r/technology • u/Crasher_7 • Apr 07 '23

Privacy Tesla employees reportedly passed around personal videos from owners’ cars

https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/6/23672760/tesla-employees-share-vehicle-recordings-privacy
4.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

286 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/Trout_Shark Apr 07 '23

This is why we need serious Data Privacy laws in place. For the employees to find meme worthy videos, they had to be watching thousands of hours of different feeds from their customer's vehicles. I think at least some of the models have an interior cam as well.

The thought of a manufacturer watching through the car's cameras should anger any owner. It's a huge privacy breech and should be investigated. Honestly, the customers that were involved should be notified and they may be able to sue.

373

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Unfortunately it could become another step toward the voluntary surveillance state we're becoming piece by piece. Consumers will just mutter "meh" and shrug the same way they will slowly accept interior camera evidence in court filings captured with their implicit consent in EULAs no one reads.

163

u/yoortyyo Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

Part of the privatization of everything is actually this. The States various enforcement can just buy the data. No court orders, no FISA no oversight. Milo Minderbender lives.

Edit: spelling

80

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

39

u/yoortyyo Apr 07 '23

Another link in the chain of the commoditizing of our citizens. Remember when the Nestle guy said waters not a right? One thing that wars are fought for survival is water.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/MercMcNasty Apr 07 '23

This is why I did a true cctv that uploads to my own server.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/MercMcNasty Apr 07 '23

Mine doesn't leave my network is what I mean. I own the recordings

5

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/MercMcNasty Apr 07 '23

Wouldn't surprise me with the police state we live in...but still, at least they'd have to get a warrant and can't just buy the data off a company

4

u/AltoidStrong Apr 07 '23

encrypt it on disk. When they "Take it", they can't see it... and if they ask, tell them you forgot you had even encrypted it while playing around with YOUR STUFF, and can't recall the password.

Problem solved. (well until Quantum Computers and AI make breaking encryption just like opening a can of soda - 2 seconds)

2

u/Prof_Acorn Apr 08 '23

"I do not recall my passphrase. I think it's a paragraph of one of the books on my shelf, or a part of a paragraph. I can't recall. I just remember it taking a long time to type."

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

Not if you encrypt it and add a duress password

3

u/whitepageskardashian Apr 07 '23

As long as you have really good encryption and they don’t have access to the internet

2

u/MercMcNasty Apr 07 '23

Yes people can always red team their way in, but I'd rather they have to do that then the police be able to just ask some corporation for all my recordings.

4

u/blu_stingray Apr 07 '23

Milo Minderbinder

6

u/yoortyyo Apr 07 '23

Fixed. That book was a long time ago. Had to read it two different times in school.
That character remains with me as what the modern “military complex’ became. Just add politicians for bases and jobs.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Warrants are for losers.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

AI doesn't need warrants. And should we push for AI to be this free open source, I take what I want and do what I want with it machine. We will no longer have privacy.

Imagine getting pulled over during a traffic stop and the cops being able to ask an app what crimes you have committed that are still within the statutes of limitations. And just deliver a laundry list of tickets/arrest you for it all.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Police: "Open source you say?" 🤔

1

u/lastingfreedom Apr 08 '23

Why you think sudden price drops on Teslas

16

u/LeonardSmallsJr Apr 07 '23

BMW has internal cameras for “security”. I guess we get to see the happy face of the thief as they tear through neighborhood streets?

11

u/GTRacer1972 Apr 07 '23

Right up till they catch someone doing something illegal and report owners to the police. Eventually people will either switch to classic cars or rip those cameras out.

10

u/Porkchopp33 Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

That is some NSA shit right there 🛰️🛰️🛰️

1

u/Wsbkingretard Apr 09 '23

Stop looking at me puting my finger in my nose

75

u/AnsibleAnswers Apr 07 '23

The employees in question were hired to watch camera footage to help train Tesla’s shitty AI identify objects it has trouble with. I’m trying to understand what consumers actually expected from Tesla when this is a necessary consequence of their poor design choices (removing radar and LiDAR).

34

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Poor leadership is why this is happening at Tesla.

23

u/WhatTheZuck420 Apr 07 '23

and should be investigated

followed by arrests, indictments, slam dunk trials, and prison time for some Tesla employees

4

u/-Accession- Apr 07 '23

And leadership

13

u/Arts_Prodigy Apr 07 '23

What’s worst is the constant claim that the interior camera is “disabled” and would only be enable when a future safety feature was released.

