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 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.