3 ms·

The smarter cars get, the worse they are for consumer rights and Privacy. Unfortunately its a general trend, everything that is getting "smartified" is becomin

The smarter cars get, the worse they are for consumer rights and Privacy. Unfortunately its a general trend, everything that is getting "smartified" is becoming an anti consumer black box, and If you care about your privacy or owning the device you bought, you are out of luck. It happened with TVs, and now its coming for cars too, there might be options now but they won't last long, is there a dumb TV in your local supermarket? No, and there is no privacy respecting TV either. I dont hate smart things, I wish I can enjoy all the new convenient tech without being spied on and my private life getting sold to the highest bidder. I want a smart home, a smart car, a smart TV, a smart vacuum. But until they stop being spyware, there is no option other than just not buying, or hacking it to stop spying. The only way to stop this is with regulation, because every other monetary incentive, will continue to push everything towards the same goal, spyware and spying on your every move.

jfghi 4y ago
It’s easy, just don’t buy one /s
colechristensen 4y ago
My totaled 2009 Jetta is going to be with me until I grind it to dust. When the dystopian future hits, I'll have a backup car that isn't reporting every behavior and remote controlled.
nbzso 4y ago
Surveillance capitalism, transhumanism, AI government, tech overlords. People have no guts or comprehension to revolt. We are an easy target for the combination of psychology and technology hacks which is “bestowed” upon us. For some time ahead, there will be a temporary mitigation route. But in general, we all have fallen to our internal strive for comfort and convenience. Eventually, with high energy prices and scarce resources, we all be renting everything. So you will own nothing.
harha 4y ago
I think they’re also a bit blind towards what potential market they’re losing, even if it’s just step by step. My peer group would probably have been a great target 10 years ago. Now I hardly know anyone at my level with a car, and if, it’s an old one or cheaper brand. I think this is a luxury product in decline, other options just keep getting better. If I like to pay a lot, I’ll just Uber everywhere. Public transport is becoming less shitty (eg with contactless payments in a lot of places, and google maps to find the routes), cycling is safer (and showers in offices) etc. Why deal with this nonsense, and insurance and fines and parking and repairs? I think they’re looking at these revenue streams as a way to save themselves because it might increase revenue per customer, without seeing that it might actually reduce their market share even further.
- rabidonrails 4y ago
  This sounds right for someone that lives in a city and doesn't have kids. If you have a family then the options you laid out above don't work very well and if you live in the suburbs then constant uber/biking/public transport are not long term options.
  - harha 4y ago
    I have a family in a city. Judging by the cars around here, I’d say this is more likely to be BMWs market than most of the countryside. And I also think I would have had a car 10 years ago, now it’s just not anything I’d really consider without massive amounts of persuasion.
  - techsupporter 4y ago
    > If you have a family then the options you laid out above don't work very well Genuine question: Why is it that whenever someone on a forum mentions the phrase "public transit", inevitably someone comes along under ten minutes later to tell them how they're obviously wrong? I am in my 50s. My wife and I have raised children in a city. Many years ago, before transit got much better, we hauled them up into the high-stair buses and strapped their strollers into wheelchair spaces. Trips to the mountains were an annual affair, at best, on poorly-documented shuttle buses. These days, my kids routinely go hiking in the Gorge or out to the Peninsula on nothing but a transit card and a day pack. My children are now adults and none of them have learned to drive nor have any interest in doing so. Almost our entire friends group is the same, even through the pandemic. The most common reason to be an exception and having been required to learn how to drive is because they got priced out of where they live. Perhaps it is time for the auto-responders to transit posts to adjust to a wider view of society?
    - rabidonrails 4y ago
      I'm not sure why the swift backlash - you lived in a city. As I wrote "This sounds right for someone that lives in a city AND doesn't have kids." At the very least, that's an important "AND"
    - 4y ago
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Perhaps there will spring a cottage industry around enabling these features without a subscription. I'm sure the lawsuits will flow — but bad look, no? Shades of McDonald's shake machine....
- h2odragon 4y ago
  Recall the "satellite TV hacking" market? Note what happened to that when the satellite TV operators stopped fighting with each other. Of course the Auto industry hasn't got the clout to make states serve them the way the Entertainment industry does, yet.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  They'll regulatory capture that industry out of existence before it ever gets off the ground and you (you HN readers, not you personally) will vote for the politicians that will do it after telling you it's to prevent odometer fraud or dodging safety/emissions inspections. Maybe they'll even frame it as something those filthy poors who should be taking the bus anyway are doing that needs to be reigned in.
- throw10920 4y ago
  I kind of hope that said cottage industry won't spring up, because then more of these products will be sold than if people just start paying attention to their purchased and avoiding these anti-features entirely. Hacking these features to work is treating the symptom, not the disease.
sbf501 4y ago
> The only way to stop this is with regulation This is a controversial point, but a salient one. If EVERY manufacturer makes a smart TV, then there are no longer dumb TVs. It is collusion of a sort, not a monopoly. One could argue: just don't buy a TV, but there is some weird kind of inertia behind the purchasing of a TV that is immune to that claim. It is not essential to own one, but it shouldn't have to be a surveillance device. I expect the EU to address this long before the USA does, as the latter seems to be struggling with its politics doing even basic things for its people.
- adventured 4y ago
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    Providing just enough aid to sustain a resource-draining proxy war against one of the US's geopolitical rivals while Europe pays for it in trade, food, and energy prices is an interesting take on "keeping Europe safe". Setting aside the morality of the war, (Russia is clearly in the wrong) the current state of affairs in Europe is much better for the US's geopolitical interests than it is for the EU's.
yesUgotit 4y ago
[flagged]
- jacooper 4y ago
  I don't feel spied on, I and everyone else is being spied on. Its a fact, not a feeling, proven by Snowden who sacrificed his life so the people can now about what really is going on.
  - yesUgotit 4y ago
GuB-42 4y ago
TVs became cheaper thanks to smartification, because networks pay for the privilege of having built-in support, and it more than compensates for the small increase in material cost. The reason we don't have dumb TVs anymore is that very few people want to pay more for less. About privacy, regulation is an option, but you have to realize that it goes against the will of most customers. The market has told us that people are ready to sell their private life to the highest bidder. We are often saying that it is greedy companies that do that, but in reality, by prioritizing price and features over privacy, that's our choice. There are companies that target the privacy market, and they have their niche. Now, it is wouldn't be the only incidence of regulations that go against what consumers want because of higher goals. For example, people typically don't care about the environment, but it is important, that's why there are regulations in place to force consumers to pay for "greener" things. Same thing for safety, people don't always want to pay for safety (but they still complain later when an accident happen...), so they regulate it. And drugs, people like drugs, but since it is considered bad for them, these are regulated. Should we protect people privacy against themselves? Maybe, there are arguments for and arguments against, culturally, the US would be more likely say "no" and Europe would be more likely to say "yes", I don't really have an opinion.
- elf25 4y ago
hiidrew 4y ago
Well said. I hope consumers begin to recognize this and there becomes a trend for 'dumb products'.
JeremyNT 4y ago
As somebody who wants a world with more buses, cycling, and walking, I welcome the car companies declaring war on their own users. Maybe it feels like there is no hope but to pay auto companies to abuse you, but there are alternatives, and we can all help try to build the world we want to live in.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Eh, i doubt this will affect the amount of cars being bought or how popular Public transportation is.

