4 ms·

I'm pleased that they at least required either a transaction or a warrant. How would they verify that police and the owner are legitimately making the request?

protomyth 7y ago
Yeah, I can see the estranged, violent stalker using this feature to find the location of a victim. So, if your car has the potential of manufacturer tracking, you really need to make sure that any estranged partners cannot activate the feature. I wonder if shelters have some list of cars that can be tracked?
beerandt 7y ago
I agree. And am glad they're not handing over personal info without a warrant. That said, it's easy enough to look up a police departments phone number and call back, should one want to verify they're actually taking to the police. It's not a problem of verifying identity.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > it's easy enough to look up a police departments phone number and call back, should one want to verify they're actually taking to the police This requires staff, training and monitoring to prevent abuse. When done, it introduces liability. It's reasonable to ask to be compensated for all that.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Complying with police and/or court orders is a cost of doing business. If your business subjects you to that beyond a trivial amount, the cost needs to be otherwise built-in to your business plan. Especially if you're a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. They can't exactly claim ignorance like a start-up might.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > Complying with police and/or court orders is a cost of doing business If the police present a warrant, yes. Everything else is customer service.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        Option 1: comply with LE+owner's request; they have a chance to recover vehicle; costs are low and bad PR is avoided. Option 2: don't comply with LE+owner's request; deal with later warrant at higher cost (now you have compliance & legal involved); vehicle is not recovered, bad PR is obtained, and everyone loses.
        JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > Option 1: comply with LE+owner's request; they have a chance to recover vehicle; costs are low and bad PR is avoided Consequence 1b: you released tracking information to a stalker. They fooled your rep into thinking police were involved. Not only do you have a PR nightmare, you've also opened yourself up to legal liability. I'm not arguing this is the right balance. Finding that balance depends on branding, legal and financial factors. But it's not an unreasonable position.
        mlyle 7y ago
        > They fooled your rep into thinking police were involved. This is why you have policy for appropriate response and organizational escalation in place if necessary. Not hard to contact the department in question via another directory and verify the request.
    - yabadabadoes 7y ago
      Not giving data to police without a warrant who have a story about the owner is competence. There are a significant number of frauds committed by police (using official resources to stalk, bully, or sell information) and they are caught and prosecuted only when people don't help them bypass things the system can reasonably audit.

protomyth 7y ago

Yeah, I can see the estranged, violent stalker using this feature to find the location of a victim. So, if your car has the potential of manufacturer tracking, you really need to make sure that any estranged partners cannot activate the feature. I wonder if shelters have some list of cars that can be tracked?

beerandt 7y ago

I agree. And am glad they're not handing over personal info without a warrant. That said, it's easy enough to look up a police departments phone number and call back, should one want to verify they're actually taking to the police. It's not a problem of verifying identity.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> it's easy enough to look up a police departments phone number and call back, should one want to verify they're actually taking to the police This requires staff, training and monitoring to prevent abuse. When done, it introduces liability. It's reasonable to ask to be compensated for all that.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Complying with police and/or court orders is a cost of doing business. If your business subjects you to that beyond a trivial amount, the cost needs to be otherwise built-in to your business plan. Especially if you're a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. They can't exactly claim ignorance like a start-up might.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > Complying with police and/or court orders is a cost of doing business If the police present a warrant, yes. Everything else is customer service.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      Option 1: comply with LE+owner's request; they have a chance to recover vehicle; costs are low and bad PR is avoided. Option 2: don't comply with LE+owner's request; deal with later warrant at higher cost (now you have compliance & legal involved); vehicle is not recovered, bad PR is obtained, and everyone loses.
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > Option 1: comply with LE+owner's request; they have a chance to recover vehicle; costs are low and bad PR is avoided Consequence 1b: you released tracking information to a stalker. They fooled your rep into thinking police were involved. Not only do you have a PR nightmare, you've also opened yourself up to legal liability. I'm not arguing this is the right balance. Finding that balance depends on branding, legal and financial factors. But it's not an unreasonable position.
        mlyle 7y ago
        > They fooled your rep into thinking police were involved. This is why you have policy for appropriate response and organizational escalation in place if necessary. Not hard to contact the department in question via another directory and verify the request.
  - yabadabadoes 7y ago
    Not giving data to police without a warrant who have a story about the owner is competence. There are a significant number of frauds committed by police (using official resources to stalk, bully, or sell information) and they are caught and prosecuted only when people don't help them bypass things the system can reasonably audit.