Carmakers Promise Not To Abuse Drivers' Privacy

schwit1 provides this excerpt from an Associated Press report: "Nineteen automakers accounting for most of the passenger cars and trucks sold in the U.S. have signed onto a set of principles they say will protect motorists' privacy in an era when computerized cars pass along more information about their drivers than many motorists realize. The principles were delivered in a letter Wednesday to the Federal Trade Commission, which has the authority to force corporations to live up to their promises to consumers. Industry officials say they want to assure their customers that the information that their cars stream back to automakers or that is downloaded from the vehicle's computers won't be handed over to authorities without a court order, sold to insurance companies or used to bombard them with ads for pizza parlors, gas stations or other businesses they drive past, without their permission. The principles also commit automakers to 'implement reasonable measures' to protect personal information from unauthorized access." Also at the Detroit News. Adds schwit1: "It's a meaningless gesture without being codified into law. A greedy car manufacturer or NSL trumps any 'set of principles'." The letter itself (PDF) isn't riveting, but it's more readable than some such documents, and all the promises it makes are a good reminder of just how much data modern cars can collect, and all the ways that it can be passed on.

Comments

won't share until government tells us to

[Anonymous Coward]

excuse me, government told us to share last week

Re:won't share until government tells us to

[cayenne8]

Here's the best thing they could do to PROVE they are respecting our privacy.

Install a simple OFF SWITCH.

Re:won't share until government tells us to

[mjwx]

Here's the best thing they could do to PROVE they are respecting our privacy.

Install a simple OFF SWITCH.

Or better yet, make the entire tracking system a paid optional extra... but knowing car makers, the off switch would be a paid optional extra.

Pinky swear?

[i kan reed]

Will they take an oath? With they sign in blood? Will they promise their first born if they renege?

A promise from corporations doesn't go very far.

Re:Pinky swear?

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

I clearly saw them crossing their fingers behind their backs, so as you know, this is all null and void. I also think I overheard one of them saying something like... "Privacy!? You? Muahahahahahah!"

Re:Pinky swear?

[gstoddart]

The check is in the mail. I promise I won't cum in your mouth. We promise we won't misuse your private data.

None of these statements is worth a damn.

The only solution is to not give it to them in the first place, and to have laws which dictate what they can and can't collect, and what they can do with it.

This is why other countries have actual privacy legislation which spells this kind of stuff out. Because trusting promise of a corporation is moronic.

This promise, or pledge, or PR stunt ... is neither legally binding nor particularly meaningful.

Re:Pinky swear?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure they put their invisible market hand on the holy book of their respective "corporate religion" for that non-binding oath-like statement, naturally.

Re:Pinky swear?

[ls671]

Exactly, the first thing I thought about was this:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/i-p...

Re:Pinky swear?

[s.petry]

They made the promise in the board room so they had to cross their ankles to make the "swear" null and void. Putting your hand behind your back while in a chair is way too obvious, and these people are so much smarter than you.

Re:Pinky swear?

[geekoid]

Which is why they sent it to the FTC who can use legal means to make them keep their promise.

Re:Pinky swear?

[ChadL]

They don't need to take an oath given what I read from the document. It doesn't really say anything, uses lots of weasel words such as "legitimate business purposes". Additionally they allow sharing of covered information to protect the "safety, property, and rights" of Participating Members (themselves), which I see as allowing them to come up with some reason to share whatever they want.

Re:Pinky swear?

[Dutch Gun]

It's easy to be cynical and simply dismiss this as rubbish. Sure, most of this may be PR driven, but the fact is that ALL of the major automakers signed off on this document, and if any of them break their promise, it's also going to be a lot of PR damage for them. That equates into actual lost sales, if the damage is bad enough or sustained enough. Consumers are getting more and more privacy conscious, thanks in large part, no doubt, to some of our governments three-letter agencies.

Here's the good news, and why we may be able to give automakers the benefit of the doubt until we spot evidence to the contrary: it's important to look at revenue models for companies when dealing with privacy and data issues. One of the big problems with Google and Facebook is that they have no product to sell other than your data. As such, you're never going to see much in the way of consumer privacy protection from these companies... ever. It's just not really possible. ISPs have plenty of revenue sources, but are generally in a non-competitive environment. As such, they've seen fit to track users for their browsing habits simply for the extra revenue, consumer privacy be damned. They can well afford to screw over their customers with high prices and horrible service, and there's little that people can do about it because there's often no real choice in providers for a given area.

