[HN Gopher] Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's drivi...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch forensic lab says it has decoded Tesla's driving data
Author : gzer0
Score : 118 points
Date : 2021-10-23 09:29 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| csours wrote:
| Disclaimer: I work for a Tesla competitor.
|
| To combat fundamental attribution error, whenever you read an
| article about Tesla, try replacing the word 'Tesla' with your
| least favorite car or consumer product company.
|
| 'Brand X' has a bunch of data about accidents, and they are
| motivated to not share all of it with authorities. When they do
| share data they are motivated to share the data that presents
| them in the best light. How would it feel if there was data about
| a crash you were involved in that you could not get access to?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's a good question, because in reality it depends on where
| the data is going.
|
| E.g. in China they don't trust parents with data on the gender
| of their child from ultrasounds due to the prevalence of sex-
| selective abortions. In other countries there are parties about
| the data. Data is always in a cultural context.
| driverdan wrote:
| > How would it feel if there was data about a crash you were
| involved in that you could not get access to?
|
| I'd be angry that data was recorded in the first place. No data
| should be recorded without the driver's explicit consent.
| [deleted]
| snypher wrote:
| You won't be happy knowing the manufacturer retains the right
| to use that recorded data against you if you try to sue them.
| tenken wrote:
| Ya I dunno. In the USA driving is a privilege, not a Right.
| tdeck wrote:
| Using the restroom at Starbucks is a privilege, not a
| right. That doesn't mean I expect to be recorded in the
| restroom.
| [deleted]
| mettamage wrote:
| Ohhh, I think this can be a generalized life hack! Thanks!
|
| First extension I see: do this with people :D
| birdman3131 wrote:
| The issue with this is often there are reasons a
| person/manufacturer are more or less liked than others.
| Sometimes those reasons even matter.
| csours wrote:
| For sure. It's not a magic bullet. This is one of the
| hardest problems because it's so hard to see and reason
| clearly.
| patrec wrote:
| Sorry to be a pendant, but disclosure, not disclaimer.
| BlewisJS wrote:
| Sorry to be a pedant, but pedant, not pendant.
| the-dude wrote:
| Related : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28943234
| malermeister wrote:
| How is this amount of data collection GDPR compatible?
| Aachen wrote:
| Claim "legitimate interest", wait for someone to bother with a
| lawsuit, profit in the meantime for many years while the fine
| can be at most a few % (I think max 4%?) of turnover in a
| single year, and that's only if you lose badly.
|
| Not saying this is actually illegal, just if it is then this is
| probably the reasoning. One could design a drinking game around
| illegal things that just nobody bothers to enforce. Related:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of...
| (basically it's up to the victim to bother with legal work and
| proving things)
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| What new cars (or types of new cars) are the most privacy-
| friendly?
|
| No data connections, no logging, as hackable as possible
| indymike wrote:
| How long until someone in law enforcement decides to just ticket
| all the speeders who have a Tesla?
| gkfasdfasdf wrote:
| I don't have a link handy, but WSJ reported that China does not
| allow high ranking officials to drive Teslas because of the
| potential of leaking location data etc.
| campuscodi wrote:
| lol... this is not a Reuters "exclusive"
|
| We had this on The Record half a day before them:
| https://therecord.media/dutch-forensic-lab-decrypts-teslas-d...
|
| modern-day journalism, smh
| fny wrote:
| Can someone provide some color on why a state actor would
| advertise such a feat? Now that this is public, I imagine Tesla
| can and likely will work to block access.
| tpmx wrote:
| Bragging/national pride. NL things.
| kjaftaedi wrote:
| They are using it in court cases, so it would not be a secret
| anyway.
|
| The issue was that Tesla was only providing certain data that
| was being asked for.
|
| You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more
| information, unless you knew they were collecting it.
|
| Now they know Tesla has this information they should be able to
| get it from them regardless if they have to decrypt it
| themselves or not.
|
| (Unless Tesla decides to stop collecting data for some reason.)
| specialist wrote:
| > _You wouldn 't know that it would be possible to ask for
| more information, unless you knew they were collecting it._
|
| Totally. I've played this game with FOIA (public records
| requests). It's _exhausting_. Of course they had the data.
| But as a private citizen, I had to _prove_ they had the data
| before I could request it.
