Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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!
--- Mercutio was right.
Lifetime commitment to this promise, or else I can return the car at anytime and get exactly what I paid for it.
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.
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.