Auto-makers, on the other hand, are in a competitive market. Moreover, they're selling a high-value product for an actual profit. If an automaker decides to play fast and loose with the terms of this promise, people are likely to notice, and simply choose a make of car next time with a company they feel won't renege on their promises. Fortunately, there are plenty of carmakers to choose from. There's also a wide range of price points and features to choose from. You don't sell luxury goods by crapping all over on your customers - at least, not for the long haul.

Most corporations are more than willing to write off a few of it's customers, although thanks to the internet, that's become more and more risky. However, in a competitive market, few corporations will screw over ALL of their customers, or they'll risk damaging their brand and risking market share. That's why they'll almost always back down when confronted with really bad PR.

Re:Pinky swear?

[fustakrakich]

That would be cool. I would to see how they can pull that off. It will have to be some David Copperfield thing. Make their corporate charters disappear *poof*

Re:Pinky swear?

[i kan reed]

I too dislike unbridled cynicism.

Of course, the problems with this line of reasoning, about PR disasters from breaking promises are:
A. No one, not one major media organization, has a history of challenging companies on keeping promises
B. They can abuse the data and call it non-abuse.
C. Price and features are the driving motivators in the car purchase market, making "company PR" a pretty low concern, and even in that avenue, safety tends to matter more for PR than promise keeping.
and
D. Corporate promises last only as long as there's not more profit to be made from breaking them, no matter how big the cost is.

Re:Pinky swear?

[fustakrakich]

You better take another look at the reelection results. The buying habits are identical. Nobody cares about their damn privacy. Never give any authority the benefit of the doubt. They are the last types to deserve such a thing. They will abuse it. It is a universal scientific fact. How many more studies have to be done on the subject before people understand the nature? The cynicism is justified. Is there a word for that? Because it's not really cynicism then.

There is more collusion amongst the automakers than there is competition. It is up to us to pry open their books if we are going to attempt to 'keep them honest'. As publicly held companies, they are not entitled to any real privacy themselves. A few surprise inspections is the only way to determine if they do what they say.

Re:Pinky swear?

[CanHasDIY]

The problem I see is that 'permission' is very vaguely defined in the US legal system.

Unilateral contracts and all. Basically, they'll set it up so you can't buy any car without signing something that gives them 'permission' to share your data, just like what the cell carriers have done. This isn't a move to protect consumers, its a preemptive strike.

Re:Pinky swear?

[CanHasDIY]

Also, unilateral contracts. Consumers will have about as much say in the matter as we do with cell phone carriers and ISPs.

Re:Pinky swear?

[JohnFen]

The problem with the statement is that it doesn't really address my major privacy concerns at all. Even if they adhered to it 100%, there are enough exceptions that I don't care. It doesn't reassure me. My car simply should not be phoning home, period. It gives me zero benefit, and exposes me to risk.

Re:Pinky swear?

[LifesABeach]

My experience is that the Tooth Fairy is more predictable.

Re:Pinky swear?

[i kan reed]

Yeah, that's one of my big problems also, but I didn't think that was relevant here.

Re:Pinky swear?

[seven of five]

What the carmaker says or doesn't say is virtually irrelevant. The mere possession of customer data means somewhere along the line it will leak, whether intentionally, though incompetence, accident, change of corporate heart, outside malice or other reasons.

Re:Pinky swear?

[Anonymous Coward]

TRUST NO ONE!!!
Open up the computer box and disable the damn thing.

Re:Pinky swear?

[Stan92057]

Nobody cares about their damn privacy

I do I don't own a smartphone I don't own a tablet I pay with cash as much as possible I refuce to give my email address of zip code during all purcheses. There are millions of people just like me. I send emails to my elected officials complaining about hidden data collection and the need for opt-in only. nothing will change unless you stop buying theses devices it wouldn't take long for them to change either a week? maybe a month? Money talks its the ONLY power we have and we don't use it. Boycotting is the only thing that will change the tide.

Re:Pinky swear?

[TubeSteak]

This promise, or pledge, or PR stunt ... is neither legally binding nor particularly meaningful.