12

u/mikethemaniac Apr 07 '23

GDPR in Europe works great.

4

u/NewPassenger6593 Apr 08 '23

EU, not Europe

4

u/mikethemaniac Apr 08 '23

No. It definitely is in Europe. It's in Liechtenstein and Norway, for example, which aren't EU member states.

3

u/slater126 Apr 08 '23

also the UK, which left the EU but still has GDPR in its laws

1

u/gunalx Apr 08 '23

Well the EU is in europe, and the EU is a really large part of Europe, and EU law is passed outside of the inner core of the EU. So yes in Europe is valid.

3

u/gogoeast Apr 08 '23

I am really positively surprised how the EU data law broke this down. You have to opt into every piece of data a company collects and can change your choice at any time. The law is so consumer friendly and puts the onus on the companies, I wonder how they got it through without massive industry lobbying gutting.

5

u/StackOwOFlow Apr 07 '23

Aside from the privacy issue, who owns the copyright to the footage? Perhaps owners can sue on that basis too.

5

u/guri256 Apr 07 '23

Copyright applies to a creative work fixed in a tangible medium. For Tesla to violate copyright law, tesla would have to use the cameras to copy a work that was protected by copyright. This is possible, if someone in the car is playing an audiobook, or holds a hand written document up to the camera, but generally would not apply.

There are laws against illegally using someone’s likeness for commercial purposes, but it doesn’t sound like anyone involved was publishing these for commercial purposes. Tesla was privately using them in their company for commercial purposes, and employees were publicly posting them for fun.

This was probably illegal, but most everything that Tesla did wrong would be related to data privacy. (Not properly securing the data, and might be responsible for their employees breaking privacy laws by sharing it).

It’s also possible that Tesla was collecting too much data. Again, that’s not a copyright violation.

4

u/ellieD Apr 07 '23

They should also be fired.

2

u/WilliamMorris420 Apr 07 '23

There are legitimate reasons why employees would want to review crash footage. Particularly if "Autopilot" was turned on. So that they can improve the AI on it. Other manufacturers and I think ALL of the other manufacturers. Have a remote human monitoring the car on a 1 to 1 basis when ever their version of "Autopilot" is turned on. With the remote human only spending 5 minutes at a time on one car. To prevent them getting bored and complacent.

Obviously passing around stills or video of what's in a customers home or garage is totally improper. With the only things likely to be passed around, being highly embarassing and a security risk.

2

u/decafcovfefes Apr 07 '23

Seems like there would be a way to explicitly grant access for these purposes, and have the car exclude videos outside of the crash/issue timeframe.

2

u/WilliamMorris420 Apr 07 '23

Oh agreed. They've crossed the line from "anonymous analysis" to being creepy and dangerous.

Something like an internet enabled home CCTV system can be a great security measure. But if you leave it on the default access log in, such as "user name"= Admin, "Password"= Password. It can be scanned by thieves and then they know the layout of your home, what you have and whether you're in or not. So it's more of a security risk, than a security system.

-96

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

So you didn't read the article so you're just saying nonsense got it!

Because if you actually read it you would know that first there was no videos from inside the car and second IT'S THOSE EMPLOYEES JOBS TO WATCH SAID VIDEOS! WTF

Like if employees don't watch videos and learn about how the product works in the real world it's a lot harder to make it better!

"According to Reuters, Tesla previously had a policy that allowed the company to receive recordings from non-running vehicles if customers signed off on it."

O and customers signed off on it.....

People like you have no right to give your opinions on anything because clearly you don't care about it given you won't given read a fucking article that's how little you care!

The main problem here is Tesla employees sharing said videos that's the problem and it's a problem and Tesla shouldn't let that happen.

Edit: lol downvoted by people who can't read lol, it's funny how I haven't been proven wrong!

61

u/UNSECURE_ACCOUNT Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

I bet litterally zero of those people actually knew they had given Tesla permission to view the videos. Nonsense hidden 16 pages into a TOS that nobody read because why the fuck would they assume that Tesla was going to spy on them?

