Cabin camera soon to be required for all AP features?

[unlock]

From the Ford website on BlueCruise
"...you are monitored by a driver-facing camera..."

From GM websites on GM Ultra or Super Cruise
"...uses a driver facing camera..." they even call it the "Driver Attention Camera System"

From BMW
"Driver Attention Camera"

So they're all doing it. So the concern must be because only Tesla is a "data" company so therefore cannot be trusted.
Except, Ford has always used Microsoft and are just switching to that stalwart of data privacy, Google.
Who does GM use, why its Microsoft as well.
Couldn't be bothered trying to find who BMW use, but its pretty obvious its not their own system.

Common part to all - camera is required to use their ADAS.
Difference with Tesla is they tried it without a camera but have been forced into using one thanks to folks like nanny CR "protecting" us.
Tesla has feet in both camps right now, they aren't 100% camera based and still use the steering wheel torque. Really, Model 3 & Y have had cameras from the start.
Best way to avoid driver facing cameras is to not get a car that has any kind of ADAS and doesn't physically have the camera.

Best advice for the privacy concerned - definitely don't buy a new Tesla, but the earlier pre-2021 Model S/X would be good, reasonable AP etc and no driver cam.
But if privacy really is concern, then the driver cam is least of your worries with a modern connected car. They've all figured out that car telemetry is the way forward and are connecting their cars. TeslaFi shows me all the drives, charges, idles etc for my entire ownership, you know Tesla has that and more for every car they've made. Driver cam is a drop in the ocean.

Good points. See we can agree on things, it's just that the whole point about the camera is where the hiccup is.

Since you're taking it literally, yes they are both cameras, but all I'm saying is that they are different types of cameras that capture data differently using different data points. Ex. A photo vs heat signature etc... I don't like either of them and have my IR turned off.

One of the original points that still remains is the potential to be forced to keep the cabin camera on in order to use any AP functions. That's the discrepancy.

 

[unlock]

Mark the car up $5500 then offer a discount so customers can't complain about the car online. I wonder if the NDA prevents owners from filing NHTSA complaints as well.

The worst is when people pay $5000 or any amount on a mark up of $10,000 and think that they're getting a good deal. SMH.

 

[unlock]

Lyriq has a MSRP of $63K (which is a decent price on a very compelling EV) and the rebate would be applied to that. You are of course dealing with an independent dealer and they may add a "market adjustment" but that is basically unrelated to Cadillac. Also they would add this "market adjustment" to any Lyriq they sold since the dealer may not even be aware of the confidential agreement you are making with Cadillac.

Doubt that the NDA does or even could preclude any safety related NHTSA reporting since it is about studying driving habits and not about problems you have with the vehicle. If Cadillac was trying to "cover up" vehicle problems then EVERY buyer would need to sign an NDA.

Tesla has access to your data too but they aggregate it so there is no personal attachment (except the OP's data which is sent directly to Elon Musk to review ) . Cadillac is wanting all personal attachments to the direct data.

Funny. "Tesla has access to your data too but they aggregate it so there is no personal attachment."

Yea okayyyy. It's clear you have 100% faith in Tesla. That's fine. Enjoy.

 

[unlock]

The issue here is @unlock doesn't believe what's stated by Tesla. So there's no amount of evidence that can be presented that would sway them. They have decided that Tesla is lying and recording and/or transmitting images from that camera no matter what Tesla says - even in print.

A question I have for unlock and others who put tape over the camera or whatever... do you not use a modern smartphone? Most of us carry a phone around (and have it with us in way more intimate/compromising places/situations) that has, 3-4 cameras on it. Do you believe Google/Apple/Samsung/etc that they aren't collecting images or audio regardless of how preferences are set? And even if you don't, do you avoid being around anyone else who is carrying a phone with 3-4 cameras and microphones? Not to mention, you bought a car where your location is tracked and recorded 100% of the time. I'd be much more concerned that Tesla knows every places I have ever visited with my car than it having a picture of me picking my nose while driving.

