Cabin camera soon to be required for all AP features?

[unlock]

Interesting turn of events; my camera has had tape on it since it came home Aug 2018. Another reason I guess I have to hold off on updating the firmware

Having to use a camera to watch your eyes/face is disappointing, comes from some hubris that cameras can do everything but also folks that have abused the not-self-driving features, admittedly encouraged to do so by Elon's over promising over the years.

Because too many of us don't take responsibility behind the wheel the majority then ends up depending on tech and rules to try and keep the rest of us safe from those folk.

Too many of these channels

but the title speaks the truth

I can't help but think: "Tesla Insurance." - That darn camera again right? - I think the root cause is definitely a multifaceted issue and like you've pointed out one of many being over promised and under delivered.

For those that value privacy, I think a good option for insurance purposes would be to give those that have AP tech in their cars an insurance break for using a front facing cabin dash cam to record yourself along with the front view. This is the only sure way that you know the data is internal, 100% yours and not uploaded to a cloud.

If there was a scenario that puts into question the drivers attentiveness and state of alertness in an uneventful accident/crash, then let the footage speak for itself and justice be served. I'm all for 100% fairness and with justice being served to the person that is in the wrong.

I'm not against the burden of proof, I am just not in favor of the privacy aspect of the whole potentially mandatory cabin camera having to be on in order to use a feature that we all have already paid for.

 

[unlock]

The whole point of the notes in the update though are that -- unless you affirmatively enable and opt in to transmitting data to Tesla, the image data are not stored or transmitted. The NN analyses the camera feed and tries to make a determination as to whether you are paying attention, acts accordingly, and the image feed data are then discarded unless you opt to aggregate and send some of those data to Tesla. From the very update notes cited in the OP:

"Camera images do not leave the vehicle itself (emphasis mine), which means the system cannot save or transmit information unless you enable data sharing."

I am fully aware of what the note states, thank you. There's no need to emphasize what is written and by you doing so clearly illustrates that you missed the whole point. No offense, it's just my (emphasis).

If you want to believe everything you read then that's completely fine. We are all entitled to what we are comfortable with and to what degree we actually trust what we're told. - Have you heard the saying, "Don't always believe what you read?" If you do, great. If you are the type to question things, because you can and most often times should, great. Doesn't matter. Free choice.

The point here is that Tesla is a data/tech company first, collects massive amounts of telemetry/user data, has their own insurance company that records your driving habits, heavily reliant more so than ever on their camera for various functions and wait...(*phantom brake, screeeeeeeech*) is a data company first.

There are many people like myself who find that unsettling and for good reason(s). We don't take a blanket statement and take it as the holy grail. Get it now?

Even for the super literal folks that eats what is given without questioning anything, what do you say about all the over promising and under delivering by Tesla/Elon? -- With a track record like that coupled with Tesla being a data company first.... do you still trust them 100%? (That's a rhetorical question btw.)

......What are the reasons why you would not think to question the integrity of any statement coming from Tesla with a track record of, "The boy who cried wolf?"

 

[unlock]

Scott was right.

"You have zero privacy anyway... get over it." - Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems CEO, 1999

Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It'

At the Monday night launch of Sun Microsystems' new Jini technology, CEO Scott McNealy calls consumer privacy a non-issue. The Federal Trade Commission has another view. By Polly Sprenger.

www.wired.com

For the masses yes; however, that doesn't apply to everyone. You can still take measures to protect your privacy. I get Scott's point though and agree that it does hold true for the majority. That doesn't mean to not try and to do what you can.

When you enable data sharing...does that mean Tesla has pictures of our faces?

Yes.

Doesn't bother me in the least... There are FAR more serious privacy violations in our daily lives than this!

Fair enough. For those that are plastered all over FB, IG, etc... forget it lol... enjoy the cabin camera, say cheese and pick your nose.

If you fear over every conspiracy theory you will go nowhere. As if they even care to look at you. Umphh. you gave up more data posting on a forum.

