If the data could be used against you, you should also have access to the data so it could be used to support your case.

When there is asymmetric access to data, it's inherently unfair because the side with greater access will cherry-pick the data that supports their side.

For example, there might be some angle, some time window, some sensor, etc. that makes you look attentive, while a different angle/time/sensor might make you look inattentive.

When autopilot stuff hit the news years ago, tesla would immediately shift blame and publicize the telemetry output of the person in question's car.

So, turns out a driver is more likely to be snitched on if there's not a piece of tape covering the camera.

So, it's got a bias against people who don't cover the camera.

(Full disclosure: I have not yet covered mine. But one of the many reasons I do not install dash cams in my cars is that I am not interested in having evidence against me when I start shooting up other cars in traffic [1])

1. https://nypost.com/2020/09/30/florida-man-fires-gun-at-motor...

What do you think the chances are that tesla releases the data when it is tesla who is at fault.

Except of course as a PR diversion, as we saw with the Uber automatic driving case.

>What do you mean by snitch? I think it's a perfectly valid reason to "snitch" if the driver was truly at fault.

The driver is always truly at fault in the current legal environment. A driver can't just blame it on the car to escape liability. The comments here talking about the legal ramifications for these tags are misguided. For these tags to matter, there would need to be legislative changes to shift the liability to the autonomous system and that would likely only happen once we reach at least level 4 autonomy. Plus once we get to that point, whether the driver is paying attention or not shouldn't matter anyway.

> The driver is always truly at fault in the current legal environment.

That's...not entirely and exclusively true.

> A driver can't just blame it on the car to escape liability.

If it was provably due to a manufacturing defect that the driver could not reasonably have known about, I think you are wrong.

If a manufacturing defect is involved, then whether or not the driver is also liable, the manufacturer and every party in the chain of commerce (both upstream—such as suppliers of the defective component—and downstream from the vehicle manufacturer, such as dealers, etc., which are mostly irrelevant for Tesla) is liable.

You are right about the exception of a defective product. I should have included that disclaimer in my original comment. However defective is an important qualifier. Autopilot is not designed to be the primary driver of the car. A Tesla on Autopilot rear-ending another driver is no more defective than any other car on cruise control rear-ending someone. Autopilot would likely need to overrule human action to be considered defective. I was assuming that is an unlikely enough case to avoid mentioning it. Even if that did occur, that would be evident in other logs the car keeps so this attention monitor wouldn't be relevant.