Slashdot Mirror


Questioning The Privacy Policies Of Data-Collecting Cars (autoblog.com)

Remember when Vizio's televisions started collecting data about what shows people were watching? One transportation reporter is more worried about all the data being collected by cars. schwit1 quotes Autoblog: Nowadays, auto manufacturers seem to be tripping over each other pointing out that they offer Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto. And more recent phenomenon are announcements -- from companies including Ford and Hyundai -- that they are offering Amazon Alexa capabilities. You talk. It listens... Here's the thing. While it may seem appealing to have all manner of connectivity in cars, there is the other side of that. Without getting all tinfoil hat about this, when your TV set is ratting you out, isn't it likely that your car will? It drives. And watches. And listens. And collects data...
That data could be shared with everyone from auto insurers and advertisers to law enforcement officials and divorce attorneys. But the real problem may be consumers assuming strong privacy protections that don't actually exist. The article argues that GM's privacy policy "is like most privacy policies, which boils down to: You use it (the device, software, etc.), you potentially give up a portion of your privacy."

85 comments

  1. "Put your wheel over the Bible..." by magusxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...Do you, Herbie the Love Bug, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth..."

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    1. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 2

      Still driving my 22 year old Eclipse GSX with no onboard recording devices. That's the way I like my cars. Very surprised people are going along with the 1984 snooping on everyone thing. It was supposed to be a cautionary tale.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re: "Put your wheel over the Bible..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The snooping in 1984 was bad because the government was doing it. The snooping now is fine, because it's just companies doing it!

    3. Re: "Put your wheel over the Bible..." by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And it's not forget that it makes profit, so it's ok.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      According to how companies and governments use it 1984 was a How-To book.

    5. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can get T-shirts that say 1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

      https://www.amazon.com/1984-Wa...

      Clearly, psychos in power who never liked the whole democracy thing had a different take.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    6. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by mspohr · · Score: 1

      So, you don't carry a phone in your car?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about after-market OBDII dongles, like Automatic? Wouldn't it be naive to think the megalomaniac running Uber (with his "God mode") is the only one at a investor-money-losing, pie-in-the-sky, snake-oil "startup"?

    8. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      Don't need a cell phone. Use the wife's if I ever do need one. I don't need to talk with people when driving, and in my experience, most other people are just chatting anyway. If I traveled a lot I would get one. I think that most cell phone use is unnecessary. I am a computer guy, I build my own, I have 7 here, 5 of which are used just about every day. So that's where I get my tech fix. :)

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    9. Re:"Put your wheel over the Bible..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More recent car but same principle here. Really not interested in having my car connected to anything - that would be what you might call an anti-feature in my book.

  2. I've asked, but they never answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So-called smart cars. NOT!

  3. That's not important right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is important is that I am using the Cisco AnyConnect client and it said it was checking posture assessment.

    Why is Cisco worried about my posture? Will they refuse me service if I don't sit up straight?

  4. looking up imaginary secrets on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pretension reigns.. cease fire stand down

  5. Powered by Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the folks who know how to forcibly collect data the best!

  6. Why is my car any different than my phone? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    My daily drivers are going on 17 years old, and one has almost 200K miles. But they won't last forever and I will have to replace them.

    In the mean time I carry a phone that knows everywhere I go. (At least I could turn it off when I'm not using it – if I was paranoid. And yes thanks, I know that just because I'm not paranoid it doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get me.)

    1. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Like, how does my Google Maps app know to turn the map red when there's traffic up there? The cars ahead of me have Android phones in them, right? Whether or not the app is open and running on the dash, right? How else does Google Maps know to go yellow just after I see a traffic light way ahead of me turn red and cars start to slow down?

      I got an iPhone, so I'm assuming Google Maps isn't reporting on me unless I have the app open. But maybe Android is different, feeding Google with this info all the time to provide Maps with such amazing up-to-the-minute info? I mean, this is going on during the afternoon commute, so it's an easy guess the drivers ahead of me aren't actually using their Map app on the familiar ride home, and yet Maps knows when there's traffic. So, we're being watched already.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google ingests data from transportation department sensors. Virtually all of them expose an API to let you get real-time(ish) traffic data. Some, you have to pay for.

    3. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I got an iPhone, so I'm assuming Google Maps isn't reporting on me unless I have the app open.

