Court Rules Automakers Can Record and Intercept Owner Text Messages (therecord.media) 89
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Record: A federal judge on Tuesday refused to bring back a class action lawsuit alleging four auto manufacturers had violated Washington state's privacy laws by using vehicles' on-board infotainment systems to record and intercept customers' private text messages and mobile phone call logs. The Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law, handing a big win to automakers Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors, which are defendants in five related class action suits focused on the issue. One of those cases, against Ford, had been dismissed on appeal previously.
The plaintiffs in the four live cases had appealed a prior judge's dismissal. But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act's standard that a plaintiff must prove that "his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation" has been threatened. In an example of the issues at stake, plaintiffs in one of the five cases filed suit against Honda in 2021, arguing that beginning in at least 2014 infotainment systems in the company's vehicles began downloading and storing a copy of all text messages on smartphones when they were connected to the system. An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla's software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs in the four live cases had appealed a prior judge's dismissal. But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act's standard that a plaintiff must prove that "his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation" has been threatened. In an example of the issues at stake, plaintiffs in one of the five cases filed suit against Honda in 2021, arguing that beginning in at least 2014 infotainment systems in the company's vehicles began downloading and storing a copy of all text messages on smartphones when they were connected to the system. An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla's software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.
don't have an 3rd party repair place txt you (Score:2, Insightful)
don't have an 3rd party repair place txt you as they can use that data to void warranty
Re:don't have an 3rd party repair place txt you (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They can try but in the US that's illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. [wikipedia.org]
I'd love to believe you actually have a point here, but referencing a 1975 act in a society who is struggling to justify even a right to repair today, is regurgitating ancient history that has likely been hacked by modern precedent already.
In other words, we wouldn't even be here discussing blatant abuse if your reference was actually recognized as valid. TFS reads so bad the only thing we're left wondering is if the bag full of cash to a judge, was carry-on size.
Re:don't have an 3rd party repair place txt you (Score:4, Informative)
You CANNOT void a warranty (on any consumer product, vehicle or otherwise) because a 3rd-party repair shop attempts to solicit business from you, or you employ their services or said repair.
Re:don't have an 3rd party repair place txt you (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely, just like any person can do whatever he/she wants.
Problems with law only arise once you get pulled into court to answer for illegal activity. Not before illegal activity is committed. Thought crime isn't a thing (in most places) (yet).
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely, just like any person can do whatever he/she wants.
Problems with law only arise once you get pulled into court to answer for illegal activity. Not before illegal activity is committed.
Not before? It's quite incredible the amount of ignorance it takes to justify your current insurance rates. Seriously. You still assume you are not paying for the stupid, corrupt, and ignorant.
Gotta admit, it's one hell of a sales tactic. Like Guinness record setting ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice rockets you attached to goalposts there. Did Elon make them?
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, you CANNOT convince people of that bullshit, because of what you assume they can't get away with and yet do. Daily.
Yeah. It IS quite incredible how far we've fallen from 1975. Almost as incredible as how long it takes for some to believe it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Please provide a citation or STFU. That law is from 27 years ago is past the state of limitations.
You mean STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. That only applies to certain alleged crimes and not laws. Laws are active until repealed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: don't have an 3rd party repair place txt you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Makes me miss my first car (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1979 Datsun 810 wagon!
Or just don't hit "allow" on your phone when it asks to sync your messages and contacts in the first place? Yeah, it sucks to lose some of the functionality people have come to expect from modern infotainment systems, but that's the trade off if you're concerned with privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, he's a car salesman, not Robocop. You're allowed to say "no, I don't want to see this feature".
I think the court's ruling sucks almost as hard as the fact that the automakers have made and installed this horrible privacy-invading feature in the first place, don't get me wrong. But holy shit, you're not forced to go along with a sales pitch. I promise they won't refuse to sell you the car.