What'll happen is one or more States will pass laws to codify those privacy pledges.
Then the manufacturers will push for a national standard/law so that they aren't stuck with a patchwork of 50 State laws.

It's what happened once Massachusetts passed a Right-To-Repair law

Re:Pinky swear?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Toyota in Japan, Mr. Kia in Korea, Mr. Jaguar in India, etc., etc. can swear all they want. They can promise whatever they have to promise. They will not pay for any betrayal, violation or breach. They aren't in the USA and USA people can't sue them and win.

Re:Pinky swear?

[i kan reed]

That's... uh... not how international commerce works.

They are very much "in the USA" as far as the law is concerned.

Re:Pinky swear?

[Krishnoid]

Sure, most of this may be PR driven, but the fact is that ALL of the major automakers signed off on this document

If they can all agree on this, why can't/don't they lobby for it as a formal law or regulation?

Re:Pinky swear?

[Dutch Gun]

I think they're doing this precisely because they want to head off government regulation, most likely because they fear government regulation would be much stricter than what they are imposing on themselves via this document. It's probably the same reason why industries like movies and videogames set up their own rating systems. If they waited for the government to do it, it might be worse than than what they came up with themselves - at least from their perspective.

Obviously, those companies are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but likely because they see privacy as a potential hot-button consumer issue in the future, and would like to preempt the discussion if at all possible with this document. If they can self-regulate themselves reasonably well, fine. If not, we can go the legislation and regulation route.

All I'm saying here is that it would be foolish of them to thumb their noses at their customers and piss them off, because they're more likely to either lose sales or get burdened with more regulation via the government that way, as has happened so often before. One would like to think they could eventually learn from decades of mistakes and stay ahead of the curve for once. Maybe some people think of me as naive for thinking a company would use privacy as a selling point, but I'd say there's at least one example to point to recently.

Re:Pinky swear?

[AK Marc]

"without permission" Now, who read's their car's EULA? It's printed on the inside of the right front tire, and guarded by leopards.

Using the car is agreeing to it.

Re:Pinky swear?

[s.petry]

Nobody cares about their damn privacy.

Generalization fallacy, sorry pal but you don't speak for everyone. Every single person I work with cares, and there was a good amount of turnover in the mid-terms. Considering we have a problem with having only 2 candidates each from the major party on the ballots it can surely get better, but _we_ must work to get these people on ballots.

You also fail to consider the amount of propaganda the media puts out to prevent voting, and prevents voting for non D or R candidates. Again, it's our job to fix that and _we_ must use word of mouth to force a change.

Notice that both of those statements included "_we_ must work" because nobody will do it for us, we don't control the media an establishment does. Not easy, I agree, but complacency is not going to change anything.

There is more collusion amongst the automakers than there is competition. It is up to us to pry open their books if we are going to attempt to 'keep them honest'. As publicly held companies, they are not entitled to any real privacy themselves. A few surprise inspections is the only way to determine if they do what they say.

To an extent sure, but I think FOIA rejections based on claims of national security are enough to let you know this won't do any damn good after the fact.

Re:Pinky swear?

[fustakrakich]

...there was a good amount of turnover in the mid-terms.

You call 95% reelection rate a good turnover? Seriously? Gee, I don't know what to say. Aside from that you are reversing everything I post on the subject.

With a straight face?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll also take responsibility for faulty parts before anyone raises a massive stink about it too, I bet!

I feel better, now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, they promised. What could possibly go wrong?

If a corporation has to "promise"...

[James-NSC]

... it's because they've already broken it and are acting on the advice of legal and/or PR spin.
Seriously, when was the last time a corporation promised you anything that they stuck to?

Re:If a corporation has to "promise"...

[TheGratefulNet]

my company promised us that there would be layoffs and they actually did make good on that promise.

does that count?

"Court order"?

[drinkypoo]

What does "court order" mean? Are they going to require an actual warrant, or will they just cough up your data on any request by a court? Because if a warrant ain't required, I ain't interested.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, unless it has the force of law it's useless. The FTC having the power to strong-arm corporations slightly, maybe get you a settlement for a discount off a future product, doesn't help you if the rules of evidence don't prohibit using that information against you. And unless passing that information is actually illegal, they won't do that.

Re:"Court order"?