| ajross wrote:
| > You wouldn't know that it would be possible to ask for more
| information, unless you knew they were collecting it.
|
| Only if Tesla purjured themselves during discovery. That's
| not the way court cases work. You can ask "Do you guys record
| the accelerometer data anywhere else but on the MCU?" and
| they have to answer truthfully.
|
| What you write here mostly amounts to a conspiracy theory.
| You're taking the idea that Tesla is "hiding something
| nefarious" as a prior and then taking evidence that their
| storage was reverse engineered as evidence _for_ that prior.
|
| But that's not how engineering works either.
| barney54 wrote:
| The article states, "Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI)
| said it had discovered far more data than investigators had
| previously been aware of." The implication is that Tesla
| has not shared all of this information with investigators
| before.
| lazide wrote:
| Eh, that's generally not how the procedure works. A
| defendant quite explicitly doesn't need to proactively
| provide all information that could possibly incriminate
| themselves. If the plaintiff isn't asking for something
| then, cool. The plaintiff COULD ask for 'all self driving
| data', but often that can be objected to and/or thrown out,
| as it's a fishing expedition and that data is proprietary.
| So that can tie up things for a long time while everyone
| argues back and forth in court, and it's likely they'd only
| get the bare minimum to address whatever the case is
| alleging. That is very expensive to do.
|
| If they know it's there and can proactively argue it's
| appropriate, that changes the equation dramatically.
| ajross wrote:
| You don't have to know it's there, you just have to
| understand the problem space enough to find it. You
| depose an engineer and you ask "do you store this
| information?", and they have to answer. Then you can ask
| "where do you store it?", and so on. There's complexity
| about some questions being procedurally allowed, etc...
| But that's how it works.
|
| Fundamentally this process isn't any different than
| reverse engineering. If a good hacker can figure out how
| something works based on knowledge of the problem domain
| and technology in use, then _those same questions_ can be
| answered in a deposition and provided via discovery, by
| definition.
| adfrhgeaq5hy wrote:
| We know for a fact Tesla is _doing_ something nefarious,
| i.e. the self driving scam.
|
| But I suppose Tesla isn't _hiding_ anything nefarious. Most
| of their malfeasance is plain to see.
| tenuousemphasis wrote:
| As someone who actually purchased FSD and has yet to
| receive it, it's not a scam. It's just a really hard
| problem that I think Tesla will solve before anyone else.
| lazide wrote:
| If someone promises you'll have it any day now, so you
| pay them a lot of money, but they delay it years and
| years - and you note it's a really hard problem - at what
| point is it fraud?
|
| Most legal precedent I've seen says a lot less time than
| they've already delayed it, frankly.
| ajross wrote:
| > at what point is it fraud?
|
| It's fraud when someone is harmed. People like you who
| didn't buy the product and don't want it don't have
| standing here. People like me, who did, do. And almost
| without exception, we're all lined up to get the beta
| release. Offer me a $10k refund today in exchange for
| never getting access to FSD releases, and I'd turn it
| down.
|
| "People willfully paying for something I don't like"
| isn't fraud. Find a FSD owner willing to sue for a
| refund.
| karpierz wrote:
| Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying self
| driving if/when it's released? I think that "pay now,
| maybe get it later" or "don't pay now, can't buy it
| later" is a false dilemma.
| ajross wrote:
| > Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying
| self driving if/when it's released?
|
| It wouldn't. It would be an existence proof that _this
| isn 't fraud_: I want the product, they offer it as a
| pre-purchase with disclaimers, I bought it, ergo I wasn't
| harmed. Getting a refund now for a product a fully intend
| to purchase again in the future is called a "loan".
|
| Again, fraud is a crime. It requires damages. I have to
| have been harmed.