Re: (Score:2)
1979 Datsun 810 wagon!
There's a LOT of backup bandwidth [wikipedia.org] there... :-)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum (July 16, 1985)
Re: (Score:2)
SHOW the judge why they're wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
...judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law...
It's not often that we would call upon the ethically-questionable actors of the world to prove just how wrong this judge is, but this would certainly be one of those times where I wish someone could explain in great detail to a judge who is still questioning why automakers are collecting said data.
Prove it in the most direct way, by posting every text message sent by said judge while in their own car. I'd buy a popcorn machine for that.
No, change the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not often that we would call upon the ethically-questionable actors of the world to prove just how wrong this judge is, but this would certainly be one of those times where I wish someone could explain in great detail to a judge who is still questioning why automakers are collecting said data.
Prove it in the most direct way, by posting every text message sent by said judge while in their own car. I'd buy a popcorn machine for that.
No, the judge got it right and the appellate judge also got it right.
Judges do not rule on what's right, judges rule on what the law says. If you think this situation is wrong, you need to change the law.
This thing about judges ruling on what they think should be right has to stop. The outcome of a trial should be predictable from the text of the law - if that were not the case, we will only devolve into a system where trials are decided by whim.
People don't realize that the supreme court gets this one right: they rule on the text of the law, and explicitly write up their reasoning. When the supreme court makes a ruling you don't like, the problem isn't with the judges, it's the law. You need to change the law instead of putting pressure on the judges.
And saying "but that won't work because my legislators won't listen to me" is no excuse.
And for the record, I think the situation sucks and the law *should* be changed.
Re:No, change the law (Score:4, Interesting)
The outcome of a trial should be predictable from the text of the law - if that were not the case, we will only devolve into a system where trials are decided by whim.
In a Common Law [wikipedia.org] system court rulings are not exclusively based on statutory law. Judicial rulings can and frequently do make new law. Haven't read the relevant statutory law in this case and TFA is scant on details (exactly how are they copying this information?), so this particular ruling might be correct, but the notion that all trial outcomes have to be predictable from statutory law alone is not how things work in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not an US citizen, but as far as I know, the law says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
Re: No, change the law (Score:4, Informative)
Re: No, change the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. Which is why some agencies are able to collect cell tracking data, etc. without a warrant - they simply ask AT&T or whoever for it, and they may just be given it with no question.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's not often that we would call upon the ethically-questionable actors of the world to prove just how wrong this judge is, but this would certainly be one of those times where I wish someone could explain in great detail to a judge who is still questioning why automakers are collecting said data.
Prove it in the most direct way, by posting every text message sent by said judge while in their own car. I'd buy a popcorn machine for that.
No, the judge got it right and the appellate judge also got it right.
Judges do not rule on what's right, judges rule on what the law says. If you think this situation is wrong, you need to change the law.
Huh. This is news to me, since we're dealing with everyone from local judges to Vice Presidents who are constantly attacking the second amendment within the Bill of Rights after every shooting involving 3 or more people (not including the daily violence in liberal cities of course...that doesn't count). We watch the anti-2A nonsense make it up and down courts all the damn time. If they merely rule on what the law says, then every case attacking the second amendment would be thrown out, and never even mak
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? I have. It's about who can defend the nation, not whether you can own an AK-47.
There's that bit about a "well regulated militia" and "the security of a Free State". How does your ownership of your Glock relate to a well-regulated militia or the security of a free state?
Oh, and "bear arms" doesn't mean what you think it means. Have you read the citizenship oath? You know, where the oath taker agrees "that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by t
Re: (Score:2)
This thing about judges ruling on what they think should be right has to stop. The outcome of a trial should be predictable from the text of the law - if that were not the case, we will only devolve into a system where trials are decided by whim.
We live in a gray area: judges are not supposed to disregard the law and do whatever they want, but they are allowed (in fact often required) to interpret the law, and attempt to determine -- by dint of their inferences about its intent and their observations about how legally well-constructed it is -- what the outcome of a particular case should be.
