7 ms·

Well, unethical yes. But it’s not illegal. You are not being forced to buy a car, you are free to walk away from or stop using a product at any time for any rea

Well, unethical yes. But it’s not illegal. You are not being forced to buy a car, you are free to walk away from or stop using a product at any time for any reason. How is this data tracking any different from what google, twitter, or Facebook use? If it’s legal for tech companies to collect user data, why would it be illegal for car companies?

inductive_magic 3y ago
>How is this data tracking any different from what google, twitter, or Facebook use? To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  Your access and use of the Services constitutes your agreement to be bound by these Terms, which establishes a contractual relationship between you and Uber. If you do not agree to these Terms, you may not access or use the Services. The Services may be made available or accessed in connection with third party services and content (including advertising) that Uber does not control. https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?country=hong-kong&lang=en&name=general-terms-of-use https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?country=hong-kong&la...
  - acdha 3y ago
    Yes: using Uber obviously involves a relationship between you and Uber, and you agree to that when you open the app. What’s different here is that car manufacturers are claiming that, say, sitting in that Uber gives them the right to record your audio and sell it to advertisers. That’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws, and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent.
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      > hat’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU. Moreover, the article is claiming that the manufacturer can "maybe even sell" the recordings but the official statement is that they are only collecting the data, not selling it (it would be stupid to claim otherwise). The blog post specifically use the sentence and maybe even sell, because it is not stated anywhere. > and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent. meanwhile the advertisers already used your data, and there's nothing you could do about it. Except not using Uber (that's why I never used one, even though cabs in my Country and especially in my city, are a big "mafia style" mob)
      - acdha 3y ago
        > you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU. Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data?
        peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data? No, I am saying that Uber can collect that data itself through the app. I was replying to "To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?" It is equivalent because to use Uber you have to accept their license agreement. Nobody ever explicitly said "resell" because it would be stupid. It's allegedly proposed by the blog post, but it's not officially stated anywhere. BTW as written in the part of the Uber TOS I've quoted, they explicitly says that the service can be provided by third parties "outside of their control" and you accept their terms of services by accepting the service provided on the Uber platform. So yeah, you could be accepting to have your conversation recorder by the driver (or by an autonomous vehicle which is considered a third party provider) or your orders being linked to your persona by the restaurant. Third-Party Services and Content. While many Third-Party Services are available in the Uber App, certain Third-Party Services or content are only accessible by exiting the Uber App (“Out-of-App Experiences”). Once you click on a link to access Out-of-App Experiences, you will be subject to the terms and conditions and privacy policy of that website, destination, or Out-of-App Experience provider, which are different from Uber’s Don't use Uber, it's all I'm saying,
hgomersall 3y ago
I'm not so sure. There are certain expectations about how things are used. There's no reasonable expectation that getting into someone else's car implies any consent that the manufacturer of the car can now harvest data about you at will. I reserve judgement on the legality of this until it's actually tested. In any case, it being legal is readily remediable if the law makers care enough.
bluecalm 3y ago
In EU it's very illegal. You can't tie consent to use personal data which isn't absolutely necessary to provide the service. If it wasn't car companies (pet EU regulators industry) we would be talking about billions in fines already.
- cccbbbaaa 3y ago
  It is possible; maybe you are mistaking it for other legal basis such as legitimate interest. Or maybe I get this wrong? But you are right that this is illegal, because just sitting in a car is not a “specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes”, which mandatory for consent (GDPR article 4(11)). Neither it is “transparent” (GDPR article 6(1)a).
  - janosd 3y ago
    Even if you can justify something with legitimate interest, which is a huge if, the data subject must be informed and have the option to object.
Retric 3y ago
A car passenger isn’t party to the contract nor informed of its existence. You can write anything you want, but no that doesn’t make it a valid contract.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  FB has pictures of people who are not users of FB, as well as shadow profiles of such users. Seems very similar to me.
  - philistine 3y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, this has never been definitely proven in court. We know they do it, but courts have never discussed that. Doesn't make it legal.
    - jtbayly 3y ago
      To be clear, I’m not claiming it’s legal (or agreeing with the guy who says it’s no big deal). Just pointing out it is fairly equivalent. More than I expected before I started thinking about the comparison.
      - Retric 3y ago
        To be equivalent FB would need to be taking the photos themselves and then selling the data. I really can’t think of a good online equivalent. Google street view would be close except they blur peoples faces.
        tough 3y ago
        didnt they only start blurring on maps after european courts told them so?
        jtbayly 3y ago
        Shadow profiles are - collected by FB - without even the pretense of consent - sold to the highest bidder
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
I've never been a fan of the "you're free to severely hinder your ability to operate in society because them's the breaks" schtick. Why not change the laws? Why not be better?
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  whoa whoa whoa, this wild talk of putting in effort for a better future is dangerous. you might upset the status quo. worse, you might succeed, proving all the naysayers to be both negative and wrong.
atoav 3y ago
Sorry but you are getting this wrong. 1. Certain rights cannot be easily waived depending where you live — this requires "informed consent". Informed consent means you laid out what you are collecting and for which purposes clearly and in easy language — and that I consented to that. 2. Implying consent through action ala "by entering these doorsteps you have signed away your firstborn child" doesn't work. 3. At least under the GDPR not consenting shall not lead to a worse service. If I enter the car of some guy and his cars manual (available only as pdf download) says on page 234 that he automatically consents to this by using the car, the manufacturer did neither gain his, nor my informed consent. This is illegal under the GDPR — a law that doesn't only apply to cookie banners and the internet, but to any form of data collection. (In the EU of course)