My point is, I 100% get concern for privacy, that's not the issue here. I'm saying it's an odd place to draw the line for a cabin camera where the company explicitly states images never leave the car.

Thanks for your input. I do see your point and you're right about there being cameras everywhere. Funny enough there are phone cases with camera covers that slide to cover it up. Yes really. - There also exist little stickers to cover up the front facing camera. -

This will make the "I don't care about privacy folks laugh and that's fine, but it also makes the ones that do care laugh even more knowing how careless it is to ignore privacy. I'll illustrate below in a bit on why.*

Here is what the former FBI director James Comey said when he was asked back in September 2016 if he covered his laptop’s webcam with tape.

“Heck yeah, heck yeah. Also, I get mocked for a lot of things, and I am much mocked for that, but I hope people lock their cars … lock your doors at night. I have an alarm system, if you have an alarm system you should use it, I use mine.”

If even he does... pretty much what all the "I don't care about privacy" folks do as well.

My counter argument to the idea for those that are NOT concerned about privacy at all is; then why do they still lock their doors, care enough to use unique passwords, creates a pin other than 1234 for their bank cards etc...? - If anything that's considered laughable.

* I have yet to see one person who says..."I don't really care about privacy" to snap a pic of their SS#, Full Name, Address, CC Numbers, Parents name, Birthday, Username & Passwords to their accounts etc..., written on a paper, slapped on their forehead with selfie and posted publicly to prove that they really don't care about privacy. - Not one.

This is why those who turn a blind eye to Privacy is actually fibbing themselves right from the start. ie... some call it, "I call BS."

When you first set up a smartphone, even MS Windows for example, there is a long EULA that you have to agree too. Some user agreements or apps may claim that they don't obtain your data, like Apple, yet they've been known to take pictures and videos of you without your knowledge. This is widely known in the geek side of the smartphone community. Nothing new.

Therefore, I find it funny when people say things like, "...there's no amount of evidence that can be presented that would sway them." Well that can go both ways wouldn't you agree?

Not everyone believes 100% of what they read, while some do. - What's actually worse? I think in a poll, most would agree that it would be foolish to believe 100% of everything that you read out there and trust it with all your mighty gland and not ever put things into question.

Giving some push back and resistance to any form of intrusiveness isn't a bad thing. It can potentially play a role on how a Company goes about doing things with the interest/requests/wants of the users in mind. Yea yea it maybe wishful thinking, I get it, but don't fault people who actually care for trying.

- It's far better than throwing in the towel and bending over backwards like what most people do. That's a whole another issue in itself.

​

 

[unlock]

If eye tracking ends up required, I sure hope it 'inspires' Tesla to give us ordinary Cruise Control as an option (just speed lock, no smarts)

That would be good at the very least.

 

[unlock]

∆∆∆ This. Not to mention geo tracking.

Anybody in the next car could take my picture if so inclined. Not sure that action alone could harm me. But private conversations and where I go every day? That is a higher concern. I make a point of not discussing plans to overthrow the government while driving.

But for me, it's a lost cause. My home hard disk crashed and I tried to get my backup from the NSA - they refused. And if I want privacy I'll use the cone of silence.

There is no such thing as privacy in our society today, especially if you use a cell phone, computer, or cars disguised as one. But more power to yous who continue that battle - I sincerely wish you the best. The day is not far off where you will be unable to buy or sell without a government identification embedded inside your body.

Nearing the end times...

The good news is that not everything is doom and gloom, yet, and certain measures can still be put into place and exercised. End to end encryption, open source software, etc... still a heckava lot better than doing nothing at all.

Yes, there are many situations where we're just out of luck like being out in public etc... but that's different than having an invasion of privacy in your private domain. The ones that don't care are only making it easier for Companies to have a free lunch.

Your last statement reminded me of that movie: In Time.