[TangoMargarine]

And if it's one of those National Security Letter "secret warrants," it's not like we're going to know about it either, in which case does it really matter whether there's a warrant or not if we're not allowed to see it?

The summary preemptively covered too many of the points I was going to raise :P

Re:"Court order"?

[pla]

What does "court order" mean? Are they going to require an actual warrant, or will they just cough up your data on any request by a court? Because if a warrant ain't required, I ain't interested.

Even if they do require a warrant, I ain't interested. They can keep their BS extra features that require tracking me. I can call AAA on my own. I can read a map on my own. I can remember to schedule my regular maintenance without automated reminders based on telemetry data.

Free hint, automakers - Any feature that requires data to leave my car, I will actively disable. And even any feature that requires the car to log data locally, I will minimize to the greatest extent possible. I don't trust you, I don't trust the NSA, I don't trust the state government not to retroactively issue speeding tickets in a revenue-tight year (like they've already proven they will do with EZ-Pass type toll transponders - You know, the ones they promised (just like in TFA) they'd never use for anything other than paying your tolls).

Someone want to get rich? Develop an ODBC-II dongle that erases my car's EDR every time I turn the car off... Or for that matter, continually if possible.

Re:"Court order"?

[mlts]

I'm also worried about data coming in. If GM and OnStar can shut down cars, then what prevents some bad guy from shutting all Chevies down on the highway during a hurricane evacuation just to cause problems.

This already happened in Austin when a car dealer that used a "pay to play" system on their vehicles (where the buyer had to enter a code after every payment to allow the vehicle to start)... a disgruntled employee logged in via another person's account and shut down every single car, be it paid for or not. If a guy with no hacking skillz other than knowing another employee's password can do that, it wouldn't be far-fetched for a blackhat to seize control of GM's OnStar system and use it for mischief. Criminals would stand in line for this access (disable cars on a remote stretch of highway for ease of looting.)

Re:"Court order"?

[AK Marc]

And when the connected cars get preferential treatment at stop lights, what will you do?

I don't trust you, I don't trust the NSA, I don't trust the state government not to retroactively issue speeding tickets in a revenue-tight year (like they've already proven they will do with EZ-Pass type toll transponders - You know, the ones they promised (just like in TFA) they'd never use for anything other than paying your tolls).

The one near me never did anything like that. But then, they were chartered by the state in law, and it would take a law change to let them do it. The only violations they are able to charge are toll-related ones.

Without their permission

[RandomFactor]

customer ... Information ... wont be ... all kinds of stuff ... without their permission.

I'm told I gave permission for things that I in no way gave permission for (consciously) far to often to buy that one.

They'll just add permissions to the shrink wrap license on your smart ignition key (or your XM radio, live maps, emergency service, or some other needed/desirable function). Pesky 'privacy' problem solved!

Re:Without their permission

[TangoMargarine]

Buying the car is giving permission, duh. Also known as the "Shrinkwrap Defense."

"You don't like our terms of service? Then don't buy our product. What's that? Everybody else in the market does the same thing? Well then fuck you."

Re:Without their permission

[TheGratefulNet]

speaking of gps maps, I had a discussion with a guy at work about buying a gps that came with the car vs installing an aftermarket one.

my point to him was that car companies cannot be trusted with your data, your driving locations are WAY too much info to hand over to them, their gps systems are almost always worse than even just your phone's gps and they are expensive as hell. the only upside is that they 'look good' on your dash since it was designed in from the factory.

no, I want no bluetooth from a car company or any other networking thing. no radio uplinks, no beacons, no data logging (hard to avoid the blackboxes that are now built into every car sold to the US folks) but what stuff I am able to stop them from using, I certainly will.

this kind of thing makes buying 10+ yr old used cars look a lot better. it also makes me want to hang onto my old car for as long as I possibly can.

Re:Without their permission

[drinkypoo]

their gps systems are almost always worse than even just your phone's gps and they are expensive as hell. the only upside is that they 'look good' on your dash since it was designed in from the factory.

This has changed in just the last decade tops. Before that, the carmaker often had a pretty good GPS, and your phone GPS was rubbish. Also, before that, your carmaker's GPS didn't have any internet connection, and it worked entirely from local storage, which meant it had less privacy concerns. Now it seems like half of them are using Google.