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| What if it can be proven they were never serious in their
| claims about the feasability of self-driving. What if it
| was all a scam to milk investment money, and yours as
| well. Would it be fraud then? Point being you were given
| a disclaimer that was accepted in good faith about
| receiving a product/service in a reasonable time frame.
| If that time frame turned out to be 100 years, I'd say
| you were damaged.
| ajross wrote:
| > What if it can be proven they were never serious in
| their claims about the feasability of self-driving. What
| if it was all a scam to milk investment money, and yours
| as well. Would it be fraud then?
|
| Yes, it would. Because then I would want a refund. But
| that would be asserting facts not in evidence, and I
| refer to my point upthread about arguing from a
| conspiracy as a prior.
| ximeng wrote:
| There are plenty of videos on Youtube showing the state
| and rate of progress of self-driving. It's clear it's got
| a long way to go but is improving quickly.
|
| Everyone knows that Elon Musk's twitter is not a reliable
| indicator of feature release dates.
| cinntaile wrote:
| The access is already blocked, it says in the article that they
| had to decrypt the data in the data-storage system. It's not
| like Tesla can prevent a state actor from having access anyway,
| that's just a law away.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| nightski wrote:
| 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.
| voakbasda wrote:
| 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.
| slt2021 wrote:
| 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
| voakbasda wrote:
| 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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| 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.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| Though none of those cars track my personal data in the
| extreme or in fact at all. Remember the point of the GP
| thread...
| speedgoose wrote:
| 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.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| 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.
| btbuilder wrote:
| 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.
| croh wrote:
| you can repair only as long as parts are avilable.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Parts are available because I am far from alone in this
| sentiment.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| 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.
| spfzero wrote:
| 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.
| sorokod wrote:
| 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.
| spullara wrote:
| For sure! https://www.tesla.com/support/insurance
| [deleted]
| nyIXfKmM84f1OPr wrote:
| > 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.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| 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.
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| 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.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| 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.
| lttlrck wrote:
| 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.
| manigandham wrote:
| 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.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| 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.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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.
| mrhands556 wrote:
| 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of improvement.
| bigyikes wrote:
| Tesla doesn't make money via ad targeting and sales.
| mysterydip wrote:
| 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.
| Retric wrote:
| The world is full of trade offs. Stuff that might happen
| in the future is less important than stuff that's
| definitely happening today.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Time value of progress if you will.
| JoshCole wrote:
| 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.
| maxerickson wrote:
| My 2013 car is not particularly laden with gizmos and has
| been very easy to repair (no real breakdowns...).
| wrkronmiller wrote:
| 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.
| maxerickson wrote:
| EFI is pretty much all upside though. When things do go
| wrong, the engine just tells you what the problem is.
| pengaru wrote:
| > 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.
| profile53 wrote:
| Incidentally, rooting an android tablet is federally
| illegal too.
| pengaru wrote:
| 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.
| mehrdada wrote:
| 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).
| capableweb wrote:
| 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/
| ectopod wrote:
| 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.
| capableweb wrote:
| > 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...
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| 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.
| mehrdada wrote:
| 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.
| aeharding wrote:
| Car crashes are taken very seriously in The Netherlands. It's
| refreshing to hear investigation into systemic problems vs
| personal responsibility regarding crashes, common in many other
| countries (see link).
|
| https://youtu.be/Ra_0DgnJ1uQ?t=209
| Aachen wrote:
| To save others from having to pass a cookie wall to even see
| what you're talking about, the link is (predictably) from Not
| Just Bikes: why there are fewer vehicles crashing into
| buildings in the Netherlands versus USA.
| dddw wrote:
| I heard on Dutch news Tesla shares the data anyway if there is
| a crash involved.
| driverdan wrote:
| Are there any current or upcoming electric four wheel vehicles
| that aren't a privacy nightmare?
| novok wrote:
| Unfortunately, the new gas vehicles being sold today are also
| privacy nightmares, just look closely.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| I'm not sure folks understand the comm arch in a Tesla. CAN
| probably still is the main way data are slogged around between
| ECUs (this info is five years old). CAN works by broadcasting
| data values at some periodic rate (1 PPS, 10 PPS, 100 PPS
| usually) and there is no 'publish/subscribe' except that all data
| are 'published' and any ECU can listen. What the other ECU does
| with the data, the originator doesn't know. If one of those ECUs
| listening is the 'gateway' then it can pluck off the main CAN bus
| anything it likes, and store it for as long as it likes, and
| upload whatever it wants. New GW FW can be OTA loaded to save and
| upload different types of data.
|
| In Teslas, there are two main CAN busses: the regular one and the
| 'secure' one that does the brakes and other safety stuff. There
| is NO connection between the two; but there is a secured path
| where the gateway can listen & get data from the secure one. The
| point here is that vehicle safety CAN bus is likely unhackable
| remotely, as there simply is no RF path writing onto that bus.
