Tesla withheld data, lied, and misdirected police and plaintiffs to avoid blame in Autopilot crash
特斯拉隐瞒数据、撒谎，并误导警方和原告，以逃避自动驾驶事故的责任

Tesla was caught withholding data, lying about it, and misdirecting authorities in the wrongful death case involving Autopilot that it lost this week.
特斯拉被发现在本周它输掉的涉及 Autopilot 的死亡事故案件中隐瞒数据、撒谎并向当局误导。

The automaker was undeniably covering up for Autopilot.
这家汽车制造商无疑是在为 Autopilot 掩盖事实。

Last week, a jury found Tesla partially liable for a wrongful death involving a crash on Autopilot. I explained the case in the verdict in this article and video.
上周，陪审团裁定特斯拉在涉及 Autopilot 的事故中部分负有责任。我在这篇文章和视频中解释了案件和判决。

But we now have access to the trial transcripts, which confirm that Tesla was extremely misleading in its attempt to place all the blame on the driver.
但现在我们有了审判记录，这些记录证实特斯拉在试图将所有责任推给驾驶员时非常具有误导性。

Advertisement - scroll for more content

The company went as far as to actively withhold critical evidence that explained Autopilot’s performance around the crash.
公司甚至主动隐瞒了解释自动驾驶在事故中表现的关键证据。

Tesla withheld the crash‑snapshot data that its own server received within minutes of the collision
特斯拉隐瞒了在碰撞发生后几分钟内其服务器接收到的碰撞快照数据。

Within about three minutes of the crash, the Model S uploaded a “collision snapshot”—video, CAN‑bus streams, EDR data, etc.—to Tesla’s servers, the “Mothership”, and received an acknowledgement. The vehicle then deleted its local copy, resulting in Tesla being the only entity having access.
在事故发生大约三分钟后，Model S 将“碰撞快照”——视频、CAN 总线流、EDR 数据等——上传到特斯拉的服务器“母船”，并收到了确认。随后，车辆删除了其本地副本，导致特斯拉成为唯一能够访问该数据的实体。

What ensued were years of battle to get Tesla to acknowledge that this collision snapshot exists and is relevant to the case.
随后是多年的斗争，以使特斯拉承认存在这一碰撞快照，并且它与案件相关。

The police repeatedly attempted to obtain the data from the collision snapshot, but Tesla led the authorities and the plaintiffs on a lengthy journey of deception and misdirection that spanned years.
警方多次试图从碰撞快照中获取数据，但特斯拉将当局和原告引入了一段长达数年的欺骗和误导之旅。

Here, in chronological order, is what happened based on all the evidence in the trial transcript:
根据审判笔录中的所有证据，以下是按时间顺序发生的事情：

1 | 25 Apr 2019 – The crash and an instant upload Tesla pretended never happened
1 | 2019 年 4 月 25 日 – 碰撞事件及特斯拉假装从未发生的一瞬间上传

Within ~3 minutes of the crash, the Model S packaged sensor video, CAN‑bus, EDR, and other streams into a single “snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar” file and pushed it to Tesla’s server, then deleted its local copy.
在碰撞发生后的约 3 分钟内，特斯拉将 Model S 包装的传感器视频、CAN 总线、EDR 和其他流合并成一个名为“snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar”的单个文件，并将其推送到特斯拉的服务器，然后删除了其本地副本。

We know that now, thanks to forensic evidence extracted from the onboard computer.
我们现在知道这一点，多亏了从车载电脑中提取的法庭证据。

The plaintiffs hired Alan Moore, a mechanical engineer who specializes in accident reconstruction, to forensically recover data from the Autopilot ECU (computer).
原告聘请了艾伦·摩尔，一位专门从事事故重建的机械工程师，从自动驾驶 ECU（电脑）中恢复数据。

Based on the data, Moore was able to confirm that Tesla had this “collision snapshot” all along, but “unlinked” it from the vehicle:
根据这些数据，摩尔能够确认特斯拉一直都有这个“碰撞快照”，但将其“未链接”到车辆上：