      Google Maps may not be, but your iPhone is. Apple has the iPhone report the same information for their traffic that Google does. It also constantly reports your location and nearby wifi MAC addresses to help Apple build a location database based on wifi hotspots, since they're too cheap to use the existing services that drive around their own cars to do the same thing.

    4. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Those are on highways, but the map apps know road conditions where there aren't sensors. Try it out sometime, they're obviously using some swarm data from the cell phones.

    5. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean, this is going on during the afternoon commute, so it's an easy guess the drivers ahead of me aren't actually using their Map app on the familiar ride home, and yet Maps knows when there's traffic. So, we're being watched already.

      It's not unusual to use one's navigation device to provide notifications of upcoming traffic congestion, so more people may well be using their devices than you imagine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Google owns both Google Maps and Waze. They're getting data from other users of these services. On Waze, it'll even show little icons on the map to indicate other Waze users, so of course they're getting traffic data from other users.

      Obviously, this is much more useful in denser locales.

    7. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Apple has the iPhone report the same information for their traffic that Google does.

      AFAICT my Android phone doesn't report this kind of information, because I have both WiFi and cell data turned off unless I'm using them. Also, I have location disabled - provided that it's really disabled, and not just in stealth mode. I'm in the fortunate position of not needing to be constantly connected, and I have a standalone GPS for the times when I need directions. I think a LOT more people could easily treat their phones the same way, but don't because they're lazy and/or oblivious.

      Yes, I can still be tracked by cell tower triangulation, but I don't think that info gets sent back to Google. And even if the data is saved until I have a connection, by that time the data is usually stale by at least a few hours, and more often by a few days. Beyond that, I have at least some hope that my firewall blocks it.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    8. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Google also buys traffic data from INRIX.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Why is my car any different than my phone? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Most cars that age are new enough to have a mostly modern system that is fuel injected and everything is computer controlled, and so you can usually buy a brand new aftermarket engine.

      I drive a 2000 model year, and it would cost about $5000 for a new engine and transmission, and about $2500 for installation. Installation is about the same for both as for just one, because you have to take them both out and put them back anyways. Now, it is true that $7500 is more than the "value" of the car, but it is also true that if I bought a new economy car for $7500, it would not be nearly as nice. So it would be money well spent.

      That's my plan. You only have to replace the actual control computers, you don't have to buy any of the extra Brandy-Brand(TM) nonsense.

  7. What about used cars? by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if an automaker gets a new car purchaser to agree to an unconscionable contract of adhesion, what about someone who buys a used car and who was never even given a chance?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:What about used cars? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Having admittedly not had any firsthand experience with this, I'd imagine that during the setup process for adding their account or devices they'd be forced to agree to the same onerous terms and conditions, thus circumventing the issue.

    2. Re:What about used cars? by thomn8r · · Score: 1
      I'd imagine that during the setup process for adding their account or devices they'd be forced to agree to the same onerous terms and conditions

      Or just unilaterally change the terms and conditions like virtually every other company does.

    3. Re:What about used cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if an automaker gets a new car purchaser to agree to an unconscionable contract of adhesion, what about someone who buys a used car and who was never even given a chance?

      There's no contract involving the automaker at sales time (unless you get their subsidised loans).

      What's more concerning is that the auto dealers have no clue at all about this. I was looking at a Jeep Grand Cherokee recently and ask the dealer what was involved in removing the 3G SIM so I could have Uconnect disabled. They admitted that they didn't even know there was such a thing in the car let alone wouldn't know how to remove or disable it.

  8. Don't like it don't buy it by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    At least one manufacturer will see the marketing value of ''the car that does not spy on you'' - support them with your wallet: buy their cars, the others will get the point. OK: I agree that 90% of people will not care, but 10% is still a good market base.

    1. Re:Don't like it don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but 10% is still a good market base.

      Unfortunately that's not how these asshats think... they don't say "how can we make a product that these 10% will like?", they say "how can we convince/force those 10% to buy our product?"... oh. only $10 million to the right congress-critters to crush competition? easy enough.

    2. Re:Don't like it don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lies we Tell Children.

      The increased revenues from additional units sold doesn't hold a candle to the revenue generated by pervasive spying even if it reduces overall units sold. No "competent" CxO or Board would choose the former.