Luckily, I'm not in the market for a car so new it requires an internet subscription. My latest car doesn't even have the on-board navigation. It just has a radio, and I have to hack into the changer line to even get line-in on that. (I could just use a switch, but I got some signal relays, and one day when I finish many other projects, I'll do that one too.)

Re:Without their permission

[Gr8Apes]

It would be really useful to have a list of makers/cars and when they were infected with all this crap. I have 2 clean cars, guess I'll be keeping them running as long as possible.

Put it in my warranty then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lifetime commitment to this promise, or else I can return the car at anytime and get exactly what I paid for it.

License change?

[gstoddart]

Industry officials say they want to assure their customers that the information that their cars stream back to automakers or that is downloaded from the vehicle's computers won't be handed over to authorities without a court order, sold to insurance companies or used to bombard them with ads for pizza parlors, gas stations or other businesses they drive past, without their permission.

By continuing to use this service, you agree that your information may be provided to law enforcement at our discretion, provided to your insurer, sold to third parties, and used to provide advertising.

See how easily they can change this?

In an age where EULA changes by the issuer have been upheld, and when we're talking about your car (which you likely can't readily replace) ... in a few months they simply change the terms to read that you've given them permission.

This is an entirely empty promise, and since it's software (and therefore licensed) they can change the terms any time they like.

Tell you what, make it a law that you either have to provide a model which doesn't collect this data, or you have to remove the functionality when I take delivery if I ask you to.

Other than that, I don't believe a damned thing you say.

Re:License change?

[TheCastro1689]

So when you decline them does your car not work anymore?

Re:License change?

[AK Marc]

Yes, because the only way to decline them is to park your car and call the dealer to come tow it away (at your own expense).

Suuuuuuuure

[hooiberg]

A big company... promising anything... Bwahahahahahaahahaha! Actually it is worth weeping over.

Yeah, right!

[XxtraLarGe]

Industry officials say they want to assure their customers that the information that their cars stream back to automakers or that is downloaded from the vehicle's computers won't be handed over to authorities without a court order, sold to insurance companies or used to bombard them with ads for pizza parlors, gas stations or other businesses they drive past, without their permission.

I'm sure they'll assume your permission or have a clause in the sales contract which will turn this into "opt-out" instead of "opt-in".

Re:Yeah, right!

[TheCastro1689]

Don't a lot of newer cars have black boxes that the police download from right after a major accident without any court orders or warrants?

They don't get what it means to SELL a car

[Anonymous Coward]

My car, my data. You want it, let me opt in and pay me. The car company does not need to know anything about my vehicle - not where it is, not how fast it is going, not how long since an oil change. Nada, zip, zilch. And I won't buy any car that tries to send data back. They have too much computer crap in them anyway, at least for me. But I just like to drive (I race cars for a hobby) and not do my makeup or watch movies in my car.

Re:They don't get what it means to SELL a car

[TheCastro1689]

One of the many reasons I prefer to buy older cars, especially since the computers are already so complicated many independent mechanics can't reset half the systems.

NSA will hack what it wants

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA will hack whatever it wants, no one can stop them and the secret court said it was OK

Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you say 'I promise' in L.A.?

F#ck you.

o rly?

[Anonymous Coward]

o rly?

http://media.turnto23.com/photo/2013/02/11/Owl_gets_stuck_in_car_grill_309350000_371771_ver1.0_320_240.jpg

We won't... but if we do...

[netsavior]

We won't betray you, but if we do, we will just hire a female CEO and blame it all on her.

They say they will not without your permission

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of course you will grant as part of the Terms and Conditions of purchasing the car.

Carmakers Promise Not To Abuse Drivers' Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly thought I was reading the Onion for a second there...

Newsflash

[nehumanuscrede]

NSL letters trump everything, including any laws that are passed.

Welcome to the US of A :|

This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

They should NOT be collecting any of this information in the first place!

they may not....

[Anonymous Coward]

but certain others who wear blue or black or work for three-letters might.

This Primise Is Already False

[DERoss]

Franchised car dealers already violate this promise; and many (most?, all?) independent service garages and body shops do, too. If you take your car to a dealer for servicing, your mileage is reported to CarFax, which then reports your mileage to your car insurance. If you have an accident and do not report it to your insurance, the accident is reported by the body shop that does the repairs. CarFax pays the dealers, garages, and shops for these data; and insurance companies pay CarFax.

