Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Google Transportation

Automakers Unwilling To Share Driver Data (Yet) 151

Posted by Soulskill from the give-it-time dept.
An anonymous reader writes: With Apple and Google both vying for a place in your car's dashboard, you might start wondering to what extent the data you generate while driving might be analyzed or shared with advertisers. The good news is that car manufacturers are not keen to give this data away — some have specifically said they won't let Google or Apple get their hands on it. The bad news is that they feel this way because they see your data as a new source of profit — they're just deciding how best to harvest it. One executive at Ford said, "We need to control access to that data. We need to protect our ability to create value." According to the article, "Auto companies hope to profit from in-vehicle data in a variety of ways, including the provision of travel planning services and auto repair and service information they hope will bring drivers to dealerships. They also expect to work with insurance companies, providing information that would allow insurers to base their rates on a driver's behavior behind the wheel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Automakers Unwilling To Share Driver Data (Yet) More

Automakers Unwilling To Share Driver Data (Yet)

Comments Filter:

  • Oh Spare Me Please. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <ag-slashdot@eGAUSSxit0.us minus math_god> on Monday July 13, 2015 @10:48AM (#50099071) Homepage
    I really don't want any of this from them.
    Just stop this "It's for your own good" crap.
    • Fine if you don't want or need it, but recently Massachusetts law went into full effect that requires automakers to give owners access to that data. Hopefully more states will follow suit.

      • Even this is unacceptable. I should be able to have access to my data without it going to another entity first. The data is useful. I should be able to have full access to my data with my data never leaving my sphere of control. Asking another entity for access to what was never theirs to begin with is utterly ridiculous. That's equivalent to buying a house and it keeping track of when you come and go and giving that data exclusively to home builder or realtor, then you having to ask permission to have it.

    • Only end users "share" data. Google doesn't. Apple doesn't. It's hardly surprising that the car companies aren't "sharing" data, and want to be compensated for it.

      The only surprise is that people let companies monetize data about them.

  • Sounds like a new corporate prison system (Score:5, Interesting)

    by codeAlDente ( 1643257 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @10:56AM (#50099127)
    Step 1: Distract driver with advertisements Step 2: Collect revenue from auto repair shops and lawyers Step 3: Collect federal grant money to work with insurance companies to improve safety

    • Step 4: Take another bong rip :)

    • Step 1: Distract driver with advertisements
      Step 2: Collect revenue from auto repair shops and lawyers
      Step 3: Collect federal grant money to work with insurance companies to improve safety

      This is actually the kind of strategy that any good lawyer will tell you is profoundly stupid. Not only does it risk wiping out your gains for the year through lawsuits, it creates a tiny risk of getting you arrested for involuntary manslaughter. Not to mention you're killing people, and your lawyer will usually advise you not to kill people.

      • It would be profoundly stupid if any of it could be traced to one person, but that's not how big corporate partnerships work. When you are a corporation you are not going to get arrested, and your lawyers will indeed advise you to risk killing people if the added revenue is likely to surpass the payout costs.

        • It would be profoundly stupid if any of it could be traced to one person, but that's not how big corporate partnerships work. When you are a corporation you are not going to get arrested, and your lawyers will indeed advise you to risk killing people if the added revenue is likely to surpass the payout costs.

          You are unlikely to, hence "tiny risk." But still risk. It does, however, look really unsympathetic in a lawsuit and raises those payout costs.

      • There is no such thing as a "good lawyer", perhaps you mean "competent lawyer", but thats not important right now...

        If stupid people do it stupidly, of course you are correct. But give Google, Apple, GM, Ford, Amazon, Verizon, AT&T, GEICO, McDonalds and everyone some credit, that if you dangle a monster revenue stream in front of them they'll connive a way to exploit it legally. Look at Waze... data entry is disabled while driving unless you (wink wink) click the "Im a passenger" button. Ha ha ha. "G

  • Copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JaneTheIgnorantSlut ( 1265300 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:01AM (#50099171)
    Since I created the data by driving, and it is unique to my driving, can I assert copyright over it?

    • Since I created the data by driving, and it is unique to my driving, can I assert copyright over it?

      Good question but I think the case law and copyright law on this is probably a little ambiguous right now. As a general principle I think you should be the default owner of it but it might not actually end up working that way.