      Free market indeed.

    3. Re:Don't like it don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money made spying is far more than people would pay for a car that doesn't spy on you. Realistically, people don't care about it.

    4. Re:Don't like it don't buy it by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That or "How can we hide our spying better so we can convince people it isn't there?"

    5. Re:Don't like it don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free market indeed.

      That means the free market is working. It is providing the things that people want to buy, as can be seen by the fact that people keep favoring those things in the market and punishing the things that do not spy on them until they are driven out of business.

        A lot of people misunderstand this: the free market may not provide what YOU want to buy, if you are in a tiny minority. It provides what the market as a whole wants to buy, which clearly are devices of every type that spy on everything you do with them. We've seen time and time again that people prefer those to more privacy-abiding things.

    6. Re:Don't like it don't buy it by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm calling Poe's Law on the parent post.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  9. if it can be seen from car, how is it private? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    If something is right out in the open, how is it private?

    1. Re:if it can be seen from car, how is it private? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is about outdoor stuff, then yeah -- no expectation of privacy in public.

      p.s. I'd be more worried about video/recordings of private conversations that occur inside the car.

    2. Re:if it can be seen from car, how is it private? by msauve · · Score: 2

      In a similar vein, if something is broadcast on radio or TV, how is it not being placed into the public domain?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:if it can be seen from car, how is it private? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The privacy of the crowd. Someone sitting on the stoop watching people go by is just a people watcher. If he starts following you around ducking around a corner when you look back, he's a stalker.

    4. Re:if it can be seen from car, how is it private? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      The privacy of the crowd. Someone sitting on the stoop watching people go by is just a people watcher. If he starts following you around ducking around a corner when you look back, he's a stalker.

      If he starts making records of everywhere you go, your route there, how long you remain and what purchases you make and who with he is a corporation violating your privacy.

      You see in public you don't have an expectation to not be seen. You do have an expectation that you won't be tracked, or at least you used to have before the corporate espionage state took over.

  10. Cautionary != Dystopian by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Still driving my 22 year old Eclipse GSX with no onboard recording devices.

    I drive WAY too much for that to be a realistic option for me. My current daily driver is a 2009 and I already have over 160,000 miles on it. If I were to keep it for 22 years at my current annual mileage I'd have over half a million miles on it at that point. It's a good vehicle but I have little confidence it will still be on the road after that much use. Mine doesn't transmit any data about my location either. I think it has an onboard black box but I'm not worried about that.

    Very surprised people are going along with the 1984 snooping on everyone thing. It was supposed to be a cautionary tale.

    Cautionary but complicated. I carry a smartphone because it adds significant value to my daily life. Yes it could in principle be used in a dystopian fashion but in reality it isn't. Like nuclear power or genetic engineering, the technology is neutral and whether it is a force for good or ill depends on how it is used. There are very positive benefits to tracking location and performance parameters of a vehicle. There also are some drawbacks. It's not all 1984 where everything has taken the worst possible outcome.

    1. Re:Cautionary != Dystopian by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, everything can be used for good or evil including snooping, but capitalism and greed often shift that equation in the direction of evil. Google even mentioned the fact in their early days (do no evil). Then they started full scale snooping. So if this were a more perfect world, I would agree that there is only a low chance that all the snooping will turn out poorly for everyone. In reality, privacy is going to become a very rare commodity, and I suspect that capitalism will figure a way to make lots of money by selling it to rich people who are inundated with snooping. For the rest of us, we get the ad laden version of everything, with snooping built in.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:Cautionary != Dystopian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Yes it could in principle be used in a dystopian fashion but in reality it isn't.

      Are you sure? Why is it that police always confiscate the phone first? Why is Edward Snowden in Russia? Why is the EFF so focused on privacy with online communications? Why do we keep finding software that is surreptitiously installed on your phone (either known by the manufacturer or not known)?

    3. Re:Cautionary != Dystopian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Calitalism and greed"? What about totalitarian governments trying to centrally plan everything? In the 20th century, they collectively killed hundreds of millions of people. How many people has Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. killed?

      I'm FAR more worried about government than private enterprise. I can choose not to do business with Apple. I can't choose not to do business with government, and if I try to do so, they can legally send people with guns to kill me or lock me in a cage.

