4 ms·

And if your local police department wants to buy that data? What if a large law firm wants to buy all the data for use in lawsuits? Once you have pass it on t

And if your local police department wants to buy that data? What if a large law firm wants to buy all the data for use in lawsuits? Once you have pass it on to "third parties" then there isn't much you can do to stop such things. It happened a few decades ago as in-car GPS rolled out. Some rental car companies started issuing speeding tickets. That game lasted about a week. >> Feb. 2002. A Connecticut man has taken a local rental-car agency to court, after the company used Global Positioning System technology and fined him $450 for speeding. https://www.cnet.com/culture/rental-car-firm-exceeding-the-privacy-limit/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/rental-car-firm-exceeding-the-p...

toomuchtodo 3y ago
I’m not ignorant of your concerns, but that’s what privacy laws are for. These third parties have been scrapping Tesla APIs at the behest of their customers for years. This is nothing new, simply more formalized. If the laws are insufficient, that’s a call for better laws (which I agree are needed). The apps I use do not sell their customer data, but Tesla should probably stipulate API integrations aren’t permitted to as extra guardrails (with violations being an API access death sentence, killing the app business).
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Or forget the laws. I will buy a car that doesn't stream data. My current vehicle doesn't and I have never felt the need. My next one wont either ... not if I have anything to say about it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fastball 3y ago
    That doesn't change the fact that this framework is an improvement on the status quo for Tesla owners. And presumably most Tesla owners are not like you, so what you would do is not super relevant to this discussion.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The question is, why does a car have to at all? And no, the closest we are is a car that could share data with the OEM, if you wanted, and we don't. As long as possible, I'd pass hard on cars where you don't have that choice.
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      With a Tesla you do have that choice. https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/legal/privacy https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/legal/privacy
      - hef19898 3y ago
        If it is in the EU, yes you do. Just compare the difference between what Toyota does with customer data in the US and the EU. Preferably, I can remove the sim card myself and all connectivity stops. If I cannot do that hardware wise myself, I havw to assume I am tracked. The different OEM approaches between the US and EU show you how important legislation is. Especiqlly since Tesla's zrack record regarding privacy is abysmal.
        sroussey 3y ago
        What bout California?
        kramerger 3y ago
        > Tesla's zrack record regarding privacy is abysmal. Any particular examples you can share with us?
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        The times Elon has shared in car video feeds to try and blame the driver for autopilot crashes, without that driver's authorization to do so. Legal? Sure, according to every stupid, untested EULA that everyone has to sign, but you didn't ask about legality.
        3y ago
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bseto 3y ago
    Cool, but there are people who like to look at data, like Wh/km and efficiencies at different temperatures etc. Funny thing I wanted to point out though, you sound like one of those people who say "I will buy a car that runs on gas, I've never wanted a vehicle that runs on electricity and my next one won't either... Not if I have anything to say about it". I feel like I've seen so many of those comments lately... I want to ask why? It's like me saying something like "my phone doesn't have a screen. I've always had an analog connection and I've never felt the need to have a digital screen and any smart apps on my phone... Etc etc not if I have anything to say about it." Or perhaps even something like not wanting an automatic transmission because a manual transmission is the only way to go lol..
    - Renaud 3y ago
      That's clearly not the point here. The parent isn't rooting for ICE, he's rooting for having a vehicle that doesn't stream data to the outside. There is nothing that mandates that a vehicle -whatever its technology-, must send all its data to external servers. I, and many others, want to have the right to possess a car that isn't relying on external connections to work, and doesn't send all its data out. It's more akin to wanting a TV that's not connected online. Some people like the added features of a smart TV, but some just want a dumb screen that doesn't sell their viewing habits, or screenshots of what's on the screen to third-parties.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > I’m not ignorant of your concerns, but that’s what privacy laws are for. It's a shame then that the few laws we have protecting consumer's privacy are not adequate to the task. It's reasonable then to do our best to avoid products and services that exploit the weakness of our laws until that situation is improved. As an aside, how do you know that the apps you use aren't selling your data? Is it only because of their entirely non-legally binding statements and privacy polices? What do think could happen to that data when those apps/companies are sold or otherwise acquired by someone else? Even if they were telling the truth about not selling your data right now, do you think that means it isn't readily available to police or the discovery process in a legal dispute? Do you think that data collected or displayed by the apps could be exposed to Google or Apple and collected?