jfghi 4y ago

It’s easy, just don’t buy one /s

colechristensen 4y ago

My totaled 2009 Jetta is going to be with me until I grind it to dust. When the dystopian future hits, I'll have a backup car that isn't reporting every behavior and remote controlled.

nbzso 4y ago

Surveillance capitalism, transhumanism, AI government, tech overlords. People have no guts or comprehension to revolt. We are an easy target for the combination of psychology and technology hacks which is “bestowed” upon us. For some time ahead, there will be a temporary mitigation route. But in general, we all have fallen to our internal strive for comfort and convenience. Eventually, with high energy prices and scarce resources, we all be renting everything. So you will own nothing.

harha 4y ago

I think they’re also a bit blind towards what potential market they’re losing, even if it’s just step by step. My peer group would probably have been a great target 10 years ago. Now I hardly know anyone at my level with a car, and if, it’s an old one or cheaper brand. I think this is a luxury product in decline, other options just keep getting better. If I like to pay a lot, I’ll just Uber everywhere. Public transport is becoming less shitty (eg with contactless payments in a lot of places, and google maps to find the routes), cycling is safer (and showers in offices) etc. Why deal with this nonsense, and insurance and fines and parking and repairs? I think they’re looking at these revenue streams as a way to save themselves because it might increase revenue per customer, without seeing that it might actually reduce their market share even further.

