4 ms·

The US doesn't just need laws about disclosure of these practices. It needs to mandate that this kind of corporate surveillance must be a clearly labeled opt-in

by jprete 3y ago

The US doesn't just need laws about disclosure of these practices. It needs to mandate that this kind of corporate surveillance must be a clearly labeled opt-in and cannot be mandated by any contract.

RachelM71948937 3y ago
[dead]
bloomingeek 3y ago
Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue! I paid my money, so I own the product. [IF] I own the vehicle it should be my right to say what software runs in the background. Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it." If I want to keep up with the latest safety upgrades to my vehicle to protect myself and all car companies have the same tracking software, my only option is to look for a "dumb" vehicle. This is blatantly unsafe and irresponsible. So, they're saying that my safety comes with a price other than the $40K I shelled out?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue Ownership is a bad framework for this issue—it’s too ambiguous. You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter.
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    But.. it really does. As most states don't require annual inspection, you are free to smash up your odometer and sell your cat to the scrapyard. It hurts the resale value, but it's not illegal to do this at all.
  - ixwt 3y ago
    I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud. You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. You should also be able to turn on or off any tracking. There are just consequences for some of the things you might want to do.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > should own your car Ownership is a legal concept. What it means, what that package of rights tied to a piece of property entails, is entirely dependent on the law. Using ownership as a guideline for rule-making is bad form because it’s tautology; I can justify and condemn anything on the basis of my or adjoining persons’ purported ownership rights. The machine languages of ownership are control and possession. That’s what we’re delineating, and unfortunately it generally must be done piecemeal. In this case, the pieces are the data cars beam home. Currently, the manufacturer controls it. You and I agree—I think—that it should be the user, which we—by this conjecture—make its owner. The ownership flows from control, not the other way. (The problem is trebled with cars given they’re typically driven on roads the driver doesn’t own nor control.)
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        ownership has a legal definition, the concept of ownership exists outside of the law.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the concept of ownership exists outside of the law Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    It does however give you a right to download any data that is being collected. I wonder if that's covered by GDPR.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter. Sure it does. This entire attitude is what's scary about software, actually. See, back in the ye olden days, no one disputed your right to remove the catalytic converter on a vehicle you purchased. It was no longer legal to drive and if you were caught you could get fined. But you absolutely had the right to do it. But now with software, there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle. And you're defending it as right.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle Your key term here is control. When discussing a new rule, that is what you focus on. Use the word ownership when selling the rule, sure. My point is rules drafted starting from ownership tend to be trivial to circumvent. Because they presume ownership is a natural state when it is a social construct.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem. you purchase a video game from your religious friend and they decide you shouldn't be allowed to play the game between 8pm and 8am and they have the ability to ensure you can't. their ability to limit you isn't a social construct, it's as strongly bound as physical violence, and that's the problem.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it Where? When? Say you own private property and a car. Does that mean you are allowed to leak diesel all over it? Most jurisdictions say no, in part because that affects your neighbours’ property values. Ownership is not, and has never meant, absolute sovereignty. It’s a package of rights defined in terms of control. When we’re discussing amending what ownership means, giving the owner more control, it’s circular to start with ownership: you can do it. But it’s much more meaningful (and powerful) to talk about control.
  - chucksta 3y ago
    You can do whatever you want to it, you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore. You are forgetting about all the use cases which aren't general public transit.
    - 1970-01-01 3y ago
      >you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore Varies by state.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? It's even worse. Your car acts as a blackbox against you. A 1990's car? I can do whatever the fuck I want to, I can drive it offroad, I can speed, I can even be near a bank robbery or whatever. A modern car? Someone robs a bank a few hundred meters from where I am, and now the police will come knock on my door because the IMEI of my car was near the bank when the robbery happened. I speed a little bit to overtake some dumbass driving 20 km/h below the limit, the police makes a dragnet subpoena against my insurance / the data processor from the manufacturer, and issues me a ticket.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it." Honestly I'm pretty tired of that "our way or the high way" nonsense. Society needs to make it so they actually can't say that. Make respecting us a precondition for their continued existence. As in they literally get liquidated if they say that even once. That's how we deal with sociopaths leveraging these non-negotiable "terms" against us. They have zero empathy, they view us like cattle to be marked and monitored and turned into cash flow. So there is no reason to empathize with their nonsense viewpoints either. Just make whatever they're doing illegal. Doesn't matter how much money they lose.

