7 ms·
Ford seeks patent for tech that listens to driver conversations to serve ads
- webninja 2y agoThis could be good. Because then other car companies likely can’t do it. Also Ford does not have to implement it.
- NotACop182 2y agounfortunately, outrage only lasts a few weeks and then the consumer rolls over. I can see a future market for dumb cars.
- austin-cheney 2y agoThat depends on the person. I refuse to ever buy a Tesla because it’s filled with smart technology insanity and then they charge a subscription for this punishment they force on you. All I need is a stick shift and radio smart enough to parse and navigate mp3 files. The car doesn’t even have to come with that radio as it’s a trivial aftermarket upgrade.
- azhenley 2y agoI’ve owned a Tesla since 2018 and never paid a subscription nor needed one.
- darknavi 2y agoMy Model 3 and Model Y do not have AM but do have FM. Did they remove that from base models? You can also play MP3 files from a flash drive and navigate. Can't help you with the stick shift though!
- junaru 2y agoThere is no future for dumb cars. They will be outlawed just like ICE ones in the coming decades. You will not even be able to manually drive as you will be deemed too much of a hazard for all the autonomous cars.
- hedora 2y agoWe’re starting to see this. For instance, some cars have absurdly overactive VESS (engine tone) systems. Some are so loud they wake up neighbors. Others don’t shut off at the NHTSA recommended 30kph, and sound like distant ambulances on the freeway. Even if it is legal to disable them, many insurance policies include a carve out that invalidates your coverage if you do so. So, you could lose your house as punishment without ever getting to defend yourself in front of a jury.
- sandebert 2y agoI suppose a "dumb car" should be called "feature car", the same way as old-school mobiles are called "feature phones".
- JohnFen 2y agoFeature phones are not old-school mobile phones. They're crippled smartphones. As near as I can tell, nobody actually makes good old, dumb, cellphones anymore.
- sandebert 2y agoI'm not sure that is correct. Granted, there doesn't seem to be a lot of them anymore, but they're not all gone. Here's a list of dumb phones made in 2021-2024 running an "unnamed OS": https://www.prisjakt.nu/c/mobiltelefoner?197=2024%7C2021&438=9392 https://www.prisjakt.nu/c/mobiltelefoner?197=2024%7C2021&438... (sorry, Swedish product comparison site, but the phones should be possible to search for elsewhere on the web) I don't get the impression they are crippled smartphones.
- SoftTalker 2y agoAnother step towards the future where we do not own our cars. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, depending on how it's implemented (and priced) but I wish they'd be up-front about it.
- CSMastermind 2y agoI'm entirely opposed to the idea. But I also recognize that I'm in a minority and will probably lose that fight.
- SoftTalker 2y agoI can imagine a future where fully autonomous cars are available everywhere and from multiple providers, so that competition drives the price down to close to cost. I would not mind not having to deal with insurance, maintenance, repairs, parking, fueling, charging, and everything else that comes with owning a car. I'm not opposed to that, but I also think it's nothing more than a fantasy. More likely that if we ever have cars that are safely autonomous, they will be kept scarce by a monopoly or oligopoly of companies who will have one-sided insight into the costs and demands and extract maximum prices from users. Similar to the games we're witnessing being played by large rental property owners.
- JohnFen 2y agoI'm in the same boat. I think that the fight for reasonable cars is long lost, and that's why I expect that I'll just be driving older used cars for the remainder of my life. But perhaps the day will come where some upstart company will begin producing cars that don't spy on you. You never know.
- gspencley 2y agoI don't like the idea that my car comes with a bug installed in it. By bug I mean the spy device. While I can think of certain things that you might want to be able to do hands-free, these are mostly activities that don't have anything to do with the car itself. Hands-free radio controls, hands-free mobile calling etc. And I'd prefer that these features not be integrated into the car in a way that I can't choose to buy a car with, say, a different radio that doesn't have those features. In other words, I can't think of a reason that a car should necessarily come pre-installed with any sort of microphone what-so-ever. But the idea that there is not only a microphone, but that it is sending what it picks up to some remote server, is a notion that I am deeply uncomfortable with. Most people view the inside of their car as being somewhat akin to the inside of their home. While people might expect less privacy in a car than in their homes, there is still an expectation of privacy to a degree. And that privacy expectation is typically more auditory than visual (of course you can get tinted windows but people expect you might be able to see inside of a car, but not necessary hear what two people are saying to one another).