What is worse is that erroneous data are difficult to correct. In advance of an insurance policy renewal, I received an E-mail message asking me to use the insurance company's Web site to report my mileage. When I reported 25,065 miles, the entry was rejected with a message indicating I could not report an odometer reading less than the prior reading. On the Web site, there was a link to view the mileage history for my car. The immediately prior entry was for 241,080 miles, reported by CarFax on the date of the last routine servicing of my car. I checked the invoice for that servicing; it indicated 24,108 miles. A zero had been added to the end of the mileage, either by the dealer's service department or by CarFax! Working with both the service manager at the dealer and the local agent for the automobile insurance company, it took several phone calls over a month to obtain a correction.

  See http://www.carfax.com/, which will charge you for a report on a specific car. See also http://www.mycarfax.com/, from which you can get a free report.

Re:This Primise Is Already False

[Anonymous Coward]

That correction would not seem to be in your interest. Wouldn't a more valuable car cost more to insure?

I've seen this impulse before: people are more upset that their Stasi files are not accurate than they are that the files exist in the first place. I think it's a form of narcissism.

Re:This Primise Is Already False

[Cajun Hell]

That correction would not seem to be in your interest. Wouldn't a more valuable car cost more to insure?

More mileage (per unit time) == more risk. And conversely, less mileage (per unit of time) == less risk.

If you drive your car less than 12000 miles per year, then seriously, talk to your insurance agent about a discount.

Re:This Primise Is Already False

[TheCastro1689]

If I hadn't made a comment on this post before I would upvote this comment. You're right, a super highmileage car should have less value to insure, but that also means you lied about how much you drive it and your insurance wasn't calculated for someone that drives to the moon for work.

Re:This Primise Is Already False

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, you could turn to your ensurer saying: "dude, I just did 200.000miles without accident, I am clearly a very safe driver. Now give me some serious discount."

Trust us

[Cro Magnon]

We promise, cross our hearts, not to abuse your privacy. And we don't need to put it in writing, because you know we're totally trustworthy. Honest!

Re:Trust us

[kingnite9915]

If you don't pinky swear, I don't trust you.

Why should we trust a MAFIAA goon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Per TFA: "Google may want to become an automaker, but we don't want to become Google," said Mitch Bainwol, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Mitch Bainwol works (worked?) for the Music and Film Industries Associations of America. I wouldn't trust him further than I can throw him.

Don't get SW from your HW vendor, EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most basic things every single "computer nerd" learns, is that you never want to buy your hardware and software from the same entity. IBM taught people that lesson in the 1960s, and companies like Apple and Sony (both of whom are very capable of making excellent products but always make sure to poison their offerings) are teaching it to everyone today. Sometimes you get trapped and have to (or are unable to get out of thinking that you have to, which is basically the same thing), but it always sucks. And it always sucks to an extreme, conspicuous degree, far beyond the usual variations out there.

Sometimes the suckage is manifested as basic shoddiness, where it just obviously seems like a shitty product, which doesn't work reliably or whatever. But most often, that's not really how it sucks. The suckage is manifested not as obvious shoddiness, but as the product being subversive, where it is primarily intended to serve other parties' (usually the manufacturer) interests, at the user's expense. Your thing plays dual roles, acting both as a toy/tool, but also as a parasite. It's not so much "shoddy" as "lame" (it can't do obviously-doable things) or has some dark cloud (e.g. DRM or other arbitrary restrictions) over it.

We don't want this in our cars. I don't want carmakers to swear to not be evil. I don't even want someone (government) pointing guns at their heads and pulling triggers whenever they're caught being evil. I want them to lack the capacity. WE, not them, should be controlling our cars. I guarantee you, whatever software comes preloaded in your car, won't be for you. And whatever competitive advantage Ford has over Chevy (or vice versa) won't be so much about how the software appeals to you, but how much money they get from their "partners" for selling you out.

Corrected

[Anonymous Coward]

"...It's a meaningless gesture EVEN AFTER being codified into law..."

I'll do one better

[GameboyRMH]

I promise not to own any car with any data collection systems not fully controlled by the end user in place.

Voluntary agreements aren't worth a thing

[JohnFen]

For my part, I'll just continue to disable the car's ability to communicate.

