[HN Gopher] Class Action Against General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC,...
___________________________________________________________________
Class Action Against General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC, LexisNexis
Risk Solutions [pdf]
Author : troydavis
Score : 476 points
Date : 2024-03-14 23:00 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (static01.nyt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (static01.nyt.com)
| troydavis wrote:
| From the complaint:
|
| > Plaintiff did not want OnStar services and so he did not push
| the blue button "to get started." The email provides no mention
| of OnStar's Smart Driver Program.
|
| ...
|
| > In or around January 2024, Plaintiff received his requested
| LexisNexis consumer disclosure. The report, as of December 18,
| 2023, had 258 recorded driving events under the "Telematics"
| subsection. Each driving event included trip details that show
| the start date, end date, start time, end time, acceleration
| events, hard brake events, high speed events, distance, and VIN.
|
| ...
|
| > Plaintiff had never opted into any insurance program that would
| have allowed his information to be shared.
|
| Related: "Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with
| insurance companies" -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39666976
|
| And if you own a car made in the last ~5 years, here's how to
| request your "Consumer Disclosure Report" from LexisNexis:
| https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/ . According to NYT,
| LexisNexis receives at least some data from GM, Ford, Kia,
| Subaru, and Mitsubishi.
|
| Or from Verisk, which receives data from at least GM, Hyundai,
| and Honda: https://fcra.verisk.com/#/
| grepfru_it wrote:
| Teehee
|
| I wrote about this after my gag order expired. GM was shipping
| all telematics data to a big data cluster processing 100gbps of
| data (with double the data once Cisco released 400gbps
| support). Originally it was to help price their used cars. A
| noble effort I supported. I didn't know about the sales to
| insurance brokers, but should have assumed that was coming.
|
| Anyway cat is out of the bag, they won't undo this feature they
| will pay a fine, offer an opt-out to 5% of users who take up
| the offer and in 10 years time everyone will assume their
| driving habits are being monitored by their insurance company.
|
| How do I know this? It's been 10 years since the hoopla about
| realtime location data being sold. Last night I saw my home IP
| address reports my location with .25 mile accuracy. Guess that
| $5 check from Verizon was the fine they had to pay!
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Anyway cat is out of the bag, they won't undo this feature
| they will pay a fine, offer an opt-out to 5% of users who
| take up the offer and in 10 years time everyone will assume
| their driving habits are being monitored by their insurance
| company.
|
| So can't the plaintiffs just request an order compelling GM
| and others to remove the feature forever as part of the
| remedies?
| tialaramex wrote:
| Specific Performance. A court can order as the equitable
| remedy that one of the parties does a specific thing. Yes,
| in principle. But no in practice.
|
| The real world use of Specific Performance is mostly in
| Real Property ie the ownership of land and this is because
| land is very obviously not fungible. The square meter of
| land I need to get my cows from the grazing field to the
| nearby milking shed is not in any way equivalent to an
| otherwise similar square meter of land on the far side of
| the field leading nowhere, and having the wrong one can't
| meaningfully be compensated with money whereas the court
| can just order Specific Performance (ie the wrongful owner
| hands over the land) to fix the problem.
|
| But even beyond that in practice class actions are
| primarily about the lawyers getting a healthy pay day. $1M
| each for us as lawyers and each individual "participant" in
| the class action gets $1 and a 5% discount coupon that
| expires in six weeks? Sounds good. For the lawyers the
| incentive is that pay day and the only reason to care about
| their participants is that if they're treated too poorly a
| judge may not sign off on the deal.
| ryandrake wrote:
| We really need something with fangs that actually hurts
| companies. These "kid gloves" solutions in the USA do not
| incentivize good behavior.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The visceral desire for retribution is half of the
| problem here. Companies respond to incentives. The
| problem isn't generally the price. When they get caught
| the cost is generally more than the benefit they
| received.
|
| The problem is that they often don't get caught, or find
| a way to weasel out of it. As a result the managers who
| do it will be rewarded most of the time, and even when
| they're on the wrong side of the gamble, half the time
| they'll already have left for another company. Raising
| the penalty wouldn't deter that.
|
| What you need is a remedy that can address the offense.
| Order them to publish the source code to the system for
| 10 years, so that anyone can audit or modify it in case
| they try something similar again. Not only does it make
| it harder for them to reoffend, it's the kind of penalty
| that corporate lawyers _hate_ , and then they'll be more
| likely to insist on policies to prevent that from
| happening to begin with, which puts pressure on
| preventing the problem from a different angle.
| abduhl wrote:
| Specific performance is a contractual remedy. It is
| rarely granted because contracts are usually about
| business arrangements, and you can solve most of those
| problems with money. So for contracts the usual remedy is
| monetary damages.
|
| Courts are more than able to order parties to do things
| without invoking specific performance via injunctive
| relief, which you'll see from the complaint is what is
| being sought by the plaintiffs.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Injunctive relief requires that you show that _unless_
| the court provides this relief the harm is irreparable. I
| guess we 'll see.
| abduhl wrote:
| This is true of almost all equitable remedies - you have
| to show that money won't make you whole. Luckily the bar
| for that is much lower than for contractual disputes,
| especially disputes like this where an ongoing violation
| of someone's statutory rights is allegedly happening.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > I wrote about this after my gag order expired.
|
| Some time last year I wrote a comment here on HN about my
| Bolt EUV and OnStar. I can't remember exactly what I wrote
| and don't want to dig for it, but I said something like being
| happy with the vehicle and had disabled all of the OnStar
| features/tracking soon after I purchased it. Somebody replied
| that they were intimately familiar with the OnStar/GM
| project, having worked on it, and that it was still tracking
| me despite not being subscribed to any of their services and
| having turned off all the features in the car that I could.
| They couldn't elaborate further, I assume because of an NDA
| or something. I bet dollars to donuts that this is what they
| were talking about now.
|
| Edit: thanks to Stavros for finding the comment below. It
| looks like you were in fact the person I was talking to 11
| months ago. Small world!
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You should request your LexisNexis Risk consumer disclosure
| report.
|
| Edit: please report back!
| nozzlegear wrote:
| I just did! Very interested in seeing what's in it.
| hypercube33 wrote:
| Time to find the ATT SIM card and gut it from both of my
| vehicles.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Most cars have an integrated SIM. You can either pull the
| fuse, and lose a bunch of functionality, or if you're
| clever, throw an attenuator on the antenna rendering it
| useless but preserving the functionality of the rest of
| your car.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Do they not store it an just upload it once the car goes
| in for service? I have a 32 Gb mini SD card the size of a
| fingernail that was like $10, something like that would
| store a fuckload of hard braking events.
| hiatus wrote:
| There's no guarantee anyone would bring the car to the
| manufacturer for service though.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Amazon Basics SD micros are $20 for 2x 64 GB at retail.
| For $10 I'm sure that's a chance they're willing to take.
| They'll just raise the MSRP by $100 to compensate.
| TheAdamist wrote:
| Time to pop it in a data usage heavy device for free
| data.
|
| The bbc or someone has had at least one article about a
| bird tracking device that operated via cellular and a sim
| that expected 5k or less data a month suddenly started
| charging gigs a month in their home continent just after
| the last natural looking flight of the bird ended, the
| ornithological society involved had a few shock bills.
| janosdebugs wrote:
| From what I know, this wouldn't work. I worked for a
| telco and the way they explained it to me is that SIMs
| for these purposes are not the same as consumer SIMs.
| They end up on a different network using a different APN
| and they typically go straight to a VPN or other private
| network for their owner. And no, you can't reconfigure
| them to the consumer APN (I asked). (This was not in the
| US btw.)