| (all bets are off if you have the vehicle, physically). I believe
| all previous exploits have been fixed.
|
| And one more thing: ECUs have some amount of on-board flash that
| is used during a crash/power loss scenario. The "dump important
| stuff to flash" CAN command causes the ECU to take an NMI-style
| interrupt and do it. Also, if the ECU's own power monitor notices
| the ECU is about to lose power, there is enough energy storage on
| board to operate for maybe a few hundred ms. The important stuff
| is saved.
|
| Every ECU must have a way to OTA its code. E V E R Y O N E,
| including some door lock or whatever (essentially LIN to CAN
| gatewaying). There are no, as in ZERO, exceptions to this rule.
| (or, there weren't as of five years ago, ymmv)
| amelius wrote:
| > If one of those ECUs listening is the 'gateway' then it can
| pluck off the main CAN bus anything it likes
|
| Except if there is some kind of encryption, I suppose.
| beezischillin wrote:
| It looks to me like Tesla's an AI company masquerading as a car
| maker with the real goal to take in as much data as necessary for
| their various AI projects to succeed.
| ctvo wrote:
| Or an explanation that doesn't require such giant leaps: they
| want to capture as much data as possible in case they ever need
| it and know there's nothing stopping them, so why not.
| mrshadowgoose wrote:
| I'm not really sure where the giant leaps are.
|
| Fact 1: Tesla is attempting to develop a self-driving system
| that is based on machine learning.
|
| Fact 2: Training machine learning systems requires training
| data. Having large amounts of real training data is highly
| desirable.
|
| So a single step?
|
| I'm sure that Tesla also benefits from being able to defend
| against false claims that would tarnish their image[1], but
| please don't be disingenuous about their machine learning
| goals.
|
| [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/01/08/
| tes...
| beezischillin wrote:
| I'm not going to deny that their cars are standout and that
| they sell well, if you wanted to collect a lot of data you
| need a good and hip product to piggyback onto. But I don't
| necessarily think the car is the end goal. If they manage
| to crack autonomous driving fully first thanks to
| collecting all that data it will be such a product that it
| makes the car irrelevant and it will genuinely change the
| course of history. Of course that's just my gut feeling
| about it. It's not all that unlikely if you look at the
| extent of what Silicon Valley is willing to go to just to
| show you ads, from creating the world's most popular smart
| phone OS to a giant video sharing site to voice assistants
| to pioneering vr to creating the world's most popular web
| browser and I could go on :)
| ctvo wrote:
| The giant leap is Tesla is an AI company. Most companies
| gather data if they can, you wouldn't call them an AI
| company. A concrete example: Amazon, Walmart, and Target
| collect a lot of data on their respective ecommerce
| websites. Are they AI companies? They also and use train
| machine learning models.
|
| Tesla is trying to fix left turn regressions [1] in an if
| statement it introduced with its latest over the air
| update. Working on getting an iteratively better lane /
| cruise control assist is something many auto companies are
| doing, and that also doesn't make them AI companies.
|
| 1 - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1451907229796417542
|
| Edit:
|
| By the way, here's Elon re: machine learning and Tesla.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyqw3EMCckU
| jhgg wrote:
| I mean in the same event that you list, Elon literally
| opens with: "Tesla is much more than an automotive
| company, and we have lots of deep AI activity..." I think
| it is fair to say that a company that is literally
| inventing its own AI training supercomputer is probably
| an AI company as well :)
|
| https://youtu.be/j0z4FweCy4M?t=2833
| a_paddy wrote:
| If they have decrypted the data then this is a story with much
| bigger repercussions. What they may have done is decoded the data
| from the log files, which could have been in a proprietary or
| obfuscated format.
| tenuousemphasis wrote:
| >"That makes it interesting, because who is responsible for the
| following distance: the car or the driver?" said NFI investigator
| Aart Spek.
|
| That's easy. The driver sets the autopilot follow distance.
| lazide wrote:
| And if it doesn't follow the setting, either due to a bug or
| misinterpreting something (bad sensor, bad sensor reading)?
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's the driver fault to not detect the event and to not take
| control, press the brake pedal, as far as I know.
|
| When you engage the adaptive cruise control on any car brand,
| you are still very much responsible to not crash in the front
| car.
| raylad wrote:
| The paper this article is based on:
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355202701_Reverse_e...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-23 23:01 UTC)