1188
Asking some reasonable questions about Elon Musk's "help" with the Cybertruck bombing case
(i.redd.it)
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
1188 points (99.3% liked)
Privacy
4439 readers
291 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Having security cameras at the un-manned charging stations doesn't seem unreasonable to me? Surely this is pretty standard to prevent/catch vandalism.
The other stuff, might be a valid explanation but since it's tesla probably not.
The question is if it was security camera footage from the facility or from the cybertruck itself. One is fine, one clearly is not.
Here's your answer. It's not a new thing.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/
it's the first one (that i know of), however musk also said that telemetry looked normal until it burned, which is not fine in any sensible way
It is not. Unfortunately seems if you don't like it, your only options are a decade old car or a bike.
https://electrek.co/2024/12/30/massive-data-leak-at-volkswagen-exposes-800000-ev-drivers/
That raises a new question. Did they stream the footage from the exploded cybertruck after the fact (i.e. the computer and storage were still fine), or are they endlessly streaming the footage into their own cloud storage so the explosion couldn't have affected it?
The latter seems unlikely, because that's a huge data storage cost. But the more I learn the more I wonder.
The in-car footage of the driver is for insurance reasons. If the Autopilot crashes, the footage will show that the driver was not paying attention or did not have the hands on the wheel, therefore it's not teslas but the drivers fault.
Ftfy
I was specifically referring to security cameras. Cameras at the un-manned charging site, recording video only in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy. Any gas station would have the same.
Now other commenters have pointed out they likely accessed the footage from the truck itself. This is a different ballpark.
The question is why does Elon have access to it?
Perhaps "Elon helped" is Musk-washing "Elon put us in contact with the folks who could get us access to those videos". But that manbaby likes getting his clammy grabbers in the mix, so I wouldn't be surprised if he personally demanded access and handed it over.
I mean if Tesla owns their charging stations and has their security cameras there then it makes sense they can access them, and it also seems not unusual to me that the CEO of a company can ask an employee to send them the security footage of one of their cameras?
I might have overlooked something but I'm struggling to see how this is different from what you'd expect. I get that this is c/Privacy and may not be what you'd want, but it seems in line with what you'd expect. The recordings are in a public place and presumably video only so I'm not sure what privacy is expected.
Definitely seems like a normal process would be for police to ask Tesla for the footage, but because a Cybertruck exploded and people just kinda accepted it as something they might do before finding it's likely a car bomb, Musk probably wanted to try to get in front of it and likely contacted the police and offered their help to get answers quicker (and therefore help resolve the bad PR).
Harrupmh, yes, yes. But why in the everyloving fuck would a CEO (other than the CEO of my local sandwich shop) be involved in any of this?!
Musk is all about flexing.
I could see him wanting to be in the room when his IT/sec guys pull up the video for any kind of high profile case.
I had no idea they had those, considering there's so many cases of vandalism that Tesla (both to cars and charging infrastructure) seemingly didn't do anything about.
Having footage and getting the police to action that info are two very different things