Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickdale | Hacker News Reader

I just bought a ford taurus. It immediately connects my cell phone to my car and I sorta get the feeling like the cops that sit on the eway have access to the computer in my car and also the cell phone connected to that computer. But hey thats just my paranoia.

On another note, it was very clear checking off do not track in the vehicle. The only reason they say they want to track is for data like the exec gives the example for, traffic analysis etc. not like daily tracking. But it is creepy and really I dont know if all the benefits balance out the potential drawbacks.

There is also this notification in the myfordsync system that is "911 Assist".. now this is a fine option, but literally the car will remind you everytime you start it that it is off and unless you select otherwise, it won't just alert you, but will give you the option to turn it on.

View on HN

>On another note, it was very clear checking off do not track in the vehicle.

I cannot see it remaining this way. It is just a matter of time before the OEMs buckle and sell your data to an enterprising third party in exchange for the ability to lower costs. The auto supply chain is notorious for being a bloodbath of cost-cutting. It's a perfect cultural fit.

Not saying that you won't retain the option to turn off tracking as these systems become more widespread, but it's just an illegible TOS away from being opt-in by default with a buried opt-out.

> It is just a matter of time before the OEMs buckle and sell your data to an enterprising third party in exchange for the ability to lower costs.

Is anyone else getting sick of this trend? Especially with stuff that you pay full-price for. I can understand why gmail / facebook / etc do it - but for other traditional models to jump in on it seems like they're all too eager to destroy any traditional transactions.

I agree, but I also understand why it happens. For a lot of people the only thing better then paying what something is worth is paying nothing for something of worth. That you paid a value for a product doesn't mean you don't want to pay less money for that purchase.

Everybody complains about airlines cutting legroom, but no one seems willing to stop buying the airline ticket that comes to the top when you click 'sort by price, lowest to highest.

People say they value things--privacy, comfort, freedom, health, etc.--one way, then they act in a way that shows they value money more. It's enough to make you stop believing what people tell you and instead just looking at what they do.

Or maybe I'm just old and cynical.

It's possible you're just cynical... I think many people would do more than simply complain. If the travel aggregators listed legroom as a descriptor, you can absolutely bet I would be comparing it along with price, durations, and stops.

If my auto manufacturer made it clear that there was a hidden GPS in my car constantly reporting my position (hilarious that, for a GPS that I can see, I have to pay a ridiculous extra amount for the "option") I would definitely ask them how to turn it off.

You supposedly value legroom, but you're not willing to spend the two minutes it takes to do the research yourself? I don't think you actually value legroom.

In case you just thought it was much harder to discover than it actually is, check out seatguru.com.

You might be able to research leg-room when you buy a ticket, but there is no way to guarantee you get the same plane or same seating configuration when you show up at the airport.

Over New Years my wife and I flew United from IAD to SFO. Checked in the night before the flight and was assigned row 38 seats E and F. Got to the airport the next morning and our seats were separate because the plane that actually showed up to fly us only had 37 rows.

If an airline can't even assign the correct seats the night before a flight there is no way they can do that months in advance when you are buying the ticket.

There's no guarantee, but the odds are very good just the same. Based on my experience, you have probably a 95% chance of getting the airplane they say you'll get.

And of course you can enhance this by explicitly paying for more room. Lots of airlines these days are offering coach-class seating with more room. United has Economy Plus, and most other airlines let you pay a small premium for exit row seating, bulkhead seating, or similar.

If you don't want to pay extra and you don't want to do the research that gives you a good chance of getting what you want, well, that's absolutely fine, but I'm not going to believe that you care at all about legroom if you do.

Thanks for the tip. Seatguru looks awesome. Mike Ash improves both my Objective-C code and my traveling experience!

Well, I never fly Ryanair if a similar Easyjet flight is available, even if it's more expensive. There are limits.

If only airlines were rated by comfort, I'd be willing to understand why I ought to pay $100 more per seat to fly airline B rather than A.

>Is anyone else getting sick of this trend? Especially with stuff that you pay full-price for. I can understand why gmail / facebook / etc do it -

With connected devices, the line in the sand is fading extremely quickly.

Your car is a platform and a place where you are a captive audience for advertisers. Your movements and habits are valuable to any entity that can sell you something or has a financial stake in your behavior (auto insurance company).