I disagree. If you take that approach at things then that's your choice. It's not a conspiracy given the type of company Tesla is to question the integrity of their statement.

That's like saying a known felon does not have the potential to every commit a crime again.

And no, you don't give up more data posting on a forum for those that don't disclose their real identity. Not everyone is a social media, online, careless free living hippy that discloses their real info online.

People riding around in public surrounded by windows have no realistic expectation of privacy.

True in that respect. In the public by you walking into that domain is your signing of a waiver ... The context of privacy related issues inside of your own car falls into a different category. That's your private domain and there's no business to be forced to be recorded in order to use features that you've already paid for. - Other makers don't force you to be recorded to use their AP.

yay - another tinfoil hat fueled paranoid rant.
They MUST be lying to you, because they can.
Tesla are lying to us because they've found a way to monetize all that rampant nose picking, the ransom demands are in the mail

In other shock news - infrared "detectors" are just cameras as well.

Not really. It's more like yay, more people who don't get the big picture here.

I'll repost what I wrote above as I'm curious to hear your answer. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.

The point here is that Tesla is a data/tech company first, collects massive amounts of telemetry/user data, has their own insurance company that records your driving habits, heavily reliant more so than ever on their camera for various functions and wait...(*phantom brake, screeeeeeeech*) is a data company first.

There are many people like myself who find that unsettling and for good reason(s). We don't take a blanket statement and take it as the holy grail. Get it now?

Even for the super literal folks that eats what is given without questioning anything, what do you say about all the over promising and under delivering by Tesla/Elon? -- With a track record like that coupled with Tesla being a data company first.... do you still trust them 100%? (That's a rhetorical question btw.)

......What are the reasons why you would not think to question the integrity of any statement coming from Tesla with a track record of, "The boy who cried wolf?"

The first used cell phone was tracked and every single cell phone since that time has been and will be tracked. Also Equifax knows more about you than any other person you know. And we want get into FB and Google. Welcome to Earth.

The irony is the Tesla camera info NEVER leaves the car but THAT is what you are worried about.

View attachment 828979

Not everyone uses FB and are slaves to those social media platforms. Even if someone is on there it does not mean that they disclose their real info lol.

As for the credit bureaus that's different on many levels vs the data collection by Tesla etc...

It's apparent that you are so faithful to believing 100% of what you read. Good on you. That's your choice.

The irony? ... There are people who actually care about their privacy. Surprise surprise.

 

[Twiglett]

I am fully aware of what the note states, thank you. There's no need to emphasize what is written and by you doing so clearly illustrates that you missed the whole point. No offense, it's just my (emphasis).

If you want to believe everything you read then that's completely fine. We are all entitled to what we are comfortable with and to what degree we actually trust what we're told. - Have you heard the saying, "Don't always believe what you read?" If you do, great. If you are the type to question things, because you can and most often times should, great. Doesn't matter. Free choice.

The point here is that Tesla is a data/tech company first, collects massive amounts of telemetry/user data, has their own insurance company that records your driving habits, heavily reliant more so than ever on their camera for various functions and wait...(*phantom brake, screeeeeeeech*) is a data company first.

There are many people like myself who find that unsettling and for good reason(s). We don't take a blanket statement and take it as the holy grail. Get it now?

Even for the super literal folks that eats what is given without questioning anything, what do you say about all the over promising and under delivering by Tesla/Elon? -- With a track record like that coupled with Tesla being a data company first.... do you still trust them 100%? (That's a rhetorical question btw.)

......What are the reasons why you would not think to question the integrity of any statement coming from Tesla with a track record of, "The boy who cried wolf?"

you mean like the screaming foul with zero evidence on any kind of crying wolf? "They overpromise and underdeliver" is hardly damning evidence of willful and malicious privacy violation and certainly not good enough to be flinging such accusations around.
It seems like only Tesla is doing it all wrong, but "all the others" are doing right somehow. Yet the "evidence" against Tesla is because they overpromise, but the proof the others are doing great is technical. I call BS on this too.
The whole "the others don't use cameras" is nonsense. If it can check your eyes are open and looking in the right direction, its a camera not an "infrared" thingy.

