Car brands are collecting and sharing your data with third parties
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
Enter the mutation of the car into a "digital platform" and the expansion of the data heist in a market and product where - last I checked - no car was ever given for free.
Lets face it. User data collection and monetisation is not a necessity, has never been. Its an opportunistic choice and a moral attitude that exploited dysfunctional legal and regulatory systems and an ignorant and aloof public.
Maybe that regression is indeed a new "normal". The issue is that normalizing those business models in one domain invariably expands and leaks them in all domains.
If personal data exploitation is the new gold rush how can you argue that x, y, or z industries are not entitled to a serving?
Why should your bank, or your pharmacy or any random business you interact with via a digitised service or product not be able to monetise your behavior with third parties?
Moral decay and generational greed have opened a Pandora's box that will keep on giving.
But they can find solace in that -- given maybe 99% of us on HN work at companies that sell out our users' privacy to other companies -- at least they're in good (or not-so-good) company.
Personally, I'd be FAR FAR FAR more upset about my driving data being sent to insurance companies that I am about my voice recognition data being used to improve the voice recognition. But they seem to rank voice recognition training data and I suppose autopilot training data as the worst offenders.
I haven't bought a car in 15 years so have no idea if original owner get to see a consent form or nag screen but:
- the fact a car is yours doesn't mean the person driving it is consenting as a car can be lent.
- manufacturers aren't notified of cars sales in the second hand market so aren't supposed to know if the owner change. How would the new owner be notified of the data collection?
This doesn't even only applies to cars sold in the EU as the GPDR applies to any good or service sold to an EU citizen, regardless of where is he living.
We might see some multi millions euros lawsuit in the future.
Or does this break other things, like the built-in GPS and similar?
There's a YouTube video that details the process for my exact model. Unfortunately, it's a fair bit of work.
And it has to work with iMessage destinations that are not a phone number. I am unaware of any built-in infotainment system that can handle that. Tesla certainly cannot, as one data point.
Trying to get voice control to work reliably over bluetooth has never been anything but a laggy mess for me. A well implemented CarPlay implementation (even GM...) is way better.
In my case I had to open the radio and physically remove the cellular modem. Which was thankfully on its own removable module.
On others you may need to physically remove the modem if the fuse is going to more components.
Not sure about GPS but yes, some cars lose features when you do this. Can’t believe automakers dropped remote start from the fob just to push people to pay for a monthly subscription.
So, if I was in the market for a car, I'd have to choose those brands. But if they also start collecting this type of data, it'll have to be used cars without those anti features.
Edit: I see you specified EU. Nevermind.
Yes. Not even „consider”.
> MG is a British-origin brand, but it is now owned by the Chinese automotive giant SAIC Motor Corporation. While the design and engineering retain a strong British influence, most manufacturing now occurs in China, blending British heritage and Chinese innovation.
https://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/who-makes-mg-cars#....
Good luck finding an authorised mechanic who can work without OBD-II or other computerized diagnostics.
(Inspections? Sure. But inspections are by no means universally required.)
For example: Ohio is broadly this way, with the exception of some counties near Cleveland that require emissions testing for vehicles that are between 4 and 25 years old.
To extend that example: For most of Ohio, anyone can hire anyone else to work on their their cars (or DIY) without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification."
Or "geniune parts" or "insurance" or "liability" or "loss of use" or "damages" or "employment-related injuries". Just sign this waiver; payment in cash only, up front...
I just take my car to the [both "unauthorized" and "uncertified"] shop when that is necessary. My mechanic looks at it and either generates an estimate while I wait or he calls me later -- depending on how busy they are.
I then either agree to have him do the work, or I don't.
If I do, then: He gets it done, and then I pay the bill, and then I drive my car home.
It's a very straight-forward kind of transaction.
Congratulations to y'all from Bizarro-World.
OBD-II, electronic port fuel injection, decent crash structures and side airbags, often better suspension design, no DI carbon fouling, decent mileage. Cheap parts and nearly no remaining depreciation.
I feel a lot safter (and you are) in a 2024 vehicle VS a 1980s vehicle.
Always on headlights, side airbags, better impact ratings and engineering, etc.
You don’t have to go back that far for less tech or tracking.
It appears that legislation is the only way to restrain nefarious parties from inflicting the data collection upon us.
The legislation has to codify the definition of the primary function of a consumable object (a car, a smart TV, a smart whatever), and any technology that does not directly assist the consumable object to fulfil its primary function, should be a strict and legally enforceable opt-in (or, better, banned) with the object manufacturer being legally held accountable for a failure to disclose the dodgy data collection or similar functions. Hefty fines, then more fines for failing to comply.
It is a windy road and a uphill journey ahead of us, and it will not be easy to counteract the misdeeds of the middle level management.