It is worth less than that

[aepervius]

I take their promise as in "we will pretend to protect your privacy while working hard with our legal department to find work around, and when we get caught, then it won't matter because we will have respected the "letter" of our promise even if we broke the spirit of it, and in the mean time we avoid laws which would force us to REALLY respect privacy."

If an industry promise self regulation, you can bet it will be in their interrest, not in the one of the customer.

Nonsense. [was Re:Pinky swear?]

[Anonymous Coward]

And when ALL automakers have government-mandated spyware as an integral part of their design, where do you take your business in order for the mythical free market forces to work as fantasized? Call me cynical, but the only solution to the problem of the abuse of personal data is to prevent the generation of that data in the first place. In the case of automobiles this means the complete separation of the systems that make the car function as a personal transportation device and any other information system. Then, you put the choice of what data from the main vehicle should be shared with the infotainment spyware 100% in the hands of the owner. Once you've paid off your car you should be able to completely go offline. This will probably require aftermarket, open-source hardware and software. It will not be easy but it is the only way. Your politicians and the manufacturers will NEVER protect your individual liberties - you are their cattle.

My promise to automakers...

[Bugler412]

I will remove, shield or power down whatever transmitter and antenna you install into my car. No need for the FTC to monitor compliance with that promise.

Re:My promise to automakers...

[pitchpipe]

Automaker's promise to Bugler412: Rest assured, your data is safe* with us.

We promise to record all data in your car's on-board computer. We will then have that data automatically downloaded to our servers when you get your car serviced. No need to remove or shield the antenna, besides that would just void the warranty.

* For values of safe as defined in your Tire Pressure Monitor EULA section 18, part t, paragraph 63.

air bags

[kingnite9915]

Isn't this the same industry that is keeping us safe by installing seat belts and air bags. Wasn't there just a major recall for them? If they have issues keeping our physical bodies safe, how safe is your data?

Hey! A promise is a promise

[fustakrakich]

If it works as well as what we just saw for the politician, who's to say it can't be the same for everybody else? Waddya gonna do, walk?

Then make it a felony criminal offense

[swb]

If they really are committed to this, then let's make consumer privacy black letter criminal law and violation of it a felony offense with mandatory jail time.

My guess is that when they say they are committed to it, they just aren't that committed to it, which means they aren't committed to it at all.

Re:Then make it a felony criminal offense

[hyades1]

Why is it I never have Mod points when I really, really want one?

You're exactly, 100% right. I'd only add that the sentence would have to sting...no 90 days at a country club stuff. Start the bidding at two years less a day at one of those institutions where "shank" isn't a cut of meat.

Re:Then make it a felony criminal offense

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really are committed to this, then let's make consumer privacy black letter criminal law and violation of it a felony offense with mandatory jail time.

You want to give a cabal of auto makers a blank check to write criminal law? Or rather, you want them to suggest making more criminal law when our prisons are 10x more crowded than some European and Asian counterparts?

Fight for your rights to rip this crap out, the freedom to tinker (anti-DRM, anti-anti-circumvention). Fighting to suppress somebody else is worrisome.

Anywho, my theory is that this group is CYA. In the event some behavior is found egrigious, they have a standard and other similar entities they can point to. This way, Toyota (a la Samsung) cannot get its ass kicked if doing the same thing as Ford (a la Apple).

When airbags start decapitating people, it is good to have lots of places to point your fingers.

OnStar

[TwoEyedJack]

I remember when it was revealed in the trial of a gangster that GM had turned on their OnStar system and recorded hours of conversation for the government. That was a wakeup call. Lots of sites with instructions on how to disable that bit of useless technology.

Re:OnStar

[Anonymous Coward]

OnStar is easily defeated. Just find the module, open it, unplug the cell radio module from the CPU board, reassemble and reinstall.

like this:
http://www.instructables.com/i...

The reason why they did this is simple

[rockabilly]

The car companies see this as a major revenue engine. They do not want to see anything legislated, so they are jumping the gun by showing the government that they are capable of policing themselves.

Its all total bullshit of course....