“That tells me within minutes of this crash Tesla had all of this data … the car received an acknowledgement … then said ‘OK, I’m done, I’m going to unlink it.’”
“这告诉我，在这次碰撞发生后几分钟内，特斯拉就有了所有这些数据……汽车收到了确认……然后说‘好的，我完成了，我要断开连接。’”

The plaintiffs tried to obtain this data, but Tesla told them that it didn’t exist.
原告试图获取这些数据，但特斯拉告诉他们这些数据不存在。

Tesla’s written discovery responses were shown during the trial to prove that the company acted as if this data were not available.
在审判过程中，展示了特斯拉的书面发现回应，以证明该公司表现得好像这些数据不可用。

---

2 | 23 May 2019 – Tesla’s lawyer scripts the homicide investigator’s evidence request
2 | 2019 年 5 月 23 日 – 特斯拉律师编写了法医调查员的证据请求

Corporal Riso, a homicide investigator with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), sought Tesla’s help in retrieving telemetry data to aid in reconstructing the crash.
里斯科下士，佛罗里达州公路巡逻队（FHP）的法医调查员，寻求特斯拉的帮助以检索遥测数据，以帮助重建事故。

He was put in contact with Tesla attorney Ryan McCarthy and asked if he needed to subpoena Tesla to get the crash data.
他与特斯拉律师 Ryan McCarthy 取得联系，询问他是否需要传票特斯拉以获取事故数据。

Riso said of McCarthy during the trial:
在审判期间，Riso 谈到 McCarthy：

“He said it’s not necessary. ‘Write me a letter and I’ll tell you what to put in the letter.’”
“他说这没有必要。‘给我写封信，我会告诉你信里要写什么。’”

At the time, he didn’t see Tesla as an adversary in this case and thought that McCarthy would facilitate the retrieval of the data without having to go through a formal process. However, the lawyer crafted the letter to avoid sending the police the full crash data.
当时，他没有将特斯拉视为本案的对手，认为 McCarthy 会促成数据的获取，而无需经过正式程序。然而，律师起草的信件是为了避免向警方发送完整的事故数据。

Riso followed the instructions verbatim. He said during the trial:
Riso 严格遵循指示。他在审判期间说：

“I specifically wrote down what the attorney at Tesla told me to write down in the letter.”
我特别记下了特斯拉律师让我在信中写下的内容。

But McCarthy specifically crafted the letter to omit sharing the collision snapshot, which includes bundled video, EDR, CAN bus, and Autopilot data.
但麦卡锡特意撰写了这封信，省略了分享碰撞快照的内容，该快照包括捆绑的视频、EDR、CAN 总线以及 Autopilot 数据。

Instead, Tesla provided the police with infotainment data with call logs, a copy of the Owner’s Manual, but not the actual crash telemetry from the Autopilot ECU.
相反，特斯拉向警方提供了包含通话记录的信息娱乐数据、车主手册副本，但没有 Autopilot ECU 的实际碰撞遥测数据。

Tesla never said that it already had this data for more than a month by now.
特斯拉从未说过他们已经拥有这些数据超过一个月了。

---

3 | June 2019 – A staged “co‑operation” that corrupts evidence
3 | 2019 年 6 月 - 一场旨在破坏证据的“合作”表演

Tesla got even more deceptive when the police specifically tried to collect the data directly from the Autopilot computer.
当警方试图直接从 Autopilot 电脑收集数据时，特斯拉变得更加狡猾。

On June 19, 2019, Riso physically removed the MCU and Autopilot ECU from the Tesla.
2019 年 6 月 19 日，Riso 从特斯拉车上物理移除了 MCU 和 Autopilot ECU。

Again, the investigator thought that Tesla was being cooperative with the investigation at the time so he asked the company how to get the data out of the computer. He said at the trial:
再次，调查员认为特斯拉当时在配合调查，所以他询问公司如何从电脑中提取数据。他在审判中说：