Pretending others is all security theatre. Only Snowden is doing it the right way and that is to physically disable all cameras and microphones. Anything else is just pretending. But then every single laptop, smartphone, pad, device etc with camera becomes less functional and 99.8% don't care.

Personally there are much more important things to me, rather than clutching my pearls about Tesla providing options that they could possibly just ignore, especially when there is no evidence that they do.

What's next, the earth isn't really round and NASA didn't go to the moon?

 

[jjrandorin]

but by doing so it does cause the issue of privacy concerns despite their claims of no data being sent out.

Putting aside "regular" privacy concerns for a moment...

These are the most connected cars in the world. Privacy is like locks on your door. You have to pick on a sliding scale between privacy and convenience. You could put 20 locks on your front door, and it would be "safer" than having one or two, but a lot less convenient.

Everyone has to make their own "privacy" decisions. I dont use facebook because I dont trust the company. I do use google, because I trust them a little more than facebook (not because I trust them 100%, but for me they are a "lesser of two evils" type thing and I dont and will never trust facebook).

You have a choice still, even if this comes to pass (cabin camera required to use ap). Dont use AP, or sell the car. All cars already track your every move. At least with a tesla, we as owners can make use of that if we want to, or click a button to turn off data sharing in the car.

 

[jjrandorin]

The irony? ... There are people who actually care about their privacy. Surprise surprise.

And most of those people would not buy the "most connected car in the world" (which this is). Given your other statements in this thread, it does not appear you should be driving any car that shares any data, which is basically any modern car.

I dont fault you for your opinions ( I dont really do social media either), but I also dont go online and start talking about other peoples social media habits or ask them why they are not concerned about all the sharing they are doing.

It appears your opinions on this topic are strong ones, which is fine, but this is absolutely positively 100% the wrong car to be driving in that case.

I would never do Tesla insurance, regardless of price, or any other insurance company that "mandates" using one of those "snapshot" (share your driving habits with us for a 10% discount") things. Thats my choice, but I dont fault people who dont care.

 

[Dewg]

And most of those people would not buy the "most connected car in the world" (which this is). Given your other statements in this thread, it does not appear you should be driving any car that shares any data, which is basically any modern car.

I dont fault you for your opinions ( I dont really do social media either), but I also dont go online and start talking about other peoples social media habits or ask them why they are not concerned about all the sharing they are doing.

It appears your opinions on this topic are strong ones, which is fine, but this is absolutely positively 100% the wrong car to be driving in that case.

I would never do Tesla insurance, regardless of price, or any other insurance company that "mandates" using one of those "snapshot" (share your driving habits with us for a 10% discount") things. Thats my choice, but I dont fault people who dont care.

Hyundai, GM, Honda, Crysler, Genesis, Mercedes, and many others all have in-cabin cameras for various things, including attentiveness for ADAS systems. Many mini-vans, including Honda Odyssey and Crysler Pacifica have cameras trained on the backseat to watch children so the drivers (parents) can keep an eye on them without taking their eyes off the road for more than a moment. Many cars use these cameras and outside cameras for accident proof of fault. When I leave my house and move about in public, in full view of the public, I have no expectation of privacy. I assume everyone can see me and see what I'm doing. If I want privacy, I go home and close the curtains. Many states have laws against tinting windows, so police can see inside your car and confirm you're not holding a weapon, or drinking and driving, or violating HOV lanes, etc.

 

[unlock]

Putting aside "regular" privacy concerns for a moment...

These are the most connected cars in the world. Privacy is like locks on your door. You have to pick on a sliding scale between privacy and convenience. You could put 20 locks on your front door, and it would be "safer" than having one or two, but a lot less convenient.

Everyone has to make their own "privacy" decisions. I dont use facebook because I dont trust the company. I do use google, because I trust them a little more than facebook (not because I trust them 100%, but for me they are a "lesser of two evils" type thing and I dont and will never trust facebook).

