Security

NHTSA Reveals Ever More Tesla “Driverless” FSD Fraud

Leave a comment

Everyone knows why Elon Musk was taking in Russian billions to pour into an American election campaign, and dismantle the U.S. government. He’s basically an alleged criminal on the run, corrupting the system to avoid justice.

The NHTSA, for example, just wrote their most strongly worded letter to Tesla yet. Unfortunately, this level of clarity about Tesla perpetrating “driverless” fraud is at least four years late.

[Division Chief, NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation,] Magno cited seven posts or reposts by Tesla’s account on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that Magno said indicated that Full Self-Driving is capable of driving itself.

“Tesla’s X account has reposted or endorsed postings that exhibit disengaged driver behavior,” Magno wrote. “We believe that Tesla’s postings conflict with its stated messaging that the driver is to maintain continued control over the dynamic driving task.”

The postings may encourage drivers to see Full Self-Driving, which now has the word “supervised” next to it in Tesla materials, to view the system as a “chauffeur or robotaxi rather than a partial automation/driver assist system that requires persistent attention and intermittent intervention by the driver,” Magno wrote.

Here is the most dangerous social engineering tactic within the Tesla fraud:

…Tesla’s postings conflict with its stated messaging…

Why so dangerous? What happens is that people become especially careless (disable their disbelief) because there is a passive warning from Tesla in parallel with an active message from Tesla that encourages people to ignore the passive warning.

A 71-year-old woman who exited a vehicle following a rear-end collision with two other vehicles was killed in Rimrock, Arizona when she was struck by a Tesla in FSD mode with a driver battling sun glare who was not charged.

That’s not unlike the pedestrian death by Tesla in Japan, April 2018. Six years of death have continued as if its system has been so unregulated (“green light”) as to get worse since then, instead of required to be safe.

[Tesla] argued that it should be exempt from prosecution under US or California laws because “Japan is not a party to the Hague Convention.”

Consider that Tesla may have designed an intentional (injected) “operator fatigue” error platform for profit; a very predictable disaster by design.

The Uber driver was charged, and pled guilty to endangerment. Yet somehow the Tesla drivers do the same thing over and over and over again, avoiding charges after negligently removing hands from the wheel.

Think about that contrast between Uber and Tesla, about a company that flagrantly fights in court against any regulation of safety. What does it mean when a Tesla driver is allowed to avoid accountability by claiming anti-science beliefs (e.g. faith in Elon Musk’s blatant lies about the car driving itself)? What if they said they thought God has been driving their car, as if that’s any different of a claim?

Legalized negligence, amounting to murder.

I can’t emphasize this enough. If there was no warning at all it would be better, because Tesla lying about driverless would face basic scepticism. Tesla’s strategic mixture of messaging is a toxic disarming tactic.

Because the company posts a milquetoast warning, and then brazenly lies to undermine that warning, it combines into dangerously effective disinformation.

And hundreds of people have been killed because of this. Uber killed one person and completely shut their “key to success” program down. Tesla should have too. Instead it has only expanded the death tolls, and charged customers for an anti-social privilege ticket of unaccountable murder.

Tesla Deaths Per Year

Source: TeslaDeaths.com

Notably, the last time Trump occupied the White House starting in 2016, Elon Musk asked that the NHTSA be blocked from investigating people killed by Tesla. Thus, the “official” record of deaths doesn’t start until after Trump was forced to leave in 2020. Tesladeaths.com has the more accurate quantitative death toll, going all the way back to 2016. You also can read the 50 or so qualitative death reports on this blog.

Related, November 2022:

Tesla and Twitter Should be Banned as Threats to Global Security

Security

HK Tesla Kills One Teen Pedestrian On Her Way to School

Leave a comment

Police say the latest Tesla driver who killed a teen near school tested with a blood alcohol level of zero.

A fatal traffic accident occurred in Yuen Long this morning, resulting in the death of a 19-year-old girl. At around 8.05am, police received reports that the young woman had been struck by a Tesla while crossing On Lok Road. Emergency services were promptly dispatched, and she was initially taken to Pok Oi Hospital before being transferred to Tuen Mun Hospital, where she was pronounced dead at 2.06pm.