 

[unlock]

But, they can and likely will require it for the cars that have it.

They almost have to because of the NHTSA breathing down their necks.

It's unfortunate.

I wish that it could be this simple:

The driver must have a flash drive/SSD plugged in to a second dedicated port (for local storage only) for AP to be enabled. All data is recorded locally to that drive; hard wired from point A to B, that can be verified by third parties that the data is stored locally and can not be uploaded. No drive, no AP functions. Simple. NHTSA and the many who care about Privacy with even those that don't = Happy.

 

[Supcom]

My counter argument to the idea for those that are NOT concerned about privacy at all is; then why do they still lock their doors, care enough to use unique passwords, creates a pin other than 1234 for their bank cards etc...? - If anything that's considered laughable.

Um, because if you don't people will steal your stuff?

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

It's unfortunate.

I wish that it could be this simple:

The driver must have a flash drive/SSD plugged in to a second dedicated port (for local storage only) for AP to be enabled. All data is recorded locally to that drive; hard wired from point A to B, that can be verified by third parties that the data is stored locally and can not be uploaded. No drive, no AP functions. Simple. NHTSA and the many who care about Privacy with even those that don't = Happy.

I'm confused by this statement.

The way its being implemented is all video data is stored locally, and doesn't go to Tesla unless you authorize it. You don't even need a flash storage drive plugged in. That's only for you to have access to sentry/dash cam data. The driver monitoring doesn't require storage to work as its already processed the data. Tesla only needs the data to improve it, but they won't upload that data to the cloud unless the consumer authorizes it by enabling it.

So it simply comes down to trust.

Does a consumer trust the manufacture? The trust is not just in following the privacy promises/settings, but also in having good security.

I understand your concern, and I have the same concern when it comes to some products. Like I don't think I'd buy any product to put on my bedroom nightstand that had a camera.

But, I'm not overly concerned about privacy implications of the Tesla Cabin Camera. I do have functionality concerns, and bias concerns (that it won't work as well with minorities). It was designed for cabin monitoring, and not driver monitoring. Usually when something is designed for something else its performance is compromised when you try to use it for something else.

 

[MrHappy]

This whole debate will be settled once there is some lawsuit in which there is an attempt to obtain the video data upon discovery. Then, it will be found out indeed where the data is stored and whether it can be uploaded.

 

[unlock]

Um, because if you don't people will steal your stuff?

You do realize that you've just solidified the point. LOL.

 

[unlock]

I'm confused by this statement.

The way its being implemented is all video data is stored locally, and doesn't go to Tesla unless you authorize it. You don't even need a flash storage drive plugged in. That's only for you to have access to sentry/dash cam data. The driver monitoring doesn't require storage to work as its already processed the data. Tesla only needs the data to improve it, but they won't upload that data to the cloud unless the consumer authorizes it by enabling it.

So it simply comes down to trust.

Does a consumer trust the manufacture? The trust is not just in following the privacy promises/settings, but also in having good security.

I understand your concern, and I have the same concern when it comes to some products. Like I don't think I'd buy any product to put on my bedroom nightstand that had a camera.

But, I'm not overly concerned about privacy implications of the Tesla Cabin Camera. I do have functionality concerns, and bias concerns (that it won't work as well with minorities). It was designed for cabin monitoring, and not driver monitoring. Usually when something is designed for something else its performance is compromised when you try to use it for something else.

Hey there, thanks for the reply.

In regards to what I meant by that, it was outlining a potential solution to have the cabin camera or any camera that Telsa wants to use for their AP functionality to be self isolated (hard wired) from the rest of the car. ie... Camera directly hard wired to a storage with no ability to upload that file, that can be verified by a third party that any data transmission (uploading of any footage) is not possible. (This goes for any manufacturer.)

It does boil down to a trust issue and as mentioned in the previous posts, for some of us it's hard to trust a company that adds to the definition of, "The boy who called Wolf," who so happens to be a Data Company First; who also happens to have a track record of broken promises.