You have a choice still, even if this comes to pass (cabin camera required to use ap). Dont use AP, or sell the car. All cars already track your every move. At least with a tesla, we as owners can make use of that if we want to, or click a button to turn off data sharing in the car.

Those are good points and you've outlined the overall point here regarding privacy habits of doing what you can. Now with the most connect car in the world I'm aware that it's impossible to have it perfect. There's no such thing.

The topic here is being potentially forced to keep the camera on to use a feature that you already have. For privacy conscious folks this is an issue and that's okay, yet some people here as you've witnessed are being childish about it with their non constructive replies. Go figure.

Doing more to manage your privacy is better than doing nothing at all. I'm not on FB as well, but I do use gmail like yourself. By using the lesser of the evils still does not mean that you can't use them anonymously. You do not have to enter your personal info on there if you choose not to.

I never said anything remotely close to anything being 100% perfect, but I do see your points.

About that button/toggle or whatever you want to call it. If you believe in that and trust it, great. - On the flip side it's also okay to question its integrity and not trust it.

And most of those people would not buy the "most connected car in the world" (which this is). Given your other statements in this thread, it does not appear you should be driving any car that shares any data, which is basically any modern car.

I dont fault you for your opinions ( I dont really do social media either), but I also dont go online and start talking about other peoples social media habits or ask them why they are not concerned about all the sharing they are doing.

It appears your opinions on this topic are strong ones, which is fine, but this is absolutely positively 100% the wrong car to be driving in that case.

I would never do Tesla insurance, regardless of price, or any other insurance company that "mandates" using one of those "snapshot" (share your driving habits with us for a 10% discount") things. Thats my choice, but I dont fault people who dont care.

Again, nothing can be 100% perfect with privacy when it comes to modern cars, phones, computers etc... That's not what is being implied here and nowhere near that level, to where it is even remotely relevant to what you said about not driving any modern car.

Also to clarify I had said specifically this, "I'm curious to hear some of your thoughts on where you see this going..." - What's wrong with that? It appears that you're blowing it up to be something that it is not.

Tesla isn't necessarily the wrong car to be driving, just because one may be concerned about the internal cabin camera and being forced to use it.

I agree about the Tesla insurance. Not for me either and I too do not fault people for going either way with that.

 

[unlock]

Hyundai, GM, Honda, Crysler, Genesis, Mercedes, and many others all have in-cabin cameras for various things, including attentiveness for ADAS systems. Many mini-vans, including Honda Odyssey and Crysler Pacifica have cameras trained on the backseat to watch children so the drivers (parents) can keep an eye on them without taking their eyes off the road for more than a moment. Many cars use these cameras and outside cameras for accident proof of fault. When I leave my house and move about in public, in full view of the public, I have no expectation of privacy. I assume everyone can see me and see what I'm doing. If I want privacy, I go home and close the curtains. Many states have laws against tinting windows, so police can see inside your car and confirm you're not holding a weapon, or drinking and driving, or violating HOV lanes, etc.

True and you're right about the points that you've made. - The context here; however, is being forced to use the camera -> disables functionality of what was already working that is the issue. With the cameras in the other vehicles you're not forced to use them in order to use any form of DS/AP. The infrared used in the Mercedes, Genesis etc... are eye trackers, not actual picture cameras that can video record you. It can also be turned off completely and covered up with tape, while not affecting the use of any drivers assist system. That's the difference.

 

[dtdtdt]

The infrared used in the Mercedes, Genesis etc... are eye trackers, not actual picture cameras that can video record you.

Are you sure about this? A description of the Genesis system says, “A pair of cameras in the steering wheel tracks the driver’s eyes.” The fact that the cameras are most sensitive in the infra-red does not negate the fact that they are taking pictures. The important bit would be if the video is available to some other computer than a dedicated eye-tracker. From what I can learn from the vendor of the system (Tobil of Sweden), the images are available for other purposes.