[…]

Witnesses reported that the Tesla involved is a Model Y Performance, known for its rapid acceleration capabilities, reaching 100 km/h in just 3.7 seconds and a top speed of 250 km/h. The front of the vehicle was covered with a black cloth by police at the scene, indicating its involvement in the tragic event.

The victim, a Nepalese student, was reportedly on her way to school at the time of the accident. Her family arrived at the hospital to find their worst fears realised, as they sought information on her condition and the events leading to the collision.

The family is seeking help in understanding how the Tesla was able to kill her.

The victim’s sister described the family’s devastation, revealing that both she and her sister were born in Hong Kong. The deceased was en route to school in Tai Wai, where she was studying for her diploma. Their parents work in manual labour and the restaurant industry and have indicated they do not require additional support at this time. The sister expressed concern about the details of the incident, stating that her sister had always been cautious while crossing streets and that the family is eager to understand how the accident occurred.

Lisa, the youngest daughter and cherished by her parents, was studying for a Higher Diploma at UOW College Hong Kong in Tai Wai.

History, Poetry, Security

The Weight of Knowledge in Times of Strife: Revisiting Virgil’s Famous Line

Leave a comment

After thirty years of prowling the data centers of Silicon Valley and watching countless digital conflicts unfold across our bleeding world, I find myself returning, time and again, to that damned line from Virgil: “Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.” Blessed is the one who can know the causes of things.

Hah! If only it were that simple, eh?

You see, what most of us who studied at the London School of Economics miss — as we scurry around with this motto emblazoned on our umbrellas, shirts or scarves — is an exquisite irony of it all. Virgil penned this phrase in his “Georgics” around 29 BC, when the dust of civil war barely had settled on Roman soil. The suffering was still raw, so to speak.

Let’s dissect Book II, lines 490-492 properly:

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Atque metus omnes, et inexorabile fatum
Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari

Happy is the one able to understand the causes of things, and who casts beneath their feet all fear, inexorable fate, and the roaring depths of river Acheron

The full passage speaks not just of understanding, but of overcoming fear, of putting one foot in front of the other despite an inexorable fate. Having spent decades studying the poetry of civil wars — from Spain to Syria, from the American South to the killing fields of Cambodia — I can tell you this: such knowledge rarely brings forth Virgil’s promised serenity.

Dryden’s attempt in 1697 at a translation — “Happy the Man, who, studying Nature’s Laws, / Thro’ known Effects can trace the secret Cause” — tones it down somewhat, doesn’t it? Makes it all sound rather scientific, almost cheerful. But there’s a cruelty still there, lurking beneath the surface.

When I think of our school’s motto, I can’t help but remember the poets I’ve studied — men and women who wrote amidst their own civil conflicts. They knew the causes all too well, didn’t they? And yet did that knowledge bring anyone any peace? Consider that Virgil himself was writing in the aftermath of Rome’s own devastating civil wars. He knew, perhaps better than most, that understanding the causes of things doesn’t necessarily make us “felix” — fortunate or happy.

The later adaptation — “Felix, qui potest rerum cognoscere causas” — shifts our view to the present tense, making it more immediate, more urgent. But I prefer the original’s past tense. It carries the weight of history, the burden of hindsight that I studied at LSE. It reminds us that true knowledge comes late, always too late.

And what of that final line about the “roaring depths of river Acheron“? The river of those who suffer the most, lost souls hungry to corrupt or disappear ever more to be like them. How many civil war poets have stood at its metaphorical banks, documenting the endless appetite of conflict?

Some of my fellow graduates of LSE might disagree, but I’ve always found it somewhat amusing that we have this as our motto. In my more cynical moments (of which there are many, I assure you), I wonder if it was chosen precisely because of an inherent contradiction to navigate — an impossible promise that gaining understanding will bring the world happiness.

After all these years of study and work in the guts of Big Tech, of parsing through verses written in blood and desperation, I’ve come to believe that Virgil wasn’t making a statement of fact, but rather expressing a desperate hope. A hope that somewhere, somehow, someone might truly understand and find peace in that understanding.

But then again, what do I know? I’m just an old cybersecurity executive who’s spent too many years reading poetry written by those who saw their worlds tear themselves apart.

