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

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?

[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?

[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.

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"?

[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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.