9 ms·

Why? Why not have that data go someplace it could do real good in informing better safety systems, better traffic management and so on. Privacy is a spectrum,

• danso 7y ago
  > I am getting kinda tired how people think data about them is "theirs". Huh? How is users wanting to control the personal data they create (e.g. telemetrics) an “extreme” movement?
  • bwb 7y ago
    Semantics :), the device created the data, they played a role but I don't see why that means they control it. If the data plays a role in improving services or life for everyone let the data serve its role. We still need strong regulations and gov agencies to enforce/protect, but I just don't see the point of claiming everything is your data blah blah.
    • danso 7y ago
      If the device is the primary contributor in terms of “creating the data”, then why are users needed? The users and their personal behavior and usage metrics are obviously the valuable part of the data — not the device that logs and measures the data. Also, (though I’m sure there’s “semantic” nuance in this too), the users are the ones who pay to possess and maintain the data-creating device.
      • bwb 7y ago
        It is a symbiotic relationship :) I do not think just because you are involved in creating data that means it is yours. When you give data to the census that isn't your data... when you click an ad and buy something that data isn't your data... I just don't get this notion that data is yours because you are involved in its creation. There is data about you that might be private or personal and should have protections, but the notion that data you have a role in creating is yours seems extreme.
        • inetknght 7y ago
          > It is a symbiotic relationship :) What you are saying is that users don't have a choice in the matter.
          • judge2020 7y ago
            The choice is "you can choose not to form that relationship [with that vehicle]" (choose not to drive, or purchase a "dumb" car that still has a backup camera and blind spot monitor)
            • inetknght 7y ago
              > or purchase a "dumb" car that still has a backup camera and blind spot monitor I think this choice will be removed within my lifetime.
        • danso 7y ago
          So the Census is enshrined in the Constitution, ostensibly because it would be impossible (pragmatically speaking) to facilitate a representative democracy without an accurate population count. I don’t think it’s productive to go off on a tangent about the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, unless you actually believe that corporations should be afforded the same role and mandate as the federal govt (in which case, hoo boy, I have no interest in following the rabbit hole of your thinking. “It’s a symbiotic relationship” Sorry, you’ll have to do a bit better than that. Many of us are old enough to have owned and driven vehicles quite well with no automated telemetry. The same can’t be said for account-based online social networks, which have always required user data to fundamentally function.
        • JohnFen 7y ago
          > the notion that data you have a role in creating is yours seems extreme. The notion that it's OK for me to be forced to send such data to others seems extreme to me.
          • bwb 7y ago
    • inetknght 7y ago
      > the device created the data, they played a role but I don't see why that means they control it The user owns the device. Full stop.
      • bwb 7y ago
        Owning a device is not owning the data. Full stop :)
        • inetknght 7y ago
          You are wrong.
          • bwb 7y ago
            Neither of us is wrong :), but neither of us is probably right. Your full stop refusal to see the other side is worrisome to me. There are other viewpoints out there, I'd appreciate if you try to understand them. I understand yours but if you react with stubborn hostility, I will mirror it :)
            • inetknght 7y ago
              I can see how you might think I'm not seeing other viewpoints. Instead, perhaps you should see that I am rejecting other viewpoints. And I can see how it would worry you: your comments worry me too. So let me re-frame our conversation. Let me re-root it to something that I will not budge on: If I buy a device then I own the data on it. If I own a device then I own the data collected by it. If I own data, then I have every right to refuse to allow that data to be accessed by anyone other than myself. If you want access to the data to be a precondition of my use of the device, then do not pretend you sold the device to me. At best you are providing a lease.
              • bwb 7y ago
                Yep, I understand what you are saying, what I am saying is that I do not agree with you :). I do not think buying a device means that the data it produces is solely yours to control/own. You are welcome to disagree with me :)
    • michaelt 7y ago
      the device created the data, they played a role but I don't see why that means they control it. If I take a photo with my Canon camera, Canon doesn't own the photo even though they manufactured the device.
      • bwb 7y ago
        Agreed. If the shutter fails to open to spec, would you want them to know about it and have data to improve it via a firmware update or next version of the product? Please read my post, and really read it :). I am not saying all data is theirs, I am saying it depends on the type of data and I don't want to see no data being shared.