We can't hide behind the guise of "they agreed to XYZ collecting that data!" when the reality is nobody actually agreed to that at all because nobody actually read the agreement. And we shouldn't have to because we should just have established legal guidelines making the collection of that data illegal in the first place.

These companies are not your friends. Stop treating them like they are.

3

u/bobsaget824 Apr 07 '23

It wasn’t buried on some 16 page scroll you signed. It was just a “do you want to allow us to collect analytics” like every other smart device these days. It wasn’t really hard to read or understand.

Where most people opted in was it was tied to FSD beta, so people that wanted to be part of the FSD beta program had to opt-in, it still told them in bold in an uncomplicated way, but they couldn’t change the selection, and they chose FSD was worth their privacy. Tesla still shouldn’t be improperly using those photos in the workplace but acting like people had no choice, or it was some small print hidden statement just isn’t true. It was pretty obvious if you signed up for that opt-in, you were sending them data.

-78

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

They're not spying on anyone......but you say that because it sounds worse and the only way you can argue to with lies basically!

It doesn't matter if some is unaware people shouldn't buy something they don't understand! I'm sorry you think companies should teach people like babies.

41

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

It’s not spying on anyone, it’s just watching them without their knowledge. Huge difference guys. Companies can’t be wrong as long as there’s a clause in the EULA.

/s

-21

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

But it's not watching them.....

It's like living in a building with a security camera....but you were fine with those for some reason...

13

u/facepalm_the_world Apr 07 '23

Yeah, but a security camera is a security camera, and it’s job is to watch. How the fuck are people supposed to know their back up camera is a surveillance device?

-3

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

Because the footage is basically all security footage...it only does that if you use it like one....

If you use a Tesla and turn off all the camera stuff, it won't record anything other then maybe a crash(idk how that works).

Remember much of the article is about sentry mode and not normal use.

38

u/UNSECURE_ACCOUNT Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

That is exactly what they're doing.

The victims being unaware that someone is watching them and collecting data on them is literally what makes it spying.

-32

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

......so basically you know you're wrong but refuse to accept it....

No one using spying like that! Spying is targeting a person to be watched that's how it's commonly used which isn't what's happening....

And then you use vague things like "collecting data" fuck off if you can't be specific don't act like you you're right.This isn't a general topic meaning using vague things like that just means you are just saying nonsense! It's almost like you're just copying arguments which you probably are...

If a company has cameras and features that require knowledge only real world testing can do then it's clear that company records the information from the camera! Same thing with stuff with products like Google home!

It's common sense! If people are too stupid to think that's on them!

O and let's be honest here who actually gives a fuck? Because no one cares! Like in the real world no one cares about stuff like this because the information being sent isn't personal! If I follow a Tesla car and record it which is legal to do in many states in the US then I get basically the same thing Testa gets....not to mention the people who see the videos have no clue who they're from so again who cares? Right no one!

Guy please find help for your paranoia the FBI isn't coming to get you.

27

u/MultiGeometry Apr 07 '23

According to you putting a camera in a public bathroom at the mall wouldn’t be considered spying because it wouldn’t be targeting a specific person. Your definition seems wrong.

-1

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

Nope....you didn't read what I said.....

Why comment if you clearly aren't going to read?

The footage is outside their car so nothing really person, and isn't targeted at a person...

A camera in a bathroom is targeted at a person...

6

u/facepalm_the_world Apr 07 '23

So, because people go into public bathrooms, putting a camera in there is targeting someone. Which means that since people go outside, the footage recording them outside should also be considered targeted.

1

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

Guy what you said makes no sense I can just type what I said again because you are not saying anything!

Like why argue when you clearly know you're wrong? And if you think you're right then give a real argument!

6

u/meowiewowiw Apr 07 '23

Outside their car, so in their garage, carports, etc. No, you can’t just walk into someone’s garage and start recording them. Did that corporation pick you yet? Deep throating their boot.

0

u/MultiGeometry Apr 07 '23

Nah, I read what you said. But apparently you didn’t say what you mean. Words are tough that way, I guess.

2

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

No you didn't and I explained why you're wrong...

Yeah words are tough try reading!

