Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Carmakers Promise Not To Abuse Drivers' Privacy

Posted by timothy on from the how-far-can-you-throw-this-vehicle? dept.

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.

3 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Pinky swear? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pinky swear? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. Re:"Court order"? by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.