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Most SIMs for such purposes are sat directly on an L2TP
| connection or similar. They're often not public internet.
|
| As a consumer you can buy similar - I know my ISP (A&A)
| will sell you (quite reasonably) a sim that will drop
| straight onto an L2TP connection of your choosing.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I purchased a Bolt as well. Literally the day after I drove
| it off the lot, I found and modified the electrical
| connections to the Onstar antenna system, as I'm fairly
| handy with electronics and work on all my own cars. If you
| yank the fuse you'll also lose hands free bluetooth calling
| and some other features, so you have to use it.
|
| Anyway, told this story to many people, and they looked at
| me like I'm a conspiracy nut. Well this will be the 1000'th
| conspiracy I worried about that turned out to be completely
| true, imagine that.
| colordrops wrote:
| Guess we live in different worlds. Pretty much everyone
| around me, friend, family, coworker, or neighbor is fully
| aware and expecting any and all devices around them to be
| spying. Not all care or think it's nefarious though.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Phone meta data is tracked. Car meta data is tracked.
| Supplement with credit card data, browsing history, the
| Rings in your neighborhood, etc., etc., etc.
|
| Per, "Stand Out of Our Light", we don't stand a chance.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/20/stand-
| out-of...
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaIO2UIvJ4g
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Remember that 10 or 20 years ago, BEFORE phone, car and
| doorbell camera data was tracked, people were already
| saying "everything is tracked, we don't stand a chance",
| and this defeatist attitude has since contributed to
| allowing phone, car an doorbell camera data to be tracked
| as well.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| You'd have to read the book. He uses "you don't stand a
| chance" in the context of will power.
|
| That is, in short, (and I'm paraphrasing): ...Some of the
| brightest human behavior experts in the world are being
| financed by some of the deepest pockets in the history of
| the world to influence your (read: our) behavior... Just
| use will power? You don't stand a chance.
|
| The "defeatist" to me is, "I don't have anything to
| hide." That might be true, but those influence super
| powers are going to use that "nothing to hide" against
| you.
|
| Read the book. It's just over 100 pages. It's on the
| order of "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" but that
| book is 500+ pages. THoSC is great but it's a serious
| commitment.
| bruckie wrote:
| I own a Bolt (bought used) and have never activated
| OnStar, and I'm extremely unhappy to learn that it might
| be spying on me.
|
| I did some reading when the NYT article came out, and
| found this, which explains how to install a terminator on
| the antenna to disable the cell connection:
| https://imgur.com/gallery/n00QKnH. If you go that route,
| it's probably prudent to make sure your car isn't
| connected to wifi, either. (Edit: looks like that guide
| came from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BoltEV/comments/
| 16h91a6/i_made_a_st...)
|
| Apparently some Bolts newer than mine have a different
| fuse configuration that puts Bluetooth and OnStar on
| separate fuses: https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/remove-
| mobile-data-chip.33...
|
| ^ that Bolt forum thread also talks about some of the
| downsides of disabling the antenna (e.g. GPS won't work
| so your home/away charging settings don't work anymore).
| stavros wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35391090
| nozzlegear wrote:
| There it is, thank you! That's exactly the conversation I
| was thinking of. And I see now that the person I was
| talking to was in fact the very person I replied to here
| in this thread.
| stavros wrote:
| You're welcome! For next time, searching for "nozzlegear
| onstar" only returned two comments, today's and this one
| from a year ago.
| gimeti wrote:
| It was the same commenter!
| klausa wrote:
| This is sorta unrelated, but in your previous comment you
| mentioned:
|
| > least right now using CarPlay they aren't getting all the
| data about which books or music I'm listening to.
|
| CarPlay absolutely reports currently playing audio metadata
| back to the car. I've driven multiple cars that display the
| currently playing song, etc in the driving instruments
| cluster.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Yeah, I noticed that at some point last year. This is my
| first vehicle with CarPlay, so I'm not sure how it works
| in other vehicles, but with mine the CarPlay interface
| completely replaces the infotainment display. The car
| will also show the current media in the cluster, but it's
| a few clicks away and not what I had configured. I
| finally realized that the car was still able to see what
| I was listening to with CarPlay when I navigated back to
| the car's default Home Screen while idling one day and
| saw the name of my book playing in the car's native media
| app.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > currently playing audio metadata
|
| Plain old Bluetooth has supported track/caller data for
| many years now (ex: AVRCP 1.3) so it should be no
| surprise that cars were made that read and display that
| information.
|
| That said, if my car _persisted_ that information I 'd be
| rather suspicious.
|
| P.S.: It's also not unknown to have a certain level of
| address-book contact sharing over BT, since people were
| making hands-free calls in their car long before
| CarPlay/Android-Auto came around.
| Shakahs wrote:
| Not that I support any of this, but why would networking
| speed be the bottleneck in that system? Telematics seems very
| much like an OLAP situation where data ingest and querying
| can be asynchronous.
| notatoad wrote:
| I read it as they are continually generating so much
| telemetry data that they're saturating the link to the
| storage layer.
| bevekspldnw wrote:
| How does the data leave the device? I tried to route traffic
| from the infotainment system into a WiFi network I was
| wiresharking, and I saw a lot of GM traffic but I couldn't
| install a cert to MitM because I couldn't figure out how to
| access the Android settings for the dash OS.
|
| Is the traffic through there or is it totally within the
| CANBUS and never hits the WiFi outbound? In that case do you
| need to hijack the 4G?
| peeters wrote:
| > in 10 years time everyone will assume their driving habits
| are being monitored by their insurance company.
|
| And even if there continues to be an opt-out, those plans
| will become so prohibitively expensive that you're
| essentially forced to allow your insurer to spy on you.
| Privacy is always priced out in the free market. Regulation
| is the only way. It's not a net benefit to society, just
| outlaw egregious data collection.
| tintor wrote:
| I just tried "Consumer Disclosure Report" link from LexisNexis
| you shared, and nothing happens when I submit the request. :(
| happytiger wrote:
| It was very slow and gave no indication it was working but it
| worked for me. Try again?
| yodon wrote:
| >and nothing happens when I submit the request. :(
|
| The site is likely overloaded by interest from HN readers.
| Trying again in 48 hours will likely give more performant
| responses.
| tkems wrote:
| Wow, I just submitted the consumer disclosure report this
| morning after finding out about it from somewhere else. I am
| VERY interested to see if anything is reported from my car
| since I don't have any of the addons/monthly fees.
| wackycat wrote:
| > And if you own a car made in the last ~5 years, here's how to
| request your "Consumer Disclosure Report" from LexisNexis:
| https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/ . According to NYT,
| LexisNexis receives at least some data from GM, Ford, Kia,
| Subaru, and Mitsubishi.
|
| Appreciate this link! I don't have one of the listed brands
| (own a Mazda) but I am curious to see what info data brokers
| like this have on me in general.
|
| Also, maybe this is a naive thought but I think data brokers
| like this are so used to operating in the shadows / being
| forgotten about so I think the more folks who request is at
| least a small signal to them that folks are paying attention.