Re: (Score:2)
This thing about judges ruling on what they think should be right has to stop. The outcome of a trial should be predictable from the text of the law
That's anti-societal bullshit. Due to the complexity of law, having more resources allows you to find niche outcomes that are in your favor which biases the whole fucking system to serve people or organizations with more money.
Re: (Score:1)
The rule of law is anti-societal bullshit?
Dude, stop and think for five min about this before you head back out in your baklava and trashcan-lit-riot-shield.
You would not like it if judges were completely free ignore the text of the law, and legal precedent and just do what thing think is right.. How long would it take before you found yourself a foul of a prosecutor and before a judge who don't share your political bent?
Let's just pick a hot button subject of the moment. Gaza, suppose that judge decides t
Re: (Score:2)
The rule of law is anti-societal bullshit?
That is not what i said. Rigid interpretations of law can be abused and can and indeed do become anti-social bullshit...
You would not like it if judges were completely free ignore the text of the law,
Again, i never proposed such a thing.
Dude, stop and think for five min about this before you head back out in your baklava and trashcan-lit-riot-shield.
Admit it. Deep in your heart you KNOW that you haven't understood what baklava is.
Re: (Score:2)
spell check does funny things, but I kinda like the idea of you running around covered in pastry. Its no less absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, maybe more to the point, how do you imagine a functioning trias politica without any law-nudging/changing powers of the judicial leg?
Re: (Score:2)
People don't realize that the supreme court gets this one right: they rule on the text of the law, and explicitly write up their reasoning. When the supreme court makes a ruling you don't like, the problem isn't with the judges, it's the law. You need to change the law instead of putting pressure on the judges.
Doesn't the fact that your supreme court often rules split along party lines then indicate that there is in fact a problem with the judges? If they were actually ruling based on the text of the law they should usually come to the same conclusion, and deviations should not correlate to political affiliation.
Re: (Score:2)
They do seem to employ motivated reasoning, putting a lot of effort into creating a logical path to the decision they want to make. This is not limited to one political side or issue, but is a flaw in the system of investing too much power in a few individuals who answer only to themselves.
Re:SHOW the judge why they're wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
to prove just how wrong this judge is
This is an incredibly bad take because the question before was "what protection does the Washington State law provide?" And this didn't reach a breach of that protection. The fix is to enhance the law that proffers the protection. If the Judge gave that enhancement from the bench, everyone would be in here howling how the Judge is legislating from the bench and they'd be mostly correct since the entire point was the court to judge on what the law protects and doesn't protect.
I swear this is where so many people fall down. They go ape shit at rulings and removals or enhancements of various laws, and the State Assembly members who are the creators of the law that everyone is getting upset about how the Judge ruled, are getting off scot-free on how they created a shitty law.
People ought to be heading to the Washington State capitol after this to complain, but no, it's clearly the Judge who is at fault here.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the average age of judges and Representatives. These are the same folks who brought you the concept of a "series of tubes".
Showing those who can still have an effect on laws, tends to help all of us. I'd recommend the same damn treatment for lawmakers being this ignorant about privacy abuse too. You are correct, but it doesn't do anything to a corruptly horrific situation.
Re:SHOW the judge why they're wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not often that we would call upon the ethically-questionable actors of the world to prove just how wrong this judge is, but this would certainly be one of those times where I wish someone could explain in great detail to a judge who is still questioning why automakers are collecting said data.
The plaintiffs sued for violation of the Washington Privacy Act (WPA). The lower court dismissed the case because under the WPA, a plaintiff must allege an injury to “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation.” Collecting data does not fall under injury in any of those conditions. The plaintiffs also failed to state other than the hypothetical of how they could have been injured should somenoe see the messages.
Prove it in the most direct way, by posting every text message sent by said judge while in their own car. I'd buy a popcorn machine for that.