        • yumraj 7y ago
          When an application, say a browser, crashes on my computer it asks whether I want to submit the crash log, and I decide whether or not I want to. I don't want the applications to continually send the data to the vendor. In your case, Canon will ask to look at your camera or ask for some log, you will give it to them by choice, they will look at it and find/fix the problem. There is no automatic implied approval just because I bought something from someone.
          • bwb 7y ago
            Yep I understand your POV, I don't always agree depending on the data being provided. I think in some cases a good case can be made you don't get that decision if it helps improve health outcomes or improves driving safty or so on. It is a hard line to draw, but I believe we can do it over the next 50 years as long as we don't draw a hard line that all data is mine.
        • JohnFen 7y ago
          > If the shutter fails to open to spec, would you want them to know about it and have data to improve it via a firmware update or next version of the product? Not without my explicit consent.
    • JohnFen 7y ago
      > I don't see why that means they control it. It's my device, therefore I have every right to control who it's going to talk to and what it's going to say. > If the data plays a role in improving services or life for everyone let the data serve its role. Then let the manufacturers make that case to me as part of getting my consent to collect the data.
• kurthr 7y ago
  On the one hand I agree about extreme privacy movement and I can see how travel in the public roads provides some reason to provide driving data to the public... or even the builder. On the other hand, if it's your car why don't you control it and the data it collects? Maybe if it was loaned, leased, or licensed I could see the seller retaining a right to data, but ownership has its privileges. In the extreme case, let's say your local used car dealer surveils his sales after the fact and at some point offers not to publish details for a monthly fee?
  • rootusrootus 7y ago
    Also, it is difficult to imagine what data would be useful to the public that isn't already collected in public. I don't have to access the data in your car to see if you are driving erratically, speeding, etc, this can all be observed easily enough from outside.
• mattmanser 7y ago
  Because I own the car and it is, in reality, extremely sensitive data that can reveal everything from your political beliefs to your sexual orientation.
  • bwb 7y ago
    Why is that sensitive data? I am going to be a tad provocative here and hope people can dig deep and think about this :) Facebook already has this, and most people are sharing this in the public sphere. I understand the worry and damage that can be done, but I feel like we are moving from a 1950s model of hide it all and pretend you a perfect, to more of a this is who I am and let me live my life as long as it doesn't hurt others or society.
    • SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      > It seems like that is just a response to society needing to be more accepting, aka us to be more accepting of who people really are. Well yes, but until that time, and even during that time, I don't want that revealed. I have a friend who's working somewhere that would probably be entirely welcoming of his orientation, but he keeps it secret because it's his choice and he still has fears about what would happen if it's revealed.
    • danso 7y ago
      I’m sorry, I usually expect these threads to turn into “but Orwell!” vs “but what do you have to hide?”, but this is the first time I can remember (at least on HN) in which a thread so quickly jumped to “but why should your sexual orientation not be for the public to know?” It’s great that you are in a situation where you believe you are able to publicize your sexual identity without detrimental consequences. But it is the height of arrogance to presume that everyone else must have the same life situation that you do.
      • bwb 7y ago
        Sigh, I don't assume that and I know it is not from many experiences. My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions. I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society, and we need strong regulations to protect both sides. This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN.
• yumraj 7y ago
  If data is generated by something I own then it is my data and I don't care if it affects someone's business model or whatever perceived future benefit they are promising. And trying to maintain status quo is not extreme privacy movement, it's common sense.
  • dominotw 7y ago
    https://www.tesla.com/about/legal https://www.tesla.com/about/legal there is section for "From or about your Tesla vehicle" Its a bit weird to agree to this when buying your vehicle and complain about it later. Its not like they are doing it behind your back like FB, they are telling you upfront what they are collecting. how can you possibly have a problem with that.
    • inetknght 7y ago
      > how can you possibly have a problem with that. Demonstrate that a person isn't required to agree to or sign privacy-waiving contracts in order to purchase (wholly own) a Tesla vehicle. Demonstrate that the privacy-waiving contract isn't implied to be required.