- minkles 2y agoI do believe I'd rather fucking walk than have this.
- tomrod 2y agoRight-to-repair should cover hackability to cut microphone and antennae wires
- hagbard_c 2y agoOr just rip out the circuitry and hook up the wires to a power source with something like an ESP8266 or - for the real Luddites - a rheostat. Then again walking is quite healthy and if you have a train station nearby, why not. Writing this from a train going between the Netherlands and Sweden, a trip I make regularly. Quicker and cheaper than driving and I get to hack away while going places.
- minkles 2y agoI don't own a car or need one so yes that.
- passion__desire 2y agoWould you stop having smartphones? Because "they" do the same thing as revealed in news reports recently.
- jajko 2y agoI certainly lowered my usage, removed ie all Meta apps (or linkedin) long before it became Meta, and no looking back. Happy to remove any app that I don't like, fuck usability and convenience, I have some good respect towards myself and I know how to live well without phone. Are we really that retarded that threat to keep away from the phone is supposed to be something scary? When quality life happens often exactly due to lack of it in our hands.
- minkles 2y agoNo and anything like that is turned off and it's iOS so I trust that they don't do anything behind my back like that. I also have no social media on my phone, everything is locked down and all the privacy options are enabled.
- ale42 2y agoOf course consumers will get some benefit in return, like heating seats for free instead of paying a subscription to turn on a resistor... right?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hagbard_c 2y agoOnly for a while, after that they'll have to pay if they want it to warm up at a reasonable pace, then they'll have to pay for warm seats when the temperature is above freezing - all to save the environment of course - and then they'll just have to pay no matter what upon which a new cycle starts: camera's recording facial expressions which are used to detect susceptibility to coercion so ads can be launched at the most vulnerable moments but in return you get a premium seat heating subscription at the low, low price of ${lotsomoolah}.
- akovaski 2y agoReally they should charge more when it is colder out. What's the point of a free market if it can't respond to consumer demand? Our ChargeTooshie seat warmer uses our comprehensive 5g wiretapping network and innovative AI to provide drivers the absolute maximum value that they can afford. With ChargeTooshie, drivers can be assured that they will not freeze to death, because we now accept credit!
- hagbard_c 2y agoCharging more when it is colder does not exclude charging more when it is just chilly. For even higher profit^Wcustomer satisfaction seat heat rates can be made dynamic based on a number of different inputs like temperature, demand, car occupation, driver stress, fuel/energy price, road congestion, time of day, length of trip and customer status. How about a tiered pricing schedule with a Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum level? Basic is free, good for who only occasionally expects to use seat heating but offers no discounts. Bronze is for those who use seat heating a bit more often, say 1 to 2 hours per week with a discount of 10% on basic rates. Bronze membership is only €10/month, buy NOW! Silver and gold offer steeper discounts for a monthly fee of €25/€50 while Platinum is for the discerning user who wants to pay more for QUALITY. With custom-designed heating profiles and a subscription to our weekly magazine where you'll read about the latest trends, with great deals from out partners. Buy NOW for only €75/month!
- aftbit 2y agoThis reminds me a bit of the Airbus patent for using bike seats on airplanes to save weight.[1][2] Of course it's a "good" idea in one narrow sense, saving weight on flights, but it's a bad idea in a few other senses, including safety and comfort. Remember folks, filing a patent doesn't ensure implementation. If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords. They know this. The patent actually makes it less likely that other companies will copy them, so we're less likely to end up in a situation where we have no choice. Now if the NHTSA mandates that all new vehicles come with in-car microphones and AI to listen to conversations to stop drunk driving or some other crazy reason, we're in real trouble. That's why we have touchscreens in every car now - backup cams are mandatory, and if they have to have the screen, they'll use it for everything. 1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/airbus-s-retractable-bicycle-seat-patent-aims-to-maximize-profits-1.2708716 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/airbus-s-retractable-bicycle-s... 2: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140159444A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140159444A1/en
- eximius 2y ago> If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords. If Ford does this, every other car company will find ways to license or come up with competing patents then do the same. There is every incentive for informal collusion here and regulatory bodies are meant to express public sentiment that things like this are something that we, as a society, do not want.
