3 ms·
You're joking, right? How can you in one paragraph say it's not a violation of privacy for your car to decide you're too drunk to drive as long as that informa
by zoky 3y ago
You're joking, right?
How can you in one paragraph say it's not a violation of privacy for your car to decide you're too drunk to drive as long as that information stays local, then in the very next paragraph decry car manufacturers allowing too much information to be remotely accessible?
Do you really think it's going to be a priority of car manufacturers to protect the privacy of their customers who they are, by federal mandate, already forced to (if not willingly) spy on?
- Obscurity4340 3y agoThere should be a way for everyone to compromise (put the data privacy angle aside for a moment) and allow for cars to heuristically detect impaired driving in exchange for reducing it to a simple, routine traffic ticket like speeding or at worst, stunt driving. Stunt driving shouldn't even realky be possible, technologically or otherwise (in terms of going insanely fast enough to allow for that capabillity)
- jeroenhd 3y agoData analysis in cars has become the norm. That doesn't mean all data collected will be uploaded to the cloud. Your phone keeps track of how many apps you open when and how often to get good battery life, and it's not a problem unless you're a dissident living in an oppressive state. Sure, your phone may be full of trackers and other privacy violations, but that particular tidbit isn't accessible anywhere but locally. I wouldn't want one of these cars, but that has very little to do with the car storing a flag that says I'm not drunk. It's all the other crap that irks me.