4 ms·

Excuse my French, but audio recordings, holy shit. I thought we were still living in a society where recording audio of unsuspecting people in semi private spac

Excuse my French, but audio recordings, holy shit. I thought we were still living in a society where recording audio of unsuspecting people in semi private spaces was at least a line that would not be crossed that casually. Apparently not.

0xEF 3y ago
I agree with you, but we also collectively bought devices with active mics, cameras and a constant internet connection while legal aspects of data privacy were (and still are) a bit of a Wild West, so I'm not sure what anyone expected. We as consumers and citizens need to stop assuming our governments and corporations will just do the right thing and not tread those ethically grey lines. When "consent" is defined by those doing the exploiting, only total abstinence from the decision is the safe option, but we all continued to buy smart phones. Note, this is not a justification, but an attempt to understand how we got to now in hopes that by seeing where we've been, we can collectively make better decisions about where we are headed.
- dahart 3y ago
  > legal aspects of data privacy were (and still are) a bit of a Wild West, so I’m not sure what anyone expected. […] we all continued to buy smart phones. Widespread breach of privacy is not a valid excuse for companies to continue violating privacy and even collecting potentially illegal surveillance, right? Phone taps and home searches without a warrant have been illegal for decades, and the fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits government search without probable cause in general. So what I expect is that the existing and established laws and goals carry forward in obvious and reasonable and unsurprising ways from the consumer’s point of view, without vested interests trying to pretend like digital devices’ ability to communicate are somehow radically different from any other type of communication. The only thing that’s changed is that recording and sharing and searching got much, much faster and easier. People who stand to benefit from that are arguing that because it got easier, it should be allowed, but from the privacy perspective it’s the opposite: because it got easier it means we need to actually enforce privacy, and put a stop to the contorted arguments that try to justify data collection without explicit consent.
  - altairprime 3y ago
    American law doesn’t generally prevent them from surveillance, so long as a shrinkwrap license provides consent and any token one-time fines are classifiable as necessary opex if they survive a decade of court appeals. This is slowly changing, but with 50 member states and aging union leadership, there is no GDPR equivalent yet for citizens of the US. (And, CCPA protections are only offered to citizens of California, which demonstrates the corporate incentives to keep it fractured and at the state level nicely.) The most effective way to get this changed would be to identify the cars used by every US senator, and then write them letters pointing out that their cars have granted a sometimes-foreign corporation permission to record every conversation they have, keep a file on who they meet, and document their sexual activities. This is standard espionage tactics, and as awareness of it should be spread in Washington DC in particular.
    - dahart 3y ago
      You’re right, of course, but we shouldn’t really need a GDPR when we should already have an established reasonable expectation of privacy inside a car. Google search takes me to lawyers who agree, for what that’s worth… https://dworkenlaw.com/when-can-the-police-search-my-vehicle-must-i-consent/#:~:text=The%204th%20Amendment%20and,of%20privacy%20in%20their%20vehicle https://dworkenlaw.com/when-can-the-police-search-my-vehicle....
      - altairprime 3y ago
        A person can give up their right to privacy to any officer of the law, and to a corporation just as easily. US corporations now demand you give up all rights that the law permits you to give up, and they do so by shrinkwrap licenses that are “take it or leave it”, while denying the ability to deactivate a reasonable and small subset of functionality if the buyer disagrees. This is typically where regulation steps in, and does so quite successfully in the EU but not the US, to say that consumers may not contractually give up their right to privacy without express, plainly-sought consent — so, not just shrinkwrap licenses — and that refusal or revocation of that consent shall not deny someone access to functionality that can be reasonably delivered without it. The US has its work cut out for it to catch up here.
- jprete 3y ago
  Not directly related to the car situation, but the last time I bought a TV my first question was whether non-smart TVs exist. They do, but they're not worth the effort and my best option was to not connect the TV to the network. It sounds like it's no longer even an option to buy a car that doesn't come with a bunch of uplinks to the car company, maybe to the insurance company airplane-black-box-style, etc. If the tech exists, it will be abused.
  - user3939382 3y ago