- wincy 2y agoI think the pendulum is swinging back on using the touch screen for everything. My 2024 Toyota Sequoia has a touch screen but it’s only for the infotainment stuff. No essential part of the car is controlled through it. Lots of buttons and knobs in the car. I think it strikes a good balance. Even the audio has a simple knob to turn the volume up and down, and a volume control on the steering wheel. I skipped an entire decade of vehicles because I thought using a screen for everything was absolutely ridiculous.
- 2y ago
- jl6 2y ago> “The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans,” the statement added. In a followup statement, Ford said it "will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services." Good to see a damage control statement. Let’s hope they’ve got the message.
- hightrix 2y agoI always worry, with statements like these, that Fords definition of customer is not “person that buys a car” but instead is “advertising company”.
- downrightmike 2y agoThey aren't the first slime bags to try to do this: https://www.techtimes.com/articles/307372/20240904/cox-media-group-reveals-active-listening-software-spies-user-convos.htm https://www.techtimes.com/articles/307372/20240904/cox-media...
- spl757 2y agoGreed is a more powerful motivator than consumer sentiment, unfortunately.
- effingwewt 2y agoWe plebs aren't the customers anymore we are seen as consumers. The customers are the ad companies.
- thro2309 2y ago[dead]
- pbhjpbhj 2y agoIt's a weird presentation in my personal opinion. They could have presented it as providing information to vehicle users and only broken out the adverts in the later claims. It doesn't sound new, based only on the article.
- chris_wot 2y agoOh, please! If this prevents or makes as targeting more expensive for every other car company, I’m all for it. And I refuse to buy Fords. Win-win all round.
- neilv 2y agoTechbro sociopath business leaders (and those of us henchpersons who wrote the code) were the ones who really pushed the surveillance capitalism envelope. Now, Ford -- purveyor of pickup trucks to the salt-of-the-earth rural and working classes -- don't need to roll down the Overton Window, to reach out and grab their share of that money pile.
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41471417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41471417
- dboreham 2y agoWell now we have two problems: 1.Psychopaths in Ford management. 2. Broken patent system.
- stackedinserter 2y agoBoth could be fixed if we had a working democracy.
- josefresco 2y agoI would be more worried if I didn't have personal experience with digital marketers, and the businesses that hire them. They (ad tech) sell amazing, sometimes very scary, intrusive, tech but the implementation is almost always comically bad. The privacy concern is legitimate, but there are only a handful of brands smart/evil enough to use it as intended. The most common terrible example is Amazon ads: "No I don't want to buy another toilet because I JUST bought one". If Amazon can't figure this out, who is?
- dghlsakjg 2y agoAt a certain point they are going to run into wiretap laws, right? Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that everywhere in North America is at least single party consent, and many places are all party consent for recording. Ford can say that by buying a car I have agreed to the terms and conditions (although, I would argue that simply buying a product should be separate from terms and conditions), but my passengers haven't, and they certainly have an expectation that their conversations are private in my vehicle. At a certain point, ad tech is going to run into an ambitious prosecutor or government attorney, and I can't wait.
- linuxftw 2y agoNo, because on page 397 of the EULA that pops up on the in-dash LED screen after the 3rd OTA software update specifically stated you authorized this.
- jdsully 2y agoBut that's the point, you need consent of the person on the other side of the line too which didn't sign the EULA
- linuxftw 2y agoI took it to mean they're listening to the conversation inside of the car, not a telephone call being placed through the car's audio system.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThat might work in a one-party consent state but the passenger who never interacts with the touch screen in a two-party consent state would have a stronger case. Though, even then, gathering the evidence that they're violating such laws would probably be a pretty big hurdle.
