cameras everywhere. Tesla cameras catch hit-and-run drivers. Ring cameras catch people stealing your packages. They can also track your comings and goings, and the police can apparently use them to hunt down "people of interest" with zero effort. Not to mention the nosy-neighbor "community" that goes along with the Ring stuff. We have one of their floodlight cameras and a week after getting it, I had to turn off the "neighborhood watch" notifications because hearing your neighbors complain about strange people just reinforces how crazy and paranoid people have become. It's like the Stasi without the state backing.

    Unfortunately I think we're too far down the zero-privacy road and it's going to take something like a mass purge of undesirables to remind people this might not be such a great idea. Germany's privacy laws exist for a reason...they have a history with this both in the GDR and during the Nazi era.

  • Privacy? I am waiting for the day when Tesla and the other car makers provide a "submit the video of that dangerous asshole to the police" function.

    I doubt any of us can count the times we have been tailgated at freeway speeds when you have no option to avoid and the guy in the lifted pickup truck behind you thinks 90MPH is the only acceptable minimum.

    Dangerous lane changes abound. There should be consequences.

    I am on the fence about queue cheaters. On a crowded exit you will always see the guy

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      "submit the video of that dangerous asshole to the police" function.

      That's a thing in the UK. There are also unofficial 'rogue's galleries' here in the USA.

      I am on the fence about queue cheaters.
      ....
      Maybe public humiliation instead of fines would do the trick.

      That depends on social norms. And I don't think it would work well in this country (USA). People seem to have no shame about pulling stupid shit EVEN WHEN it gets them put on a law enforcement watch list. Never mind depending on embarrassment before one's peers.

    • Well that's not illegal (yet)

      I believe that it is here in Colorado.

  • Control .vs. Privacy

    There is a privacy in cars, cars that have few sensors logging every "g" force and certainly cameras aimed at your face which are the exception. There is also ownership i.e. property rights which up until right now have enjoyed co-equal privacy side-effects. All of a sudden that blanket in the backseat looks bad on camera, is bad when you cuddle-up in the front seat and God forbid you should just Chinese firedrill into the backseat with your honey.

    SO where's the privacy switch where own

  • At the moment, none of these recordings are automatically uploaded.

    They are stored on a local USB storage that the owner plugs in. Without the storage, nothing is recorded.

    Unless the owner saves the files, the dashcam files are overwritten within an hour of driving.

    Consider all the other cameras out there that are uploading their recordings. Compared to those, the cameras in Teslas are benign.

    • "Same with the Dash Cam that runs while I'm on the road: It's recording not just my driving, but all the other cars and people on the road, too. The recordings stick around on a memory card until you delete them or the card fills up, and it writes over the old footage."

      The article is wrong about this. It records a maximum of 1 hour of dashcam video then deletes it, irrespective of how much space is on the drive.

      If you want to keep more than an hour, you have to get a device with an embedded computer that s

    • At the moment, none of these recordings are automatically uploaded.

      Technically correct, but in essence wrong. Tesla is already pulling your camera video regardless of the presence of an SSD. All adding an SSD does is give you access to the video. From TFA:

      ’And Tesla, by default, uploads clips from its customer cars’ external cameras. A privacy control in the car menus says Tesla uses the footage “to learn how to recognize things like lane lines, street signs and traffic light positions.”’

  • Tesla catches vandal (Score:3, Informative)

    by CO_guntoter_again ( 4777327 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @11:25AM (#59784318)
    A woman keyed a Tesla for as of yet an undisclosed reason. Unfortunately for her, the Tesla recorded the entire event, and it was fairly obvious this wasn't her first rodeo. The pictures were widely distributed on social media, and she turned herself in. Score one for the Tesla and its cameras.
  • With security cameras everywhere who bothers to watch them full time. Their real use is when there's been an event which you want to try figure out what happened eg: garage door forced, package taken from front porch etc. Car cameras are even better especially for insurance purposes though I'd like the footage to be somehow signed to reduce the chance of tampering.

  • This is a debate that needs to happen. People have expressed a lot of criticism of the UK, because the government put cameras everywhere. What about privacy? Yet many of the same people happily install dashcams in their cars.

    The supreme court in Switzerland recently ruled that dashcam footage is not admissable as evidence in most court cases, because people should not be filmed without their knowledge. This is not dissimilar to laws about secret audio recordings in many other countries, but video recordings

    • by hattig ( 47930 )

      That Swiss rule is weird.

      Obviously recording a private conversation without notification is going to be non-admissible - there's an expectation that it is a private conversation, even in a very public location.

      But a video of the fact of something happening in a public place doesn't have any 'expectation of privacy', although I agree that there needs to be limitations to the dissemination of the video - i.e., it should not be available online, nor shared (without permissions), nor made available for third pa

  • I like that my car flashes its lights and displays a "Sentry Mode Activated" message on its display when people draw too close. It's a reminder to be mindful of someone else's property.

    Sentry Mode uses a small amount of battery life. Probably less than 3 miles of range if left on and triggered multiple times the entire workday. Anyone living the EV lifestyle also has home charging available, even if it's 110V (5 miles of charging per hour). So whatever Sentry Mode uses in a day is easily offset with
  • Are cars with cameras a threat to our privacy ?

    Completely oblivious to the fact there are no fewer than eleventy nine bazillion smart-phones in use walking, driving, flying around covering damn near every square inch of the planet at any given time.

    Every one of them outfitted with one or more cameras, GPS and a microphone :|

    . . . . and they're worrying about cameras in cars ?

news: gotcha

Working...