    4. Re:Cautionary != Dystopian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would find it extremely difficult to not do business with apple and Practically impossible not to do business with any of a dozen other companies because they own shares of each other, provide components of other things to each other, and / or share boards of directors with each other...

    5. Re:Cautionary != Dystopian by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Yes it could in principle be used in a dystopian fashion but in reality it isn't.

      WHAT? In what teletubby/mylittlepony world are you living where it isn't?

      Obviously it's not used in a perfectly smooth dystopian fashion where the Powers That Be are perfectly evil and entirely omnipotent, but even a partly functional and limited-power evil (basically, what humanity faced since the Black Monolith gave it weapons) is enough to worry about...

  11. Data collection already happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the previous slashdot post your cars are already reporting back to the mothership.

    The other set of data is generated by the people in the car; a massive amount of information flowing in and out about where they're going and what they're doing. Last year in the U.S. market alone Chevrolet collected 4,220 terabytes of data from customer's cars. McKinsey forecasts that this could grow into a $450 to 750 billion market by 2030. Retailers, advertisers, marketers, product planners, financial analysts, government agencies, and so many others will eagerly pay to get access to that information. And it's a gift that keeps on giving. You can sell the same data again, again and again to a variety of different customers.

    link
    The thing that scared me was combining that amount of data collection, with a Watson like AI doing data analysis. Businesses and Governments would kill for those kind of results.

  12. People should have two cars by Sqreater · · Score: 2

    One high tech car, because it is becoming impossible to avoid, and one "burner car" for travelling with more privacy. The burner car would be an antique, or close. eschewing all high tech gadgetry.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:People should have two cars by Sporkinum · · Score: 5, Funny

      A Pinto would make a perfect burner...

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    2. Re:People should have two cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A perfect burner burns when you want it to. Not the other way around.

    3. Re:People should have two cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Pinto would make a perfect burner...

      No, no, no. The perfect burner car is a red barchetta.

    4. Re:People should have two cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Pinto would make a perfect burner...

      No, no, no. The perfect burner car is a red barchetta.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvQSkK8Z8U

    5. Re:People should have two cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great song, but whoosh mis-applied to earlier joke post.

    6. Re:People should have two cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RELEVENT:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9GGDOUDLhc

      From "Top Secret!"

    7. Re:People should have two cars by antdude · · Score: 1

      Assuming they can afford two cars.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:People should have two cars by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Or have state-of-the art open source cars...

  13. Not tinfoil hat area. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Publicly traded company will always whatever is in their stockholders best interest (as they are required to do so by law) which forces businesses to behave like sociopathic entities. Since there are no repercussions for losing sensitive data related to your customers, it's only a benefit to collect and sell the information. Any publicly traded company will harvest as much data as they can to sell as long as the extent of their actions remains hidden (exposure is bad for business and thus they must be avoid it by law).

    This is the dystopian present we live in. There is no need to deny it but there is a need to reform the system because this behavior has led to many harmful and extremely shortsighted decisions.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Not tinfoil hat area. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > stockholders best interest (as they are required to do so by law)

      It has been ruled legal that shareholders best interest does not always mean this quarter's results but long term interests, including reputation are part of that and can be considered when making business decisions.

      I know someone who worked for a major oil company and was talking about a deal with China that would have made money in the short term. Downside, a drilling pad next to a school. The Chinese provincial authorities said not to worry, this company did. Even if they didn't have a blowout and destroy the school, someone could have pointed to them and said, "See, they drill next to schools...they don't care" and given them a black eye. It would have certainly been very profitable short term. But they didn't pursue it for long term reasons of reputation. Hard to believe but true.

    2. Re:Not tinfoil hat area. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (as they are required to do so by law)

      Citation please

    3. Re:Not tinfoil hat area. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Publicly traded company will always whatever is in their stockholders best interest (as they are required to do so by law)

      No, they aren't. Putting it in bold doesn't make it any more true.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Not tinfoil hat area. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Publicly traded company will always whatever is in their stockholders best interest (as they are required to do so by law) which forces businesses to behave like sociopathic entities.

      It's not the law. It's the jungle.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Since there are no repercussions for losing sensitive data related to your customers, it's only a benefit to collect and sell the information. Any publicly traded company will harvest as much data as they can to sell as long as the extent of their actions remains hidden (exposure is bad for business and thus they must be avoid it by law).