John Carmack

[bengtsson.morgan]

How would Carmack abuse a GPU drivers privacy?

c'mon man, 3 biggest lies told by carmakers

[OutOnARock]

1. We put the check in the mail.

2. We promise not to abuse Drivers' privacy.

3. We won't cum in your mouth

Wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have been "Will Carmakers Keep Their Promise Not To Abuse Drivers' Privacy?"

That way, we could correctly answer it with "No."

You lost me at

[WaffleMonster]

that the information that their cars stream back to automakers or that is downloaded from the vehicle's computers won't be handed over to authorities without a court order

This is the problem. Record everything and everything becomes discoverable. There is no distance from the man himself standing over your shoulder noting everything you do and everywhere you go.

Use cases for recording all this data are equally pathetic...

"The technology uses a radio signal to continually transmit a vehicle's position, heading, speed and other information. Similarly equipped cars and trucks would receive the same information, and their computers would alert drivers to an impending collision."

If you feel compelled to make drivers safer with computer generated warnings then do so based on observations of the world as it already is. While image/sensor processing is more difficult computationally than recording transmitted signals the supporting hardware costs nothing and software R&D costs maximally benefit from deployment at scale and general interest in image processing across a growing number of domains.

Plus you get capabilities transmitters do not provide such as the ability to react to vehicles or obstructions not transmitting their positions.

"As modern cars not only share the road but will in the not too distant future communicate with one another, vigilance over the privacy of our customers and the security of vehicle systems is an imperative," said John Bozzella, president of Global Automakers, an industry trade association."

Security of vehicle systems will never happen because we have proven ourselves incapable of ever producing a secure anything. There is also a small minor problem of owners of these vehicles themselves not being trustworthy.

Sensors which view the world as it actually is rather than blind assertions of transmitters you have no reason to trust is both more secure and more useful on the context of driving vehicles on paved roads.

The automakers' principles leave open the possibility of deals with advertisers who want to target motorists based on their location and other personal data, but only if customers agree ahead of time that they want to receive such information, industry officials said in a briefing with reporters.

Where have I heard this before? You agree as a condition of purchase or in some fine print most people will never read. Everyone knows the drill by now.

"You just don't want your car spying on you," he said. "That's the practical consequence of a lot of the new technologies that are being built into cars."

Pure bullshit this isn't about technology, the future or in any way leveraging technology to provide additional value to consumers. It is about leveraging technology to provide additional value to manufacturers and their value chain.

You don't need to report your location to view a map of your location. You don't need to report your location to download traffic conditions. You don't need to report your location to calculate the distance to nearest charging stations. You don't need to report your location for safety reasons.

You only need to report your location so others can profit.

And I'll never ever comment on slashdot...

[LongearedBat]

And I'll never ever comment on slashdot. It's a promise.

Worthless and here is why.

[Anonymous Coward]

A promise by a corporation has as much hold as a sieve. There is no legal basis and it never has to be fulfilled. Besides, the corporations are acting as agents of the state by collecting the data, and with a simple subpoena the government acquires the information which it is forbidden to collect by the Constitution. Always, a nice and easy way to bypass the laws of the land.
Reply to This Share

Ability != Justification

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want your promise to not share that information, I don't want you to have that information to begin with. The audacity of companies these days to collect all of this data (because it's technically possible) is outrageous. I don't mind local data collection for specific purposes (e.g. assisting the mechanic with repairs or notifying the driver of issues), but transmitting that data back to the manufacturer is unacceptable.

When I eat a restaurant, it's not okay for them to shove sensors in my stomach that monitor and report to them what I eat after I've left their business.
When I walk in a retail store, it's not okay for them to attach a GPS system to me that tells them the other stores I go to, when I get home, and so on (the same goes for third-party tracking cookies and such).
When I buy a TV, it's not okay for it to transmit the shows I watch to the manufacturer.
When I buy a keyboard for my computer, it's not okay for it to send my keystrokes to the manufacturer.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The easy solution is simply to never make any agreement or sign any contract that takes things out of your own control. They want your personal information, say no and simply keep it from them. If they insist, then decline their services or product.

If you don't get it under your control, you will lose everything. This is how the federal reserve works, the banking, the insurance companies, the government, etc. etc.

Get it under YOUR control and you will quickly realize that is the solution you always needed.

Prove it.

[antdude]

Keep your promise by proving it. :P

Re:wow

[ls671]

yes brother, I am all with you!

I am a drummer too.