by jprete 3y ago

RachelM71948937 3y ago

[dead]

bloomingeek 3y ago

Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue! I paid my money, so I own the product. [IF] I own the vehicle it should be my right to say what software runs in the background. Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it." If I want to keep up with the latest safety upgrades to my vehicle to protect myself and all car companies have the same tracking software, my only option is to look for a "dumb" vehicle. This is blatantly unsafe and irresponsible. So, they're saying that my safety comes with a price other than the $40K I shelled out?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> who actually owns them? We need to treat this similar to the "right to repair" issue Ownership is a bad framework for this issue—it’s too ambiguous. You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  But.. it really does. As most states don't require annual inspection, you are free to smash up your odometer and sell your cat to the scrapyard. It hurts the resale value, but it's not illegal to do this at all.
- ixwt 3y ago
  I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud. You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. You should also be able to turn on or off any tracking. There are just consequences for some of the things you might want to do.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > should own your car Ownership is a legal concept. What it means, what that package of rights tied to a piece of property entails, is entirely dependent on the law. Using ownership as a guideline for rule-making is bad form because it’s tautology; I can justify and condemn anything on the basis of my or adjoining persons’ purported ownership rights. The machine languages of ownership are control and possession. That’s what we’re delineating, and unfortunately it generally must be done piecemeal. In this case, the pieces are the data cars beam home. Currently, the manufacturer controls it. You and I agree—I think—that it should be the user, which we—by this conjecture—make its owner. The ownership flows from control, not the other way. (The problem is trebled with cars given they’re typically driven on roads the driver doesn’t own nor control.)
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      ownership has a legal definition, the concept of ownership exists outside of the law.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the concept of ownership exists outside of the law Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
- thriftwy 3y ago
  It does however give you a right to download any data that is being collected. I wonder if that's covered by GDPR.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > You can “own” a vehicle all you want, that doesn’t give you the right to fuck with its odometer or catalytic converter. Sure it does. This entire attitude is what's scary about software, actually. See, back in the ye olden days, no one disputed your right to remove the catalytic converter on a vehicle you purchased. It was no longer legal to drive and if you were caught you could get fined. But you absolutely had the right to do it. But now with software, there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle. And you're defending it as right.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle Your key term here is control. When discussing a new rule, that is what you focus on. Use the word ownership when selling the rule, sure. My point is rules drafted starting from ownership tend to be trivial to circumvent. Because they presume ownership is a natural state when it is a social construct.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem. you purchase a video game from your religious friend and they decide you shouldn't be allowed to play the game between 8pm and 8am and they have the ability to ensure you can't. their ability to limit you isn't a social construct, it's as strongly bound as physical violence, and that's the problem.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it Where? When? Say you own private property and a car. Does that mean you are allowed to leak diesel all over it? Most jurisdictions say no, in part because that affects your neighbours’ property values. Ownership is not, and has never meant, absolute sovereignty. It’s a package of rights defined in terms of control. When we’re discussing amending what ownership means, giving the owner more control, it’s circular to start with ownership: you can do it. But it’s much more meaningful (and powerful) to talk about control.
- chucksta 3y ago
  You can do whatever you want to it, you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore. You are forgetting about all the use cases which aren't general public transit.
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    >you just can't legally drive it on public roads anymore Varies by state.
mschuster91 3y ago
> Yes, but to me there's another important issue, with all the tracking tech in our vehicles, who actually owns them? It's even worse. Your car acts as a blackbox against you. A 1990's car? I can do whatever the fuck I want to, I can drive it offroad, I can speed, I can even be near a bank robbery or whatever. A modern car? Someone robs a bank a few hundred meters from where I am, and now the police will come knock on my door because the IMEI of my car was near the bank when the robbery happened. I speed a little bit to overtake some dumbass driving 20 km/h below the limit, the police makes a dragnet subpoena against my insurance / the data processor from the manufacturer, and issues me a ticket.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> Of course the company can say, "If you don't like our product, don't buy it." Honestly I'm pretty tired of that "our way or the high way" nonsense. Society needs to make it so they actually can't say that. Make respecting us a precondition for their continued existence. As in they literally get liquidated if they say that even once. That's how we deal with sociopaths leveraging these non-negotiable "terms" against us. They have zero empathy, they view us like cattle to be marked and monitored and turned into cash flow. So there is no reason to empathize with their nonsense viewpoints either. Just make whatever they're doing illegal. Doesn't matter how much money they lose.