Car makers sold people's driving habits, location data for pennies, say US senators Two US senators have urged the FTC to probe and potentially prosecute three automakers that allegedly unlawfully sold motorists' personal data for pennies. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a letter [PDF] to the US regulator's boss Lina Khan on Friday after the pair conducted an investigation into General …
"I think the "general" solution is a law like GPDR or PIPEDA".
I dont know about PIPEDA but GDPR is useless and toothless, no matter how much the fictitional penalties are shown off to induce the illusion that any perpetrator would actually be paying anything or at least a really motivating relevant amount. GDPR even allows for "legitimate interest" and lets the data thieves define what they think is "legitimate".
Just install an android app and see the "manage your settings" screen. Most of the options - although they should be opt- in are automatically set to opt out.
There are no "deny all" buttons and theres lots of things you dont have a choice for. Apps that should work offline (considering their function) block everything until online or you "consent", the latter being definitely not GDPR compatible. But noone cares. The "Watchdogs" dont even reply to emails most of the time and i have still to see any perpetrator getting a really effective (behaviour correcting) fine.
Just make any kind of data selling illegal, with 6 months minimum jail time for anyone contributing to this.
While not called MOT, there are yearly inspections, mainly emissions. But it depends per county. Where I live, no inspections needed. 5 min drive east to the next zip code, mandatory inspections are needed. And even then a heap of exceptions.
Inspections are really not common, and very few states care about anything but emissions. Most states do no inspections at all, only 15 states have safety inspections now, down to 14 next year.
Wikipedia still shows my state having emissions inspections, it was only ever 6 counties, and as of two years ago it's zero.
Some states have them; in other states, they may be required by some counties or other jurisdictions. The nature of the inspection also varies widely. My impression from seeing UK MOTs on television is that they're more comprehensive than any US vehicle inspection I've had to submit to (in Massachusetts; I don't recall doing them anywhere else). Most places that do them seem to focus on emissions and air quality, as that's where the Federal pressure comes from.
Where I am in New Mexico, when registering a new vehicle, someone from the DMV walks out to verify the VIN. That's about it. In Michigan, they just took me at my word; you can register basically anything there. (You might get stopped if you put it on the road and it patently doesn't meet minimal requirements, but from what I observed, the bar is very low.)
Of course, around here it's also common to see vehicles without number plates, golf carts, riding mowers, farm equipment, etc on public roads. And because of multiple jurisdictions the rules can vary from one road to the next; cross onto pueblo territory, for example, and it's a whole different ballgame.
In NC, USA, a yearly inspection is required. It includes things like brakes, tires, and other safety systems, as well as emissions (including the "check engine" light, but not the "low tire pressure" light). I've heard inspectors tell some horror stories about the vehicles that are on the road; required yearly inspections likely both "encourage" folks to keep their cars in safe working order, and catch folks who don't.
Note: I have a vehicle with the "low tire pressure" light on all the time. It passes inspections because the tires are in good condition and are, in fact, properly inflated. The sensor batteries are dead, and I don't want to spend $500 to replace and reprogram them just so I don't have to check the tire pressure myself.
They all do it. Ford gives itself permission by telling you about sharing in the vehicle handbook with no explanation of who the third parties also share with, Nissan records you via its cameras etc.
I wouldn't be paranoid to suggest that The Man may also be interested in the data harvested especially as telemetry is routinely used as evidence in court. Years ago owning a motorcycle was a black mark in your government record these days they know if you drive naked while listening to christian metal and thanks to the IoT how often you get your buns toasted.
And as others have pointed out, it's largely context free, particularly with reference to external events: was that 100% brake from 25mph because a child ran out into the street? Did you have to avoid a vehicle cutting across three lanes of motorway? And are you braking late and turning hard on an empty dry road in the Highlands, or in Finchley in the snow?
This is not just data which should not be shared; it should not be collected at all - with the possible exception of an accident recording 'black box' accessible only by court order.
The actuaries might be a teensie bit smarter than that. A single 100% brake from 25mph once shouldn't move their assessment of risk significantly. On the other hand if someone's doing it every day it suggests they're consistently not paying sufficient attention. Personally I'd rather they were dissuaded from that *before* they get one wrong and hit a kid, rather than getting the book thrown at them when the black box is accessed afterwards.
The point you are making is in relation to the law, the point of the article is in relation to selling data for profit.
Data logging for Big Brother who only "thinks of the kids" is one thing and arguable both ways, surreptitious data logging and selling personal data so the boss can build another swimming pool in the Bahamas is a slightly different point.
Downvote because when there's no context, it is potentially penalising somebody for an imagined "risk".
I do exactly that, twice a day. Putting on the brakes fairly sharply in a 30kph zone. Why? A speed hump that was made weird and has quite a sharp incline so it's less of a hump and more like going up on the kerb. But you wouldn't see that, you'd see the braking behaviour and essentially make up a reason to fit, so no, this is exactly why this kind of information shouldn't be collected in the first place.