rabidonrails 4y ago
This sounds right for someone that lives in a city and doesn't have kids. If you have a family then the options you laid out above don't work very well and if you live in the suburbs then constant uber/biking/public transport are not long term options.
- harha 4y ago
  I have a family in a city. Judging by the cars around here, I’d say this is more likely to be BMWs market than most of the countryside. And I also think I would have had a car 10 years ago, now it’s just not anything I’d really consider without massive amounts of persuasion.
- techsupporter 4y ago
  > If you have a family then the options you laid out above don't work very well Genuine question: Why is it that whenever someone on a forum mentions the phrase "public transit", inevitably someone comes along under ten minutes later to tell them how they're obviously wrong? I am in my 50s. My wife and I have raised children in a city. Many years ago, before transit got much better, we hauled them up into the high-stair buses and strapped their strollers into wheelchair spaces. Trips to the mountains were an annual affair, at best, on poorly-documented shuttle buses. These days, my kids routinely go hiking in the Gorge or out to the Peninsula on nothing but a transit card and a day pack. My children are now adults and none of them have learned to drive nor have any interest in doing so. Almost our entire friends group is the same, even through the pandemic. The most common reason to be an exception and having been required to learn how to drive is because they got priced out of where they live. Perhaps it is time for the auto-responders to transit posts to adjust to a wider view of society?
  - rabidonrails 4y ago
    I'm not sure why the swift backlash - you lived in a city. As I wrote "This sounds right for someone that lives in a city AND doesn't have kids." At the very least, that's an important "AND"
  - 4y ago

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Perhaps there will spring a cottage industry around enabling these features without a subscription. I'm sure the lawsuits will flow — but bad look, no? Shades of McDonald's shake machine....

h2odragon 4y ago
Recall the "satellite TV hacking" market? Note what happened to that when the satellite TV operators stopped fighting with each other. Of course the Auto industry hasn't got the clout to make states serve them the way the Entertainment industry does, yet.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
They'll regulatory capture that industry out of existence before it ever gets off the ground and you (you HN readers, not you personally) will vote for the politicians that will do it after telling you it's to prevent odometer fraud or dodging safety/emissions inspections. Maybe they'll even frame it as something those filthy poors who should be taking the bus anyway are doing that needs to be reigned in.
throw10920 4y ago
I kind of hope that said cottage industry won't spring up, because then more of these products will be sold than if people just start paying attention to their purchased and avoiding these anti-features entirely. Hacking these features to work is treating the symptom, not the disease.

sbf501 4y ago

> The only way to stop this is with regulation This is a controversial point, but a salient one. If EVERY manufacturer makes a smart TV, then there are no longer dumb TVs. It is collusion of a sort, not a monopoly. One could argue: just don't buy a TV, but there is some weird kind of inertia behind the purchasing of a TV that is immune to that claim. It is not essential to own one, but it shouldn't have to be a surveillance device. I expect the EU to address this long before the USA does, as the latter seems to be struggling with its politics doing even basic things for its people.

adventured 4y ago
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  Providing just enough aid to sustain a resource-draining proxy war against one of the US's geopolitical rivals while Europe pays for it in trade, food, and energy prices is an interesting take on "keeping Europe safe". Setting aside the morality of the war, (Russia is clearly in the wrong) the current state of affairs in Europe is much better for the US's geopolitical interests than it is for the EU's.

yesUgotit 4y ago

[flagged]

jacooper 4y ago
I don't feel spied on, I and everyone else is being spied on. Its a fact, not a feeling, proven by Snowden who sacrificed his life so the people can now about what really is going on.
- yesUgotit 4y ago

GuB-42 4y ago

TVs became cheaper thanks to smartification, because networks pay for the privilege of having built-in support, and it more than compensates for the small increase in material cost. The reason we don't have dumb TVs anymore is that very few people want to pay more for less. About privacy, regulation is an option, but you have to realize that it goes against the will of most customers. The market has told us that people are ready to sell their private life to the highest bidder. We are often saying that it is greedy companies that do that, but in reality, by prioritizing price and features over privacy, that's our choice. There are companies that target the privacy market, and they have their niche. Now, it is wouldn't be the only incidence of regulations that go against what consumers want because of higher goals. For example, people typically don't care about the environment, but it is important, that's why there are regulations in place to force consumers to pay for "greener" things. Same thing for safety, people don't always want to pay for safety (but they still complain later when an accident happen...), so they regulate it. And drugs, people like drugs, but since it is considered bad for them, these are regulated. Should we protect people privacy against themselves? Maybe, there are arguments for and arguments against, culturally, the US would be more likely say "no" and Europe would be more likely to say "yes", I don't really have an opinion.

elf25 4y ago

hiidrew 4y ago

Well said. I hope consumers begin to recognize this and there becomes a trend for 'dumb products'.

JeremyNT 4y ago

As somebody who wants a world with more buses, cycling, and walking, I welcome the car companies declaring war on their own users. Maybe it feels like there is no hope but to pay auto companies to abuse you, but there are alternatives, and we can all help try to build the world we want to live in.

jacooper 4y ago
Eh, i doubt this will affect the amount of cars being bought or how popular Public transportation is.