    • yumraj 7y ago
      1) Huh, what makes you believe I own Tesla - maybe that is not what you're implying but kinda confused by your wording. 2) Still, thanks for pointing that out. Now, I'm even less inclined to buy a Tesla. 3) Wonder what happens in private sale of used Tesla, since the second owner never agreed to such terms, or did they? (Depends on when these terms are presented to them). Could lead to a class action, just saying... 4) Are we now at a place that in addition to the vague financial terms people will have to also comb through T&Cs before buying a car. If so, that is not a good heathy trend.
      • taborj 7y ago
        3) Wonder what happens in private sale of used Tesla, since the second owner never agreed to such terms, or did they? (Depends on when these terms are presented to them). Could lead to a class action, just saying... This is my thought exactly, and not just for Tesla. The original purchaser agreed to the privacy policy, but if the original purchaser goes on to sell that vehicle in a private transaction, then the second purchaser did not agree to said privacy policy. Also, since private sales are just that - private - how does the manufacturer know who the data is now about?
• lmkg 7y ago
  Because car manufacturers tried to sell the data to advertisers, until they backed down because of the PR shitstorm (the article doesn't go into sufficient detail about this). If people are over-reacting towards privacy, that's understandable and well-deserved considering the over-reaches of data owners. I think we need better privacy regulation. And "better" doesn't necessarily mean more restrictive, although quit a few players will feel restricted. It makes sense to separate data for safety from data for advertising (e.g. GDPR provides a framework for this). "Public benefit" can be a nebulous grey area.
  • bwb 7y ago
    Well said, we need a strong government entity to actually police data and how it is used. And, like you said better privacy regulation to mark the difference.
• cheerlessbog 7y ago
  What if the data revealed your predilection for visiting strip clubs? Would you want to have control over that information? At least with Google maps you control when it is on - and there is a privacy policy of some sort.
  • bwb 7y ago
    #1 - On your specific example... what is wrong with visiting strip clubs? Is that not someone's prerogative and legally allowed by society? Why should we be ashamed of that? #2 - I am not saying "no privacy", I want smart privacy :). It is a spectrum, not a binary choice. If that data is combined together so that the city knows traffic on road 1 is high and they need to invest in infrastructure there that is great. Or if the data from that trip is used to improve car safety or automated driving systems on that road, great! Should that data be able to be pulled to let the place you work check the morality clause in your contract? Hell no.
    • sokoloff 7y ago
      Attending AA meetings, being treated for an STD or at a cancer center, and consistently leaving a bar at closing time are all perfectly legal, yet something people may wish to be able to exercise significant privacy over.
      • bwb 7y ago
        Agreed, but that also doesn't mean the data can't be used when stripped of identifiers to improve the product and society. I don't want cell phone companies selling my specific location, but I also don't want them to not get data from my phone to improve their services where there are drop outs or other issues.
        • danso 7y ago
          You started this thread from the position that the data-logging device (and its manufacturer) is ultimately the data’s owner. So please justify to the folks in the “extreme privacy movement” why you think the data-owning companies should have any obligation to follow your various preferences for how your data cannot be used.
• ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Hey, if the car manufacturer wants my data, fine. But they should have to buy it from me, not be allowed to build a system that gives them my data for free by default. What Tesla does in particular is extremely egregious: Even if you don't pay for Autopilot and hence can't use those sensors, Tesla still collects data using sensors you own on your car!
  • dominotw 7y ago
    > not be allowed to build a system that gives them my data for free by default. What do you mean by 'not allowed'. you have the option to not buy tsla if its such a concern to you. There are tons of ppl who are ok with giving out their data for free why shouldn't they be 'not allowed'. Weird agrument, I don't like it so noone else should either.
    • ghaff 7y ago
      And for those willing to share, it's perfectly reasonable for there to be an opt-in option.
      • dominotw 7y ago
        thats for tsla to decide how they do it. They are stating upfront what they are collecting.
    • inetknght 7y ago
      > What do you mean by 'not allowed'. you have the option to not buy tsla if its such a concern to you. This is a dangerous way of thinking. Transportation is a requirement for getting ahead in life. Signing away your rights to privacy should not ever be a requirement to obtain transportation.