inductive_magic 3y ago

>How is this data tracking any different from what google, twitter, or Facebook use? To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
Your access and use of the Services constitutes your agreement to be bound by these Terms, which establishes a contractual relationship between you and Uber. If you do not agree to these Terms, you may not access or use the Services. The Services may be made available or accessed in connection with third party services and content (including advertising) that Uber does not control. https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?country=hong-kong&lang=en&name=general-terms-of-use https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?country=hong-kong&la...
- acdha 3y ago
  Yes: using Uber obviously involves a relationship between you and Uber, and you agree to that when you open the app. What’s different here is that car manufacturers are claiming that, say, sitting in that Uber gives them the right to record your audio and sell it to advertisers. That’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws, and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > hat’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU. Moreover, the article is claiming that the manufacturer can "maybe even sell" the recordings but the official statement is that they are only collecting the data, not selling it (it would be stupid to claim otherwise). The blog post specifically use the sentence and maybe even sell, because it is not stated anywhere. > and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent. meanwhile the advertisers already used your data, and there's nothing you could do about it. Except not using Uber (that's why I never used one, even though cabs in my Country and especially in my city, are a big "mafia style" mob)
    - acdha 3y ago
      > you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU. Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data?
      - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data? No, I am saying that Uber can collect that data itself through the app. I was replying to "To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?" It is equivalent because to use Uber you have to accept their license agreement. Nobody ever explicitly said "resell" because it would be stupid. It's allegedly proposed by the blog post, but it's not officially stated anywhere. BTW as written in the part of the Uber TOS I've quoted, they explicitly says that the service can be provided by third parties "outside of their control" and you accept their terms of services by accepting the service provided on the Uber platform. So yeah, you could be accepting to have your conversation recorder by the driver (or by an autonomous vehicle which is considered a third party provider) or your orders being linked to your persona by the restaurant. Third-Party Services and Content. While many Third-Party Services are available in the Uber App, certain Third-Party Services or content are only accessible by exiting the Uber App (“Out-of-App Experiences”). Once you click on a link to access Out-of-App Experiences, you will be subject to the terms and conditions and privacy policy of that website, destination, or Out-of-App Experience provider, which are different from Uber’s Don't use Uber, it's all I'm saying,

hgomersall 3y ago

I'm not so sure. There are certain expectations about how things are used. There's no reasonable expectation that getting into someone else's car implies any consent that the manufacturer of the car can now harvest data about you at will. I reserve judgement on the legality of this until it's actually tested. In any case, it being legal is readily remediable if the law makers care enough.

bluecalm 3y ago

In EU it's very illegal. You can't tie consent to use personal data which isn't absolutely necessary to provide the service. If it wasn't car companies (pet EU regulators industry) we would be talking about billions in fines already.

cccbbbaaa 3y ago
It is possible; maybe you are mistaking it for other legal basis such as legitimate interest. Or maybe I get this wrong? But you are right that this is illegal, because just sitting in a car is not a “specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes”, which mandatory for consent (GDPR article 4(11)). Neither it is “transparent” (GDPR article 6(1)a).
- janosd 3y ago
  Even if you can justify something with legitimate interest, which is a huge if, the data subject must be informed and have the option to object.

Retric 3y ago

A car passenger isn’t party to the contract nor informed of its existence. You can write anything you want, but no that doesn’t make it a valid contract.

jtbayly 3y ago
FB has pictures of people who are not users of FB, as well as shadow profiles of such users. Seems very similar to me.
- philistine 3y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, this has never been definitely proven in court. We know they do it, but courts have never discussed that. Doesn't make it legal.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    To be clear, I’m not claiming it’s legal (or agreeing with the guy who says it’s no big deal). Just pointing out it is fairly equivalent. More than I expected before I started thinking about the comparison.
    - Retric 3y ago
      To be equivalent FB would need to be taking the photos themselves and then selling the data. I really can’t think of a good online equivalent. Google street view would be close except they blur peoples faces.
      - tough 3y ago
        didnt they only start blurring on maps after european courts told them so?
      - jtbayly 3y ago
        Shadow profiles are - collected by FB - without even the pretense of consent - sold to the highest bidder

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

I've never been a fan of the "you're free to severely hinder your ability to operate in society because them's the breaks" schtick. Why not change the laws? Why not be better?

catchnear4321 3y ago
whoa whoa whoa, this wild talk of putting in effort for a better future is dangerous. you might upset the status quo. worse, you might succeed, proving all the naysayers to be both negative and wrong.

atoav 3y ago

Sorry but you are getting this wrong. 1. Certain rights cannot be easily waived depending where you live — this requires "informed consent". Informed consent means you laid out what you are collecting and for which purposes clearly and in easy language — and that I consented to that. 2. Implying consent through action ala "by entering these doorsteps you have signed away your firstborn child" doesn't work. 3. At least under the GDPR not consenting shall not lead to a worse service. If I enter the car of some guy and his cars manual (available only as pdf download) says on page 234 that he automatically consents to this by using the car, the manufacturer did neither gain his, nor my informed consent. This is illegal under the GDPR — a law that doesn't only apply to cookie banners and the internet, but to any form of data collection. (In the EU of course)