    • or are they facts, and not covered by copyright at all?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )

      Only if your recorded route is in the shape of a troll face or penis.

  • How about this idea? (Score:3)

    by bjdevil66 ( 583941 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:02AM (#50099181)

    Nobody gets any data. Nobody - no car manufacturer, no Apple/Google, no insurance companies, no NSA/FBI. I, the consumer, don't need it or want it. Why does a car have to collect any data in the first place?

    Is that even going to be an option in any future new cars?

    • Nobody gets any data. Nobody - no car manufacturer, no Apple/Google, no insurance companies, no NSA/FBI. I, the consumer, don't need it or want it. Why does a car have to collect any data in the first place?

      They collect the data for quantitative analysis, in case you get in an accident. It allows them to figure out if the driver was at fault, or if there was a defect in the vehicle. They are also able to provide it to law enforcement in case it's needed for an accident investigation, i.e. how fast was the driver going at the time of the accident, etc. At least that's what it says in my manual.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bondsbw ( 888959 )

      As cars become more automated, they will collect real-time data in order to perform those capabilities.

      The cars may also pass some of that data along to other vehicles and/or stationary systems to better provide advanced warning of traffic and environmental conditions.

      But archiving that real-time data is the problem. Even if you aren't afraid of those entities you listed above, you can be well within reason to be concerned of what happens when someone figures out how to hack into that data stream. I'm ver

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      As a cyclist I'd like for motor vehicles to all have black boxes and to collect data. But that data should only be accessible to the police in the event of a crime an accident involving the car.

      Smart TVs that upload your viewing habits, phones that help themselves to your contacts and phone habits, cars that also want to track your every movement. 1984 is nothing compared to this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        As a cyclist I'd like for motor vehicles to all have black boxes and to collect data. But that data should only be accessible to the police in the event of a crime an accident involving the car.

        Be careful what you wish for.

        As a motorist, cyclist one of the major reasons I have a dash cam. I've been cut off by a cyclist who never bothered to look behind them far too many times. The problem is that a cyclist will never admit to doing wrong and change their story when it's obvious that the motorists wont

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

          Prejudice & stereotyping right there (as bad as racism).

          I'm quite happy for all cars to have dash-cams, forwards and backwards, in fact I like that to be mandatory.

          In my city, cyclists are at fault in the majority of collisions.

          That's some utter bullshit right there, you just pulled that straight from your arse.

          Here:

          With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

          I doubt the numbers are hugely different wh

  • Monitoring driving habits doesn't sound all that draconian to me. Things like speed limit, weaving in and out of lanes, panic stops, tailgating, etc. are reasonable factors in deciding how big of a risk a driver is. Some people think they're such skillful drivers that the rules don't apply to them, and they're wrong.
    • I just have a problem with generalizing what is good or bad behavior. If it is the right things, I'd be more willing to agree. I think the factors that really make the biggest difference may not be accurate across the board.

      Many people who speed regularly are not less safe, if that speed is kept in check with road conditions. Meanwhile, people who don't properly use the left hand passing lane on a highway may drive the speed limit but are causing unsafe traffic situations. If the data shows who is really

    • Re:Insurance makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:32AM (#50099477) Homepage

      The problems with this include that is data collected without our consent, which we can't opt out of, which creates massive privacy implications, and which law enforcement will happily demand.

      Once stuff like this is collected, the inevitable scope creep ensues.

      As a general rule, people like you who say "well, I don't mind if it's for insurance" have spent zero thought on how much potential this has for abuse.

      It's not like we can choose to not own cars to avoid this. But if car makers expect to treat this data as "theirs" to be monetized, there needs to be legal safeguards on it.

      Not this horseshit notion that if you don't want to be tracked you should live in a cave.

      This week it's monetization by assholes, then it's insurance, then it's law enforcement, then it's your wife's divorce lawyer.

      This is just turning us unto the ever expanding surveillance society. Only instead of being exclusively in the hands of the thought police and big brother, this is now in partnership with private industry to make money and constantly spy on us.

      Fuck that. This is a terrible idea, and there needs to be mechanisms by which people say "I don't want that", and not simply some EULA which says "by continuing to use your $30K car you consent to us having access to all your data".

      Bunch of greedy bastards. I bought the car. It's mine. I should be the one deciding what of my information it's giving to you.

