New Cars are Data Privacy Nightmares

[user 22017]

We tend to think of privacy as similar to the right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, but it's not enshrined in the Constitution in the same way, and people's attitudes toward it can change. We're never going to be able to completely rely on someone else (including the govmint) to fix this for us.

There is much that can be done. Illinois has strict laws protecting us from facial recognition. Myself and my kids have all received checks from Facebook for violating our law. Europe has tackled this data collection issue and in the U.S. individual states have.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/state-of-privacy-laws-in-us/

 

[Happy Camper]

I would never use Alexa

Me either. I like to think I'm a gentleman.

 

[user 22017]

Me either. I like to think I'm a gentleman.

Damn!

 

[Frood]

How do you do that when you are their actual product?
How can you expect that when you opt in to allowing it?

It's not that you opt-in... It's that you no longer purchase products but rather purchase the rights to use them. By the TOS you either accept it or you do without. Because companies can't generate recurring revenue streams by selling things that you aren't forced to pay for over and over again. I truly hate that we are moving away from actually owning things and are turning everything into "...as a service"

I sincerely expect that you will eventually have some kind of TOS when buying a car outright that will allow the auto maker to essentially turn it into a large paperweight if you disable any of the features that they use to track you and report back to them. There have already been legal issues around after market parts being used, something that pretty much was a right of passage for every previous generation.

 

[RonDean]

Putin / Russia kills whistleblowers and dissidents. We just jail them. I'm not saying either is desirable, but there is a difference. And we pass laws to protect whistleblowers. But, if what they reveal is a threat to our national security it's a new ball game. Of course, to find out if our laws will protect anyone, they need the courage of their convictions. I remember Daniel Ellsberg, who instead of fleeing to another country, turned himself in to authorities. I would prefer a different set of protections, but what we have is still better than the alternative.

I agree with others that if we want free stuff, we need to be willing to pay in some way. Like giving up part of our privacy. There are actual people creating the apps and programs we use and who need to be paid if they are to support their own families. Who pays them when we get "free" stuff? In this case we make our own choices.

Privacy? I regard the internet like the town square or the street that I drive down. Whatever we do there is open for whoever else wants to watch. If we don't like that, there are ways to avoid it. They usually cost money and effort, but they are available.

 

[Headache]

And we pass laws to protect whistleblowers. But, if what they reveal is a threat to our national security it's a new ball game. Of course, to find out if our laws will protect anyone, they need the courage of their convictions. I remember Daniel Ellsberg, who instead of fleeing to another country, turned himself in to authorities. I would prefer a different set of protections, but what we have is still better than the alternative.

Daniel Ellsberg(RIP) agreed with and supported what Edward Snowden did, including leaving the country. He stated that Snowden kept his oath better than anyone at the NSA did and that act of civil courage should inspire others to follow suit. I completely agree.

What we have is NOT better than the alternative. The Espionage Act has been used countless times now to threaten and convict journalists and others. This country is not innocent in the killing of whistleblowers and/or journalists. One recent president's Justice Dept. used the Espionage Act more times than all of their predecessors combined.

The Whistleblower Act is weak when it comes to government whistleblowing because of the Espionage Act. In order for a whistleblower to prove their case they must use the very classified documents and other media showing the unconstitutionality. But the government wont allow it because the classified items then become a public record leaving the potential whistleblower with no recourse whatsoever in defending their oath to protect the Constitution. Thats why Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record in 1971. He knew they would be buried and Ellsworth's efforts along with them.

So what does it have to do with electronically connected cars? The answer is EVERYTHING!

It was the widened amount of surveillance opened up by and continued to be allowed with the renewals of the Patriot Act that literally exposed our raw data communications and internet activity with no notice, reason, justification or protection. Even now, NOTHING protects our phone calls and texts because several satellite ports of which all electronic communications go through, including connected cars is never included in updated "protections" for consumers.

As someone involved in this once told me; they word things just right(read vague) so it doesn't outwardly appear threatening and get Congress to pass it, regardless of it's constitutionality as long as it appears that it is. Give them an inch...

So, here we are now. Calling out those attempting to protect themselves from these electronic invasions(such as cars that tattle on our every move) as Luddittes is inaccurate and unfair. If you feel comfortable with being surveilled so be it. But those of us who have educated ourselves regarding this malicious activity do not agree and should have a way to opt out by being able to shut down any kind of tracking including electronic communications from our phones and cars, or if allowed, to what degree.

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

Be better informed!

 

[RonDean]

I am not saying Snowden should have kept quiet. When asked, Ellsberg said, “He (Snowden) should get the Nobel peace prize and he should get asylum in a west European country...” My problem with the current situation is that Snowden went to Russia leaving some of us to distrust anything that he might say. Is he under pressure to say things that support Putin or undermine the US? Can we know for sure? I'm sorry, but when I weigh the difference in my personal freedom of expression between the US and Russia, I'll pick the US any day, all weaknesses and blemishes aside.

