7 ms·

> A now-inaccessible but archived page on the automaker-backed Coalition for Safe and Secure Data page said “It will allow these people to access very deta

> A now-inaccessible but archived page on the automaker-backed Coalition for Safe and Secure Data page said “It will allow these people to access very detailed information, including how, when and where a person drives. From this information, a third party, such as a sexual predator, could stalk and/or harm victims by exploiting insecure transmissions of vehicle information.” There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. Instead of spending millions of dollars campaigning against this quite sensible proposal, why not spend the money developing secure transmission of information? Or better yet, transmitting as little information as possible in the first place? Why do telematics companies need to know where you are? I'm aware that car insurance telematics companies provide location tracking for cases of vehicle theft (I had such a device in my car for my previous insurance provider), but that doesn't have to be actively-transmitting location data at all times; it could instead do so only after a secure request to the device from the telematics company after a theft is reported.

gwbas1c 6y ago
> There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. I've found that industries irrationally oppose reasonable legislation on principle. Do you remember cell phone number portability? (In the US?) Cell phone carriers vocally opposed it, and then the day it was passed they all put up signs saying you could keep your number if you switched today.
- smabie 6y ago
  why is it irrational? They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be. There comes a point where the public's best interest outweighs a corporation's best interest.
    - janpot 6y ago
      Would love to hear at which point you think that is? Like, in which cases do you feel a corporations best interest outweighs the publics? Do you have some examples?
      - akudha 6y ago
        Genuinely curious - how does one begin to answer such a broad question? The parent comment is reasonable. It is easy for carriers to let users keep their number. It isn’t going to eat into their profits, so why not do it? Especially when bank accounts, two factor authentication and a bunch of other stuff are tied to your phone number. Or are you of the opinion that profits matter over everything else?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
        janpot, I think you maybe reacting to a strawman. It's clearly never in the public's interest to favor ANYTHING over the public's interest. There are, however, many cases when it is in the public's global interest for a corporation's local interests to outweigh individuals' local interests. Most arguments people make in support of corporation's rights can be reduced to 1) identifying the anti-corporate interest as a local one, 2) identifying the public benefit created/maintained by supporting a corporation's rights, and 3) say 2)>1). An extreme example I expect you'd agree with to illustrate the structure: * Individuals shouldn't just be able to take corporations' property without compensation. Individuals' being able to obtain a TV just by taking it from Best Buy would undoubtedly be a benefit. However, it would mean no sane retailer would stay in business. Having a functioning retail economy is more important to me than getting a free TV. The equivalent argument here is: * Developing cars is hard, expensive work that benefits the public (improved safety, reduced emissions, etc.). If retail car prices were just a bit lower, many more people could afford them, allowing them to access jobs and escape poverty. One way to lower retail car prices is to allow manufacturers to sell telemetry data from cars. They'll still need to compete on price for customers, but since they'll have this new data revenue stream, they'll be able to lower consumer prices further while still covering their costs. If you care more about poverty than you do about data privacy, you should support letting manufacturers sell usage data. I happen not to buy that argument and voted Yes on this measure, but I hope it clarifies how conceptually, people can be for corporations on issues where giving corporations more or fewer rights is at issue.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    It's irrational because a) they have no real argument against the legislation, so making farcical arguments makes them look nefarious and is bad PR, and b) those arguments are unconvincing on the merits, so the only way you're going to convince anybody with them is in combination with some kind of underhanded shenanigans, but in that case you don't really need the argument, do you?
  - nend 6y ago
    >They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be. I'm struggling to understand why this should be the case. I understand this is how it works now, but this seems like a flaw, not a desirable aspect of life. Edit: To clarify, I meant I don't understand why it's a good thing we expect corporations to look out for their best interests while ignoring the best interests of society/individuals.
    - citizenkeen 6y ago
      If a number isn't portable, you're more locked in to their system. Sure, other people are locked out, but by their math, they're able to keep people from leaving, which may be more desirable.
      - nend 6y ago
        Apologies, I think my comment was unclear so I just edited it. What I meant was it's unclear to me why it's a good thing that corporations look out for their best interests instead of the best interests of society/customers/people. If an individual does it, their known for being selfish, egotistical, maybe even narcissistic. There's a natural push back from society to this behavior. Corporations should be disincentivized from doing this as well. Society would benefit as a whole. The fact that people expect selfishness out of corporations and see it as a good thing is concerning.
  - bashinator 6y ago
    Their best interests are not aligned with those of their customers, and from the perspective of people using their products, are irrational.
zenexer 6y ago
The ads and claims that “X will rape your children if this law passes” were so ridiculously over-the-top that it isn’t worth drawing any conclusions from the statements. It was a desperate attempt at instilling fear, and it didn’t work. It had no basis in reality, and the tactics were probably chosen by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the industry anyway.
- coleca 6y ago
  The worst part of the ads was the testimonial by a former state government official with her title below her name leading the viewers to believe that the state was endorsing these crazy statements that letting your local mechanic be able to work on your car is somehow enabling domestic assault. I'm glad the ads will be off the air now that the election is over.
bagacrap 6y ago
unless a thief finds and disables it first