Your point is valid, that currently you don’t lose the ADAS features if you cover the camera (unlike FSDb). This could change through government regulations.

 

[Dewg]

True and you're right about the points that you've made. - The context here; however, is being forced to use the camera -> disables functionality of what was already working that is the issue. With the cameras in the other vehicles you're not forced to use them in order to use any form of DS/AP. The infrared used in the Mercedes, Genesis etc... are eye trackers, not actual picture cameras that can video record you. It can also be turned off completely and covered up with tape, while not affecting the use of any drivers assist system. That's the difference.

This was an interesting article to read about covering up cameras for ADAS functionality:

Driver Monitoring Systems Can Help You Be Safer on the Road - Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports evaluated driver monitoring systems from Tesla, Ford, GM, and others, finding that driver monitoring systems can help you be safer on the road.

www.consumerreports.org

 

[Supcom]

True in that respect. In the public by you walking into that domain is your signing of a waiver ... The context of privacy related issues inside of your own car falls into a different category. That's your private domain and there's no business to be forced to be recorded in order to use features that you've already paid for. - Other makers don't force you to be recorded to use their AP.

As I recall, GM uses a camera as part of their take on autopilot to ensure you are attentive.

 

[Twiglett]

(moderator edit)

So let’s discuss. How is the Ford approach using “infrared” different to Tesla - given that infrared is a camera.
Or how is “overpromising” evidence that Tesla will harvest all inside camera video?

 

[unlock]

Are you sure about this? A description of the Genesis system says, “A pair of cameras in the steering wheel tracks the driver’s eyes.” The fact that the cameras are most sensitive in the infra-red does not negate the fact that they are taking pictures. The important bit would be if the video is available to some other computer than a dedicated eye-tracker. From what I can learn from the vendor of the system (Tobil of Sweden), the images are available for other purposes.

Your point is valid, that currently you don’t lose the ADAS features if you cover the camera (unlike FSDb). This could change through government regulations.

Fair enough. To clarify the IR trackers emit infrared energy in the form of a heat signature that measures the energy of the object. I'm not 100% sure of all the internal workings of the technology on how they calibrate it, but I assume that it's calibrated much like the Tobii Eye Tracker on gaming laptops to where the emphasis are on the eyes.

There's just something about having an actual camera recording you in the form of a picture image (cabin image camera) that some find disturbing. Being able to turn off and cover the IR or cameras without losing function is the main thing here.

I hope we're not forced to use it. Only time will tell.

 

[unlock]

As I recall, GM uses a camera as part of their take on autopilot to ensure you are attentive.

I believe you're correct as I saw something along those lines being mentioned in a video; forgot the third party who was producing it. An Australian company was it? Hmmm

Anyhow, it'll be interesting how this all unfolds as more EVs enter the market with their take on monitoring the attentiveness of the driver.

 

[Twiglett]

Fair enough. To clarify the IR trackers emit infrared energy in the form of a heat signature that measures the energy of the object. I'm not 100% sure of all the internal workings of the technology on how they calibrate it, but I assume that it's calibrated much like the Tobii Eye Tracker on gaming laptops to where the emphasis are on the eyes.

There's just something about having an actual camera recording you in the form of a picture image (cabin image camera) that some find disturbing. Being able to turn off and cover the IR or cameras without losing function is the main thing here.

I hope we're not forced to use it. Only time will tell.

Infrared eye detection uses infrared cameras and must use some method to figure out where your eyes are looking.
Tesla uses a camera to figure out where you’re looking. No difference, just no “magic” infrared.
But I completely agree - cameras will be required sooner rather than later because idiots have been finding creative ways to get around the other “are you paying attention” checkers, the car manufacturers are stuck with cameras - because idiots can’t be trusted to act like adults. They think posting YouTube videos is more important.
Therefore we all suffer.
Welcome to the world where the sensible suffer because of the lowest common denominators.
We can thank perennial nanny’s like Consumer Reports for making sure cameras will be used to make sure you’re paying attention because holding the wheel wasn’t enough and was too difficult for some folks (while they were driving)
But don’t be fooled, they’re all using cameras.