      This is just more of a bullshit trend where "ownership" means we get fucked over by our possessions so some asshole can maximize executive bonuses.

      This has to stop.

      This isn't some technical wonderland, this is just more of the dystopin future where law enforcement and corporate profits touch on every single aspect of our lives.

    • Monitoring driving habits doesn't sound all that draconian to me. Things like speed limit, weaving in and out of lanes, panic stops, tailgating, etc. are reasonable factors in deciding how big of a risk a driver is. Some people think they're such skillful drivers that the rules don't apply to them, and they're wrong.

      True, but I suspect the reason we have not seen this yet is that current no-claims based insurance policies work almost as well. Despite the really big savings you get from not smashing into things, some people still do so reasonably regularly, and I don't see how a monitoring device is going to change that.

      Another thing to keep in mind is that the insurance industry makes a large portion of its profits by investing the premiums it has collected between payout events. There is almost a perverse incentive to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OhPlz ( 168413 )

      That sounds great until you realize that people are weaving in and out of lanes because of potholes, sunken manhole covers and the like. These types of analytics are not going to take real world driving into account, they're just going to drive up the costs of insurance because what other motivation do insurance companies have? It's like internet service. If all the providers suck, there's no pressure to offer anything better.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tomhath ( 637240 )

        These types of analytics are not going to take real world driving into account,

        Why wouldn't they? Risk assessment is all about how you vary from the rest of the population.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by OhPlz ( 168413 )

          I might buy that if these companies revealed the basis for their policy pricing. I'm more pessimistic. Risk assessment is probably less of a priority to them than trying to figure out how much they can charge a customer before the customer flees to another insurer. As for these analytics, I'm not sure what their motivation is, but I'm not taking their word for it that safer drivers will pay less. If that's true, they can disclose what qualifies one as safe based on the data retrieved from the vehicle.

  • They will be giving out cars for free, right? Otherwise why would any paying customer that has to put down thousands of dollars would be interested in this?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      Same reason some people actually pay for shirts with "Abercrombie," "Old Navy," "Aeropostale," etc. on them. I could never figure it out - if you're advertising for them, the shirts should be free.

  • Fuck everything about this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flacco ( 324089 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:05AM (#50099213)

    > The bad news is that they feel this way because they see your data as a new source of profit — they're just deciding how best to harvest it.

    It's really great how car co's just assume they are entitled to have this data.

    I do not want this in my car, at all, in any form. No "opt out" or "we take your privacy seriously", nothing. I want it physically impossible for them to collect data.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Simply locate the antenna and unplug it so it can not transmit. Honestly, learn about stuff if you want to control it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        So how does that work when the infotainment screen is paired to your phone for the data connection? Yeah you always have the option of not pairing it and/or unplugging the antenna, but then you end up paying for something you can't fully use. And there will be a time where some or most models won't be offered without such a option.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ahodgson ( 74077 )

          Yank it out and put in an aftermarket one that you know isn't spying on you.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cdrudge ( 68377 )

            Ah. So you end up paying even more for a radio that ends up making your dash look like crap. Plus likely losing at least some if not a lot of other functionality since you're no longer integrated into the vehicle's CAN bus.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ahodgson ( 74077 )

              If that's the only choice to evade their data gathering, then yeah. Obviously it would be better to buy a car you can trust, but from who?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Lumpy ( 12016 )

          Well if your cellphone uses the LTE connection out to the celltower and back in? Then the engineer that designed it is a moron.

          right now 100% of the systems use bluetooth inside the car, 0% of all cars use the external cellular antenna for phone integration.

      • Simply locate the antenna and unplug it so it can not transmit. Honestly, learn about stuff if you want to control it.

        So what are the chances that they'll collect the data anyway, store it, and retrieve it during the next scheduled maintenance? 'Live data' is a pretty small subset of 'useful data'.