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    To answer your questions (I could not tell if they were rhetorical or not), worst case outcome is that someone either legitimately or illegitimately has the history of my vehicles’ locations and commands issued to the vehicles. As mentioned, in my grandparent comment, within my risk appetite. It could happen, but I don’t care enough to worry about it. > It's reasonable then to do our best to avoid products and services that exploit the weakness of our laws until that situation is improved. Agree to disagree. If the cost of loss is low, to go without the product or service is more costly than potential data loss. The services I use within this context are very likely not actively lying about their privacy policies.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > worst case outcome is that someone either legitimately or illegitimately has the history of my vehicles’ locations and commands issued to the vehicles. That is hardly the worst case outcome. The worst case outcomes would be those where that data is used against you because it was sold/leaked/subpoenaed. There's no end to the ways it could be used against you either. Maybe a future potential employer doesn't like how often you visit bars, or what church you attend, and you are passed over for a job you want. Maybe your car's recorded proximity to where a crime took place makes you a suspect in a crime you had nothing to do with and it costs you tens of thousands in legal fees to clear your name. (similar to what happened to this guy: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike...) Maybe that data gets pulled up in a divorce or custody battle. GPS records and toll transponders are already being used in such cases to show things like patterns of working late hours, visits to girlfriend's houses, or undisclosed income Maybe that data is used by advertisers to more effectively manipulate you into parting with more of your money. Maybe your insurance company (health or auto) buys it up and their algorithm decides to jack up your rates because you hit up a fast food drive thu once too often or you speed too much or drive to many hours. Maybe you visit or even park too close to a gay bar, mosque, or planned parenthood and you get harassed by an extremist group or dragged into a Texas courtroom. Because the data never goes away, it can follow you for the rest of your life and be used by others again and again at any time in whatever way the person who gets their hands on it feels will benefit them. > Agree to disagree. If the cost of loss is low, Everybody is free to decide for themselves what level of risk is acceptable to them. With some kids you can tell them that the stove is hot and they will leave it alone, while others have to touch it and get burned. I hope that you never suffer a consequence that makes you regret the data you gave away, assuming that you can trace it back to that data in the first place. At least you can say you were informed about the dangers and made an informed choice to roll the dice. I worry a lot more about the folks who don't even realize what data is being collected, the ways that it can be used against them, or who assume that they can count on laws and privacy polices to protect them from harm.
FormerBandmate 3y ago
No one is forcing anyone to use a data logging app for their Tesla. It’s not only purely opt in, you usually have to buy them
- Corrado 3y ago
  Correct! There are several apps that I've wanted to use over the years but the main blocker (for me) has been authorization. With this new feature from Tesla that all changes. I'm much more willing to purchase these apps now that I can limit their reach. The real bonus is that it appears as if this update will help isolate the app from the vehicle. What I mean is that the current way these apps work is they poll the vehicle for data. This is bad because it (potentially) wakes up with vehicle and increases battery consumption. The way I understand it, this new method will allow apps to "poll" Tesla instead, which is a much better operation.
lvturner 3y ago
In my case, the third party I'd most be interested in sharing with is my local home assistant instance. (zero points for anyone pedantically pointing out that this is technically first party sharing)
elif 3y ago
The police won't pay they will just subpoena any data they want, from Tesla or from whoever manufactures your car.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Some companies charge police for the work it takes to fulfill their requests. I suspect that once it becomes a revenue stream, they are less likely to pushing back against requests for data where they might otherwise.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I’m not ignorant of your concerns, but that’s what privacy laws are for. These third parties have been scrapping Tesla APIs at the behest of their customers for years. This is nothing new, simply more formalized. If the laws are insufficient, that’s a call for better laws (which I agree are needed). The apps I use do not sell their customer data, but Tesla should probably stipulate API integrations aren’t permitted to as extra guardrails (with violations being an API access death sentence, killing the app business).