 

[unlock]

What logic?
Discussion requires sensible thought, responses using sensible thought are not met with answers or counters.
The theatrics were started by the first post, not by any of the responses, which tells me the point wasn’t to discuss anything.

So let’s discuss. How is the Ford approach using “infrared” different to Tesla - given that infrared is a camera.
Or how is “overpromising” evidence that Tesla will harvest all inside camera video?

It amazes me to find some of these responses. It's very simple.

• Privacy VS No Privacy
• Ability to use a function just fine currently VS Getting locked out of using functions unless you give up your privacy to use the cabin camera.

You're misunderstanding the whole point of this topic and whether you like it or not, you're opinion about the the first post is flat out wrong.

You're tripping all over the place. Infrared technology comes in many forms and IR is not the same as a photo/video camera, technically. So is the approach different? Yes. Can the IR be intrusive as well? It could depending on how they utilize the tech.

To answer your last question let me help you again:

• Data Company First
• Telemetry driven Company
• Over promising and Under delivering on those promises = Something called "Trust worthy?"

Add that up and do the math.

So what's wrong with putting their statements into question? If you want to believe what you read then go for it, but don't fault others for being skeptical.

 

[unlock]

Infrared eye detection uses infrared cameras and must use some method to figure out where your eyes are looking.
Tesla uses a camera to figure out where you’re looking. No difference, just no “magic” infrared.
But I completely agree - cameras will be required sooner rather than later because idiots have been finding creative ways to get around the other “are you paying attention” checkers, the car manufacturers are stuck with cameras - because idiots can’t be trusted to act like adults. They think posting YouTube videos is more important.
Therefore we all suffer.
Welcome to the world where the sensible suffer because of the lowest common denominators.
We can thank perennial nanny’s like Consumer Reports for making sure cameras will be used to make sure you’re paying attention because holding the wheel wasn’t enough and was too difficult for some folks (while they were driving)
But don’t be fooled, they’re all using cameras.

Yea I'm with you, there are a lot of idiots out there that ruin it for everyone. I couldn't help but to think of those steering wheel weights ha!

Yes they are all a form of a camera, but arguably the IR is less intrusive than the actual, "say cheese I can see the pepper stuck in your teeth from your lunch" actual image camera. It'd be interesting to know to what extent those IR cameras are programmed. Either way, the unsettling thing here is the potential to be forced to use the cabin camera. Just annoying..

 

[unlock]

(deleted by author)

Uh I've had my fair share in videography and covering events. Pretty familiar with cameras as well. You never now who you're talking to so know before you get checked like you just did. (moderator edit)

An IR image is not the same as an actual camera image (photograph). They capture data differently with different data points and the IR eye tracker that we're talking about is at the end of the day less intrusive than a cabin camera, that's constantly recording you in the form of a picture that most of us are used to seeing. You know, like the picture on your ID and video from your smart phone.

(moderator edit)

 

[Twiglett]

…An IR image is not the same as an actual camera image (photograph). They capture data differently with different data points and the IR eye tracker that we're talking about is at the end of the day less intrusive than a cabin camera, that's constantly recording you in the form of a picture that most of us are used to seeing.

Here goes…
Light isn’t just the stuff you are seeing hitting objects (because you can’t really see the light itself).
Ultra violet is still light just a higher wavelength, hence ultra.
Infra Red is still light, just a lower wavelength, hence infra.
Things that detect light are called “cameras”
The detector part of the camera (sensor) has filters to make sure the the correct wavelength hits the sensor.
The sensors are rarely different but the filters are.
Color cameras have several filters for the different colors.
Infrared is particularly good at seeing heat which is why it’s used here. It’s easier for the sensor of the camera to pick out humans instead of seats.
Bottom line. IR detector than can detect eyes, faces etc is a camera.
Don’t believe me? Go look up all the game cams on Amazon