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?

[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.

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: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?

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.

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.