sandworm101 3y ago
Or forget the laws. I will buy a car that doesn't stream data. My current vehicle doesn't and I have never felt the need. My next one wont either ... not if I have anything to say about it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fastball 3y ago
  That doesn't change the fact that this framework is an improvement on the status quo for Tesla owners. And presumably most Tesla owners are not like you, so what you would do is not super relevant to this discussion.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The question is, why does a car have to at all? And no, the closest we are is a car that could share data with the OEM, if you wanted, and we don't. As long as possible, I'd pass hard on cars where you don't have that choice.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    With a Tesla you do have that choice. https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/legal/privacy https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/legal/privacy
    - hef19898 3y ago
      If it is in the EU, yes you do. Just compare the difference between what Toyota does with customer data in the US and the EU. Preferably, I can remove the sim card myself and all connectivity stops. If I cannot do that hardware wise myself, I havw to assume I am tracked. The different OEM approaches between the US and EU show you how important legislation is. Especiqlly since Tesla's zrack record regarding privacy is abysmal.
      - sroussey 3y ago
        What bout California?
      - kramerger 3y ago
        > Tesla's zrack record regarding privacy is abysmal. Any particular examples you can share with us?
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        The times Elon has shared in car video feeds to try and blame the driver for autopilot crashes, without that driver's authorization to do so. Legal? Sure, according to every stupid, untested EULA that everyone has to sign, but you didn't ask about legality.
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bseto 3y ago
  Cool, but there are people who like to look at data, like Wh/km and efficiencies at different temperatures etc. Funny thing I wanted to point out though, you sound like one of those people who say "I will buy a car that runs on gas, I've never wanted a vehicle that runs on electricity and my next one won't either... Not if I have anything to say about it". I feel like I've seen so many of those comments lately... I want to ask why? It's like me saying something like "my phone doesn't have a screen. I've always had an analog connection and I've never felt the need to have a digital screen and any smart apps on my phone... Etc etc not if I have anything to say about it." Or perhaps even something like not wanting an automatic transmission because a manual transmission is the only way to go lol..
  - Renaud 3y ago
    That's clearly not the point here. The parent isn't rooting for ICE, he's rooting for having a vehicle that doesn't stream data to the outside. There is nothing that mandates that a vehicle -whatever its technology-, must send all its data to external servers. I, and many others, want to have the right to possess a car that isn't relying on external connections to work, and doesn't send all its data out. It's more akin to wanting a TV that's not connected online. Some people like the added features of a smart TV, but some just want a dumb screen that doesn't sell their viewing habits, or screenshots of what's on the screen to third-parties.
autoexec 3y ago
> I’m not ignorant of your concerns, but that’s what privacy laws are for. It's a shame then that the few laws we have protecting consumer's privacy are not adequate to the task. It's reasonable then to do our best to avoid products and services that exploit the weakness of our laws until that situation is improved. As an aside, how do you know that the apps you use aren't selling your data? Is it only because of their entirely non-legally binding statements and privacy polices? What do think could happen to that data when those apps/companies are sold or otherwise acquired by someone else? Even if they were telling the truth about not selling your data right now, do you think that means it isn't readily available to police or the discovery process in a legal dispute? Do you think that data collected or displayed by the apps could be exposed to Google or Apple and collected?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  To answer your questions (I could not tell if they were rhetorical or not), worst case outcome is that someone either legitimately or illegitimately has the history of my vehicles’ locations and commands issued to the vehicles. As mentioned, in my grandparent comment, within my risk appetite. It could happen, but I don’t care enough to worry about it. > It's reasonable then to do our best to avoid products and services that exploit the weakness of our laws until that situation is improved. Agree to disagree. If the cost of loss is low, to go without the product or service is more costly than potential data loss. The services I use within this context are very likely not actively lying about their privacy policies.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > worst case outcome is that someone either legitimately or illegitimately has the history of my vehicles’ locations and commands issued to the vehicles. That is hardly the worst case outcome. The worst case outcomes would be those where that data is used against you because it was sold/leaked/subpoenaed. There's no end to the ways it could be used against you either. Maybe a future potential employer doesn't like how often you visit bars, or what church you attend, and you are passed over for a job you want. Maybe your car's recorded proximity to where a crime took place makes you a suspect in a crime you had nothing to do with and it costs you tens of thousands in legal fees to clear your name. (similar to what happened to this guy: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike...) Maybe that data gets pulled up in a divorce or custody battle. GPS records and toll transponders are already being used in such cases to show things like patterns of working late hours, visits to girlfriend's houses, or undisclosed income Maybe that data is used by advertisers to more effectively manipulate you into parting with more of your money. Maybe your insurance company (health or auto) buys it up and their algorithm decides to jack up your rates because you hit up a fast food drive thu once too often or you speed too much or drive to many hours. Maybe you visit or even park too close to a gay bar, mosque, or planned parenthood and you get harassed by an extremist group or dragged into a Texas courtroom. Because the data never goes away, it can follow you for the rest of your life and be used by others again and again at any time in whatever way the person who gets their hands on it feels will benefit them. > Agree to disagree. If the cost of loss is low, Everybody is free to decide for themselves what level of risk is acceptable to them. With some kids you can tell them that the stove is hot and they will leave it alone, while others have to touch it and get burned. I hope that you never suffer a consequence that makes you regret the data you gave away, assuming that you can trace it back to that data in the first place. At least you can say you were informed about the dangers and made an informed choice to roll the dice. I worry a lot more about the folks who don't even realize what data is being collected, the ways that it can be used against them, or who assume that they can count on laws and privacy polices to protect them from harm.

FormerBandmate 3y ago

No one is forcing anyone to use a data logging app for their Tesla. It’s not only purely opt in, you usually have to buy them

Corrado 3y ago
Correct! There are several apps that I've wanted to use over the years but the main blocker (for me) has been authorization. With this new feature from Tesla that all changes. I'm much more willing to purchase these apps now that I can limit their reach. The real bonus is that it appears as if this update will help isolate the app from the vehicle. What I mean is that the current way these apps work is they poll the vehicle for data. This is bad because it (potentially) wakes up with vehicle and increases battery consumption. The way I understand it, this new method will allow apps to "poll" Tesla instead, which is a much better operation.

lvturner 3y ago

In my case, the third party I'd most be interested in sharing with is my local home assistant instance. (zero points for anyone pedantically pointing out that this is technically first party sharing)

elif 3y ago

The police won't pay they will just subpoena any data they want, from Tesla or from whoever manufactures your car.

autoexec 3y ago
Some companies charge police for the work it takes to fulfill their requests. I suspect that once it becomes a revenue stream, they are less likely to pushing back against requests for data where they might otherwise.