      The law does not mandate directly or indirectly behaving like a "dumb fuck".

      This is the dystopian present we live in. There is no need to deny it but there is a need to reform the system because this behavior has led to many harmful and extremely shortsighted decisions.

      Before you can reform anything you must understand the problem.

  14. Cash trumps your privacy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    At least one manufacturer will see the marketing value of ''the car that does not spy on you'

    More likely one manufacturer will TRY that marketing angle and then quickly figure out that very few people actually give half a shit about their privacy and abandon the attempt. The siren call of all that cash will simply be too much for them to resist for long.

    1. Re:Cash trumps your privacy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Get a Mazda; there's nothing there spying on you as far as I can tell. The infotainment systems in the latest models do not have cellular modems, so they have no way to communicate with the outside world unless you pair it to your phone, which is entirely optional. These systems are also easily hacked into, and enthusiasts have done this and made all kinds of changes; if there were spying going on, someone would have noticed by now.

      There is a downside, however: the biggest complaint people have about Mazda's system is that it does not support CarPlay or Android Auto. (There is an unofficial mod to add AA to the system, but it's very buggy and of course not at all supported by the mfgr; if it bricks your system they won't fix it under warranty.)

      So while the likes of GM probably are spying on you and selling that data somewhere, not every car company is. But Mazda doesn't even bother advertising this, probably because, as you pointed out, very few people give half a shit about it.

    2. Re:Cash trumps your privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OnStar is still trivial to defeat on GM cars. The OnStar device is a separate unit, and it is easy to open up and simply disconnect or remove the cellular modem module.

    3. Re:Cash trumps your privacy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then you're still driving a GM. Remember, this is the company that decided to sell you a car with an ignition switch that's horribly easy to turn off so they could save a few pennies, and led to many fatal accidents.

  15. Not a slippery slope by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Yeah, everything can be used for good or evil including snooping, but capitalism and greed often shift that equation in the direction of evil.

    If nobody bothers to put up a fight then yes. But the evil that corporations do can be overcome. One only has to look at the number of regulations we have to see evidence that we can limit corporations. Corporations can be muzzled if enough people bother to care.

    Google even mentioned the fact in their early days (do no evil). Then they started full scale snooping.

    "Do no evil" was marketing from day one. Anyone who didn't realize that was either naive or an idiot. Google is an advertising company and has been from jump street. Anyone who didn't realize that they would behave with the incentives relevant to an advertising company was an idiot.

    In reality, privacy is going to become a very rare commodity

    It never was as common as people believed it was. A lot of stuff we thought was private in the past really wasn't. It just wasn't convenient to get the data. Now we actually have to do something about it rather than relying on the hope that others are lazy to protect our privacy. It will be an ongoing fight to balance privacy with other interests.

    1. Re:Not a slippery slope by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      I see some efforts in this direction, like the EFF, but most people don't seen to care much at all. Until people actually start running into problems (like getting turned down for a good job because of a dumb post on Facebook) they don't care when only other people get screwed. We'll see how it goes over the next couple of years, but I expect that the system is so entrenched now that turning it off will prove much harder than turning it on was.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:Not a slippery slope by thomn8r · · Score: 2
      One only has to look at the number of regulations we have to see evidence that we can limit corporations

      Good luck with that under the current administration.

  16. Too late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think cars since 2010 have had telematics software and hardware in them. This allows authorities to track the vehicle once they pull a Vin number.

    Now how that is done.... do not know. I would think that they need a LTE connection. However with on-star and the likes its not hard to imagine your car has been spying on you since the 90s.

    This is just gen2 of the concept.

  17. CANBUS by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I wonder if those guys with the kickstarter have discovered any commands to send over vehicle CANBUS that'll wipe the memory of any collected data? I'd pay for that. Insert a dongle daily that wipes everything.

  18. Negative Privacy by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    Here we have a situation where people protest that the truth will be known. Do people want the right to lie in divorce court or to lie to insurance companies or to lie about who caused a wreck? It seems as if the American public fears its own stink. Have we reached the point at which America can not survive without lies being a standard norm of behavior? Also keep it in mind that truth works in all directions. If you own stock in an insurance company people that lie are stealing your money. It may be your wife that can't explain why she parks at Tom's house when she is supposed to be at work. You may well get child custody if you offer strong evidence of her adultery. The problem with wanting to live a covert life is that you give the same privilege to everyone else and at some point your kids figure out that you are full of lies and they get all messed up and turn to drugs. Maybe it is time to insist upon truth from all people.