    Some IoT devices now are programmed to reach out to public or known (ISP) wifi networks and connect automatically without your knowledge or consent. This is what it looks like when your government is by and for corporations.
- imiric 3y ago
  > We as consumers and citizens need to stop assuming our governments and corporations will just do the right thing and not tread those ethically grey lines. We—as in most people on this forum—can do much more than that. We can actually refuse to work for these companies, and to build such features. We can implore our colleagues to do the same, and inform our family and friends of these features, and suggest alternatives. Yet many of us don't think twice about working for an adtech company, because of the prestige, compensation, or some other personal benefit.
sschueller 3y ago
One giant reason that the Police of Zürich did not purchase Tesla's for their electric fleet was this. Although I assume the audis they have now also would be able to record passanger audio it can be removed.
- maxrecursion 3y ago
  I'm confused how all of this doesn't violate the GDRP in the EU? I'm not an expert, but at face value I'd assume none of this is allowed by the GDRP, unless they found a loophole or no one was aware of it.
  - boesboes 3y ago
    Until we properly fund the data protection agencies not much can be investigated and thus enforced. Also enforcement starts mostly with ‘please don’t do that’…
  - sschueller 3y ago
    Supposedly EU data is stored in a Netherlands DC but it may still violate the law. For sure the Tesla recording while parked feature is illegal. I dont know why nothing is done about it. Probably just slow moving government. Especially now in Switzerland with the new privacy law. Private survalance of public grounds is illegal. Survalance of private property requires posting a clear sign of such including data retention, where data is stores and contact information.
    - throwaway50605 3y ago
      Are dashcams illegal too? If not, how is it different?
      - flangola7 3y ago
        Dashcams are illegal in many jurisdictions, yes.
bsdetector 3y ago
When your car crashes and it calls for help do you really want to sit through "this call may be recorded for quality assurance" and other disclaimers? If Mozilla really wanted to be helpful they could suggest legal terms to cover the manufacturer for features people want, such as crash reporting or locating stolen vehicles - except I suspect that Mozilla would feel obligated to issue a scathing review of Mozilla's suggested privacy policy were they to do so.
- _lqaf 3y ago
  When your car crashes, do you really want it selling the livestream? Because it seems like the agreement would allow that. If contrarians really wanted to be helpful, they'd not downplay risks inherent in the utter lack of basic privacy legislation in the US and pretend this is all fine and normal. But instead they shill for car manufacturers, pretend adtech is harmless and try to portray anyone who has a problem with these things as weirdos.
- taneq 3y ago
  If it’s about expediting emergency calls then say so and limit the recording (declared and actual) to that situation. This ‘including, but not limited to’ wording that everyone uses is bs.
  - bsdetector 3y ago
    The point is that it's not so easy to narrowly construct a legal contract that covers the manufacturers from liability. Don't you think Mozilla's message would be much stronger if their privacy guide had an example of what the legal agreement should look like? I didn't see anything like this, maybe I missed it. Clearly manufacturers have gone overboard in some cases, but I don't believe it's that easy to make you guys happy. There are lawyers in the audience here, how about post some legal contract that protects manufacturers from a passenger pressing the OnStar button while the driver is in the gas station bathroom and being liable for anything resulting from that, and every other possible liability from OnStar. I'll take my -4 and your lack of constructive counterargument as the answer I know it is.
ekianjo 3y ago
> Excuse my French, but audio recordings, holy shit. People carry phones in their pockets equipped with mics and running operating systems that have secret source code. If you think the mic can never turn on without you knowing you are in for a big surprise.
- hungryforcodes 3y ago
  To my knowledge though this has never been proven. Yes, the base band can in theory access this stuff, and the OS could do so stealthily I suppose -- but this is Subaru SAYING they are doing it every time you get in the car for no really good reason. It's in a totally different class.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    If the hardware and software allows it its not science fiction that it will be used in that way one day if its not already the case. And of course it works better if you dont tell people about it unlike Subaru
    - pastage 3y ago
      There is a difference that the intended use is to actively monitor you. Intent is very important!
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  The companies selling those phone swear they are not listening to everything you say. Whether you believe them or not, it's a completely different situation from reserving the right to record everything and sell the recordings to whoever they want.