        • You mean the "next scheduled maintainance" that is NOT AT THE CAR DEALERSHIP?? For every new car I've ever owned, the ONLY reason I ever go back to the dealership for ANYthing is if something fails and its under warrantee.. All other service is done by my friendly local shop... at 1/3 or less of what the fucking dealership would charge for the same service... I seriously doubt my local shop, that I've been taking cars to for years, is gonna upload MY data off MY car to the manufacturer... The ONLY way this

      • Politics 101: What will happen is your state legislature, if not Congress, will be lobbied by the major auto manufacturers (perhaps in the form of some sort of cartel posing as PAC - political action committee) and they will basically bribe legislators to make it a felony to remove or alter any kind of data recording equipment. Typical excuses will things along the lines of; safety, improving criminal investigations and of course thinking of the children.

        Since such violation of the law will inevitably be a

    • I want it physically impossible for them to collect data.

      Sorry to say you're going to die wishing... The *market* will decide what's best for you!

      • No, the market will decide what is best for itself, like it always does.

        What we want doesn't count for a damned thing, and never has.

        Like every other market, the invisible hand is handcuffed to what the big players tell it to do. And further cutting regulations only ensures that happens faster.

        The "market" is a fucking lie and a con-game ... it has never existed as claimed, and never will. Because this perfect market assumes people won't be lying, cheating bastards who game the system for their own ends.

        T

  • Can I? (Score:3)

    by golgotha007 ( 62687 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:06AM (#50099223)

    Can I pay full price and keep all my data to myself?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:07AM (#50099225)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rhyas ( 100444 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:07AM (#50099229) Journal

    I generate this data. I own this car. This is my data, not the company who made my car. If it's a rental, sure, go ahead and do what you want with that. But if I own the car, that data is MINE to choose whom I give it to, or don't give it to, and use as I see fit.

    This isn't any different than any other appliance or device. I own my computer, The manufacturers that made it don't own the data that's created by using it. Tired of companies thinking they own what I do with the stuff they sell me. It's getting ridiculous.

    • I generate this data. I own this car. This is my data, not the company who made my car. If it's a rental, sure, go ahead and do what you want with that. But if I own the car, that data is MINE to choose whom I give it to, or don't give it to, and use as I see fit.

      That depends entirely upon the terms of the purchase agreement you made when you bought the car.

      I own my computer, The manufacturers that made it don't own the data that's created by using it.

      That doesn't mean you own the software that is on it necessarily unless you were the one that wrote it. You might have a license to use it but you don't own it. You might own the data or you might not. Depends on the license agreement and the applicable laws. Right or wrong it isn't so simple as you make it out to be. I don't disagree with your sentiments but I'm just pointing out that the reality of it isn'

      • That depends entirely upon the terms of the purchase agreement you made when you bought the car.

        And the laws. We (used to) pass laws against stupid bullshit like this.

        You might have a license to use it but you don't own it. You might own the data or you might not. Depends on the license agreement and the applicable laws.

        Almost everyone is saying, (a) legally, the consumer, not the company, should own the data and (b) practically, the consumer can block the company.

    • Your data is invaluable to you. But there is a fair market price for your data. It is determined by what price other people are willing to sell their data. In slashdot people talk a lot about privacy, but most Americans sell their entire grocery/pharmacy/gasoline purchase history for 25 cents off bread loaf and 2 cents off a gallon of gas.

      Same way, you guard your data. Rest of the city will let the insurance companies get it to get 20$ off the insurance premium, flood their cars screens with ads to "get a

  • It's not just about monetization of data. It's also about trying to keep some things under relative wraps. Imagine if not just garages and enthusiasts could get the occasional read-out from e.g. the ODB-II, but that everybody with an in-dash Google/Apple unit or even just a smartphone communicating with a pre-installed dongle would have that information at any time. Worse, imagine if this information starts getting collected 'publicly' (under Google/Apple's control) and people (G/A) start noticing trends

  • I'm still in a vehicle that is a relic of a bygone era - the era when connectivity was opt-in by making explicit purchases for that functionality. My next vehicle negotiation will involve bringing a Ziploc bag and saying, "please have the folks in the shop place *all* cellular and GPS connectivity equipment in this bag. My purchase of this vehicle is wholly contingent upon this bag being full, and visual confirmation that my in-car infotainment system shows error messages before I pull out of the lot."

    I look forward to the funny faces I get from the salesmen at the dealership, but this is the world we live in today, and it is sad that such a notion is even necessary.

    Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon need to stay the HELL out of my dashboard.