The automakers collected the text messages; none of them distributed the messages to third parties so your scenario is not the same. That is the point again of the court; show me where collecting the messages damaged the plaintiffs
Re: (Score:2)
The automakers collected the text messages; none of them distributed the messages to third parties so your scenario is not the same. That is the point again of the court; show me where collecting the messages damaged the plaintiffs
Speaking of the point, care to explain why said automakers are collecting those messages? Has fuck-all to do with making automobiles. They're not profiting off that expense? Riiiight. I'd love to see the proof of that. Because the point of Greed behind it, is quite clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of the point, care to explain why said automakers are collecting those messages?
No that was not the point. You clearly missed the point. Civil lawsuits must demonstrate both injury and damages. The lower court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show damages under the very law they cited. The appellate court then ruled the lower court was correct. Yet you feel the need to actually inflict injury on the appellate judges for confirming a lower court's ruling. Why do you have such desire for vindictiveness?
Has fuck-all to do with making automobiles. They're not profiting off that expense? Riiiight. I'd love to see the proof of that. Because the point of Greed behind it, is quite clear.
Your speculation is somehow the automakers must have been making profit because .
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the entire point as well. If a police officer can exercise discretion when applying the law, then we assume that trained officer actually has a brain capable of thinking and reasoning. Blows me away we can't ask for some simple thinking from judges as well. Yeah, I GET the entire point of them existing to rule on existing law. Makes a great argument for replacing every one of them with AI actually, since they don't hold any responsibility to actually ask why a manufacturer is doing someth
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the entire point as well. If a police officer can exercise discretion when applying the law, then we assume that trained officer actually has a brain capable of thinking and reasoning.
WTF are you talking about? The lower court (and all courts) said for a civil lawsuit to proceed, there must be a demonstration of injury. That is basic law 101. The plaintiffs must show injury. They did not. The lower court dismissed the suit. The story is how the appellate court agrees that the suit should have been dismissed as a matter of procedure. That is all they ruled on. The appellate court does not rule on the merits of the case. You want the appellate judges punished because they ruled EXACTLY how
Re: (Score:2)
Loss of privacy isn't damage? Given the potential for harm that someone's private messages may constitute up to or even after their death (they might harm their estate, descendants, etc) I would argue that is a lot of horse shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Loss of privacy isn't damage?
1) Please tell how the car having your text message that no one else sees or has seen is "loss of privacy". 2) The plaintiffs could have demonstrated any number of injuries to proceed. They did not. 3) The plaintiffs can still amend their complaint and refile when the lower court ruled on the deficiencies of their lawsuit. 4) The appellate court saying the lower court was right to dismiss is not the appellate court saying it is now legal for the automakers to do whatever they want. They only said the plaint
Re: (Score:2)
The automakers collected the text messages; none of them distributed the messages to third parties so your scenario is not the same. That is the point again of the court; show me where collecting the messages damaged the plaintiffs
Exactly, Some people found the automakers do this, and are outraged. Proof of harm shows none. And why would that be?
The smartphones are doing the same thing. They localize. They connect, they store. When I hop in my car and connect it, ApplePlay GPS locates me, looks at the calendar, then pops up a map of where I often go that day of the week. The only thing I glean from that, other than convenience, is just how much we are creatures of habit. So it knows where I go. It knows where I fill up my car once
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing problem is that the appellate court did not rule automakers can record and intercept messages. They ruled that the plaintiffs had a defective case and the lower court was correct to dismiss it. The plaintiffs allege the automakers did all those actions; there has been no ruling if the allegations were even true.
For me, the big divide is the selling of any data. A modern car with an infotainment system that connect to a smartphone is alomst certainly going to deal with vehicular and calling data. And some of that data will be used as a sort of black box for accidents, that is TWD.
It's not as much a problem with newer Apple CarPlay, I can text via voice, and Siri will read texts for me, so it's completely hands free. I'm not certain how the android version works, probably similar? Someone can chime in on that o
You gave the car permission (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing should be opt out. Everything by default should be opt in and only if the user selects the settings. Placing permission doors on everything should not be allowed. No collection by default.