This New Years Eve I watched a montage of the ball dropping in New York City's Time Square, from 1976 to the present. Time Square, from the beginning was a place defined by commerce, advertising, and media, yet it was quaint in a way. The buildings were slathered in neon; billboards were brightly lit. You could see the progression even from there though. When the montage ended in 2013 the TV screen was covered with media and even the crowds themselves where plastered with blue foam Nivea top hats and branded clothing, carefully doled out to those located in "in-camera" zones. Wherever we are, wherever we look, whatever we hear, they want to get closer and they must. As long as money incents this, they always must.

Not saying it's good or bad, it just is. If we don't like being products so much (in the aggregate), then we have to decide this together and craft protections into law. If we don't care so much, then we know where this is going.

I agree, but I also understand why it happens. For a lot of people the only thing better then money is more money. That you paid a value for a product doesn't mean they don't want to make more money from that sale.

My insurance company offered me a swell discount for a little GPS box that would verify I was driving safely, and also allow anyone to track my movements.

I would be unsurprised if the insurance companies gave a discount for the use of these devices in cars, especially if built in--and you can probably bet your ass that the contracts for these policies will include "we can do whatever we want with the data, share with whomever, etc."

Needless to say, I bike everywhere now.

Someone will write a guide to disabling it within a day.

And law enforcement will use your having disabled it to justify a presumption of guilt.

Like how when you refuse to speak to the police and ask for a lawyer, they cancel your trial and put you right in a cell.

(I'm sure someone can list lots of abuses of this process; the point is that they are still looked at as abuses)

And .00001% of car buyers will learn of this guide. An even smaller number of them will actually use it.

Well, at least the breaking of DRM will go a bit more mainstream.

Relax. You don't have to stress yourself out about these things, since you soon won't have much of a choice anyway.

The day will come when you can't get car insurance without active tracking. It is just too tempting for insurance companies to reduce their claim investigation overhead/cost with that technology.

Of course, strong privacy protection laws could keep this from happening.

Yeah.

Well, once autonomously driving vehicles come along, they'll obey the law without many exceptions.

Which will drastically cut into many municipalities revenue. How will they replace that revenue?

Ideally, they would just cut back their operations... probably they'll just raise taxes or start charging more user fees for other things.

Fire traffic cops.

Why would they refuse to take more money from people that are unwilling to use the trackers?

I can see a far future where the only people who want to refuse the trackers are reckless or awful drivers, but I can't imagine an insurance company refusing to write a contract with a driver that has a reasonable history.

That!

> On another note, it was very clear checking off do not track in the vehicle.

That checkbox doesn't, and can't, mean anything. You don't get to opt out of law enforcement requesting a second-by-second stream of your location data, and neither does Ford.

I feel this is obligatory:

https://www.aclu.org/meet-jack-or-what-government-could-do-a...

Also, if you think them knowing your location like this is scary, wait until we have self-driving cars, that will have built-in kill switches in them or some kind of remote control, you know, for "updates". Getting rid of people (journalists especially - Michael Hastings anyone?) in "accidents" will never be easier.

> On another note, it was very clear checking off do not track in the vehicle. The only reason they say they want to track is for data like the exec gives the example for, traffic analysis etc. not like daily tracking.

That reminds me of how phone calls to most companies are recorded nowadays.

"This call may be recorded for quality control purposes."

No one thinks twice about that but, while the "official" reason for recording it might be "for quality control purposes", that doesn't mean they can't or won't use it for any purpose they want.

Those calls are being recorded to cover their ass in case of disagreement or dispute.

> Those calls are being recorded to cover their ass in case of disagreement or dispute.

Actually, it usually means that an algorithm is listening in the conversation (see for ex. http://www.callminer.com/products/eurekalive/ ), and learning from your voice tone, use of words, grammar choice, etc ... to know what kind of personality you have and put you through the right agent or give them clues on how to most quickly and efficiently help you (or get rid of you)

Why would the police bother with your car's GPS when your cell phone firehoses location data and oh so much more?

Because I can easily turn off my cell phone when I don't want to be tracked (e.g., if I'm on my way to rob a bank), but my car's GPS may be impossible to disable.

Developed capacity equals intent, as they say in our government.

You can turn the Assist notification off under Settings somewhere (under Phone, maybe?), for what it's worth.

That option will turn off the ability to turn on 911 assist upon starting the car. I haven't been able to turn off the pop-up notification that comes up for a second that says "911 Assist Off".. as soon as I hit reverse the backup cam takes over the screen and I don't see it again, but clearly someone wants you using it.

I think they're just covering their asses with that warning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com