3 ms·
Agreed; the article covers regulation meant to foster competition but ignore regulation needed to cover user privacy "rights" over the data collected. Generall
by c_r_w 9y ago
Agreed; the article covers regulation meant to foster competition but ignore regulation needed to cover user privacy "rights" over the data collected.
Generally speaking, this article seems to gloss over the fact that this data is generated by actual human beings; examine for instance this section on ownership:
"And it adds to the confusion about who owns data (in the case of an autonomous car, it could be the carmaker, the supplier of the sensors, the passenger and, in time, if self-driving cars become self-owning ones, the vehicle itself)."
So the person from whence the data was generated doesn't own the data, despite owning the vehicle on which it was generated? Isn't that kind of crazy? edit: Ah I do see the passenger in there now, I'll leave this up because the point still stands that "the passenger" is a very passive way to describe the human being involved.
- Animats 9y agoIf you read the comments to the California DMV on self-driving regulations, you see this. There are parties [1] which want to track where the cars go, and object to DMV's privacy rules. But they also object to public disclosure of details of accidents and disconnects, and access to sensor data after a crash without manufacturer involvement. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/6558e3eb-8d38-427e-81ae-c5abd0b32ad6/GMGmCruise.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/6558e3eb-8d38-427e...