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! Yes--related from yesterday:
|
| _Automakers are sharing consumers ' driving behavior with
| insurance companies_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39666976 - March 2024 (321
| comments)
|
| That one only spent 3 hours on the front page so I guess we'll
| let this one have a go too...
| ryukoposting wrote:
| Interesring that Subaru is mentioned, but not Toyota. Recent
| Subaru models share a lot of electronic guts with Toyota.
| jmatthews wrote:
| You can't take this as authoritative but my business has a
| data relationship with Toyota and they have a ton of juicy
| telemetry data.
|
| Their attorneys are mad protective of the PII they have. Our
| relationship serves the public interest. We use the data to
| find people with open recalls where Toyota doesn't know who
| the current owner is.
|
| I say this to say that we have other OEM relationships that
| are far more liberal with their encumbered data. This far
| Toyota seems to be playing it very straight.
| jstanley wrote:
| You seem to be suggesting that Toyota are the good guys
| because they collect data but don't share it.
|
| That's not what I want! I want them not to collect it. Then
| I don't have to worry about what they use it for, whether
| they share it, or whether it will get leaked.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| But will you sue them if you get hurt and you find out
| the part was a known failure mode and eligible for a
| recall?
| ryukoposting wrote:
| This is somewhat reassuring, but it also makes me question
| what exactly they're sharing that could facilitate the
| service you describe.
|
| It sounds like an interesting business though, and one of
| only a couple examples I can think of where telematics
| could be used in the public interest.
| 83 wrote:
| I assume LexisNexis does not provide this report out of the
| goodness of their heart, it must be required by FCRA?
|
| If I really don't like LexisNexis collecting this data, or if I
| really just want to stay on top of my credit status, is there
| any reason not to script something to request a physically
| mailed report every day? Not sure how much they pay per
| mailing, but 365 of them can't be cheap.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| We are going to learn so many disturbing things that data brokers
| (which includes basically every large corporation) are doing in
| the next years.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| And hopefully rein them in.
| advael wrote:
| Without extremely aggressive changes to how we handle
| situations like this, it seems unlikely
|
| A fine is a price, and there are basically no laws that put
| financial, let alone criminal liability for people behind the
| corporate veil or seizure/dissolution of a corporation that
| consistently breaks the law on the table
| KerrAvon wrote:
| How? Who will represent that viewpoint in the halls of
| congress? The EFF is politically ineffective and always has
| been for reasons I don't understand, and no one else seems to
| care.
| irq wrote:
| > The EFF is politically ineffective and always has been
| for reasons I don't understand, and no one else seems to
| care.
|
| Going by the EFF's latest published financials (2022), they
| took in $23 million vs $16.6 million in expenses. Vs
| literal billionaires and nation states. Some of the
| billionaires have more money than the nation states do.
| David, meet Goliath.
|
| I care. I give them my money. They seem to do a better job
| at advancing these interests than anyone else. I'm more in
| awe of their attempts to take on issues of this magnitude
| given their meager resources than anything else.
| nceqs3 wrote:
| I'm sorry, but what nation-state or billionaire is
| fighting against the EFF? In fact, the EFF is funded by
| billionaires and nation-states.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| https://www.eff.org/legal-victories
| ryandrake wrote:
| Let's think outside the box a little. What we need is a
| general process whereby the public gets to decide if a
| business should exist. Too often companies just form, abuse
| us, and there is no way to stop them. What if, once a year,
| companies had to justify their existence in front of a
| citizen panel or a jury of random people or something?
| They'd need to demonstrate what good the public receives
| from their existence, or their assets get sold and the
| company dissolved. Why do we believe that companies simply
| have a natural right to exist as long as they can survive?
| Where did this come from? Companies should answer to the
| public!
| callalex wrote:
| What about all the employees of the company that don't
| set policy, aka the vast majority of the employees?
| advael wrote:
| All change is destructive. No matter how bad something
| is, someone depends on how it is right now. Someone will
| at the very least be inconvenienced by it changing
|
| The fact is, no company actually primarily exists to
| employ people, and people lose their jobs to this basic
| fact all the time, sometimes for no reason other than
| that some investor expects extremely marginal gains from
| signaling that they are serious about cutting costs
|
| Also, the dissolution of a company and dispersal of its
| assets could include allocations for severance pay to
| cushion the blow if that's a concern, which is not always
| available to people who are hit by random layoffs
| ryandrake wrote:
| Perhaps the threat of actual extreme punishment would
| incentivize companies to behave such that the punishment
| never gets invoked?
|
| Currently the worst thing companies ever face is a little
| itty bitty fine and maybe a toothless regulator telling
| them "Pretty please would you mind not doing that again?
| If it's not too inconvenient to shareholders that is..."
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > They'd need to demonstrate what good the public
| receives from their existence, or their assets get sold
| and the company dissolved.
|
| If their assets get sold and one entity buys all of them
| then they could just carry on operating the same company
| with them. The most likely buyer for something like that
| would be a competitor. That seems bad.
|
| Maybe we could require the opposite. Their assets get
| sold, but can't all be sold to the same party. You split
| the company up, e.g. by delaminating vertically
| integrated components into separate companies. That way
| it's easier to enter the market and compete with any of
| them because you don't have to replicate the whole stack,
| only that one component.
|
| You might not even need to have a vote, just some rules
| for when this happens automatically, like when a company
| has more than e.g. 35% market share, because that's too
| close to a monopoly and you wouldn't want a trust to
| form. We could call this _anti-trust_.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> What we need is a general process whereby the public
| gets to decide if a business should exist._
|
| So if I want to start a small business, say a mom and pop
| restaurant, the public has to approve it first? You must
| be joking. Most businesses are small businesses.
| Hamstringing them is a recipe for disaster. Our
| regulatory system already disadvantages small businesses
| in countless ways. Indeed, that's part of the reason
| _why_ large businesses can get away with so much.
|
| The public already has a way to disapprove a business:
| _don 't buy from it_. If nobody buys what the business is
| selling, it goes out of business.
|
| The real oversight the public should be exercising, but
| isn't, is to _vote out of office_ politicians that allow
| large businesses to buy their way out of trouble.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > The public already has a way to disapprove a business:
| don't buy from it. If nobody buys what the business is
| selling, it goes out of business.
|
| This "let the market decide" approach is clearly not
| working. It assumes that only the direct customers of a
| business are the stakeholders that matter, because they
| have the wallets to vote with. There are many, many
| companies that the general public do not buy things from
| yet suffer their harms. There are a lot of terrible
| businesses, large and small, that I don't purchase from
| which I'd vote in a heartbeat to get rid of if I had the
| opportunity.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> There are many, many companies that the general public
| do not buy things from yet suffer their harms._
|
| Examples, please? I find this claim extremely dubious.
|
| _> There are a lot of terrible businesses, large and
| small, that I don't purchase from which I'd vote in a
| heartbeat to get rid of if I had the opportunity._
|
| Of course, because you personally don't depend on those
| business for anything. (At least you appear to be
| assuming you don't--though you might indirectly. But
| let's assume you don't even indirectly.) What about the
| people who do?
| aaomidi wrote:
| Nah we're just here busy banning tiktok
| pierat wrote:
| China bad whirrrrrrrrr.
|
| If con-gress was serious, theyd ban/restrict any social
| media that relied on tracking. Or better yet, they'd pass a
| bill restricting data brokers of any sort ala GDPR.
|
| Nope. China bad. USA good!
| LoganDark wrote:
| I agree data brokering of any kind should be completely
| illegal. I don't think tiktok is only being banned
| because of china though. I just think it's a bonus
| compared to bytedance legitimately being a malicious
| data-harvesting nightmare that also happens to own one of
| the most mentally damaging social networks of the decade
| adhamsalama wrote:
| But Meta/Google isn't?
| frankharv wrote:
| Is Meta and Google even allowed in Communist China?
|
| Why would we reciprocate on a Communist plot against our
| children?
| aaomidi wrote:
| Red scare all over again
| frankharv wrote:
| Lets ignore the red scare comments.
|
| Would China allow an American social media company to
| capture 75% of their children?
| aaomidi wrote:
| China is not the US.
|
| If the point of fighting our enemies is to become our
| enemy, then why bother fighting?
|
| How do you think countries like Iran, North Korea, etc
| justify censorship of western content? That exact line is
| used.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Never said anything of the sort.
| Shocka1 wrote:
| This is funny, but sadly true... I just told someone
| yesterday if lawmakers truly cared about all of this
| they'd ban all social media. Lobbyists and lawmakers will
| be eating well until then.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Of course not. Congress and SCOTUS are all paid for.
| stavros wrote:
| Whenever the GDPR is mentioned here, people more or less
| treat it as a sign of fascism. With that attitude from us,
| how can our rights on privacy be respected?
|
| I'm extremely glad that the GDPR and NOYB.eu mean that car
| manufacturers can't pull that shit here. If I opt out, I'm
| opted out, or there will be big fines for them.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The problem with the GDPR is the overhead. If it was one
| line that said "you can't sell data on people without their
| explicit freely given consent" then anybody could comply
| with it by simply not selling data on people.
|
| But it's a long piece of legislation and some of the
| requirements are time-consuming to implement even if you're
| not doing anything nefarious. "It is bad for innocent
| people to incur uncompensated costs" should be a primary
| principle in creating legislation.
|
| > If I opt out, I'm opted out, or there will be big fines
| for them.
|
| They're getting sued. If the plaintiffs win they'll have to
| pay. It's not obvious why this is worse or any less of a
| deterrent.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > It's not obvious why this is worse or any less of a
| deterrent.
|
| I'd say it may not be obvious _why_ , but it's obvious
| _that_ it is less of a deterrent, because this sort of
| data trading seems to be commonplace and semi-overt in
| the US, and much less common (and hush-hush in the rare
| cases where it does happen) in Europe.
|
| I'd also hazard a guess why it's less of a deterrent: the
| risk, i.e. probability of successfully getting sued *
| cost of successfully getting sued, is likely much lower
| compared to the relatively high probability of a DPA
| going "WTF no" in Europe as soon as someone reports it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > I'd say it may not be obvious _why_ , but it's obvious
| _that_ it is less of a deterrent, because this sort of
| data trading seems to be commonplace and semi-overt in
| the US
|
| But that's because the US _doesn 't even_ have the law
| requiring express and freely given consent, so they just
| stick the consent in some agreement nobody reads next to
| a box you have to check. You could have that rule without
| having the whole GDPR.
|
| In this case they apparently collected the data _even if
| you never checked the box_ , which is just egregious and
| now they're getting sued.
|
| > the risk, i.e. probability of successfully getting sued
| * cost of successfully getting sued, is likely much lower
|
| Certainly this is not because plaintiffs would be
| unwilling to file claims if they could.
| stavros wrote:
| What piece of regulating legislation have you seen that's
| one line?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
| otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
| commerce among the several States, or with foreign
| nations, is declared to be illegal."
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
| stavros wrote:
| What's a contract? What's trust, or conspiracy? What's
| trade, or commerce, or a foreign nation? What does
| "declared" mean?
|
| This is the legal equivalent of "I can write Doom in one
| line, import doom; doom.start()".
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > What's a contract? What's trust, or conspiracy? What's
| trade, or commerce, or a foreign nation? What does
| "declared" mean?
|
| These have established meanings in existing law. What are
| you proposing as a plausible ambiguous interpretation of
| "declared"?
|
| > This is the legal equivalent of "I can write Doom in
| one line, import doom; doom.start()".
|
| That's two lines.
|
| Also, it's not equivalent, because the original is
| actually a composition and not just a tautology. It's
| like saying that this one liner to find word frequencies
| in a file: fmt -1 <file> | sort | uniq -c
| | sort -rn
|
| (from https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxadmin/comments/nq45r/
| what_are_...)
|
| ...isn't a single line of bash because you haven't
| defined fmt or sort or uniq or '|'.
| stavros wrote:
| > What are you proposing as a plausible ambiguous
| interpretation of "declared"?
|
| Is your argument that the GDPR can be one line because
| "data" already has an established meaning in existing
| law? The GDPR is large because all these things needed to
| be defined, and there are tons of edge cases, not because
| the lawmaker figured they'd add some extra fluff in
| there.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's not being verbose or well-defined which is the
| problem. It's that the law isn't a single well-specified
| requirement but rather many independent ones that each
| have to be complied with separately, including by people
| who weren't doing anything untoward to begin with.
|
| If you weren't doing anything harmful then your
| preexisting behavior shouldn't become unlawful.
| harry8 wrote:
| Unless senior managers and board members get criminal
| convictions and jail time it will continue and the "disturbing"
| will cease only by being normalized.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Hoping for a magic responsible all powerful legal daddy to
| come enforce a just set of laws is pure fantasy.
|
| The people doing regulation and oversight have been bought
| and paid for by these "managers and board members." Citizens
| united codified their right to do this into law.
|
| If you want professional ethics, you have to create a vehicle
| that can enforce professional ethics or wield political power
| -- a trade union or guild.
|
| No congress-member is going to wake up and be like "gee, I
| sure wish I would get a few less bribes (campaign
| contributions) today," or "I sure would like my stock
| portfolio to decrease in value by doing real oversight on all
| these companies that are making me rich."
|
| If the legal system cannot provide consequences to these
| people, then it's time to start thinking about where those
| consequences are going to come from. Hoping for consequences
| is not a very good strategy. A union is one such vehicle.
| gruez wrote:
| >If you want professional ethics, you have to create a
| vehicle that can enforce professional ethics or wield
| political power -- a trade union or guild.
|
| How's that working with police and/or teacher's unions?
|
| Moreover, it's unclear how "professional ethics" would
| interact with legal and/or business decisions. If you think
| it's unethical and the legal department says it's A-okay,
| then what? For professions like engineering you could
| plausibly make the case that engineers should have the
| final say on decisions involving safety or structural
| soundness, but that's less convincing for business
| decisions. For instance would civil engineers be expected
| to reject building a luxury condo on "professional ethics"
| grounds because the the building would gentrify the
| neighborhood and displace marginalized groups?
| hayst4ck wrote:
| I think a union is a tool like a gun. A gun can be used
| to steal money. A gun can be used to keep your home safe.
| A gun can be used to protect your country from foreign
| invaders. The gun is amoral.
|
| How do you stop a bad guy with a gun? Ironically, the
| people generally most anti-union know the answer to that
| question the best.
|
| The police union demonstrates that unions work. They have
| completely removed police oversight and made officers
| exist generally above the law and provided incredible
| overtime pay. That is not an anti-union argument, that's
| a why the hell aren't you in a union argument.
|
| Teachers unions are more complicated because teachers
| care more about the children than themselves and that
| creates a problem because in order to act in their own
| self interest by exercising union power they have to harm
| children and maybe even a generation of them. Of course
| one could also cogently argue that the general
| undesirability of being a teacher is and has been harming
| children for decades.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > No congress-member is going to wake up and be like "gee,
| I sure wish I would get a few less bribes (campaign
| contributions) today," or "I sure would like my stock
| portfolio to decrease in value by doing real oversight on
| all these companies that are making me rich."
|
| Neither of these is actually applicable here.
|
| GM makes its money from selling cars (and financing for
| cars). If someone offers them a little extra for the data,
| they might take it, but they really don't care.
|
| Neither do the insurance companies, except that if their
| competitors do it then so do they. If any insurance company
| has the data then they raise rates on the higher risk
| drivers and turf them to the ones without it, which puts
| them out of business. But if they're all banned from using
| it then they're all on a level playing field and again
| nobody really cares.
|
| All you'd need is a law prohibiting insurance companies
| from using telemetrics and that would be the end of that.
| The main lobby against it would be the data brokers in this
| specific submarket, but they're hardly Big Auto and The
| Banks.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| > All you'd need is a law...
|
| Start asking 5 whys here and see where it takes you. I'm
| pretty curious what your model of reality is that "5
| whys" doesn't make you feel hopeless.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| That seems like the kind of law that could actually pass?
| It only happens if people make a stink about it, because
| the inertial default is the status quo, but sometimes
| that's what happens.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Not to me. Sounds like hope as a strategy to me.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| As opposed to despair as a strategy?
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| A huge majority of my spam calls come from someone who bought
| it from ZoomInfo, Apollo, or other. I made a mistake somewhere
| and they got my personal number.
|
| Now, every time I get a spam call, I insist they tell me where
| they're getting their info from. They'll try to so "our data
| team", but if you keep insisting they'll tell you.
|
| These data exchange companies are despicable.
| krackers wrote:
| There needs to be a new "-flation" term for this
| (privacyflation?). Where we're also paying in terms of our
| privacy
| tareqak wrote:
| spyflation
| peteradio wrote:
| Personal bubble deflation
| xgkickt wrote:
| Corporate Voyeurism
| callalex wrote:
| There's already a word: stalking.
| mlfreeman wrote:
| It's cyberstalking, plain and simple.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| panopticoflation
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
| thfuran wrote:
| Why normalize a weird friendly term for spying?
| LelouBil wrote:
| How long until a US equivalent of the GDPR ?
| callalex wrote:
| Once there are 32 or fewer Republicans in the Senate, so
| never.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Privacy legislation is antipartisan[0]: the US government
| relies on buying dox from adtech creeps to do all the spying
| they otherwise couldn't legally do, so nobody in power wants
| that loophole closed.
|
| [0] Bipartisanly supported by the electorate and bipartisanly
| opposed by the elected representatives of said electorate
| brikym wrote:
| If the health insurance industry is several times larger than
| car insurance then there must be a very high financial motive
| for Ancestry/23&me to sell your curious aunt's DNA data which
| is also linked to relations.
| klabb3 wrote:
| No shit. Plus 23 and me is in deep financial trouble last I
| heard. Someone out there is drooling over that data set.
|
| I know otherwise smart people (in the analytical sense) who
| paid money to hand over their most sensitive biometrics to
| these companies. And they're still like "the data brokers can
| have it, what are they gonna do?"
| HWR_14 wrote:
| At least the health insurance industry is legally prohibited
| from charging different rates to people based on DNA. So, at
| most, they can use it to try to get you specialized care.
| bonton89 wrote:
| They'll sell the data to potential employers so they can
| avoid hiring people that may have expensive diseases to
| treat.
| newprint wrote:
| I wounder if this is true for older vehicles. I have 2018 vehicle
| with OnStar that is definitely has cell access (I could start it
| remotely).
| lxe wrote:
| Is there a practical way to block any outgoing communication and
| telemetry from getting sent? Like a Little Snitch but for your
| car?
| newprint wrote:
| I remember reading on HN that someone found a sim card in their
| vehicle and took it out.
| NickNameNick wrote:
| Presumably the new ones use an e-sim instead of a physical
| one.
| toast0 wrote:
| Well, I removed the telematics module from my car. But it
| already stopped working because it was 3G only. The car was
| built in 2014, shipped with a 2G modem that was replaced at
| Ford's expense when 2G went offline shortly after the car was
| sold.
|
| My other car with telematics was built in 2016 with a 3G modem
| that also no longer works.
| mysterydip wrote:
| I guess there's a silver lining to sunsetting 3G I hadn't
| considered. Thanks!
| hatsunearu wrote:
| For my car (2024 GR Corolla) you can pull a fuse that goes to
| the telematics computer.
|
| The car has a bad habit of calling the emergency hotline on a
| race track if you go over rumble strips (those painted
| red/white strips) because it shakes the car so violently I
| guess. Popping the fuse will make it stop happening.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| On my 2021 Camry, the fuse is labeled `DCS` -- the only
| caveat is, it disables the front-right tweeter (there is a
| bypass, but requires you to remove the front dashboard and
| install jumpers across the DCS connector).
| stavros wrote:
| Those are the two randomest things to couple together in a
| single fuse.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| The tracking module uses this speaker for Emergency
| Communications in the event of a crash.
| stavros wrote:
| Right, but it doesn't have to be powered by the same
| fuse, no?
| sentientslug wrote:
| I guess the point is that if the emergency module is
| powered the speaker by nature would also have to be
| powered. A fail safe of sorts.
| 1_1xdev1 wrote:
| worse in subaru's... both front speakers AND the mic.
| bluetooth phone calls no longer work, and, your music
| only comes from the back.
|
| similarly it is /possible/ though a giant PITA to take
| apart the front of your car and make those work again,
| per some blog post i saw 4 years ago and can no longer
| find.
| codazoda wrote:
| I wonder if metal tape, used for ducting, would work.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Doubtful... BUT if you try, remember that most vehicles have
| _dual antenna_ (one on top, one on bottom - for roll-overs).
|
| It's easier to just disconnect both antenna from the modem
| _OR_ disable power to it entirely.
| selykg wrote:
| GM is trying really hard to not get my business in the future.
| Between the no Car Play and Android Auto support in their new
| EVs. Now this. I'm just tired man...
| cheeze wrote:
| They've done that just fine for me by releasing... lame cars
| across the board. Most of their brands are shells of their
| former selves (especialllly Cadillac) and I can't remember the
| last time I saw a Chevy that I actually liked.
| selykg wrote:
| I mean, I get that. Part of it is irrational because my
| father worked for and retired from GM. So it's a bit of a
| family thing. But the loyalty has a limit and I believe Mary
| Barra has reached the limit for me.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| > Between the no Car Play and Android Auto support in their new
| EVs.
|
| Wait seriously? That's a wild choice.
| dwighttk wrote:
| yeah they're doin it themselves
| parthdesai wrote:
| why would you want GM in first place?
|
| You've Japanese, German and to some extend even Korean cars
| that are much better. If pick up truck is what you're looking
| for, then Ford is much better
| dogmatism wrote:
| If you're in the market for a smaller, cheap(ish) EV with
| decent range, the Chevy Bolt (used) is basically the only
| option, and honestly can be had for less than any equivalent
| ICE vehicle of similar quality/mileage
| physPop wrote:
| Nissan Leaf?
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Air cooled battery can really destroy long term
| reliability on these cars and also throttle charging if
| the battery is too hot.
|
| The car is a 10+ year old design that was the brainchild
| of a CEO that is no longer there. The company does not
| really have a mentality of being an EV leader.
| dangrossman wrote:
| Defective by design. Still using essentially the same
| battery pack they designed in 2008 for the 2010 LEAF --
| no cooling system whatsoever, emergency resistive heater
| that keeps it from freezing but doesn't otherwise warm
| it, obsolete CHAdeMO charging port -- just with more
| capacity. They had their first class action lawsuit about
| unacceptable levels of battery degradation in new LEAFs
| in 2012, yet didn't change the design, just the warranty.
| The larger packs are now having high defect rates for
| cell-level failures. They are only able to sell a few
| hundred of them a month in North America for good reason.
| adolph wrote:
| I just looked and that is some wild depreciation. In 2020
| that went for 37k snd goes for 13k now. A 2020 Prius
| started lower and will go for 19k today.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| It limited to 50Kw fast charging and the battery fires
| have put a damper on its reputation. Also its shaped like
| an egg. The EUV does not look much better (in my opinion)
| adolph wrote:
| That charge rate definitely makes it a commute/overnight
| charge uni-tasker. I wonder what the insurance table
| looks like for it.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Probably because they assume those companies are doing the
| same thing?
| kube-system wrote:
| The brands you are thinking of also likely have telematics
| with similar vague language about data collection. I've seen
| it in Nissans, Hondas, and Toyotas, personally.
| sneak wrote:
| Tesla claims not to sell or transfer the data they collect,
| and offer opt-outs from most of it. You can, if you are
| willing to void your warranty, remove the GSM/LTE module from
| a Tesla fairly straightforwardly.
| selykg wrote:
| Tesla is an absolute no-fly zone for me, due to their
| stupid leader.
| happytiger wrote:
| We've already taken quite a few manufacturers off the list for
| this reason, including GM. Vote with dollars people. Take my
| data without permission, lose my business.
| jrib wrote:
| who is left on your list?
| jhanoncomm wrote:
| I am eyeing up Hyundai Ioniq 5/6. Any comments. Irony is
| keeping the dumb old Toyota is cheaper even with the crazy
| tax breaks in Australia! I could hand over $10k to carbon
| offset company instead and still be ahead with the ol
| banger. And have the convenience of what they call service
| stations :-)
| sgerenser wrote:
| Current Chevy Volt driver, have now written off GM from
| my list. Was considering an Ioniq 5 for my next car until
| I heard about the issues where a minor scrape on the
| bottom could require a $60K (Canadian dollars) battery
| replacement: https://youtu.be/EEXieo06ta8
| happytiger wrote:
| Right now I'm just driving an old Toyota and don't plan on
| buying another car. I expect all of this to explode at some
| point and resolve itself, or I'll just keep rebuilding my
| old Toyota until I die.
|
| It's a shit show.
|
| https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articl
| e...
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Voting with your vote works even better.
|
| If we vote with our dollars then the government just bails
| them out when they inevitably go bankrupt, again.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| GM seems to be floundering in mediocrity right now. They
| basically pump out generic, uninspired plastic boxes right now
| then try to nickel and dime their customers. In my opinion,
| foreign manufactures are absolutely eating their lunch right
| now.
|
| Despite being children of an automotive family, with a deep
| loyalty for the Big 3, we've started to avoid their cars. While
| they can run forever, they just start failing apart.
| adolph wrote:
| The rebadged Commodores were a bright spot in the lineup for
| a while if you like that kind of thing
|
| What are "foreign manufacturers?" Hondas and Toyotas have
| been built in the states for a long time. Chrysler has been a
| transnational merger for a while and Ford and GM have long
| histories of importing their overseas products.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Generally anything outside of the big 3 is considered
| foreign. It's no longer fully accurate, but that's how I've
| typically viewed it
| adolph wrote:
| How much of that foreign/domestic distinction do you
| think is marketing/propaganda?
| fnord77 wrote:
| Chevy Trax got C&D's highest 10/10 which is remarkable
| because GM's small cars are usually terrible...
|
| and consumer reports seems to love the cousin Buick Envista.
| russellendicott wrote:
| I will never buy a GM until they stop turning their reverse
| lights on when they're not reversing. This one small feature
| has wreaked immeasurable havoc on parking lots across the
| world.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/rshlke/why_do_gm_vehi...
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| This is good news. I hope this serves as inspiration for future
| cases against app developers, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and
| all who are not upfront about their data and privacy practices.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| Leave it to data brokers and insurance companies to make the leap
| "ick" to outrage.
|
| On the other hand... to all selfish, unsafe street-racing, road-
| hogging Cadillac XT6 drivers out there: may your insurance rates
| double and may you swim forever in a sea of adverse underwriting
| decisions.
| afavour wrote:
| I do think there's an interesting future dilemma here. I'm
| absolutely against them sharing this data without consent. But
| if sharing e.g. the number of hard brakes you do was made
| explicit and led to lower insurance premiums... I'd be tempted.
| I often feel like there's little reward for adhering to traffic
| laws these days.
| GuestHNUser wrote:
| > led to lower insurance premiums
|
| Maybe it would be lower relative to other people's rates, but
| one must imagine that any insurance prices will only ever
| cost more to the consumer.
| smokefoot wrote:
| This is not how capitalism works. However, if insurance
| were priced perfectly, it would cease to be useful!
| dgacmu wrote:
| Not really. Accidents are a function of driver and
| environment. You can't control the other drivers. If you
| think of the primary purpose of insurance as to make sure
| that the party not at fault is made whole, then perfectly
| priced insurance becomes like posting a bond in order to
| drive. Which isn't unreasonable.
|
| (Plus uninsured motorist coverage for the other parts you
| can't control, which really is an insurance function.)
| smokefoot wrote:
| There used to be opt-in insurance programs with many
| carriers. They used to send you a device, but I guess that
| was mooted by secret mass surveillance?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I hear ads regularly for Progressive's version of this.
|
| I believe Allstate has one that uses your mobile phone to
| do it.
| kube-system wrote:
| And when your mechanic diagnoses a brake problem on an empty
| road behind their shop, and it raises your rates, how will
| you feel?
| rockskon wrote:
| That logic quickly turns into a stupid word game.
|
| What's the difference between a reward for sharing data on
| your hard stops vs a penalty for not sharing data on hard
| stops?
| rr1 wrote:
| Telematics should be disabled, preferably by way of hard cutting
| the modem chip's V-in. Call me a tinfoil hat lover, but when
| 23andme gets bought by an insurance company, the similarities
| with potential insurability issues are numerous when data is
| available to the other without a big, shining red opt-in.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Conveniently, on most modern Toyota vehicles there is a fuse
| labeled `DCS` which disables power to the modem.
| kube-system wrote:
| Luckily, GINA makes it illegal to use 23andme data for health
| insurance.
| userbinator wrote:
| As this article shows, "illegal to use" doesn't always stop
| them from doing it.
| kube-system wrote:
| Agreed, but acquisitions of public companies typically get
| regulatory attention up-front. An insurer buying 23andme
| would be an obvious red flag from day one.
| schappim wrote:
| The complaint is for:
|
| * Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) due to the
| alleged improper sharing and reporting of plaintiffs' driving
| data without consent, impacting their ability to secure car
| insurance and leading to increased rates.
|
| * Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
| Act, accusing the defendants of engaging in deceptive practices
| by sharing personal driving data without the knowledge or consent
| of the car owners.
|
| * Invasions of privacy under Florida common law, arguing that the
| defendants' actions of tracking, collecting, and sharing personal
| driving data without consent intrude upon the plaintiffs' private
| lives and are offensive.
| Pokerface777 wrote:
| Hopefully more class action lawsuits follow for other car
| manufacturers...
| deadbabe wrote:
| Request your data now:
|
| https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request
| cebert wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this. I just submitted a request and am
| interested to see what they've collected.
| happytiger wrote:
| We need a privacy bill of rights. The fact is that no other
| approach works.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Can this _please_ include a section on things that are _not
| allowed_ to be included in any ToS?!
| stavros wrote:
| Something like the GDPR?
| kube-system wrote:
| Well, something like FCRA at least.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| lmfao this is why my newest car is from 1999. Computers ruin
| everything. Be warned.
| dade_ wrote:
| Actually it was the Internet. I still believe my Commodore is
| harmless.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Actually it was profit-seeking humans. I believe Zombo.com is
| still harmless.
| hkt wrote:
| All of the above in combination, I suppose.
| lordfrito wrote:
| _Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all
| made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the
| first place. And some said that even the trees had been a
| bad move, and that no one should ever have left the
| oceans._
| ungreased0675 wrote:
| Collecting and storing personal data needs to be exorbitantly
| expensive.
|
| LexisNexis knew exactly what they were doing and probably already
| factored in litigation costs to the product.
|
| Experian should have been fined out of existence when they lost
| all that data. The light of their funeral pyre could have warned
| away companies headed down the same path.
| plagiarist wrote:
| It is so enraging. Not only did they have zero consequences
| compared to what they should have received, they're still
| somehow the lone report I have to thaw for every single loan
| and line of credit.
|
| I'd like to see a HIPAA for regular data.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| It's pre-frozen?
| plagiarist wrote:
| After Equifax I have to assume my SSN and address are
| public. I froze everything and it will stay frozen forever.
| I think everyone should freeze all their accounts. It's
| tedious but easy.
| bonton89 wrote:
| Could you briefly explain the process and any hang ups
| you have to deal with?
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| nothing will happen until heads literally roll, everything else
| is just business.
| whatever1 wrote:
| Nice thing is that tracking via cellular never stops working but
| if you are in an emergency they will not call emergency services
| for you if you don't pay the subscription.
|
| Clearly your data are more important than you
| treebeard901 wrote:
| It's good to read this thread and know that finally people are
| realizing the full extent of the surveillance. I have dealt
| with a Govt agency targeting me for several years and having
| technical knowledge, I've noticed all of this invasion of
| privacy and control used against me, lots of it wouldn't even
| be possible without technology or the internet. But it's so
| much more than if you gave up your phone... It's a literal
| surveillance state and even if you go to the suburbs away from
| the concrete prisons our cities have been turned into, you
| still have front door cameras everywhere, accessible by law
| enforcement.
|
| In fact, to abuse all of this stuff and weaponize it against
| someone, you do not need to have a court order or a warrant. As
| long as you find the right people, have the right narrative,
| companies will do all kinds of stuff to you, even if you are a
| customer.
|
| And my original reply before going off on a tangent was that
| even if you remove your sim card, even if you somehow disable
| emergency services, your phone is still pinging and leaking all
| these signals that are picked up by all kinds of scanners.
|
| Very few people even accept this is happening at scale, let
| alone are able to reason about the implications of it all.
|
| The public needs a better job of being informed about the
| consequences of all of it.
| 7952 wrote:
| I agree with the worry about surveillance. But isn't this
| really a continuation of how car makers treat their customers
| and the public generally. Cars companies comprimise privacy
| in the same way that they willingly comprimise safety, public
| health and the environment. It is the result of a broken
| culture and naive to expect them to change.
| thfuran wrote:
| I think it's a mistake to frame it that way. Collecting and
| selling data is essentially ubiquitous among companies with
| access to harvestable data. ISPs, cell providers, smart tv
| manufacturers, and so on are not broadly associated with
| some specific historic cultural or urban planning failing.
| They're companies with access to an additional revenue
| stream, and nearly any company that can will make the same
| decision.
| smokefoot wrote:
| The secrecy is ick, but this is the future and there's no
| stopping it.
|
| There's ample evidence that consumers won't pay for privacy and
| as most consumers opt in to data sharing programs, the non-data-
| sharing cohort will get seriously adverse further raising the
| price of privacy. The equilibrium state is that only bad actors
| and a handful of privacy zealots will inhabit that pool and
| mainstream carriers won't even bid it.
| Dibby053 wrote:
| Consumers won't pay for safety either, which is why we have
| NCAP and mandatory vehicle inspections.
| smokefoot wrote:
| Right, good point. We will see if regulators take up that
| cause.
| randerson wrote:
| Basically, privacy will become a luxury that only the rich can
| afford.
| bonton89 wrote:
| Extremely rich, maybe. But since the value of a person's data
| goes up with their income just having the ability to pay
| extra won't save you.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| This all makes me so angry. It's so messed up.
| dade_ wrote:
| I'm sure GM has a formula for this.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE
| G1N wrote:
| Companion nytimes article for anyone interested:
| https://archive.ph/MVmoX
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >"What no one can tell me is how I enrolled in it," Mr. Chicco
| told The Times in an interview this month. "You can tell me how
| many times I hard-accelerated on Jan. 30 between 6 a.m. and 8
| a.m., but you can't tell me how I enrolled in this?"
| koolba wrote:
| How much do they actually get for this per vehicle?
|
| I feel like the answer to the that would explain a lot.
| brianaker wrote:
| Has Subaru been doing this as well with their STARLINK?
| op00to wrote:
| Yes, but maybe not to the same extent.
|
| You can opt out here:
|
| https://subarucustomersupport.powerappsportals.com/Consumer-...
| NewJazz wrote:
| There needs to be an unplug, not an opt-out.
| yyyfb wrote:
| This is at least a Florida lawsuit. I'm pretty sure the practice
| violates California law as well.
| yyyfb wrote:
| I have obtained an email from GM stating that if I am an OnStar
| Smart Driver subscriber, I cannot opt out of my data being
| shared. I believe this violates at least California privacy
| regulations, probably some other states, which mandate opt outs.
| I seriously want to rip the modem out of my car.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| Some lawyer at GM is reading this and saying, "No private right
| of action FTW, suckaaaaaaa"
| yyyfb wrote:
| Perhaps. This thing might be an easy win for a regulatory
| agency looking to establish itself though.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| Nobody in the privacy world is really holding their breath
| on the CPPA but maybe this could be the one!
| delfinom wrote:
| Well you can file a CCPA violation complaint with the state AG.
| Especially because a "Do Not Sell or Share My Personal
| Information" link is mandatory.
|
| https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#sectionh
| https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-busine...
| Pokerface777 wrote:
| Ford knows when you break the law:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1
|
| I wonder if they also share their data or if they were trying to
| find customers for the data.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| But what if the automakers' solution going forward is to not make
| the feature optional? That the service gets baked into the price?
| They turn it on. They leave it on. Especially with a lease, won't
| they have a legal angle to protecting their property?
|
| My concern this might become a "be careful what you wish for"?
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Anyone know where VW sitting on this general topic?
| tm0 wrote:
| >The DriveView program became available to Volkswagen Car-Net
| subscribers starting with model year 2020. By enrolling in
| DriveView, Car-Net users may be eligible for discounted rates
| from some of the top automotive insurance companies in the
| country. This program can also help Car-Net users monitor their
| driving by tracking activities like night driving, hard
| braking, and idle time. These factors all contribute to an
| overall driving score, which is visible within the Car-Net
| mobile app and on vw.com/carnet. Through the agreement with
| CCC, VW Car-Net will leverage the newly released CCC(r) VIN
| Connect, which applies driving behavior data at the point-of-
| quote, making it fast and easy for eligible consumers to
| connect with potential insurance discounts.
|
| https://media.vw.com/en-us/releases/1370
| steelframe wrote:
| I recently bought a Toyota because I was able to push the "SOS"
| button in the car and request that they disable telematics right
| after I bought it. I don't know whether they've actually stopped
| collecting my location information or if they can arbitrarily re-
| enable telematics at some time in the future for whatever reason,
| so I've additionally pulled a fuse that powers the transmitter.
| I'm mulling wrapping some components in a Faraday cage just for
| good measure.
|
| The ability to prevent the car from spying on me was near the top
| of my list of desired features when I was shopping for a new car.
| This is one of the main things keeping me from buying another EV.
| So far as I'm aware there is nothing on the market where I live
| that won't constantly spy on you with no option to disable.
|
| This article from Mozilla is worth a read:
| https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article...
| ezfe wrote:
| I bought a Toyota last year and the app clearly showed me a
| bunch of opt in/out options and I felt relatively confident
| they were either outright lying or I had opted out.
|
| I'll have to request my info to see for sure
| steelframe wrote:
| I never installed the app or registered an account or
| anything. The rep who I spoke to after pressing the SOS
| button mentioned that they had to create an account for me
| and then disable. They went ahead and at least said they did
| that while I waited on the line.
|
| I'm more confident in effectiveness of pulling the DCM fuse.
| McQuain1 wrote:
| I'm in the market to buy a car and have narrowed it down to
| 2024 prius. I've read Mozilla's papers and a few auto forums on
| privacy issues with some abilities to turn on/off telematics.
| As you say, none of what I've read is conclusive in whether
| this actually stops collection.
|
| Do you have any links you followed for the physical fuse?
| steelframe wrote:
| > Do you have any links you followed for the physical fuse
|
| It's different for different cars. Search for "DCM fuse"
| (Data Communications Module) for your model year.
| bamboozled wrote:
| It's ultra annoying that "EV" seems to mean a tablet on wheels
| now. I just want a "dumb" car with a battery instead of petrol.
|
| A friend of mine has a Mitsubishi EV Minivan (Japanese model)
| and it's about as close to a perfect "dumb EV" I've seen yet.
| It drives incredibly well. They just don't produce a 4x4 model
| yet, which is important if you live in cold snowy climates.
| greyface- wrote:
| > So far as I'm aware there is nothing on the market where I
| live that won't constantly spy on you with no option to
| disable.
|
| Kia EV6 has a telematics toggle in the hidden engineering menu.
| Vehicles sold in Massachusetts have it disabled by default to
| protest the state's "right to repair" law, but in other regions
| you can disable it yourself.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| Supposedly, there should be a fuse that's just for the modem.
| You can yank that and get rid of telematics.
|
| I'll stick with my 24 year old Lexus, though.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Reading this got me cheering out loud for the plaintiff. I'm so
| glad to see someone taking these bastards to court.
|
| I can relate in some small way to part of his ordeal - not with
| GM specifically, but I don't know how many times I've been stuck
| in a loop with companies who have no idea what happens to your
| data they hoover up and can't explain or answer even the most
| basic questions on that topic - and are confused as to why you
| are even asking.
|
| I hope this gets its class action certification and jury trial,
| and I'm looking forward to kicking back with a bag of popcorn and
| watching the show. If he started a GoFundMe or something I'd be
| happy to make a substantial contribution to his legal fees.
|
| It's long past the time bad actors like this who give you no real
| choice or control over the products _you are buying_ start to be
| brought to justice.
| spdustin wrote:
| I recently requested a quote while insurance shopping, and
| progressive seems to have already associated driving telematics
| history with one of my vehicles (a 2015 Chevy product).
| omginternets wrote:
| How did this manifest, exactly?
| beretguy wrote:
| Is it possible to wrap "cellular connection" module in copper
| mesh to cut it off from sending data?
| kube-system wrote:
| It probably won't work very well. Faraday cages attenuate, they
| don't block signals, and most amateur attempts don't even
| attenuate very much.
|
| Wrap your phone in aluminum foil, put it in the microwave, and
| give it a call. It'll probably still ring.
| speff wrote:
| Tried it -
|
| 1. No foil, microwave - rings
|
| 2. Foil, no microwave - rings
|
| 3. Foil, microwave - doesn't ring
|
| I feel like cell phones have to be more sensitive than w/e
| transmitter the car has, but your point holds - naively
| wrapping it in foil still probably won't work.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Cell phones are less sensitive than the transmitter in your
| car, usually. Think about how much power budget you have in
| a car vs. A phone.
| kube-system wrote:
| Nice! I've done a bunch of RF attenuation experiments with
| friends, and foil+microwave was the best result we found
| using stuff lying around any of our houses. With
| foil+microwave we were able to attenuate the signal enough
| to seriously degrade service, but never quite enough to
| block all traffic. In our experiments, the microwave was
| doing the majority of the work, based on the signal
| strength we observed. Results also varied a good bit by
| carrier, presumably because of the different bands used.
|
| Tin-foil hat wearers beware.
| planede wrote:
| You probably have better luck by finding some standard antenna
| connection and attaching a proper 50 Ohm terminator to it.
| teeray wrote:
| OnStar is one of those features that has desperately tried to
| claim is somehow different than the features your phone already
| provides.
| MichaelMug wrote:
| I understand that my opinion on this matter may be controversial,
| but I feel compelled to share my experiences. In the past five
| years, I've noticed a significant increase in aggressive driving.
| I've been the victim of two hit-and-run incidents where I was
| rear-ended, and the drivers fled the scene. In a third incident,
| a driver collided with the side of my car as the road curved and
| had the audacity to tell the police that I was at fault. In
| Texas, I've witnessed rampant red-light running, failure to stop
| at stop signs, excessive speeding (more than 15 mph over the
| limit), tailgating, and failure to use turn signals.
|
| I believe that telematics could be a valuable tool in addressing
| this issue by scoring drivers based on their driving habits and
| adjusting their insurance rates accordingly. This would not only
| encourage safer driving practices but also ensure that
| responsible drivers are not unfairly penalized for the actions of
| aggressive drivers. In my opinion, telematics should be required
| for operating a vehicle on public roads.
| mlsu wrote:
| None of those people have car insurance.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Willful dangerous driving is surpassing DUI these days it seems
| in terms of danger.
|
| ... but I guess some of these people were on something, too.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| While I dislike how little practical enforcement there is against
| the pervasive surveillance by ad-tech companies, this is one of
| the things that GDPR works wonders against:
|
| No sane company would want to participate in such a scheme in
| Europe. Both the seller and the buyers would be on the hook for
| massive GDPR fines, and unlike a tech company where the privacy
| violations might be contributing 50% of the revenue and which
| could thus easily consider a 4% of revenue fine once every few
| years a (small) cost of doing business, car companies can't
| afford that.
|
| General Motors had a global revenue of $172 billion, net income
| $10B, and the data sales are only a small part of that.
|
| The intermediate company that's buying the data and reselling it
| to car manufacturers could potentially try to get away with it,
| because their entire business model depends on it, so they have
| little to lose. Just make sure to keep no money in the company
| because once the DPAs learn of the business the company a) has no
| business model because they will prohibit continued
| buying/selling of the data b) is likely to be bankrupted by the
| fine that might well exceed their entire revenue (for smaller
| companies, the fine isn't capped to 4% of revenue, the limit is
| 20M EUR).
|
| For the insurance companies that would be buying this data I'd
| imagine it's even worse.
|
| And this sort of egregious thing is something I can see DPAs
| actually enforcing, because it'd be much more clear cut than tech
| companies using non-compliant consent banners.
|
| Edit: And I forgot the most important thing - if they don't put
| it into their privacy policy they're even more screwed, and if
| they do put it there, a customer who finds it can get it enforced
| by sending an e-mail (or in Germany, letter, because some DPAs
| don't accept e-mail) rather than finding a lawyer willing to
| start a class action.
| jmakov wrote:
| How we came to a stage where your iris is being monitored in your
| car, including mic and video recording and all your contact being
| uploaded as soon as you connect to the entertainment sys... and
| nobody gives a fuck. It's beyond my understanding.
| nojvek wrote:
| In this age of cars I want dumb cars with an engine that I could
| optionally plug in my smart thing if I wanted.
|
| Even Toyota has gone too smart with their in tune crap.
|
| Give me a cockroach car that survives for 50 years. No other
| bells and whistles. Just some connectors for them.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Is there a hardware hacking forum that would teach people how to
| modify _their_ rig to use the _good_ features of such devices
| regardless of manufacturer but intercept and modify telemetry
| data to feed them realistic looking but fake data until you press
| a distress button and them give real location? I ask because I do
| not trust the legal system to ever catch up to this globally or
| to have any real teeth that make companies feel real pain. I 've
| played whack-a-mole with spammers and malware distributors. This
| feels the same to me. Until it becomes trivial to disable such
| things I personally will stick with fixing up used vehicles that
| I know are free of loose lips.
| NeuNeurosis wrote:
| I think this is what you are looking for
| https://www.reddit.com/r/CarHacking/
| LinuxBender wrote:
| That's a great start. Thankyou!
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| Buried in the complaint is an interesting part about why he lost
| his original insurance carrier, they stopped writing policies in
| FL. The personal injury lawyers in Florida are out of control.
| There are also a ton of staged accident rings that nobody is
| doing anything about. I'm surprised any insurance carriers exist
| in that state anymore.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > he lost his original insurance carrier, they stopped writing
| policies in FL. The personal injury lawyers in Florida are out
| of control.
|
| I'm a little skeptical, this reminds me of past arguments of
| "blame malpractice lawsuits for exploding US medical costs,
| tort reform will fix it", which doesn't seem to have worked in
| the places where it was tried.
|
| AFAICT most of the reasons insurers are pulling out of Florida
| involves the math around catastrophes like hurricanes.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I wonder what they'd do if you contacted GM et al to report that
| you've sold your car to some made up person. Would they wait
| until they get official notice from your local government to
| change where the data is recorded?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-15 23:02 UTC)