I had contacted Mr. McCarthy and asked him how I can get this data off of the computer components. He said that he would coordinate me meeting with a technician at their service center, the Tesla service center in Coral Gables.
我联系了麦卡锡先生，并问他我如何从电脑组件中获取这些数据。他说他会安排我与他们的服务中心的技术人员见面，即珊瑚盖布尔市的特斯拉服务中心的技术人员。

Tesla arranged for Riso to meet Michael Calafell, a Tesla technician, at the local service center in in Coral Gables with the Autopilot ECU and the Model S’ MCU, the two main onboard computers.
特斯拉安排 Riso 在当地珊瑚盖布尔的服务中心与特斯拉技师迈克尔·卡拉费尔会面，携带了 Autopilot ECU 和 Model S 的 MCU，这两台是主要的车载计算机。

To be clear, Tesla already had all this data in its servers and could have just sent it to Riso, but instead, they lured him into its service center with the piece of evidence in his custody.
为了明确起见，特斯拉的伺服器里已经存储了所有这些数据，他们本可以直接将其发送给 Riso，但他们却用他手中的证据诱使他前往其服务中心。

What ensued was pure cinema.
随之而来的是纯粹的影院体验。

Michael Calafell, who testified never having been tasked with extracting data from an Autopilot ECU before, connected both computers to a Model S in the shop to be able to access them, but he then claimed that the data was “corrupted” and couldn’t be access.
迈克尔·卡拉费尔，他作证称之前从未被要求从自动驾驶 ECU 中提取数据，他将两台电脑连接到车间的 Model S 上以便访问，但他随后声称数据“损坏”无法访问。

Riso said during his testimony:
Riso 在证词中说：

I brought the center tablet [MCU] and the flat silver box [Autopilot ECU] with multicolored connectors to the Tesla service center.”
我带着中心平板[MCU]和平面银色盒子[Autopilot ECU]，上面有彩色连接器，带到了特斯拉服务中心。”

“I watched Mr. Calafell the whole time. The evidence was in my custody. I did not let it out of my sight.”
我全程都在监视卡拉菲尔先生。证据在我保管之下。我没有让它离开我的视线。

However, the situation got a lot more confusing as Calafell swore in an affidavit that he didn’t actually power the ECU, only the MCU, on that day, June 19.
然而，随着 Calafell 在宣誓书中声称，他在 6 月 19 日那天并没有实际启动 ECU，只是启动了 MCU，情况变得更加混乱。

Only years later, when Alan Moore, the forensic engineer hired by the plaintiff, managed to get access to the Autopilot ECU, we learned that Tesla undeniably powered up the computer on June 19 and the data was accessible.
多年后，当原告聘请的法庭工程师艾伦·摩尔终于获得 Autopilot ECU 的访问权限时，我们才得知特斯拉无疑在 6 月 19 日启动了计算机，数据是可以访问的。

---

4 | 2019 – 2024 – Repeated denials and discovery stonewalling
4 | 2019–2024 – 反复否认和调查阻挠

Through years of communications with the police, the plaintiffs and the court through the investigation and later the discovery process for the lawsuit, Tesla never mentioned that it had all the data that explained how Autopilot saw the crash, which everyone was seeking, sitting on its servers for years.
在多年的与警方、原告和法院的沟通中，通过调查以及后来的诉讼发现过程中，特斯拉从未提及它拥有所有解释 Autopilot 如何看到事故的数据，这些数据是大家一直在寻求的，而这些数据已经坐在它的服务器上好几年了。

The facts are:  事实是：

• Tesla had the data on its servers within minutes of the crash
  特斯拉在事故发生后几分钟内就拥有了服务器上的数据
• When the police sought the data, Tesla redirected them toward other data
  当警方寻求数据时，特斯拉将他们引向其他数据
• When the police sought Tesla’s help in extracting it from the computer, Tesla falsely claimed it was “corrupted”
  当警方寻求特斯拉帮助从电脑中提取数据时，特斯拉谎称数据“已损坏”
• Tesla invented an “auto-delete” feature that didn’t exist to try explain why it couldn’t originally find the data in the computer
  特斯拉发明了一个不存在的“自动删除”功能，试图解释为什么它最初无法在电脑中找到数据
• When the plaintiffs asked for the data, Tesla said that it didn’t exist
  当原告要求数据时，特斯拉表示数据不存在
• Tesla only admitted to the existence of the data once presented with forensic evidence that it was created and transfered to its servers.
  特斯拉仅在面临证明数据被创建并传输到其服务器的法医证据后，才承认数据的存在。