      • dominotw 7y ago
        > Signing away your rights to privacy should not ever be a requirement to obtain transportation. Lets talk about this when this is actually a thing. Creating preemptive 'not allowed' laws would be throwing baby out of bathwater.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Why not have that data go someplace it could do real good in informing better safety systems, better traffic management and so on. Sure, why not? The issue isn't about the data going there (it's not going there anyway), it's about who can tell where the data can go. That's the definition of ownership. Data generated by my car should be owned by me, I should be able to give them to the public if I so choose. But more importantly, I want to be able to easily access this data. As others say, this is not extreme, it's common sense. Tangential: what irks me about data ownership discussions is that they tend to divide people into three classes: the government, the business, and the unwashed masses, i.e. consumers. I'm a member of the fourth group - technically sophisticated enough to do better job with the data than your average businesses, but not interested in building products - just DYI one-off solutions for myself. There's plenty of people in this class, but it's always pushed aside as a "small minority".
• salawat 7y ago
  Why??? Why should my data go someplace else so others can use it as the basis to build a case for further erosion of rights and perpetuation of economic business models biased in favor of centralization of control and decision making capability. You: >Privacy is a spectrum. I am getting kinda tired how people think data some widget I made to exfiltrates about other people is "theirs". Us: You wouldn't even be able to gather anything without me, and frankly, it's none of your damned business what I do. You want data collected? Go hire somebody to generate it for you. Expected epiphany: Now maybe I should have to design telemetry collecting/sending devices to require an explicit, physical opt-in, by shipping the devices with the telemetry data collection physically turned off, and a statement about your data gathering program, tangible immediate benefits to the customer for opting in, legally binding language defining a strict procedure for my company to acquire informed consent when sharing said data with third parties, plus contingency plans detailing the destruction of, or end of life treatment of data on the event of merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other major business event, with concessions exposing the company to sufficient punitive damages in case of breach of contract, and a manual containing a procedure for physically enabling the data collection. Epiphany instead achieved: but I am so tired of this extreme pricey movement. Works both ways chief. Industrialists/wannabe industrialists just prefer it when the sheep don't ask inconvenient questions like "hold up, how do you determine what you're eating for dinner?" or "We seem to be giving up quite a bit in return for what amounts to (thing that solves an already sufficiently solved physical problem, but now with computers, to exponentially increase the potential for new revenue extraction schemes through software and data collection), what are you putting on the line, or doing to ensure my privacy and confidentiality as a customer?". Stop not thinking about anything more than first order consequences, using dark design patterns to get what you want anyway because no one checks the defaults or license agreements, and actually make a good run of proving you actually want to be above board with customers instead of scoring another quick buck off your position as the manufacturer and maybe reactionary forces won't be as extreme. Not that hard, right? Just do the right thing.
• KirinDave 7y ago
  If this is such a net good then why does the entire system have to be concealed from users via layers of legal obfuscation? If it's all in the service of public good, then sure I'm in. But if it is, why is it carefully designed such that at any moment the collectors can productize it? And if I'm a contributor to the data why don't _I_ get any rights to the output? It's one thing to say, "I observed your public outputs and drew a conclusion and you have no business about that conclusion." I can get behind that, to some extent. But it's another entirely too weave the fabric of your data collection into every device I interact with and use it to monetize my life. It's an insult on top of injury to suggest that I'm not allowed to know about the collection you're using objects I own to execute upon. Why do you think so little of your own agency?
• ryandrake 7y ago
  I don’t think it is extreme to ask for consent. It sounds like you would be ok with your car collecting data about you and sending it to the car company. That’s totally fine. I would not be ok with this, and that should be totally fine too! It is a personal preference. Why is it such a big deal to simply ask for consent from the user? Real consent— not the “by using this product you agree” joke we usually get. Software asks the user all sorts of things when they onboard them. Why is asking for consent to collect data such a pain point for companies?
  • mixmastamyk 7y ago
    Because it would reduce profits and therefore executive bonuses.
• brokenmachine 7y ago
  > I am so tired of this extreme privacy movement You are insane, we have so much less privacy nowadays than at any time in history.