Re:You gave the car permission (Score:4, Insightful)
Beyond that... there is no acceptable reason for a vehicle to be copying all your personal communications traffic just because you're using the Bluetooth connection.
No opt out, no opt in. Just no. /God Bless America, Land of the Free to Be Abused by Corporations and Like It.
Re: (Score:2)
You *are* opting in. You don't have to connect your phone to the bluetooth interface of the car. Even if you do, you have to explicitly check the block that says "share my contact information". That's two opt-ins right there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Placing permission doors on everything should not be allowed."
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing should be opt out.
It's not "opt out" nor "opt in". It's an explicit decision without progression. If you don't select Allow or Don't Allow when presented with the bluetooth connect screen and instead just hit the back button then the bluetooth connection fails, at least on my device.
There is no connection by default. The user *must* make a decision.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened? For some reason, every time I received a text, it would disconnect from the car and my driving map would disappear from the dashboard.
This was just two weeks ago.
Re: (Score:2)
If so then why did the Judge say this: The Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be because
>explicitly asked permission to download my contacts and text messages
as a
>practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law
?
I would assume so, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened in your case has no bearing on the case. In this case the car downloaded contacts and text messages without prompting. And the Judge said this wasn't an invasion of privacy. So the state can legally bug your car.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened in your case has no bearing on the case. In this case the car downloaded contacts and text messages without prompting. And the Judge said this wasn't an invasion of privacy. So the state can legally bug your car.
Except that is not what the judge ruled either. The plaintiffs sued under the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) in a class action civil suit. A necessary element of civil lawsuit is injury. The plaintiffs failed to show any injury even if the court accepted all their allegations as true. Also the WPA covers what the state can and cannot do. It does not cover automakers. The court dismissed the suit. The court never ruled whether the automakers did what the plaintiffs allege. The appellate court ruled under those
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article (which is entirely in the summary, btw) and the filing document, and nowhere does it explicitly state that they were not prompted. The filing claimed that they felt they hadn't given consent for this, but I'm not sure that it ACTUALLY means that they ACTUALLY weren't prompted when the phone was first paired (the prompt should have been automatic: all phones have this built-in to the OS, whether iOS or Android).
I'd like to know what mechanism would allow the phone to share that data with t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all: there is no known way for an iPhone nor an Android phone to share data with an automobile without granting permissions, aside from being hacked.
Again, I ask you: what mechanism would allow the phone to share that data with the car without an initial consent prompt?
The law protects companies, not consumers (Score:5, Interesting)
All you need to know about the privacy law:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. LIABILITY. (1) Any violation of this chapter shall not serve as the basis for, or be subject to, a private right of action under this chapter or under any other law.
It's not a law to protect consumers, instead, it protects companies as long as they are not completely careless with the data.
I am surprised the lawsuit got this far.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it go? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They take it for themselves, then lockout of it? What the hell do you think they're going to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn auto-correct. Should be "Then lock YOU out of it.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
All automakers have to do is say the contacts and messages were saved for law enforcement use, and that bypassed the GDPR completely.
Plus, the GDPR is toothless anyway.
We are living under technofeudal corporate facism (Score:4, Interesting)
The device connected is requesting access to... (Score:1)
This is a really dumb lawsuit. For the best part of a decade the control over which device has access to your calls and texts have been in the hands of the user. It is hard to criticise car makers for invading privacy when the user specifically permits access to this data when they connect their device, and every device does request the user's permission before granting connected device access to calls and texts.
Yes your bluetooth or android auto still works if you select "Don't Allow"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Waiting for update for DoD (Score:2)
A potential risk has always been with rental vehicles, This just makes t
For those who slept through the lecture (Score:2)
There is not, and never has been, such a thing as "privacy" online.
This will be on the midterm.
Click bait title (Score:2)