---

5 | Late 2024 – Court orders a bit‑for‑bit NAND‑flash image
5 | 2024 年末 – 法院下令逐位比对 NAND 闪存镜像

By late 2024, the court allowed the plaintiffs to have a third-party expert access the Autopilot ECU to try to access the data that Tesla claimed was now corrupted.
到 2024 年底，法院允许原告方聘请第三方专家访问 Autopilot ECU，试图获取特斯拉声称已损坏的数据。

The court allowed the forensic engineers to do a bit-for-bit NAND flash image, which consists of a complete, sector-by-sector copy of the data stored on a NAND flash memory chip, including all data, metadata, and error correction code (ECC) information.
法院允许法医工程师进行逐比特的 NAND 闪存镜像，这包括存储在 NAND 闪存芯片上的完整、按扇区复制的所有数据，包括所有数据、元数据和错误纠正码（ECC）信息。

The engineers quickly found that all the data was there despite Tesla’s previous claims.
工程师们很快发现，尽管特斯拉此前声称，但所有数据都在那里。

Moore, the forensic engineer hired by the plaintiffs, said:
摩尔，原告聘请的法庭工程师表示：

“Tesla engineers said this couldn’t be done… yet it was done by people outside Tesla.”
特斯拉工程师说这不可能做到……然而，这是由特斯拉外部的人完成的。

Now, the plaintiffs had access to everything.
现在，原告可以访问一切。

---

6 | Feb‑Mar 2025 – The forensic “treasure‑trove” reveals the file name & checksum
6 | 2025 年 2-3 月 – 法医“宝藏”揭示了文件名和校验和

Moore was astonished by all the data found through cloning the Autopilot ECU:
摩尔对通过克隆 Autopilot ECU 所发现的所有数据感到震惊：

“For an engineer like me, the data out of those computers was a treasure‑trove of how this crash happened.”
“对于像我这样的工程师来说，这些电脑中的数据是了解事故发生经过的宝藏。”

The data that Tesla had provided was not as easily searchable, the videos were grainy, and it was missing key alerts and timestamps about Autopilot and its decision-making leading up to the crash.
特斯拉提供的数据并不容易搜索，视频模糊不清，而且缺少了关于 Autopilot 及其在事故发生前决策过程中的关键警报和时间戳。

On top of all the data being so much more helpful, Moore found unallocated space and metadata for ‘snapshot_collision_airbag‑deployment.tar’, including its SHA‑1 checksum and the exact server path.
除了所有数据都非常有帮助之外，摩尔还发现了“snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar”的未分配空间和元数据，包括其 SHA-1 校验和以及确切的服务器路径。

---

7 | May 2025 – Subpoenaed server logs corner Tesla
7 | 2025 年 5 月 - 传票要求提供服务器日志，直指特斯拉

Armed with the the newly found metadata, plaintiffs were able to subpoenaed Tesla’s AWS logs.
凭借新发现的元数据，原告们能够传唤特斯拉的 AWS 日志。

Tesla still fought them, but facing a sanctions hearing, Tesla finally produced the untouched TAR file plus access logs showing it had been stored since 18:16 PDT on 25 Apr 2019—the same three‑minute timestamp Moore had highlighted.
特斯拉仍然反对，但在面临制裁听证会的情况下，特斯拉最终提供了未被修改的 TAR 文件以及访问日志，显示该文件自 2019 年 4 月 25 日 18:16 PDT 以来一直被存储——与摩尔所强调的三分钟时间戳相同。

The automaker had to admit to have the data all along.
特斯拉不得不承认他们一直拥有这些数据。

During the trial, Mr. Schreiber, attorney for the plaintiffs, claimed that Tesla used the data for its own internal analysis of the crash:
在审判期间，原告的律师施赖伯先生声称，特斯拉使用这些数据对其内部对事故的分析进行了分析：