    1. Re:Negative Privacy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Here we have a situation where people protest that the truth will be known. Do people want the right to lie in divorce court or to lie to insurance companies or to lie about who caused a wreck? It seems as if the American public fears its own stink.

      What you seem to be saying privacy = hiding evidence of truth.
      Hiding truth is bad therefore privacy is bad.

      What's your Slashdot password?

      Have we reached the point at which America can not survive without lies being a standard norm of behavior? Also keep it in mind that truth works in all directions. If you own stock in an insurance company people that lie are stealing your money. It may be your wife that can't explain why she parks at Tom's house when she is supposed to be at work. You may well get child custody if you offer strong evidence of her adultery. The problem with wanting to live a covert life is that you give the same privilege to everyone else and at some point your kids figure out that you are full of lies and they get all messed up and turn to drugs. Maybe it is time to insist upon truth from all people.

      Your living in a fantasy world. You can insist upon truth from all people as much as you want. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Neither is it feasible to assume available evidence will be used for righteous causes or causes unjustly aimed against you. The world is not populated by enlightened saints neither are the "benefits" of surveillance distributed evenly.

      In the corporate context I oppose surveillance because it provides an uneven advantage to sellers of products and services unavailable to buyers and is very likely to be leveraged to maximize profits meaning as a consumer it nets me less value for my money.

      In the government context I oppose surveillance because knowledge is power and power always corrupts. ALWAYS. The police now use civil asset forfeiture to take more shit from people in this country with little to no effective legal showing than the sum total of everything reported stolen. They do it because they can and because the haul often directly enriches themselves. They don't do it because it is right or benefits society.

      Red light cameras have not been used to enhance public safety. They have been marketed and sold explicitly as money making devices sometimes at the expense of safety (Deliberate lowering of yellow light timer) and mostly ticketing technical infractions where no data exists to support enhancement to public safety.

      In the criminal context I oppose surveillance because it can be used to reason about my whereabouts and collect information that can be used to rob and or impersonate me. Gangs/employees at telecoms and LEAs have been arrested for stealing customer information.

      The only way to keep society from reverting to it's primitive self is to structurally and persistently reinforce good behavior. This means guarding and limiting power not opening new floodgates and hoping against every page of human history that power won't be abused.

  19. Vote with your wallet by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I for one refuse to ever buy any car that can (and therefore does) connect to the manufacturer and send collected data back.

    That includes all GM brand cars (Chevvy, Buick, Cadillac, GMC) because you literally can't buy any model from any of them without OnStar coming already built-in. Also all Teslas and most other electric vehicles phone home.

  20. The future is here by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    It has already been shown that in many (read:all) new cars there is already a black box that was surreptitiously installed by manufacturers and only came out because its contents were subpoenaed. At the time this black box recorded location, speed, brake/accelerator activity, seat belt usage, etc. The auto industry claimed that these were only used for warranty support and for troubleshooting but the information they are collecting is too comprehensive to make this excuse laughable. Doing this through wireless and using integrated software would merely be a continence of this.

  21. "Privacy Policy" by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Not worth the bits they're made of. You have absolutely no way of ever knowing where your data goes.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. WA has constitutional privacy protections by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Data collected by a car can't be used without a prior individual court order to do so in this state.

    Just saying.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  23. Which Is Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is great, until the car manufacturers start whining about how "regulations" make it "impossible" for them to be "innovative and competitive".

    Or the insurance industry starts whining about how "they just cannot do business" in a "state which just doesn't Get It", and how "premiums are higher than they should be, due only to onerous privacy restrictions".

    Or the police or Three Letter Agencies start whining about how "terrorism is running wild" and "criminals are victimizing the innocent" and "they need the enforcement tools of the 21st century".

    Hey, state protection is good, and good on WA. Just remember though that anything that can be done, can be undone. And this kind of law in particular, it seems to me, is vulnerable to multiple organizations launching coordinated attacks on it.

    1. Re:Which Is Great by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      which part of State Constitution didn't you get?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --