Hacker News Reader

Comment by quicklime | Hacker News Reader

> Here's something you might not realize. The moment you sit in the passenger seat of a Subaru that uses connected services, you've consented to allow them to use -- and maybe even sell -- your personal information. According to their privacy policy, that means things like your name, location, "Audio recordings of Vehicle Occupants", and inferences they can draw about things like your "characteristics, predispositions, behavior, or attitudes." Call us bonkers, but we don't think that simply sitting in the passenger seat of someone's Subaru should mean you consent to having any of your personal information use for, well, pretty much anything at all. Let alone potentially sold to data brokers or shared with third party marketers so they can target you with ads about who knows what based on the the inferences they draw about you because you sat in the back seat of a Subaru in the mountains of Colorado. We're gonna really call out Subaru for this, because they lay it out so clearly in their privacy policy, but please know, Subaru isn't the only car company doing this sort of icky thing.

Am I reading this correctly? I could be a passenger in my friend's Subaru, or even in an Uber, and they claim they have a right to my personal data? Surely this isn't legal, there's no way they could claim to have consent for this...

View on HN

"So, what's the worst that could happen with your happy little Subaru Outback? Well, it would really stink to go visit your Mom, go for a ride in her new Subaru with all it's fancy, connected features, have a private conversation with Mom about how you helped your friend drive from state that outlawed abortion to one that does, and then end up have that audio recorded, then shared with law enforcement because Subaru says in their privacy policy they can share or sell that personal information, including to "detect and prevent criminal activity." That is perhaps a far fetched scenario and we really hope Subaru would never do that...but still, it seems like it is something that could happen, based on their privacy policy.

What if they are forced by governmental order to hand over their data?

The question is, why are they collecting it in the first place?

Two and a half words: post-purchase monetization

I think the GP's question is more rhetorical, or, to put it as a non-rhetorical question:

"Why is it acceptable on any level for my car to become a spyware device on par with Facebook, when I paid an enormous sum to be its owner and controller for my own benefit, and not to become a residual profit stream for ${CAR_COMPANY}?".

Recurring revenue.

What's a dossier like that with on the market when it includes location, Bluetooth IDs of all occupants and private conversations? $5/mo? $10$?

I guess they collect simply everything and don't want to filter out.

But if data wasn't worth anything, they wouldn't bother, right?

Have you asked your ISP the same question

I think a car has a different position in "internet connectivity" than a ISP...

(not to excuse ISP data collection, but implying that a car is as critical for network access as an ISP is nonsense)

The ISP has technically no business knowing what you visited after they transfer the bits to you

I have been living under a rock the last ten years so I thought the EU still had the data retention directive. Between 2006-2014 all ISPs were required to logg traffic in the EU. I am so glad you are right!

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

Many potential forms of ISP data collection are unlawful in the US thanks to wiretap laws, which is why we don't generally see this level of surveillance from ISPs here.

Pretty sure this isn't true. What wiretapping laws do you have in mind? I think ISPs are exempt from most.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 Note the narrowness of (2) (a) and the broadness of (1)(a)/(1)(b).

2a is the exception I was thinking of.

Indeed, but I don't think you can "we spy on our users and sell the results" under 2(a).

Bingo.

Signal for example, is also subject to US law. They can be compelled to reveal everything they have in a person. Which they happily do: they hand over a page with the date of account creation and the day it last connected. Which is all they have.

Don't collect information, and you don't have a problem.

Because there's no law preventing it? Ideally there would be regulations making this illegal unless they get the user's consent at the time of purchase as well as allowing users to opt out at any point thereafter.

Money

You can't hand over data you don't have.

As someone who works in privacy I find it really funny and sad that all of the legal requirements to create and display privacy policies result only in this: conjecture about what a company might do based on its vague privacy policy language.

It's crazy, almost like people don't trust corporations to be reasonable when they have such vague abuses of the law to escape into. Maybe we shouldn't have to trust corporations not to spy on us in spaces that carry reasonable expectations of privacy. Maybe we should regulate their greedy data-grubbing into the ground so we don't even have to speculate, and so the miserable people who work at these corporations are stymied from even attempting it. What a splendid utopian ideal.

I work in privacy, too - mine.

I hope you’re just trolling, I’ll bite.

Privacy is not about what someone _might_ do with your data, it’s what they _can_ do with your data.

It’s also that they have your data, which means it can be exposed to staff or the world as the result of a breach.

Disagree on first statement. It's what they do with it that matters, not what the contract says.

On the second point, sure, but so we have knowledge of what, how, and for how long, the carmakers are storing?

Would you sign a paper saying I can come into your house unannounced if I suspect you stole something? If you do not steal you have nothing to worry about

> It's what they do with it that matters, not what the contract says.

What they do with the data changes based on leadership (should we sell to 3rd party data brokers to increase our revenue or not?)

It’s also out of their hands once a subpoena for that data comes from law enforcement.

With respect, I believe that both things are important.

It's important to know what they do with that data today.

It's also important to know what they could do with that data tomorrow.

I respectfully disagree with your initial point regarding "can" versus "what they do."

Even if a company provides assurances and pledges never to mishandle your data or use it for nefarious purposes, there remains a risk that your data could still end up in the wrong hands.

We’re not the ones making these policies far too broad and open ended.

But that's the point of the privacy policy. Why would you have a privacy policy that says you can do a thing if you have no intention of ever doing it. It's plausible that the lawyers were instructed to capture as much as possible with the intention of worrying about what was actually wanted later, but that's precisely the point. Later, they could decide to do anything covered by the policy and there's not only no recourse but no way of knowing what they are doing. That's why you have to take the privacy policy at face value.

Excuse my French, but audio recordings, holy shit. I thought we were still living in a society where recording audio of unsuspecting people in semi private spaces was at least a line that would not be crossed that casually. Apparently not.

I agree with you, but we also collectively bought devices with active mics, cameras and a constant internet connection while legal aspects of data privacy were (and still are) a bit of a Wild West, so I'm not sure what anyone expected. We as consumers and citizens need to stop assuming our governments and corporations will just do the right thing and not tread those ethically grey lines. When "consent" is defined by those doing the exploiting, only total abstinence from the decision is the safe option, but we all continued to buy smart phones.

Note, this is not a justification, but an attempt to understand how we got to now in hopes that by seeing where we've been, we can collectively make better decisions about where we are headed.

> legal aspects of data privacy were (and still are) a bit of a Wild West, so I’m not sure what anyone expected. […] we all continued to buy smart phones.

Widespread breach of privacy is not a valid excuse for companies to continue violating privacy and even collecting potentially illegal surveillance, right? Phone taps and home searches without a warrant have been illegal for decades, and the fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits government search without probable cause in general. So what I expect is that the existing and established laws and goals carry forward in obvious and reasonable and unsurprising ways from the consumer’s point of view, without vested interests trying to pretend like digital devices’ ability to communicate are somehow radically different from any other type of communication. The only thing that’s changed is that recording and sharing and searching got much, much faster and easier. People who stand to benefit from that are arguing that because it got easier, it should be allowed, but from the privacy perspective it’s the opposite: because it got easier it means we need to actually enforce privacy, and put a stop to the contorted arguments that try to justify data collection without explicit consent.

American law doesn’t generally prevent them from surveillance, so long as a shrinkwrap license provides consent and any token one-time fines are classifiable as necessary opex if they survive a decade of court appeals.

This is slowly changing, but with 50 member states and aging union leadership, there is no GDPR equivalent yet for citizens of the US.

(And, CCPA protections are only offered to citizens of California, which demonstrates the corporate incentives to keep it fractured and at the state level nicely.)

The most effective way to get this changed would be to identify the cars used by every US senator, and then write them letters pointing out that their cars have granted a sometimes-foreign corporation permission to record every conversation they have, keep a file on who they meet, and document their sexual activities. This is standard espionage tactics, and as awareness of it should be spread in Washington DC in particular.

You’re right, of course, but we shouldn’t really need a GDPR when we should already have an established reasonable expectation of privacy inside a car. Google search takes me to lawyers who agree, for what that’s worth… https://dworkenlaw.com/when-can-the-police-search-my-vehicle....

A person can give up their right to privacy to any officer of the law, and to a corporation just as easily.

US corporations now demand you give up all rights that the law permits you to give up, and they do so by shrinkwrap licenses that are “take it or leave it”, while denying the ability to deactivate a reasonable and small subset of functionality if the buyer disagrees.

This is typically where regulation steps in, and does so quite successfully in the EU but not the US, to say that consumers may not contractually give up their right to privacy without express, plainly-sought consent — so, not just shrinkwrap licenses — and that refusal or revocation of that consent shall not deny someone access to functionality that can be reasonably delivered without it. The US has its work cut out for it to catch up here.

Not directly related to the car situation, but the last time I bought a TV my first question was whether non-smart TVs exist. They do, but they're not worth the effort and my best option was to not connect the TV to the network.

It sounds like it's no longer even an option to buy a car that doesn't come with a bunch of uplinks to the car company, maybe to the insurance company airplane-black-box-style, etc.

If the tech exists, it will be abused.

Some IoT devices now are programmed to reach out to public or known (ISP) wifi networks and connect automatically without your knowledge or consent. This is what it looks like when your government is by and for corporations.

> We as consumers and citizens need to stop assuming our governments and corporations will just do the right thing and not tread those ethically grey lines.

We—as in most people on this forum—can do much more than that. We can actually refuse to work for these companies, and to build such features. We can implore our colleagues to do the same, and inform our family and friends of these features, and suggest alternatives.

Yet many of us don't think twice about working for an adtech company, because of the prestige, compensation, or some other personal benefit.

One giant reason that the Police of Zürich did not purchase Tesla's for their electric fleet was this. Although I assume the audis they have now also would be able to record passanger audio it can be removed.

I'm confused how all of this doesn't violate the GDRP in the EU? I'm not an expert, but at face value I'd assume none of this is allowed by the GDRP, unless they found a loophole or no one was aware of it.

Until we properly fund the data protection agencies not much can be investigated and thus enforced. Also enforcement starts mostly with ‘please don’t do that’…

Supposedly EU data is stored in a Netherlands DC but it may still violate the law.

For sure the Tesla recording while parked feature is illegal. I dont know why nothing is done about it. Probably just slow moving government. Especially now in Switzerland with the new privacy law. Private survalance of public grounds is illegal. Survalance of private property requires posting a clear sign of such including data retention, where data is stores and contact information.

Are dashcams illegal too? If not, how is it different?

Dashcams are illegal in many jurisdictions, yes.

Tesla dashcams are not illegal in the EU.

If dashcams are then so are Tesla's and bigger issue with Tesla is if any of this footage leaves the car. Especially if it goes outside the EU like autopilot disengagements.

This isn't something tne Tesla owner can sign in the ToS because the people in the footage are others. Tesla probably uses the excuse that you the operator are in violation not them but then again a Tesla owner has only limited control over this. I can legally buy a surveillance camera but it is my responsibility to use it legally.

> If dashcams are then so are Tesla's

But why do you think dashcams are illegal in the EU?

It's been ruled by multiple courts in the EU that dashcam recordings can be done legally because everyone is aware that they might be recorded in traffic at any time (e.g. by traffic cameras). That said, you have to comply with some restrictions. For example, you are probably not allowed to publish these recordings on Youtube. But they can definitely be used as legal evidence in court.

Secondly, I don't think Tesla's dashcam footage leaves the car in the EU (unless there is an accident, perhaps).

As far as I know, they don't even transmit or save any recording unless there is an accident or the user presses a button to save the footage into a USB drive inside the car.

In the accident scenario, it is quite clear that it's legal to keep this recording, because these can be used in court as legal evidence. As far as I know, there are many situations in which you are not allowed to film someone or something in the EU in general, but you are allowed to do so if you intend to use it as legal evidence, as that purpose trumps the other privacy concerns.

In the "user presses a button" scenario, it would be the user's responsibility to make sure that the recording is used legally. But again, if the user does not publish the recording and is only filming traffic, this is quite likely to be legal, especially if you only use it in reasonable scenarios (such as recording an accident in which you are not involved, or someone driving drunkenly).

It's not like anyone is going to be pressing the button every 10 minutes. And even if they were, it would be their responsibility to make sure it's legal to do so. It wouldn't be dashcams themselves that are illegal, but rather, what you do with them and the saved footage (if there's any).

Edit: I'm talking about the normal usage of the dashcams, not the Sentry mode functionality which has additional concerns (as you're not recording traffic, but rather people in the immediate surroundings of the car, when the car detects movement around it). As far as I know, courts have already decided that it's legal to have Sentry mode as well, but Tesla was required to warn users that they have to comply with data protection regulations when they use this functionality.

That said, I'm not sure what are the exact requirements for using Sentry mode legally.

There is one potential way it may be getting used which would probably be legal.

Years ago, before smart phones became ubiquitous, I worked for a company that had a contract to provide kiosks containing travel planning software to bus and rail stations. As part of this, one of the jobs I had to do was create a method of recording information from an onboard camera in the case of the kiosk being vandalised.

How it worked is I made a rolling cache of the last 30 seconds of video; this was never saved unless an onboard "shock sensor" was activated. If the shock sensor was activated then I would save the last 30 seconds of video plus another minute or so. This could then be used as evidence by the police to help catch the vandals.

I have no insight into how the Sentry Mode functionality works, but it could very easily use a similar sensor to car alarms to only actually save the recorded video if there is some sort of "impact" on the car.

> Are dashcams illegal too? If not, how is it different?

A state court in Landgericht ruled that everyone who is participating in traffic is aware of being seen and recorded [1], so apparently it's different from being near a parked Tesla in public in which you might be recorded without your knowledge.

There have been similar decisions by other courts, apparently.

However, the law is probably a bit tricky, in that it might be legal to use the recorded video as evidence in court (or perhaps insurance purposes?), but probably not for other purposes such as posting it on Youtube.

Last time I checked, in Spain (and probably other EU countries) similar reasoning applied for recording videos in public places, e.g. while you're walking on the street: I think you can record other people in public without their consent as part of your interactions with them, as long as you safeguard the recorded video and not publish it (and probably only for as long as it might be needed). You could use these recordings as evidence in court, but probably not for almost any other purpose.

You might, however, be prone to being punched in the face, as many people find that to be quite aggressive behavior. Police may even arrest you and confiscate your equipment as they're not all necessarily aware of all the intricacies of data protection laws.

[1] According to a reddit comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/d2uzkd/sentry_...

In Switzerland you can record crowds and in public but as soon as your footage focuses on a specific person you are violating their rights and require consent which can be revoked any time in the future.

If you watch news footage you will see street footage but as soon as a person is too close or start being the focus they will blur it out.

However there are exceptions, for example a large public gathering that is broadcast on television you can not expect privacy. For example the street parade.

I ended up in a CD album art booklet without my knowledge or consent but it was at the street parade at which you can't expect privacy if you are attending.

> In Switzerland you can record crowds and in public but as soon as your footage focuses on a specific person you are violating their rights and require consent which can be revoked any time in the future.

Probably I didn't make this very clear, but in the specific scenario I mentioned, it is legal to record a specific person without their consent but only if:

1. You are interacting with that person, and

2. You don't publish the recording (without the person's consent).

And I think there are other restrictions as well, although I don't remember exactly, e.g. you might be required to delete the recording if it's no longer needed and/or you might only be allowed to record it if you intend to use it as legal evidence and/or you might be required to take reasonable steps to protect the recording (i.e. not allow other people to access it). But again, I'm not sure about these latter restrictions.

Also, there is a distinction between recording someone (or some place) and just keeping the recording vs publishing the recording. The latter has more restrictions than the former, obviously.

Although I have no clue how live streaming fits into all of this, as you're not (necessarily) saving the recording? So I'm not sure how the GDPR laws come into the live streaming scenario, if at all.

It does, but in most cases how can you prove that the car record and send such information to the OEM and others? Most new cars offer some kind of audio interfaces, so they NORMALLY listen to you, some also have various "security features" to monitor driver attention that demand video. Can you prove in a closed source system that such information does not goes beyond the car itself?

When your car crashes and it calls for help do you really want to sit through "this call may be recorded for quality assurance" and other disclaimers?

If Mozilla really wanted to be helpful they could suggest legal terms to cover the manufacturer for features people want, such as crash reporting or locating stolen vehicles - except I suspect that Mozilla would feel obligated to issue a scathing review of Mozilla's suggested privacy policy were they to do so.

When your car crashes, do you really want it selling the livestream? Because it seems like the agreement would allow that.

If contrarians really wanted to be helpful, they'd not downplay risks inherent in the utter lack of basic privacy legislation in the US and pretend this is all fine and normal. But instead they shill for car manufacturers, pretend adtech is harmless and try to portray anyone who has a problem with these things as weirdos.

If it’s about expediting emergency calls then say so and limit the recording (declared and actual) to that situation. This ‘including, but not limited to’ wording that everyone uses is bs.

The point is that it's not so easy to narrowly construct a legal contract that covers the manufacturers from liability.

Don't you think Mozilla's message would be much stronger if their privacy guide had an example of what the legal agreement should look like? I didn't see anything like this, maybe I missed it. Clearly manufacturers have gone overboard in some cases, but I don't believe it's that easy to make you guys happy.

There are lawyers in the audience here, how about post some legal contract that protects manufacturers from a passenger pressing the OnStar button while the driver is in the gas station bathroom and being liable for anything resulting from that, and every other possible liability from OnStar. I'll take my -4 and your lack of constructive counterargument as the answer I know it is.

> Excuse my French, but audio recordings, holy shit.

People carry phones in their pockets equipped with mics and running operating systems that have secret source code. If you think the mic can never turn on without you knowing you are in for a big surprise.

To my knowledge though this has never been proven. Yes, the base band can in theory access this stuff, and the OS could do so stealthily I suppose -- but this is Subaru SAYING they are doing it every time you get in the car for no really good reason.

It's in a totally different class.

If the hardware and software allows it its not science fiction that it will be used in that way one day if its not already the case. And of course it works better if you dont tell people about it unlike Subaru

There is a difference that the intended use is to actively monitor you. Intent is very important!

The companies selling those phone swear they are not listening to everything you say.

Whether you believe them or not, it's a completely different situation from reserving the right to record everything and sell the recordings to whoever they want.

Thanks for posting this. At the dealer last year, I thought it strange when, after I refused the Starlink Security Plus subscription with fee, they offered it “for free”. Starlink Safety Plus is already included for the first three years.

Looking at the MySubaru app, it looks like I can cancel any subscription. There is also this opt-out setting to “Send Vehicle Location at Ignition-Off”:

  Vehicle Location

  If you choose to opt out of this service, MySubaru will not collect your vehicle location when you turn your ignition off. You will still be able to locate your vehicle by sending a remote command through the MySubaru app.

>Surely this isn't legal

It's worse than that. The way the law works is that you'll only have standing to sue if you're harmed in some way. But since your data is slurped into a big black box, and then passed around and used by 3rd parties, the connection back to the original ingress point is tenuous at best. Some of those 3rd parties, arguably the most harmful, will themselves be law enforcement, and in the US they have qualified immunity, section 720, and a vast array of a) excuses to snoop and b) immunity from consequence. So, it's worse than illegal because you'll never have standing to sue them and find out.

Of course, the solution is to not buy their products or, if you do, substantially modify them to remove all owner-hostile features after-market. Indeed, I predict a healthy secondary car (and phone!) market where trusted 3rd parties "sanitize" the product to protect the owner.

I read the whole thing, wondered how any of this could be possible, and then realized "oh, this is about that stupid expensive monthly service thing I don't use." Neither of my Subaru's is transmitting anything to anywhere. They're just GPS (and FM radio) receivers.

I mean, yes, the terms are insane, but I'd also never agree to a silly monthly subscription Internet/entertainment/whatever thing from a car company. I'd never even pay for Sirius.

> Neither of my Subaru's is transmitting anything to anywhere

How do you know that? There's a 5G modem.

I also assume that as long as the car is in range of a 5G tower, the NSA is able to remotely activate the mic and modem to capture recordings, regardless of a person's location in the world and regardless of whether they're paying for service.

Ditto (eventually) for several other spy agencies around the world.

Given Apple's and Google's emphasis on security, I'm doubtful the same is happening for phones... but with targeted use of zero-days (assuming the right ones exist) it's at least possible in theory.

> the NSA is able to

Or, you know, your telco provider, who then bundles and sells such data in aggregation to third party services. They've been caught doing it with location services over and over; it wouldn't take much for them to include audio recordings, as long as they have their terms & conditions sorted out

Telco provider uses data from their towers. They don't transmit information from your phone.

Where in the car? Unplug /sever the antennas.

Modern cars use digital protocols which are similar to networking protocols; many devices share the same wires.

I don't think this applies to 5g antennas...

The US has some of the weakest privacy laws on earth.

Your real time location data (and everything else) from phone apps is sold on a semi-open marketplace to bill collectors, marketers, spies and PI's.

Phone apps developed by well-known companies such as Google, Microsoft, Uber, banks, etc.? Or just the shadier apps whose developers most people haven't heard of outside of the app store like IoT junk?

Mixture of those, and also ISPs.

I want to know more about the "genetic information" collection. Is there a needle and an entire next-gen sequencer hiding under my seat, or will that be in the 2027 model?

There's a little arm that extends from the dash and scrapes a few skin cells off your neck, HHGTTG style.

Perhaps they wipe down the seats and feed it into a machine when doing "routine maintenance" at a dealership or licensed repair shop?

Or is it...this is in case they are asked to allow DNA collection from your car while being serviced without a warrant based on request from law enforcement.

I am assuming it doesn't go that far and is referring more towards eye/hair/skin color...maybe just a CYA in case they "accidentally" collect info that could be identifying on a level not allowed (discrimination/privacy laws?).

My guess is that they told a lawyer to write an agreement that allows them to collect absolutely anything with no limits whatsoever.

It's possible they're paving the way for abuse of future technology.

For example:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-pul...

> inferences they can draw about things like your "characteristics, predispositions, behavior, or attitudes."

Presumably this includes GPS data, so they know if you frequent Starbucks or McDonald's. And sell your data appropriately.

There's no statute prohibiting it, so it's legal until they lose in court.

What about states with all-party consent for recording conversations?

Sure, but that's dependent on jurisdiction. Maybe you have standing in federal court if you drive from a one-party-consent state to a two-party-consent state, making it a matter of interstate commerce. Or a federal court would just rule that it's governed by the law of the state in which you registered the vehicle. In the US there's no federal protection for this that I'm aware of.

GDPR, to the extent that this data collection also occurs with European vehicles

Are you sure there aren't local data privacy rules elsewhere that this also violates? GDPR itself basically just unified the existing privacy laws across ~EU member states.

I was thinking about the USA in my post, but if the GDPR protects against this then that's great. I've also seen mention that in e.g. Germany the standard EULA is basically illegal (or at least unenforceable) because you can't reasonably agree to it.

Well, unethical yes. But it’s not illegal. You are not being forced to buy a car, you are free to walk away from or stop using a product at any time for any reason.

How is this data tracking any different from what google, twitter, or Facebook use? If it’s legal for tech companies to collect user data, why would it be illegal for car companies?

>How is this data tracking any different from what google, twitter, or Facebook use?

To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?

Your access and use of the Services constitutes your agreement to be bound by these Terms, which establishes a contractual relationship between you and Uber. If you do not agree to these Terms, you may not access or use the Services.

The Services may be made available or accessed in connection with third party services and content (including advertising) that Uber does not control.

https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?country=hong-kong&la...

Yes: using Uber obviously involves a relationship between you and Uber, and you agree to that when you open the app.

What’s different here is that car manufacturers are claiming that, say, sitting in that Uber gives them the right to record your audio and sell it to advertisers. That’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws, and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent.

> hat’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws

you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU.

Moreover, the article is claiming that the manufacturer can "maybe even sell" the recordings but the official statement is that they are only collecting the data, not selling it (it would be stupid to claim otherwise).

The blog post specifically use the sentence and maybe even sell, because it is not stated anywhere.

> and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent.

meanwhile the advertisers already used your data, and there's nothing you could do about it.

Except not using Uber (that's why I never used one, even though cabs in my Country and especially in my city, are a big "mafia style" mob)

> you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU.

Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data?

> Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data?

No, I am saying that Uber can collect that data itself through the app.

I was replying to "To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?"

It is equivalent because to use Uber you have to accept their license agreement.

Nobody ever explicitly said "resell" because it would be stupid.

It's allegedly proposed by the blog post, but it's not officially stated anywhere.

BTW as written in the part of the Uber TOS I've quoted, they explicitly says that the service can be provided by third parties "outside of their control" and you accept their terms of services by accepting the service provided on the Uber platform.

So yeah, you could be accepting to have your conversation recorder by the driver (or by an autonomous vehicle which is considered a third party provider) or your orders being linked to your persona by the restaurant.

Third-Party Services and Content.

While many Third-Party Services are available in the Uber App, certain Third-Party Services or content are only accessible by exiting the Uber App (“Out-of-App Experiences”). Once you click on a link to access Out-of-App Experiences, you will be subject to the terms and conditions and privacy policy of that website, destination, or Out-of-App Experience provider, which are different from Uber’s

Don't use Uber, it's all I'm saying,

Yes, I’ve never used Uber. The point is that this is completely separate from whatever agreement you have with whoever’s car you board.

I'm not so sure. There are certain expectations about how things are used. There's no reasonable expectation that getting into someone else's car implies any consent that the manufacturer of the car can now harvest data about you at will. I reserve judgement on the legality of this until it's actually tested. In any case, it being legal is readily remediable if the law makers care enough.

In EU it's very illegal. You can't tie consent to use personal data which isn't absolutely necessary to provide the service. If it wasn't car companies (pet EU regulators industry) we would be talking about billions in fines already.

It is possible; maybe you are mistaking it for other legal basis such as legitimate interest. Or maybe I get this wrong?

But you are right that this is illegal, because just sitting in a car is not a “specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes”, which mandatory for consent (GDPR article 4(11)). Neither it is “transparent” (GDPR article 6(1)a).

Even if you can justify something with legitimate interest, which is a huge if, the data subject must be informed and have the option to object.

A car passenger isn’t party to the contract nor informed of its existence.

You can write anything you want, but no that doesn’t make it a valid contract.

FB has pictures of people who are not users of FB, as well as shadow profiles of such users.

Seems very similar to me.

If I'm not mistaken, this has never been definitely proven in court. We know they do it, but courts have never discussed that. Doesn't make it legal.

To be clear, I’m not claiming it’s legal (or agreeing with the guy who says it’s no big deal). Just pointing out it is fairly equivalent. More than I expected before I started thinking about the comparison.

To be equivalent FB would need to be taking the photos themselves and then selling the data. I really can’t think of a good online equivalent. Google street view would be close except they blur peoples faces.

didnt they only start blurring on maps after european courts told them so?

Shadow profiles are

- collected by FB

- without even the pretense of consent

- sold to the highest bidder

I’m a little more concerned about someone bugging my house than someone saving stuff sent to them.

I don’t think FB is arguing they have consent for shadow profiles. Where Subaru’s argument would presumably extend to secretly uploading and selling conversations that took place in a car they no longer own.

I can see some level of equivalency:

An unsuspecting person (Alice) ends up with a shadow FB profile because someone (Bob) who actually created an account (therefore having an opportunity to read terms of service) decided to take a photo of Alice and send it to Facebook.

An unsuspecting person (Alice) ends up with Subaru having an audio recording of what they said because someone (Bob) who actually bought the car (therefore having an opportunity to read terms of service) decided to invite Alice into the car.

In both cases, the company receiving Alice's information would likely say that Alice should take issue with Bob's behavior, not the company's behavior, if they don't like the situation.

Not really equivalent, as in a public space you have an expectation of being filmed (at least in the US.) Facebook isn't claiming anyone in those photos has agreed to anything, the law generally permits it unless the copyright ownership stands in the way. Your presence in any of those photos does not create an explicit grant to rights outside of the implicit grant created by the copyright holder that posts the photo.

The photos are not necessarily from public spaces.

I think the degree to which there’s an expectation of privacy is a bit of a distraction from the core issue: Facebook is not claiming that you have any sort of legal agreement with them simply by appearing in your friend’s photo. They’re still going to use it to construct shadow profiles, of course, but if it somehow came up in court they’d say it was your friend’s responsibility to secure rights. It’s not great but what these manufacturers are doing seems to be even worse than Facebook, which is somewhat impressive.

Picture are one thing. Using those pictures (shadow profiles etc) is very different.

Whether it’s legal or not is menaingless given the power imbalance.

Would that make it the owner who is liable for any illegality, then, if they didn't inform their passenger(s) about the recording to which they, the owner, agreed?

I've never been a fan of the "you're free to severely hinder your ability to operate in society because them's the breaks" schtick. Why not change the laws? Why not be better?

whoa whoa whoa, this wild talk of putting in effort for a better future is dangerous.

you might upset the status quo.

worse, you might succeed, proving all the naysayers to be both negative and wrong.

Sorry but you are getting this wrong.

1. Certain rights cannot be easily waived depending where you live — this requires "informed consent". Informed consent means you laid out what you are collecting and for which purposes clearly and in easy language — and that I consented to that.

2. Implying consent through action ala "by entering these doorsteps you have signed away your firstborn child" doesn't work.

3. At least under the GDPR not consenting shall not lead to a worse service.

If I enter the car of some guy and his cars manual (available only as pdf download) says on page 234 that he automatically consents to this by using the car, the manufacturer did neither gain his, nor my informed consent.

This is illegal under the GDPR — a law that doesn't only apply to cookie banners and the internet, but to any form of data collection.

(In the EU of course)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com