Those offroading.com links you shared don't actually cite any sources at all, and I know nothing about that source and it doesn't look that reputable to me.
The first link contradicts the cited, and much more trustworthy, analysis from the Mozilla Foundation:
"Here's the good news with Tesla when it comes to privacy -- they very clearly state in their privacy documentation that they don't sell or rent your personal information to third parties ... Tesla makes other promises in their privacy that sound quite good. They say they won't share your personal information with third parties for their own use unless you opt-in (don't opt-in!). They say they don't "associate the vehicle data generated by your driving with your identity or account by default.""
For the second, there's no reliable (not obviously AI generated slop) evidence I've been able to find outside of offroading.com, at all, that there's any remote shutdown feature in Teslas, user accessible or no. They have PIN to drive, Sentry mode, etc, and they can remotely limit the speed to 50mph, but afaict, there's no remote disable feature.
As you say, this is something they have he technical capability to implement, but (1) it would have to be a brand new feature they add, they don't have it yet and haven't done it, and (2) at that point basically any car company from Volkswagen to Toyota could equally also do it, since all modern cars are internet connected and controlled by computers now. So this introduced a parity that completely undercuts this guy's point about Tesla's being uniquely bad
Tesla is not uniquely bad - however, it is one of 5 companies that actually already maintains a kill-switch functionality: https://daxstreet.com/list/275984/5-cars-with-factory-kill-s.... The other 4 are BMW, GM, Ford and Chrysler. The tech is there and ready and can be used.
That doesn't contradict what I was saying, really. They can do all the things the table checkmarks them as doing and it doesn't mean they're selling data to any third parties. It just says they collect a lot of data, use it, have a bad track record with employees accidentally leaking parts of it, and so on.
My whole overall point is that this guy is making specific claims that are either outright false (e.g. the reason Tesla is doing better than VW EVs is that they make money off selling user data as a sideline, and in general bolster their business with cloud capital) or misleading / not correct in the way he needs them to be true.
Tesla is not uniquely bad - however, it is one of 5 companies that actually already maintains a kill-switch functionality: https://daxstreet.com/list/275984/5-cars-with-factory-kill-s.... The other 4 are BMW, GM, Ford and Chrysler. The tech is there and ready and can be used.
This article is formatted in a way that makes me strongly thing it is AI generated, but more problematically (since that's an imperfect indicator), when it makes claims like "[Tesla has] disabled vehicles used in crimes" or "The system includes redundant communication methods and can execute complex shutdown procedures that safely manage the vehicle’s transition from operation to immobilization.
Unlike simpler kill switches that merely cut ignition, Tesla’s system can coordinate with the vehicle’s autonomous driving features, regenerative braking, and battery management systems to ensure safe shutdown," it just says these things — it doesn't actually link to any news articles, primary sources, anything to substantiate them, and when I look them up, I don't find anything, as I said. So it seems to me as if you've found just another uncited tertiary resource saying the same things, but no meaningful evidence.
Comments
Tesla: Data sharing with 3rd parties is a fact they themselves advertise: https://theoffroading.com/does-tesla-sell-driving-data/ Are they being paid for it or is one of the companies amazon? I couldn't find that information, but frankly: if the tech is in place and used, why wouldn't they? GM does so with insurance companies: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv...
Tesla does have the ability to remotely disable your car: https://theoffroading.com/can-tesla-shut-down-your-car-remot... Again: the tech is there and as we already experienced with John Deer machinery will be used when called upon https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrain...
Those offroading.com links you shared don't actually cite any sources at all, and I know nothing about that source and it doesn't look that reputable to me.
The first link contradicts the cited, and much more trustworthy, analysis from the Mozilla Foundation:
"Here's the good news with Tesla when it comes to privacy -- they very clearly state in their privacy documentation that they don't sell or rent your personal information to third parties ... Tesla makes other promises in their privacy that sound quite good. They say they won't share your personal information with third parties for their own use unless you opt-in (don't opt-in!). They say they don't "associate the vehicle data generated by your driving with your identity or account by default.""
For the second, there's no reliable (not obviously AI generated slop) evidence I've been able to find outside of offroading.com, at all, that there's any remote shutdown feature in Teslas, user accessible or no. They have PIN to drive, Sentry mode, etc, and they can remotely limit the speed to 50mph, but afaict, there's no remote disable feature.
As you say, this is something they have he technical capability to implement, but (1) it would have to be a brand new feature they add, they don't have it yet and haven't done it, and (2) at that point basically any car company from Volkswagen to Toyota could equally also do it, since all modern cars are internet connected and controlled by computers now. So this introduced a parity that completely undercuts this guy's point about Tesla's being uniquely bad
Tesla is not uniquely bad - however, it is one of 5 companies that actually already maintains a kill-switch functionality: https://daxstreet.com/list/275984/5-cars-with-factory-kill-s.... The other 4 are BMW, GM, Ford and Chrysler. The tech is there and ready and can be used.
As for selling data: have look at this table from Mozilla Org, particularly the table where they list the worst offenders re. privacy: https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/arti...
That doesn't contradict what I was saying, really. They can do all the things the table checkmarks them as doing and it doesn't mean they're selling data to any third parties. It just says they collect a lot of data, use it, have a bad track record with employees accidentally leaking parts of it, and so on.
My whole overall point is that this guy is making specific claims that are either outright false (e.g. the reason Tesla is doing better than VW EVs is that they make money off selling user data as a sideline, and in general bolster their business with cloud capital) or misleading / not correct in the way he needs them to be true.
This article is formatted in a way that makes me strongly thing it is AI generated, but more problematically (since that's an imperfect indicator), when it makes claims like "[Tesla has] disabled vehicles used in crimes" or "The system includes redundant communication methods and can execute complex shutdown procedures that safely manage the vehicle’s transition from operation to immobilization.
Unlike simpler kill switches that merely cut ignition, Tesla’s system can coordinate with the vehicle’s autonomous driving features, regenerative braking, and battery management systems to ensure safe shutdown," it just says these things — it doesn't actually link to any news articles, primary sources, anything to substantiate them, and when I look them up, I don't find anything, as I said. So it seems to me as if you've found just another uncited tertiary resource saying the same things, but no meaningful evidence.