Therefore, given the odds and the known fact that those toggle off switches are as good as an elevator close button (unless you trust it of course), it's not unreasonable to have doubts to what Tesla promises or claims.

It's clear that some put all their faith and trust in what Tesla says and that's okay, that's their choice, but those same people apparently hold a double standard in faulting those who have a different view point. Given Telsa's track record, even from a neutral stand point it's hard to not consider the facts that weigh against them.

 

[unlock]

This whole debate will be settled once there is some lawsuit in which there is an attempt to obtain the video data upon discovery. Then, it will be found out indeed where the data is stored and whether it can be uploaded.

That would actually be interesting to see. Your reply also gave me another thought.

Tesla could perhaps make it to where the user can set a password to a folder that is fully encrypted, using a "zero-knowledge" approach like some of the top tier cloud storage services.

What this means is that no one can access the folder unless you enter the password to unencrypt the contents in that folder; not even Tesla can access the files. - It'd be even better if the code was open-source.

By going this route, they can still use the cabin camera and not have to do anything else, but to just add this feature in with a software OTA update. In my opinion it would also add more credibility and rebuild trust, which is a positive thing.

 

[Supcom]

You do realize that you've just solidified the point. LOL.

No. All I did was point out the basic purpose of locks and passwords. It proves nothing regarding camera video of a driver and privacy.

 

[unlock]

No. All I did was point out the basic purpose of locks and passwords. It proves nothing regarding camera video of a driver and privacy.

You've missed the point. Never mind.

 

[DopeGhoti]

It's unfortunate.

I wish that it could be this simple:

The driver must have a flash drive/SSD plugged in to a second dedicated port (for local storage only) for AP to be enabled. All data is recorded locally to that drive; hard wired from point A to B, that can be verified by third parties that the data is stored locally and can not be uploaded. No drive, no AP functions. Simple. NHTSA and the many who care about Privacy with even those that don't = Happy.

So your solution to being concerned about data that, if you don't opt in to send in aggregated data, are not stored in the first place is to mandate storage onto a removable medium? The video feeds from the neural nets that are part of the driver-assist infrastructures are analyzed, acted upon, and tossed out once they are no longer relevant - Sentry and Teslacam notwithstanding.

The way its being implemented is all video data is stored locally, and doesn't go to Tesla unless you authorize it.

"All video data" are not stored by default beyond a relatively small retrospective timespan (based on posts from GreenTheOnly, under 60 seconds) which are kept in the event of a catastrophic crash alongside all other telemetry.

As for the points raised earlier about underdelivering on timelines being a hit to credibility- there is a vast semantical gulf between a stated goal of "we aim to do this thing by this time" and a clear and specific assertion that "Camera images do not leave the vehicle itself" which, if disproven, would be a veritable field day for any folks working to generate more column-inches deriding Tesla.

 

[emmz0r]

The camera footage leaves the car if you agree to let them collect it.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

"All video data" are not stored by default beyond a relatively small retrospective timespan (based on posts from GreenTheOnly, under 60 seconds) which are kept in the event of a catastrophic crash alongside all other telemetry.

That doesn't really jive with the fact that a lot of people have seen there car upload vast amounts of data to Tesla over wifi.

Where something triggers the car to collect the data, and then it gets uploaded when the car has a chance to.

I do trust GreenTheOnly so I think its simply a difference between what he was specifically talking about, and the video storing/uploading that I'm talking about.

I'm far too down the rabbit hole of FSD Beta testers to know what the default even is.

 

[bluetrep1]

it still requires you put hands on wheel during AP,. So I put electrical tape on the cabin camera after 2022.20.5 update and purposely allow Telsa to collect camera video in privacy setting.

 

[Ramphex]

Covering the camera disables FSD on my car. I don't understand why it needs to watch me, watching it, if I still got to jerk (moderator edit) the steering wheel every 5-10 seconds.