    • My next vehicle negotiation will involve bringing a Ziploc bag and saying, "please have the folks in the shop place *all* cellular and GPS connectivity equipment in this bag. My purchase of this vehicle is wholly contingent upon this bag being full, and visual confirmation that my in-car infotainment system shows error messages before I pull out of the lot."

      Good luck with that. I would be astonished if you could find any car dealer who would agree to such a request. Even if they knew how to do it that would involve substantial unnecessary work which they are unlikely to agree to. Furthermore they would be accepting liability risk of you coming back to them having sold them a non-functioning product.

      I look forward to the funny faces I get from the salesmen at the dealership, but this is the world we live in today, and it is sad that such a notion is even necessary.

      It's not necessary. You might prefer it that way which I guess is fine but it isn't even remotely necessary. Personally I like all the cellular and GPS stuff a

      • Good luck with that. I would be astonished if you could find any car dealer who would agree to such a request. Even if they knew how to do it that would involve substantial unnecessary work which they are unlikely to agree to. Furthermore they would be accepting liability risk of you coming back to them having sold them a non-functioning product.

        The point isn't whether or how they comply. The point is they lose actual sales for not complying. This is all that matters. Technical means of compliance is irrelevant.

        Hard to imagine a dealer just silently losing sales over stupid shit like this and not pushing back on their suppliers for a solution.

        It's not necessary. You might prefer it that way which I guess is fine but it isn't even remotely necessary. Personally I like all the cellular and GPS stuff and no I'm not paranoid about it. If they screw with me I can afford a decent lawyer.

        This is fucking nonsense. You will have no clue or way of knowing what the spy shit was doing or who it was talking to. Those undecipherable open ended polymorphic legal agreements cover the rest. They h

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      They won't agree to this, not because they don't want to sell you a car, but because liability insurance and corporate agreements preventing them.

      Your only choice is to get a reliable old car without such features and keep fixing it.

    • I've got a 2012 Ford Escape, with that stupid piece of shit, "Sync by Microsoft" radio/cd player/mp3 player/bluetooth handsfree... When I say "stupid piece of shit" I'm being polite... Since its my wifes car, and she loves herself some Sirus/XM, I reluctantly pay the $17/mo. She started complaining about "dead spots", where the radio would cut out, and often show a "no signal".. I drove the car for a week and noticed the same thing.. Usually only happened sitting at a stop light. It occurred on whatever cha

  • "One executive at Ford said, "We need to control access to that data. We need to protect our ability to create value.""

    This tells me that ford employs scumbags. So nope, go to hell Ford, you are now on my list right after GM for cars to never buy.

    Looks like freedom for americans will come from asian car makers. Unless they decide to go down the scumbag rabbit hole.

    • it's also pretty ridiculous because the time window when they could have monetized that data at all ended a few years ago.

      Google already knows everywhere I go and are already able to tell whether i'm in a car, bike, plane or on foot. They really don't need the automakers to get on board with that.

    • YESSSS... Up until 2012, my wife and I had bought Hyundai cars since 2000. We had two Hyundai Santa Fe's over the years and loved them. She decided she wanted another SUV to replace her little Hyundai Accent. For *some* reason we wound up going to a Ford dealer and buying a 2012 Escape.. EVERY time I drive the fucking thing, I wish to HELL we'd bought another Santa Fe.. I'd be here all day listing the gripes I have with this fucking car..

  • That's all we need (Score:3)

    by chilenexus ( 2660641 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @11:17AM (#50099325)
    That's all we need, cars that come with yet another software EULA that says you don't actually own the software or communications systems in the car, and trying to customize it or removed unwanted "features" will violate the warranty and open me up to lawsuit liability. Not that that stopped many people from messing with software and/or communications before, but now it has the added fun of multi-ton machines hurtling down the road mixed in with it.
  • Seems like when a company "shares" their data, slashdot says they are violating our privacy.

    And when they don't ... they aren't "sharing".

    Is this like a "you can pick your own (conflicting) reasons for not liking these companies" kind of thing?

  • All I need to do is make a jumbo-sized tinfoil hat for my car.

  • It is only a matter of time that real-time license point deduction (and more lucratively; insurance rate increase) systems become _mandatory_ to operate a motor vehicle.

    Why? because panicky snowflake moms and insurance corporations control the law-making process.

  • Ford said, "We need to control access to that data. We need to protect our ability to create value."