gwbas1c 6y ago

> There's only one reasonable way to read this objection: our vehicles and/or information services are insecure, and we don't want you to be able to take advantage of it. I've found that industries irrationally oppose reasonable legislation on principle. Do you remember cell phone number portability? (In the US?) Cell phone carriers vocally opposed it, and then the day it was passed they all put up signs saying you could keep your number if you switched today.

smabie 6y ago
why is it irrational? They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be. There comes a point where the public's best interest outweighs a corporation's best interest.
  - janpot 6y ago
    Would love to hear at which point you think that is? Like, in which cases do you feel a corporations best interest outweighs the publics? Do you have some examples?
    - akudha 6y ago
      Genuinely curious - how does one begin to answer such a broad question? The parent comment is reasonable. It is easy for carriers to let users keep their number. It isn’t going to eat into their profits, so why not do it? Especially when bank accounts, two factor authentication and a bunch of other stuff are tied to your phone number. Or are you of the opinion that profits matter over everything else?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
      janpot, I think you maybe reacting to a strawman. It's clearly never in the public's interest to favor ANYTHING over the public's interest. There are, however, many cases when it is in the public's global interest for a corporation's local interests to outweigh individuals' local interests. Most arguments people make in support of corporation's rights can be reduced to 1) identifying the anti-corporate interest as a local one, 2) identifying the public benefit created/maintained by supporting a corporation's rights, and 3) say 2)>1). An extreme example I expect you'd agree with to illustrate the structure: * Individuals shouldn't just be able to take corporations' property without compensation. Individuals' being able to obtain a TV just by taking it from Best Buy would undoubtedly be a benefit. However, it would mean no sane retailer would stay in business. Having a functioning retail economy is more important to me than getting a free TV. The equivalent argument here is: * Developing cars is hard, expensive work that benefits the public (improved safety, reduced emissions, etc.). If retail car prices were just a bit lower, many more people could afford them, allowing them to access jobs and escape poverty. One way to lower retail car prices is to allow manufacturers to sell telemetry data from cars. They'll still need to compete on price for customers, but since they'll have this new data revenue stream, they'll be able to lower consumer prices further while still covering their costs. If you care more about poverty than you do about data privacy, you should support letting manufacturers sell usage data. I happen not to buy that argument and voted Yes on this measure, but I hope it clarifies how conceptually, people can be for corporations on issues where giving corporations more or fewer rights is at issue.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It's irrational because a) they have no real argument against the legislation, so making farcical arguments makes them look nefarious and is bad PR, and b) those arguments are unconvincing on the merits, so the only way you're going to convince anybody with them is in combination with some kind of underhanded shenanigans, but in that case you don't really need the argument, do you?
- nend 6y ago
  >They are looking out for their best interests, just as they should be. I'm struggling to understand why this should be the case. I understand this is how it works now, but this seems like a flaw, not a desirable aspect of life. Edit: To clarify, I meant I don't understand why it's a good thing we expect corporations to look out for their best interests while ignoring the best interests of society/individuals.
  - citizenkeen 6y ago
    If a number isn't portable, you're more locked in to their system. Sure, other people are locked out, but by their math, they're able to keep people from leaving, which may be more desirable.
    - nend 6y ago
      Apologies, I think my comment was unclear so I just edited it. What I meant was it's unclear to me why it's a good thing that corporations look out for their best interests instead of the best interests of society/customers/people. If an individual does it, their known for being selfish, egotistical, maybe even narcissistic. There's a natural push back from society to this behavior. Corporations should be disincentivized from doing this as well. Society would benefit as a whole. The fact that people expect selfishness out of corporations and see it as a good thing is concerning.
- bashinator 6y ago
  Their best interests are not aligned with those of their customers, and from the perspective of people using their products, are irrational.

zenexer 6y ago

The ads and claims that “X will rape your children if this law passes” were so ridiculously over-the-top that it isn’t worth drawing any conclusions from the statements. It was a desperate attempt at instilling fear, and it didn’t work. It had no basis in reality, and the tactics were probably chosen by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the industry anyway.

coleca 6y ago
The worst part of the ads was the testimonial by a former state government official with her title below her name leading the viewers to believe that the state was endorsing these crazy statements that letting your local mechanic be able to work on your car is somehow enabling domestic assault. I'm glad the ads will be off the air now that the election is over.

bagacrap 6y ago

unless a thief finds and disables it first