They not only had the snapshot — they used it in their own analysis. It shows Autopilot was engaged. It shows the acceleration and speed. It shows McGhee’s hands off the wheel.
他们不仅有了快照——他们还在自己的分析中使用了它。它显示自动驾驶已被激活。它显示了加速和速度。它显示了麦吉的手离开了方向盘。

Yet, it didn’t give access to the police nor the family of the victim who have been trying to understand what happened to their daughter.
然而，它没有向试图了解女儿遭遇的警察或受害者家属提供访问权限。

---

8 | July 2025 Trial – The puzzle laid bare for the jury
8 | 2025 年 7 月审判 – 陪审团面前的谜团被揭开

Finally, this entire situation was laid bare in front of the jury last month and certainly influenced the jury in their verdict.
最后，整个情况在上个月被公之于众，并无疑问地影响了陪审团的判决。

The jury was confronted with clear evidence of Tesla trying to hide data about the crash, and then, they were shown what that data revealed.
陪审团面对了特斯拉试图隐藏事故数据的明确证据，然后，他们看到了这些数据揭示了什么。

The data recovered made a few things clear:
恢复的数据使一些事情变得清晰：

• Autopilot was active  自动驾驶处于激活状态
• Autosteer was controlling the vehicle
  自动转向正在控制车辆
• No manual braking or steering override was detected from the driver
  未检测到驾驶员进行手动制动或转向干预
• There was no record of a “Take Over Immediately” alert, despite approaching a T-intersection with a stationary vehicle in its path.
  尽管接近前方道路上的一个 T 形路口，且前方有静止的车辆，但没有记录显示有“立即接管”警报。
• Moore found logs showing Tesla systems were capable of issuing such warnings, but did not in this case.
  摩尔发现日志显示特斯拉系统有能力发出此类警告，但在此情况下并未这么做。
• Map and vision data from the ECU revealed:
  ECU 的地图和视觉数据揭示：
  • Map data from the Autopilot ECU included a flag that the area was a “restricted Autosteer zone.”
    自动驾驶 ECU 的数据地图包含一个标志，表示该区域为“限速自动转向区域”。
  • Despite this, the system allowed Autopilot to remain engaged at full speed.
    尽管如此，系统允许 Autopilot 以全速保持激活状态。

Moore commented on the last point:
摩尔对最后一点进行了评论：

“Tesla had the map flag. The car knew it was in a restricted zone, yet Autopilot did not disengage or issue a warning.”
“特斯拉拥有地图标志。汽车知道它处于限制区域，但自动驾驶没有断开或发出警告。”

This was critical to the case as one of the arguments was that Tesla dangerously let owners use Autopilot on roads it was not designed to operate on as it was specifically trained for highways.
这一点对案件至关重要，因为其中一个论点是特斯拉危险地让车主在它未设计用于操作的公路上使用自动驾驶，因为它专门训练用于高速公路。

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had even warned Tesla about it and the automaker didn’t geofence the system:
国家运输安全委员会（NTSB）甚至警告了特斯拉，但汽车制造商并未对该系统进行地理围栏：

The NTSB wrote Tesla at the time:
当时，美国国家运输安全委员会（NTSB）致信特斯拉：

“Incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed (the vehicle’s operational design domain).”
整合系统安全措施，限制自动驾驶控制系统的使用范围，仅限于其设计条件（车辆的运行设计域）。

The driver was responsible for the crash and he admitted as such. He admitted to not using Autopilot properly and not paying attention during the crash.
驾驶员对事故负有责任，并承认了这一点。他承认没有正确使用自动驾驶，并在事故期间没有注意。

However, the main goal of the plaintiffs, in this case, was to assign part of the blame for the crash to Tesla for not preventing such abuse of the system despite the clear risk.
然而，原告在此案中的主要目标是把部分责任归咎于特斯拉，因为尽管存在明显的风险，但特斯拉未能阻止对系统的这种滥用。