    Corporate Evilspeak Score [0-10]: 10.

  • I'm tracked already (Score:3)

    by morgauxo ( 974071 ) on Monday July 13, 2015 @12:24PM (#50100037)

    I use Waze (a navigation app) for every trip I make. Google owns it. I don't know what there EULA says but I'm sure they don't just throw away my position reports. And yet.. I use it for every drive, even when I already know the way. Sometimes I think about the fact I'm basically submitting myself to monitoring. I've even considered piecing together some solution with open street map and my own server to avoid this. But... I get real time data. I get warnings about accidents, traffic jams and speed traps up ahead. Countless times it has saved me hours by routing me around accidents on the expressway. On my drive to work there are miles between some of the exits. Simply getting off if the traffic stops moving is not an option.

    I grew up in a small midwestern town, technically a village. As a kid I resented the fact that everything I saw on TV or heard on the radio was directed towards places that were as far away and inaccessible to me as the moon. Now I live in a city where this is not such a problem although on the iternet it still feels like some sites I frequent often forget that silicon valley and NYC are not the entire world.

    Similarly there is browser tracking. I do share the concern of many Slashdotters that marketing firms know too much about our personal lives. But.. then again.. I consider myself to be a geek and a maker. I love the fact that 'punch the monkey' and 'little blue pill' popups have for me been replaced with ads for Arduinos, components, oscilloscopes and such. I also enjoy obstacle courses and now I see Tough Mudder ads all over the web letting me know when and where to find the next event.

    Sometimes I think that I want to start being more private with my data... but.. I kind of feel like I have moved into a different world that I find more interesting and can better relate to. I don't want to give that up.

    • This is a service for which you opt-in. Seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me. The terms are not part of a contract of cohesion tied to the vehicle purchase. In most cases, people *would* opt-in. When using Waze, you get information. You also contribute to Waze in that your travel time is used to help make the service better. And Google does some data mining to try to present some relevant offers to me next time I browse the web. People almost-always opt-in. Amazon sells tablets with and without

  • The obvious way for car companies to monetize driver data, is to very emphatically state "We do not collect nor sell your driver data." Because really, what percentage of a car's sale's price do they think they're going to get by selling data, and how would that compare to lost sales/reduced car value?

  • >> you might start wondering to what extent the data you generate while driving might be analyzed or shared with advertisers.

    Fuck advertisers. I'm FAR more worried about them sharing it with my insurance company and law enforcement.

    This is basically a way to force you to have the equivalent of one of those "safe driving" widgets in your OBD2 port all the time, and to completely automate sending you speeding tickets for every small infraction.

    • I will go to any extent necessary, to never allow this on my vehicle. I consider it my God given right as an American to break traffic laws when police are not present. No one needs any data from my vehicle. God knows what they will do to rental cars, but I'm sure they will not share my views on privacy.

  • ..@ https://owner.ford.com/tools/a... [ford.com] basically says "All your base all belong to us."

    By activating or using the Service you expressly agree to the collection, logging, storage, and sharing of your vehicle travel information and other call details for the purposes set forth above in these Terms and Conditions regardless of whether or not you have read them. Further, you agree to obtain the consent to the collection, logging, storage, and sharing of vehicle travel information and other call details for the p

  • > We need to protect our ability to create value.

    "Creepy" has gotten awfully hype to drop, but this is what legitimately make my skin crawl.

    Like, I can see someone saying it with a straight face. The whole line is euphemism. Like, four or five layers worth. It makes military euphemism look honest. It makes manure look forthright. It's like I'm staring at a knife wound, big slice, blood right flowing out, and the victim doesn't blink. Society doesn't blink.

    Too busy creating value out of thin air. Yet on the distal side, the value will have consequence

  • Seriously, I suspect that Musk will be willing to share his data with Google and Apple. In particular, they would like both to jump into the electric vehicle game. And it is Tesla who has the most data. The other car makers are just now realizing that Tesla is onto something. Look at how GM is pushing Bolt. Volt, leaf, I3, etc. are all POS cars and sales really suck for them. That is why Tesla's sales continue to grow and is now number 1. Interestingly, when Model X hits the market, there is a good chance

  • Since the drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning this data, it is just one NSL or FISA court authorization away from being collected in bulk.

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Close