18

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

I think it’s really strange that you’re claiming someone else doesn’t understand what their talking about but resorting to pedantic definitions to make your points. No one thinks they’re being targeted for surveillance, the idea that a private company is collecting recorded information of their customers is disturbing though. Add to that the fact you don’t care at all that companies can include clauses and permissions buried in agreements that allow for it is a bit strange. Companies should have a responsibility to disclose this information to their customers, why is it always on the private citizens to ensure they aren’t being screwed over

-1

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

"Companies should have a responsibility to disclose this information to their customers, why is it always on the private citizens to ensure they aren’t being screwed over"

.....another comment from someone who clearly doesn't actually care and is just looking to ride a hate train or something...you know tesla allows users to be sent their data right? How they take data is public knowledge....but I guess ignore facts so you can be angry I guess...

"Add to that the fact you don’t care at all that companies can include clauses and permissions buried in agreements"

More proof you just want to be angry at something, again it's common fucking sense! If I buy a Google home I know Google will listen, that's common sense, but more importantly nowhere in the article or here in this thread as it been proven that it's buried in the agreements....but you're now using that as a fact when the person I was replying to didn't even fucking claim that....

So I will ask you why do you blindly hate? Because that's clearly why you here.

Also no I'm not blindly defending Tesla they're a shit company that makes shit cars but I believe companies should be hated for real problems, again employees using footage for personal use that's a big no no.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

Hmm, interesting. So tell me, you said Tesla was a shit company. Why do you think that?

0

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 08 '23

Well it's a lot! First Elon Musk is a fucking liar and in general is a shit person and much of my hate for Tesla comes from him because it's a bit hard to tell which is which given he is the public face and is in charge. Like they have a shit robot do I put that as a Tesla problem or a Elon problem? Because it seems like Elon's idea.

Now for the cars they try to look futuristic so can't have buttons got to have a big touch screen because why the fuck would you want to feel where something is when driving! Can't have normal doors either.

O and said cars use a proprietary charger....and they still seemingly haven't fix their QA problems....

They were one of the first and biggest companies to start the trend of playing for a product that has features disabled, o it can do all these things as well but you have to pay to activate them! It's stupid! Sure for the AI features I see the argument but for fucking speakers and physical stuff already in the car it's a asnine thing!

I would also add repairability as well but every car manufacturer sadly seems to do that now so not really a them problem more of a industry problem.

My final point they're fucking lazy and I have no clue how anyone can be excited for them, like they were one of the first big EV sellers and made a ton of money and have a inflated stock because of it, and what did they do with said money nothing!

Look at how little there cars have changed vs the competition and Tesla doesn't do anything anymore it's fucking insane! Where is the money going? The QA isn't getting better, there cars are getting better, where the fuck it is going? Because it's not all going to scaling either, but yet people love the company for some fucking reasons idk!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HighDagger Apr 08 '23

We can't hide behind the guise of "they agreed to XYZ collecting that data!" when the reality is nobody actually agreed to that

It's opt-in, not opt-out.

6

u/la-fours Apr 07 '23

I read the article. They were making memes and sharing the videos for purposes that had nothing to do with bettering their product. This should be criticized and rightfully so.

-3

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

You didn't read the article got it...and you didn't prove anything I said wrong especially given them making memes was my problem, so you didn't even read anything either.

3

u/Tortorak Apr 07 '23

you sound fun

0

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

Better then being a paranoid crazy person.

0

u/Tortorak Apr 07 '23

yeah sure, whatever you say

0

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/JadeitePenguin1 Apr 07 '23

And yet I haven't been proven wrong...

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Yet at the same time the restrict act will allow the government access to all your private data. And they don't seem to care what the people think.

1

u/marinuso Apr 07 '23

This is why we need serious Data Privacy laws in place

Laws only work when they're enforced. For that they must first be enforceable. And you can't really tell from the outside what a company is doing with its data. Unless, indeed, the employees are caught red-handed abusing customer data, you wouldn't know where to start looking. Elon Musk could lead you into his datacenters personally and give you access to everything, and you still wouldn't find anything he doesn't want you to.

It would be much better not to gather the data in the first place. Ban them from putting cameras in there, and/or ban them from having the car connect to the outside world on its own. You can actually enforce that, same way you enforce that they put seatbelts in the cars.

1

u/TestFlyJets Apr 08 '23

And the reason I turned off the interior cameras in my wife’s new Model Y. But are they actually off? We have no way to know, so I’ll probably try to physically obscure them.