> Why is anybody surprised?
When we stop being or even merely acting surprised, they will know that they have beaten us into submission.
Just because it's SOP, does not make it acceptable. If it is not acceptable, surprise and discontent with the state is justified, nay expected.
Continue being surprised, continue being vocal about how this is not normal and should never become normal.
And here is the problem with signing away your data. You agree for the data to be passed to Verisk, which you unthinkingly assume is necessary for the service, if you read the fine print at all.
The kicker is that you have no agreement with Verisk on what they do with your data. But it is no longer *your* data to control. This is what really needs to change.
> *your* data to control.
Suspect there is going to be some legal debate around this, ie. What exactly is your data.
For example, I drive a car from A to B.
Who “owns” “the data” when:
1. I own the car outright
2. The is under a credit/loan purchase agreement (where the car isn’t legally your’s until a certain percentage has been paid)
3, The car is under a lease purchase agreement (where you don’t actually own the car, unless you pay the outstanding amount instead of taking a new agreement)
4. The car belongs to your employer
5. The car is a rental or courtesy car.
Not saying things can’t be clear cut, but expect there are many who can make reasonable arguments to have access to “your” data in the above use cases.
Several years ago, I designed an interface to vehicle CAN bus (through a FSM gateway so it was read only).
This was for a large waste management company. It would alert on harsh braking and acceleration (and send that data to a server) but I understand the company would give the drivers an opportunity to explain why.
The rationale for the company was to reduce maintenance costs (HGV servicing is an expensive proposition and brake replacement even more so).
Company vehicle so this type of monitoring, which had a reasonable goal, was legal as far as I know.
A couple of drivers covered up the alert light and speaker, which made no difference as the data went to the server anyway.
That's fine when its a company vehicle although employees should be made aware.
At our place a certain department has paranoid people in it for no reason, I mean they are paranoid for no reason. So when I turned on the monitoring of a phones location, I put a message out explain this was NOT for tracking them or their work (as that is illegal) its purely for if the phone is lost or stolen, they tell us so we can see if we can find it. Had to put that out because despite most being in their 40s its still like school. So they said to one driver knowing he'd believe them "There is new tracking in the vans, in the seats, so if you're not sat in the van the management get an alert". They were laughing about it because they knew this driver believed them. The supervisor had to assure him they were talking bollocks.
Don't mind a bit of joshing, but fucking hate bullying in the work place.
> The rationale for the company was to reduce maintenance costs
Don’t know if there is any connection, but a while back (just post COVID lockdowns) listening to mine operator interview. They were recruiting women drivers because they drove the “Tonka Toys” better than the men, specifically they incurred lower maintenance costs and achieved higher vehicle reliability…
A local HGV company (ie. Not a “name” or national operator) who are contracted by M&S are also female friendly, for similar reasons.
While I'm quite sure that a few women can drive better than most men, I'm also quite certain that it's definitely not true of any of the women I know. In general they are far more prone to harsh braking, unnecessary acceleration and reacting too late - very poor at considering the conditions well ahead.
I know a few men that drive like that too, but whilst there are always exceptions there's often a good deal of truth in stereotypes.
"personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
In other words, things you would be logically interested in knowing are things that car manufacturers and insurance companies load up with personal data exfiltration.
Let's not pussy-foot around the obvious here : some asshole thought this was acceptable. He thought that it was perfectly normal to saddle legitimate requests with data exfiltration.
That asshole is a sociopath, and every manager above him who signed off on this as well.
They should all be fired and sent to McDonalds for remedial education.
"Let's not pussy-foot around the obvious here : some asshole thought this was acceptable. He thought that it was perfectly normal to saddle legitimate requests with data exfiltration."
It *could* have been a woman. Now, *my* unconscious bias agrees with you that it was probably a male, but is my unconscious bias wrong?
"but is my unconscious bias wrong?"
In my, admittedly limited, experience it seems like female arseholes only get so far, maybe because female arseholery is different and more scattergun in approach. Plus I think there are certain expectations on women to dress, act, and behave in certain ways (yes, still...).
Male arseholery, when done right, is frequently promotion material and they seem to rise well above their rightful place. It also seems that more male arseholes are enormous narcissistic dipshits.
I knew a brilliant woman in uni whom I found offputting because she was completely amoral. She'd advertise baby formula to 3rd-world mothers without a twinge. Graduated in C.S. with a 4.0 GPA and went to work at Microsoft as a Program Manager.
I'm sure there are others like her out there, giving amoral, profit-boosting ideas to corporations.
Lord Helmet: Forget light speed, we are going to have to go to ludicrous speed!
Col. Sanddurz: Are you aware that may make our galactic fleet insurance premium go up?
Lord Helmet: What idiot pressed the accept button to allow this spaceship to collect data and share it with third parties?
Col. Sandurz: Helm, accelerate slowly to just below light speed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