0xEF 3y ago

I agree with you, but we also collectively bought devices with active mics, cameras and a constant internet connection while legal aspects of data privacy were (and still are) a bit of a Wild West, so I'm not sure what anyone expected. We as consumers and citizens need to stop assuming our governments and corporations will just do the right thing and not tread those ethically grey lines. When "consent" is defined by those doing the exploiting, only total abstinence from the decision is the safe option, but we all continued to buy smart phones. Note, this is not a justification, but an attempt to understand how we got to now in hopes that by seeing where we've been, we can collectively make better decisions about where we are headed.

dahart 3y ago
> legal aspects of data privacy were (and still are) a bit of a Wild West, so I’m not sure what anyone expected. […] we all continued to buy smart phones. Widespread breach of privacy is not a valid excuse for companies to continue violating privacy and even collecting potentially illegal surveillance, right? Phone taps and home searches without a warrant have been illegal for decades, and the fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits government search without probable cause in general. So what I expect is that the existing and established laws and goals carry forward in obvious and reasonable and unsurprising ways from the consumer’s point of view, without vested interests trying to pretend like digital devices’ ability to communicate are somehow radically different from any other type of communication. The only thing that’s changed is that recording and sharing and searching got much, much faster and easier. People who stand to benefit from that are arguing that because it got easier, it should be allowed, but from the privacy perspective it’s the opposite: because it got easier it means we need to actually enforce privacy, and put a stop to the contorted arguments that try to justify data collection without explicit consent.
- altairprime 3y ago
  American law doesn’t generally prevent them from surveillance, so long as a shrinkwrap license provides consent and any token one-time fines are classifiable as necessary opex if they survive a decade of court appeals. This is slowly changing, but with 50 member states and aging union leadership, there is no GDPR equivalent yet for citizens of the US. (And, CCPA protections are only offered to citizens of California, which demonstrates the corporate incentives to keep it fractured and at the state level nicely.) The most effective way to get this changed would be to identify the cars used by every US senator, and then write them letters pointing out that their cars have granted a sometimes-foreign corporation permission to record every conversation they have, keep a file on who they meet, and document their sexual activities. This is standard espionage tactics, and as awareness of it should be spread in Washington DC in particular.
  - dahart 3y ago
    You’re right, of course, but we shouldn’t really need a GDPR when we should already have an established reasonable expectation of privacy inside a car. Google search takes me to lawyers who agree, for what that’s worth… https://dworkenlaw.com/when-can-the-police-search-my-vehicle-must-i-consent/#:~:text=The%204th%20Amendment%20and,of%20privacy%20in%20their%20vehicle https://dworkenlaw.com/when-can-the-police-search-my-vehicle....
    - altairprime 3y ago
      A person can give up their right to privacy to any officer of the law, and to a corporation just as easily. US corporations now demand you give up all rights that the law permits you to give up, and they do so by shrinkwrap licenses that are “take it or leave it”, while denying the ability to deactivate a reasonable and small subset of functionality if the buyer disagrees. This is typically where regulation steps in, and does so quite successfully in the EU but not the US, to say that consumers may not contractually give up their right to privacy without express, plainly-sought consent — so, not just shrinkwrap licenses — and that refusal or revocation of that consent shall not deny someone access to functionality that can be reasonably delivered without it. The US has its work cut out for it to catch up here.
jprete 3y ago
Not directly related to the car situation, but the last time I bought a TV my first question was whether non-smart TVs exist. They do, but they're not worth the effort and my best option was to not connect the TV to the network. It sounds like it's no longer even an option to buy a car that doesn't come with a bunch of uplinks to the car company, maybe to the insurance company airplane-black-box-style, etc. If the tech exists, it will be abused.
- user3939382 3y ago
  Some IoT devices now are programmed to reach out to public or known (ISP) wifi networks and connect automatically without your knowledge or consent. This is what it looks like when your government is by and for corporations.
imiric 3y ago
> We as consumers and citizens need to stop assuming our governments and corporations will just do the right thing and not tread those ethically grey lines. We—as in most people on this forum—can do much more than that. We can actually refuse to work for these companies, and to build such features. We can implore our colleagues to do the same, and inform our family and friends of these features, and suggest alternatives. Yet many of us don't think twice about working for an adtech company, because of the prestige, compensation, or some other personal benefit.

