3 ms·

> The real impact will be the financial handicap that comes with an inability to harvest and then sell customer data to commercial partners. Handicaps are rela

> The real impact will be the financial handicap that comes with an inability to harvest and then sell customer data to commercial partners. Handicaps are relative. The carmakers just don’t get to make money a new way. There are many ways they don’t get to make more money. Not an actual problem to anyone.

gentleman11 5y ago
It’s like saying that other private property and privacy laws are all inflicting financial hardships on people who want to sneak into our houses and photograph our family members while they sleep.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> The carmakers just don’t get to make money a new way. Exactly! What ever happened to making money from... selling cars? Or, as is more common, from financing the sale of cars.
- quantified 5y ago
  They can always move into crypto. NFTs of your warranty and the like.
rory 5y ago
And importantly, none of their competitors can make money in this way (from MA customers). So car companies that don't aggressively sell customer data are no longer at a financial disadvantage. Seems like a great use of regulation to me.
danShumway 5y ago
Agreed. It's like saying, "this nutrition labeling law is handicapping us because we have no idea how much sugar we put in our foods." There's a difference between a regulation that hampers real innovation and a regulation that hampers people doing the thing the regulation is designed to prevent. The regulation is designed to force automobile manufacturers to only launch invasive features if there's a way for customers to service them. And they're complaining that the regulation... does that thing.
hchasestevens 5y ago
Alternatively: without this new source of revenue, auto manufacturers will be less able to compete on price and maintain the same margins. As a consumer, I don't get to decide whether I'd like a "repairable" car that doesn't harvest my data for $X, or am willing to settle for a data-harvesting, proprietary vehicle for $(X - Y) - the state has made that choice on my behalf and decided the latter should be illegal to sell to me (read: for me to purchase). That $Y probably ends up being small enough that it doesn't matter to the average high-paid HN reader, but consumer prices do matter to people at the margins. There's a reason ad-supported Kindles exist, even if I personally would never buy one.
- allenrb 5y ago
  Also, by prohibiting poor people from selling their own organs, it is more difficult for these folks to make ends meet in the short term. That doesn’t sound like good reasoning to me.
  - landemva 5y ago
    A few years ago the feminist mantra was 'my body my choice'. Are people free or not?
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > Are people free or not? Why on earth do you think the answer to that question is "yes" or "no"?
- maxwellb 5y ago
  r.e. the state deciding for you - this was a statewide ballot measure, and passed with ~75% of the vote.
  - quantified 5y ago
    Much closer to a “we the people” decision for voters than almost anything else.

gentleman11 5y ago

It’s like saying that other private property and privacy laws are all inflicting financial hardships on people who want to sneak into our houses and photograph our family members while they sleep.

vineyardmike 5y ago

> The carmakers just don’t get to make money a new way. Exactly! What ever happened to making money from... selling cars? Or, as is more common, from financing the sale of cars.

quantified 5y ago
They can always move into crypto. NFTs of your warranty and the like.

rory 5y ago

And importantly, none of their competitors can make money in this way (from MA customers). So car companies that don't aggressively sell customer data are no longer at a financial disadvantage. Seems like a great use of regulation to me.

danShumway 5y ago

Agreed. It's like saying, "this nutrition labeling law is handicapping us because we have no idea how much sugar we put in our foods." There's a difference between a regulation that hampers real innovation and a regulation that hampers people doing the thing the regulation is designed to prevent. The regulation is designed to force automobile manufacturers to only launch invasive features if there's a way for customers to service them. And they're complaining that the regulation... does that thing.

hchasestevens 5y ago

Alternatively: without this new source of revenue, auto manufacturers will be less able to compete on price and maintain the same margins. As a consumer, I don't get to decide whether I'd like a "repairable" car that doesn't harvest my data for $X, or am willing to settle for a data-harvesting, proprietary vehicle for $(X - Y) - the state has made that choice on my behalf and decided the latter should be illegal to sell to me (read: for me to purchase). That $Y probably ends up being small enough that it doesn't matter to the average high-paid HN reader, but consumer prices do matter to people at the margins. There's a reason ad-supported Kindles exist, even if I personally would never buy one.

allenrb 5y ago
Also, by prohibiting poor people from selling their own organs, it is more difficult for these folks to make ends meet in the short term. That doesn’t sound like good reasoning to me.
- landemva 5y ago
  A few years ago the feminist mantra was 'my body my choice'. Are people free or not?
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > Are people free or not? Why on earth do you think the answer to that question is "yes" or "no"?
maxwellb 5y ago
r.e. the state deciding for you - this was a statewide ballot measure, and passed with ~75% of the vote.
- quantified 5y ago
  Much closer to a “we the people” decision for voters than almost anything else.