The logic is that if Tesla had implemented geofencing and better driver monitoring, the driver, McGee, would have never been able to use Autopilot in this case, which could have potentially avoided putting himself in the situation that led to the crash.
特斯拉的逻辑是，如果特斯拉实施了地理围栏和更好的驾驶员监控，驾驶员麦吉就不会在这种情况下使用自动驾驶，这可能会避免他陷入导致事故的情况。

That’s on top of Autopilot failing at what Tesla has repeatedly claimed it could do: stop those crashes from happening in the first place.
这还是在 Autopilot 未能实现特斯拉反复宣称的功能：阻止这些事故发生的基础上。

Electrek’s Take  Electrek 的观点

Tesla fans need to do a quick exercise in empathy right now. The way they are discussing this case, such as claiming the plaintiffs are just looking for a payout, is truly appalling.
特斯拉粉丝现在需要进行一次快速的同理心练习。他们讨论这个案件的方式，比如声称原告只是想获得赔偿，这真是令人震惊。

You should put yourself in the family’s shoes. If your daughter died in a car crash, you’d want to know exactly what happened, identify all contributing factors, and try to eliminate them to give some meaning to this tragic loss and prevent it from happening to someone else.
您应该站在这个家庭的角度考虑。如果您的女儿在车祸中去世，您会想知道发生了什么，找出所有导致事故的因素，并尝试消除它们，以给这个悲剧性损失一些意义，并防止它发生在别人身上。

It’s an entirely normal human reaction. And to make this happen in the US, you must go through the courts.
这是一个完全正常的人类反应。在美国，要实现这一点，你必须通过法院。

Secondly, Tesla fans need to do a quick exercise in humbleness. They act like they know exactly what this case is about and assume that it will “just be thrown out in appeal.”
其次，特斯拉的粉丝需要进行一次谦卑的练习。他们表现得好像他们确切地知道这个案件是关于什么的，并假设它“在上诉中会被直接驳回”。

The truth is that unless you read the entire transcripts and saw all the evidence, you don’t know more about it than the 12 jurors who unanimously decided to assign 33% of the blame for the crash to Tesla.
事实是，除非你阅读了全部的证词并看到了所有证据，否则你对这件事的了解不会比那些一致决定将 33%的责任归咎于特斯拉的 12 名陪审员更多。

And that’s the core of the issue here. They want to put all the blame on the driver, and what the plaintiffs were trying to do was just assign part of the blame on Tesla, and the jurors agreed.
这是问题的关键所在。他们想把所有责任都推给司机，而原告试图做的是将部分责任归咎于特斯拉，陪审团也同意了。

The two sides are not that far off from each other. They both agreed that most of the blame goes to the driver, and even the driver appears to agree with that. He admitted to being distracted and he quickly settled with the plaintiffs.
双方差距并不大。他们都认为大部分责任在驾驶员，甚至驾驶员似乎也同意这一点。他承认自己分心，并且很快就与原告达成了和解。

This case was only meant to explore how Tesla’s marketing and deployment of Autopilot might have contributed to the crash, and after looking at all the evidence, the jury agreed that it did.
此案旨在探讨特斯拉的 Autopilot 营销和部署可能如何导致事故，在审查了所有证据后，陪审团一致认为确实如此。

There’s no doubt that the driver should bear most of the responsibility and there’s no doubt that he didn’t use Autopilot properly.
毫无疑问，驾驶员应承担大部分责任，毫无疑问他没有正确使用自动驾驶。

However, there’s also no doubt that Autopilot was active, didn’t prevent the crash despite Tesla claiming it is safer than humans, and Tesla was warned to use better geo-fencing and driver monitoring to prevent abuse of the system like that.
然而，也没有疑问，Autopilot 处于激活状态，尽管特斯拉声称它比人类更安全，但并未阻止事故发生，特斯拉也被警告要使用更好的地理围栏和驾驶员监控来防止类似滥用系统的情况。

I think a 33% blame, in this case, is more than fair.
我认为在这种情况下，33%的责任是公正的。