sschueller 3y ago

One giant reason that the Police of Zürich did not purchase Tesla's for their electric fleet was this. Although I assume the audis they have now also would be able to record passanger audio it can be removed.

maxrecursion 3y ago
I'm confused how all of this doesn't violate the GDRP in the EU? I'm not an expert, but at face value I'd assume none of this is allowed by the GDRP, unless they found a loophole or no one was aware of it.
- boesboes 3y ago
  Until we properly fund the data protection agencies not much can be investigated and thus enforced. Also enforcement starts mostly with ‘please don’t do that’…
- sschueller 3y ago
  Supposedly EU data is stored in a Netherlands DC but it may still violate the law. For sure the Tesla recording while parked feature is illegal. I dont know why nothing is done about it. Probably just slow moving government. Especially now in Switzerland with the new privacy law. Private survalance of public grounds is illegal. Survalance of private property requires posting a clear sign of such including data retention, where data is stores and contact information.
  - throwaway50605 3y ago
    Are dashcams illegal too? If not, how is it different?
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Dashcams are illegal in many jurisdictions, yes.

bsdetector 3y ago

When your car crashes and it calls for help do you really want to sit through "this call may be recorded for quality assurance" and other disclaimers? If Mozilla really wanted to be helpful they could suggest legal terms to cover the manufacturer for features people want, such as crash reporting or locating stolen vehicles - except I suspect that Mozilla would feel obligated to issue a scathing review of Mozilla's suggested privacy policy were they to do so.

_lqaf 3y ago
When your car crashes, do you really want it selling the livestream? Because it seems like the agreement would allow that. If contrarians really wanted to be helpful, they'd not downplay risks inherent in the utter lack of basic privacy legislation in the US and pretend this is all fine and normal. But instead they shill for car manufacturers, pretend adtech is harmless and try to portray anyone who has a problem with these things as weirdos.
taneq 3y ago
If it’s about expediting emergency calls then say so and limit the recording (declared and actual) to that situation. This ‘including, but not limited to’ wording that everyone uses is bs.
- bsdetector 3y ago
  The point is that it's not so easy to narrowly construct a legal contract that covers the manufacturers from liability. Don't you think Mozilla's message would be much stronger if their privacy guide had an example of what the legal agreement should look like? I didn't see anything like this, maybe I missed it. Clearly manufacturers have gone overboard in some cases, but I don't believe it's that easy to make you guys happy. There are lawyers in the audience here, how about post some legal contract that protects manufacturers from a passenger pressing the OnStar button while the driver is in the gas station bathroom and being liable for anything resulting from that, and every other possible liability from OnStar. I'll take my -4 and your lack of constructive counterargument as the answer I know it is.

ekianjo 3y ago

> Excuse my French, but audio recordings, holy shit. People carry phones in their pockets equipped with mics and running operating systems that have secret source code. If you think the mic can never turn on without you knowing you are in for a big surprise.

hungryforcodes 3y ago
To my knowledge though this has never been proven. Yes, the base band can in theory access this stuff, and the OS could do so stealthily I suppose -- but this is Subaru SAYING they are doing it every time you get in the car for no really good reason. It's in a totally different class.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  If the hardware and software allows it its not science fiction that it will be used in that way one day if its not already the case. And of course it works better if you dont tell people about it unlike Subaru
  - pastage 3y ago
    There is a difference that the intended use is to actively monitor you. Intent is very important!
marcosdumay 3y ago
The companies selling those phone swear they are not listening to everything you say. Whether you believe them or not, it's a completely different situation from reserving the right to record everything and sell the recordings to whoever they want.