Security

World Leaders Know How to Deal With Trump

Leave a comment
Tactical Success, Strategic Catastrophe: A Historical Warning

When South Korea’s former president Moon published his new diplomatic playbook, he inadvertently provided a masterclass in something far more dangerous than intended: how short-term tactical wins can enable long-term authoritarian ambitions. His five-point guide to managing a narcissist with nuclear codes reads like a warning from history:

  • Transactional? Bloody well right the infamous American is, and there’s nothing deeper. Coin-operated is the phrase intelligence services tend to say. Moon suggests the diplomatic eureka moment was realizing Trump only ever operates as a Manhattan real estate dealer because… well, that’s exactly what he is. No point looking for Metternich-style subtlety here.
  • Feed the ego like you’re fattening a Christmas goose. Moon’s Nobel Peace Prize gambit was rather brilliant — dangle a shiny participation prize that Obama wouldn’t get. Elementary psychological manipulation, but devastatingly effective.
  • Contrary to popular belief, you can use a “no”… by convincing him that no actually means another way to line his pockets. The fascinating bit is that Trump respects pushback if you show him self-gains. Moon discovered that standing ground on trade deficits became easy — he just mentioned Texas was going to owe Trump something, and then watched the whole “America First” argument collapse like a house of cards.
  • Military pageantry works like catnip. Moon practically wrote the book on emotional manipulation here – “Oh, your brave Marines saved my mummy!” Next thing you know, Trump’s high on himself and handing out a Lincoln desk photo op. Textbook stuff, really.
  • The Wharton patronage connection is just… chef’s kiss Having a UPenn graduate on staff to inflate his sense of worth is apparently the diplomatic equivalent of a secret handshake. Rather telling about the man’s priorities, wouldn’t you say?

The chilling parallel that Moon seems to miss is how closely his playbook mirrors the fatal diplomatic miscalculations of the 1930s. Consider Chamberlain’s early “successes” with Hitler — each tactical diplomatic win provided the Nazis more time for secret military preparation, more legitimacy for violent internal crackdowns, more opportunities to eliminate opposition. Just as Moon celebrates his ability to manage Trump through ego manipulation, Chamberlain too believed he could delay and expose Hitler’s threats (for later containment) through careful diplomatic engagement.

The pattern is devastatingly familiar: a democratic leader achieves specific diplomatic “wins” through short-term personality management, while their authoritarian counterpart systematically dismantles democratic institutions and prepares for broader non-negotiable confrontation. After the occupation of the Rhineland, each diplomatic “success” simply meant more time for Hitler to consolidate power. Moon’s tactics, while in a present diplomatic context somewhat unlike Chamberlain’s, clearly risk enabling the same dangerous progression.

The formula Moon advocates is rather like training a small angry Russian circus bear — dangerous if leaders get it wrong for even a minute and let it off leash to maul the public, but surprisingly manageable enough to charge admission tickets when strings to pull are held very, very tightly. Yet this metaphor reveals the fundamental loophole widely exploited by “2nd Amendment” dog-whistlers: no matter how well you manage the deadly bear’s public performances, its essential nature remains unchanged.

Beyond Micro Personality Management: The Macro Strategic Threat

What makes Moon’s approach particularly dangerous is how it normalizes and legitimizes authoritarian tendencies by treating them as manageable personality quirks rather than systemic threats. When he describes redirecting Trump’s “America First” rhetoric through ego manipulation, he echoes how Chamberlain believed he could redirect Hitler’s territorial ambitions through careful negotiation. Both approaches fundamentally misunderstand how authoritarians operate:

  • They use negotiations as delay tactics while preparing more aggressive moves
  • They systematically eliminate internal opposition during periods of “successful” diplomacy
  • They interpret diplomatic accommodation as weakness to be exploited
  • They operate on fundamentally bad faith while demanding good faith engagement

Moon has inadvertently published a manual for enabling exactly the kind of authoritarian progression that required a world war to stop. His tactical successes, like Chamberlain’s, risk masking how each diplomatic “win” can strengthen anti-democratic forces until containment becomes impossible. The lesson of the 1930s wasn’t that diplomacy failed — it’s that tactical diplomatic success will enable strategic catastrophe when we are lightly treating symptoms instead of understanding the cause of things.

Quick chart by me of where and when fascism took hold in Europe.