4 ms·

> But to then say they should have refrained from publishing the article is exaggerated. The article as-written provides almost no useful information apart fro

> But to then say they should have refrained from publishing the article is exaggerated. The article as-written provides almost no useful information apart from an anecdote about one person finding a GPS tracking device in their car and contacting the EFF. > Given how many people have been surprised to find this specific GPS tracker in their cars (as mentioned above) it’s possible that many car dealerships are installing these devices without proper customer notification. One person is mentioned in the article. If the EFF knows how widespread the installation of this tracking device is, why isn't this discussed? How many car dealerships did the EFF contact to find out if they install such devices? All the useful questions at the bottom of the article are unanswered: > Is the sky-link GPS device still sending location data back to a Sky Link server? If so, could it be accessed by an employee, or someone who activates the device in the future? Writing an article about a single individual who was not targeted: FUD Writing an article about how many cars these devices are installed in, what data they transmit, who the provider(s) sell your location data to: useful for privacy and policy discussions

teknopaul 5y ago
They don't know "how many cars these devices are installed in" They did investigate "a single individual who was not targeted" You can't write an article about something you haven't done. They explain why they did it in the article. FUD is fear uncertainty and doubt, they did the exact opposite. Dispelled the FUD with an investigation. And then published it.
- kogepathic 5y ago
  > FUD is fear uncertainty and doubt, they did the exact opposite. Dispelled the FUD with an investigation. And then published it. Please point out the original FUD the EFF is refuting in this article. Their title is sensationalist, a more accurate title would be, IMO, "a car dealership installed a third-party GPS tracking device in a vehicle" but anything more is a stretch because they have n=1 here. But you can see my proposed title is certainly less interesting than their portrayal. > You can't write an article about something you haven't done. Yes, and my point is that they are the EFF, not hackaday. The article does not inform the reader of how common GPS trackers are in vehicles, or what privacy implications they have, because the EFF just took the lack of a response from the sole vendor they contacted and went ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I would expect an organization that's supposed to advocate for privacy issues and carries clout to have covered at least some of the privacy concerns in more depth. FFS, they couldn't even establish if the device is still (or ever was) transmitting the car's location. Geolocating cars is not new or novel, OnStar (GM) has had this capability for ~20 years now. [1] If the EFF wants to raise awareness about the privacy issues of vehicle location technology, they could have easily picked a more common case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar
  - teknopaul 5y ago
    I interpreted it as the author and car owner had fear uncertainty and doubt, about what the tracker was for. As we probably all did when clicking the title. And they dispelled it. The case they investigated was one that came to them, from one of their own, they explain that. Research costs time and money. I don't think you should _expect_ that donors money is spent, when after investigating this isolated case, nothing too nefarious was found. As you say, geolocating vehicles is not new or novel. It's a good write up of the work that was done, and the thought process, engaging and short, and as I mentioned above, you don't always want a spoiler in the title.
    - kogepathic 5y ago
      > I interpreted it as the author and car owner had fear uncertainty and doubt, about what the tracker was for. Something between two private individuals, which was resolved through the subsequent investigation. No need to write an article about this. > As we probably all did when clicking the title. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear. [1] > you don't always want a spoiler in the title. The GPS tracker is not mysterious (they identified the source and likely purpose), and the individual's support for the EFF did not contribute to the presence of the GPS tracker in their car. Could you clarify how the title accurately reflects the situation in light of this? > Research costs time and money. Indeed, and FUD is free. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
      - FFRefresh 5y ago
        > No need to write an article about this. To clarify your underlying principles here: Are you broadly suggesting there should be rules for what type of articles can be written on the internet (presumably that align with your values)? Are you suggesting that EFF should not have written this article (because of the $/time cost?)? And that it's okay if someone else wrote the article? Are you suggesting that EFF should not have done the investigation in the first place, because of the $/time cost? As an EFF supporter myself, I enjoyed the article. I liked the walkthrough of the investigation, and all the steps they used to deduce the source of the tracker. It was interesting on its face, and also educates on a methodology for making deductions for other things.

teknopaul 5y ago

They don't know "how many cars these devices are installed in" They did investigate "a single individual who was not targeted" You can't write an article about something you haven't done. They explain why they did it in the article. FUD is fear uncertainty and doubt, they did the exact opposite. Dispelled the FUD with an investigation. And then published it.

kogepathic 5y ago
> FUD is fear uncertainty and doubt, they did the exact opposite. Dispelled the FUD with an investigation. And then published it. Please point out the original FUD the EFF is refuting in this article. Their title is sensationalist, a more accurate title would be, IMO, "a car dealership installed a third-party GPS tracking device in a vehicle" but anything more is a stretch because they have n=1 here. But you can see my proposed title is certainly less interesting than their portrayal. > You can't write an article about something you haven't done. Yes, and my point is that they are the EFF, not hackaday. The article does not inform the reader of how common GPS trackers are in vehicles, or what privacy implications they have, because the EFF just took the lack of a response from the sole vendor they contacted and went ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I would expect an organization that's supposed to advocate for privacy issues and carries clout to have covered at least some of the privacy concerns in more depth. FFS, they couldn't even establish if the device is still (or ever was) transmitting the car's location. Geolocating cars is not new or novel, OnStar (GM) has had this capability for ~20 years now. [1] If the EFF wants to raise awareness about the privacy issues of vehicle location technology, they could have easily picked a more common case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar
- teknopaul 5y ago
  I interpreted it as the author and car owner had fear uncertainty and doubt, about what the tracker was for. As we probably all did when clicking the title. And they dispelled it. The case they investigated was one that came to them, from one of their own, they explain that. Research costs time and money. I don't think you should _expect_ that donors money is spent, when after investigating this isolated case, nothing too nefarious was found. As you say, geolocating vehicles is not new or novel. It's a good write up of the work that was done, and the thought process, engaging and short, and as I mentioned above, you don't always want a spoiler in the title.
  - kogepathic 5y ago
    > I interpreted it as the author and car owner had fear uncertainty and doubt, about what the tracker was for. Something between two private individuals, which was resolved through the subsequent investigation. No need to write an article about this. > As we probably all did when clicking the title. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear. [1] > you don't always want a spoiler in the title. The GPS tracker is not mysterious (they identified the source and likely purpose), and the individual's support for the EFF did not contribute to the presence of the GPS tracker in their car. Could you clarify how the title accurately reflects the situation in light of this? > Research costs time and money. Indeed, and FUD is free. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
    - FFRefresh 5y ago
      > No need to write an article about this. To clarify your underlying principles here: Are you broadly suggesting there should be rules for what type of articles can be written on the internet (presumably that align with your values)? Are you suggesting that EFF should not have written this article (because of the $/time cost?)? And that it's okay if someone else wrote the article? Are you suggesting that EFF should not have done the investigation in the first place, because of the $/time cost? As an EFF supporter myself, I enjoyed the article. I liked the walkthrough of the investigation, and all the steps they used to deduce the source of the tracker. It was interesting on its face, and also educates on a methodology for making deductions for other things.