I agree the Whistleblower Act is too weak. I know this may skirt "politics" but if our 1st amendment rights are weak, we should deal directly with that. And by 1st amendment rights, I mean verifiable truths and not just the latest conspiracy theory some wack job or self serving politician just thought up. If our government (including the court system) allows abuses of whistle-blowing protection, ditto. Besides complaining on-line, we need to start voting for someone other than the same old party hacks that got us in this situation.

But, back to the specific question of data collection on-line or by our vehicles... I think that is a different question entirely. We use terms like surveillance and privacy without being specific about exactly what (which?) threats they pose. For example, my family all voluntarily use an app that tracks our location. If any of us suddenly go missing the authorities will have a head start on a possible rescue. That's surveillance we might all appreciate someday. If giving up some privacy gets me access to valuable items for free or paying for the same to preserve my privacy, that seems like a personal choice we can all make. If my government wants to listen to my phone calls I think they will be very disappointed - and bored. If the same activities saves a single crime victim I view that as a good thing.

If that data collection is medical and drives up my insurance rates, we now have the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) that regulate privacy and the exchange of specific types of information. If these are violated then we certainly should prosecute the guilty parties.

We do agree about wanting to be able to make choices on this subject. It is estimated that 85% of car lots & finance companies use GPS trackers on the cars they finance. That seems like a problem between lender/borrower and not government surveillance that could be handled by something like HIPAA for cars. Lets agitate for that! Most auto GPS trackers are there to provide services like teen safety, directions, anti-theft, etc. and not to spy for the government. If you don't want this, there are vehicles without such technology. BTW... don't forget to disable that phone in your pocket at the same time.

 

[user 22017]

I'm sorry, but when I weigh the difference in my personal freedom of expression between the US and Russia, I'll pick the US any day, all weaknesses and blemishes aside.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ~ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good​

 

[user 22017]

We use terms like surveillance and privacy without being specific about exactly what (which?) threats they pose. For example, my family all voluntarily use an app that tracks our location.

Anything that tracks us and/or collects our data without our explicit permission is surveillance and an invasion of privacy.

Regarding HIPAA, the law requires our consent. When it first became law, my kids were very young. I remember refusing to sign a HIPAA release for years. Eventually I caved. But it was my decision to consent. They didn't force it on me.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the HIPAA Privacy Rule to implement the requirements of HIPAA. The HIPAA Security Rule protects a subset of information covered by the Privacy Rule.

From: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html

 

[Happy Camper]

Most auto GPS trackers are there to provide services like teen safety, directions, anti-theft, etc. and not to spy for the government. If you don't want this, there are vehicles without such technology. BTW... don't forget to disable that phone in your pocket at the same time.

Most gps in vehicle can do those things, yes. The auto companies have realized this is a new income stream and are going whole hog with it and other data they can collect and use, and sell to other companies. This can and does happen right now.

The government doesn't mind this capability as they can take advantage of it when needed. Insurance as well.

If you drive a Tesla, it's a data vacuum machine. Tons of camera footage, asking with other data. Where did you go? How long were you there? Is it a pattern? Did someone else show up at the same place at the same time? These are the very basic questions this days can be used for. Add in AI and you can glen into line Amazon story about the recommendation of baby items to a woman before she knew she was pregnant (true story).

Most other auto makers aren't far behind that. Some are ahead. There are many positive reasons for the tech. And more bad ones.

What I say isn't to scare. But to inform. If you just listen to what they tell you, you miss what they aren't saying.

And the new vehicles without a data link are getting fewer by the day.

 

[Frood]

For example, my family all voluntarily use an app that tracks our location.

That is the key word here... ie you know that the app is being used and, supposedly, have given permission to the other parties to access that information.

Including "volunteer" clauses in the TOS for apps, etc, is little more than coercion/extortion.

It was Ben Franklin that said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Upon research, it seems that this is not necessarily an applicable quote in this context but but it still makes you think...

 

[Happy Camper]

Looking back at my post, it's frustrating I can't go back and edit the autocorrected wording that makes it hard to read and possibly understand some of what I was saying.

I know I can pay to play the the after 5 minute oops edit game, but it's kinda sad. Not sure that's a feature that should be behind a pay wall. The ability to adjust a post is beneficial to the site as a whole.

 

[Frood]

And the new vehicles without a data link are getting fewer by the day.

Just wait until disabling the data-link will cause the vehicle to be incapable of starting... or traveling more than 15 mpg or some other nonsense that they say is because "safety"