Without disclosing telemetry, this article provides little definitive evidence of who was at fault. smh
A general rule of thumb: if a corporation is not disclosing data to substantiate its claim of innocence, it’s likely because the data proves the exact opposite.
Agreed, but the absence of disclosed data is not itself data. In that, treating non-disclosure as proof of wrongdoing is poor journalism.
It’s poor journalism, yes. Especially if it’s a lack of disclosure rather than an explicit refusal for disclosure, as investigation takes time.
However, my opinion is that for a corporation, an explicit refusal to provide data could be valid data when morally judging them. They are entitled to the same legal “innocent until proven otherwise” standard as individuals, yeah. But a non-person entity doesn’t need the same privacy rights that a person does. They only need whatever privacy is required to maintain confidentiality (e.g. trade secrets, business strategy, insider information, etc.).
If they had non-incriminating and non-confidential evidence proving their innocence, surely they would prefer to release it to minimize reputational damages. So, if they choose not to, it either means that the evidence needs to be confidential, or that it actually is incriminating. Which of those it is, who knows. It’s still not a good look, though.
They are entitled to the same legal “innocent until proven otherwise” standard as individuals, yeah.
But should they be?
The airbags did not deploy. That’s not something you can accidentally switch off.
No human would do this.
The airbags did not deploy. That’s not something you can accidentally switch off.
