3 ms·

If this had been in EU then the owner could have requested the information under GDPR, as the tracking data is private information connected to the person. Hon

by belorn 7y ago

If this had been in EU then the owner could have requested the information under GDPR, as the tracking data is private information connected to the person. Honda do not have a service where if you pay them they will track your car. Honda track car owners, and if you pay them will give you a copy of the data. It is very questionable if user data is owned by the company that do the tracking. How would it look if Facebook withhold evidence that a victim requested in regard to information they themselves uploaded? Personally I found find it rather poor behavior if they extorted the victim before returning the victims personal information. "Man got unknowingly data mined, company refuse to return private information to the victim of an ongoing crime." sounds like a story to me. The key part of the article is that company is now saying that they did not track the car. If Honda never had the information then the argument that "Man didn't pay for service, company did not provide said service" make more sense.

freehunter 7y ago
>If this had been in EU But it wasn't, so none of the rest matters.
- belorn 7y ago
  Is a GDPR request the same as "Amazon refused to give me an EC2 instance with 2GB of RAM because I only paid for 1GB"?
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Are they tracking these cars in the EU? On second thought don't bother answering that because again, this didn't happen in the EU so GDPR means absolutely nothing.
    - belorn 7y ago
      Okey lets not take about GDPR and simply talk about personal data gathered by companies. Is requesting a copy of that data the same as requesting a service without paying for it? And since we are not talking about GDPR, who owns the personal data gathered by a company. The company or the person. Is there any argument in favor of the person having a right to access that data without paying?
DanBC 7y ago
> If this had been in EU then the owner could have requested the information under GDPR, as the tracking data is private information connected to the person. That's an interesting interpretation of GDPR. The car is not under the control of the owner, and so the location data isn't the owner's data.
- belorn 7y ago
  Do you think a judge would be influenced by the distinction between tracking a person and tracking the property of a person? I am also a bit curious of how the contract between the company and the device owner would transfer to the thief. The common way for companies to enable tracking is by having the user agree to it, but the thief clearly did not. Do a thief in EU have a GDPR case against a company if the owner track the stolen device through a service like this one?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    If you're not driving the car it's not your personal data, is it? It can't be used to identify you or anything about you, and so your data rights do not apply.
    - belorn 7y ago
      I hear the argument, but I wonder if you think judge would see that distinction as a valid argument in a court. A big part of the legal system is to actually see similar thing as being similar, even if there are technical differences. Technically you can not track a person online. You can track an IP address, or a cookie, or an ID string in a database, but the server does not have eyes on the person behind the screen. Anyone can be behind the same IP address, people share accounts, browsers and devices. A operator can never be 100% sure if a data point identify you or anything about you. But I don't think a judge would see that technical distinction. European courts already see mobile device location data as private data. So I ask you. What do you think a judge say about location data on peoples cars. Personal data just like mobile phones, or not?
slowmovintarget 7y ago
GDPR would not have applied as the location data was not being collected in the first place. The entirety of the response to request for data would have been "We don't have that data." This was the response Honda provided even without the GDPR applying. The police could acquire a warrant to compel generation of the data, which Honda would comply with.

by belorn 7y ago

freehunter 7y ago

>If this had been in EU But it wasn't, so none of the rest matters.

belorn 7y ago
Is a GDPR request the same as "Amazon refused to give me an EC2 instance with 2GB of RAM because I only paid for 1GB"?
- freehunter 7y ago
  Are they tracking these cars in the EU? On second thought don't bother answering that because again, this didn't happen in the EU so GDPR means absolutely nothing.
  - belorn 7y ago
    Okey lets not take about GDPR and simply talk about personal data gathered by companies. Is requesting a copy of that data the same as requesting a service without paying for it? And since we are not talking about GDPR, who owns the personal data gathered by a company. The company or the person. Is there any argument in favor of the person having a right to access that data without paying?

DanBC 7y ago

> If this had been in EU then the owner could have requested the information under GDPR, as the tracking data is private information connected to the person. That's an interesting interpretation of GDPR. The car is not under the control of the owner, and so the location data isn't the owner's data.

belorn 7y ago
Do you think a judge would be influenced by the distinction between tracking a person and tracking the property of a person? I am also a bit curious of how the contract between the company and the device owner would transfer to the thief. The common way for companies to enable tracking is by having the user agree to it, but the thief clearly did not. Do a thief in EU have a GDPR case against a company if the owner track the stolen device through a service like this one?
- DanBC 7y ago
  If you're not driving the car it's not your personal data, is it? It can't be used to identify you or anything about you, and so your data rights do not apply.
  - belorn 7y ago
    I hear the argument, but I wonder if you think judge would see that distinction as a valid argument in a court. A big part of the legal system is to actually see similar thing as being similar, even if there are technical differences. Technically you can not track a person online. You can track an IP address, or a cookie, or an ID string in a database, but the server does not have eyes on the person behind the screen. Anyone can be behind the same IP address, people share accounts, browsers and devices. A operator can never be 100% sure if a data point identify you or anything about you. But I don't think a judge would see that technical distinction. European courts already see mobile device location data as private data. So I ask you. What do you think a judge say about location data on peoples cars. Personal data just like mobile phones, or not?

slowmovintarget 7y ago

GDPR would not have applied as the location data was not being collected in the first place. The entirety of the response to request for data would have been "We don't have that data." This was the response Honda provided even without the GDPR applying. The police could acquire a warrant to compel generation of the data, which Honda would comply with.