- linuxftw 2y agoTwo party consent is for wire tapping, eg, monitoring electronic communications. If they're monitoring meat-space communications, it's possible that wire tapping laws don't apply in the first place in most jurisdictions. Like an Alexa device.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sogen 2y agoPhilip K. Dick wrote a short story about this, called "Sales Pitch" (1954). Relevant specially its ending.
- baxtr 2y agoI mean if the car is for free…
- candiddevmike 2y agoWhat prevents me from patenting every draconian idea I can possibly think of in order to block corporations from doing it?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jajko 2y agoPatent office, maybe? Patent fees?
- timmg 2y agoNothing. And if you work for a big tech company, you will get "patent bonuses" for doing so.
- jobs_throwaway 2y agoI will contribute to the gofundme
- BadHumans 2y agoNothing but the legal fees from enforcing it.
- bdowling 2y agoPatent application filing fees and the time you spend preparing the applications, primarily. Also the loss of privacy (name, etc. in application) in applying for the patent. Edit: Also the risk that your application is rejected so that you don't get a blocking patent, which would mean anyone else can use the invention or even patent an improvement. An improver might even cite your rejected application in their applications for more draconian inventions, which could be demoralizing.
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoSounds like a good job for a new nonprofit named Black Mirror or something.
- fallinditch 2y agoThe idea that my personal data could be used to manipulate my thoughts and actions is deeply unsettling. It makes me question the very nature of free will in a world where every click, like, and share is analyzed and used to predict my next move. I long for a future where privacy is respected and where I can navigate the digital world without feeling like a target for relentless advertising campaigns.
- breck 2y agoHelpful mnemonic device: - Patents are for parasites - Copyrights are for cons - Licenses are for losers
- charlangas 2y agoI was listening to a podcast today where the speaker wanted to fight against the way that entrepreneurs and business people were portrayed in the media. In many movies and TV shows the bad guy is often an evil billionaire. This guy's argument was that in fact, entrepreneurs are the ones who can really change and improve the world, and while I don't disagree completely, corporations and executives have earned the way they're portrayed. I'm all for well-targeted, useful ads, but this sounds like a horrible intrusion of privacy.
- FredPret 2y agoJust as an aside, I think the bad guy should always be rich / powerful, because how boring would a story be if the bad guy is easy to defeat? Imagine a Bond villain with no advantage over the protagonist. There would be nothing for the forces of good to overcome, and thus no drama. In reality society needs a healthy crop of entrepreneurs vigorously innovating every which way, with a minimal amount of common-sense regulation to prevent obvious abuses like this. Easier said than done.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- probably_wrong 2y agoFrom the patent: "Such systems and methods further further provide the opposite force to a user's natural inclination to seek minimal or no ads. These systems and methods may intelligently schedule variable duration of ads, with playing time seeking to maximize company revenue while minimizing the impact on user experience." They know users don't like it. They just don't care.
- bloomingeek 2y agoTime to brush up on my sign language skills so I can communicate with my wife in private while in the car. :\
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- on_the_train 2y agoJust do it without a patent or asking, like everyone else.
- dylan604 2y agoLooks like time to DIY a small speaker to attach directly to the microphone that plays white noise.
- neverartful 2y agoOne more reason not to buy a Ford (as if I didn't have enough already).
- moi2388 2y agoI wish there were some regulations giving me the right to not see ads without my explicit, free consent.
- EasyMark 2y agoBeyond the privacy invasion this represents, isn’t there some limit to how obvious a concept is? People have been recording conversations surreptitiously since the first audio recorder was invented, how can you patent something so obvious? I mean I taped my parents having an argument in the back seat with my humongous cassette recorder deck when I was young while sitting in the back seat? Was some kind of child genius? Can I claim prior art?
- lmaoguy 2y agoMan I was thinking about buying a ford too. Wtf
- bigmattystyles 2y agoI’d like to think this is defensive, to stop someone else from patenting and implementing it.
- spl757 2y agoJust another reason I would never buy a Ford vehicle.
- treebeard901 2y agoOnStar has been tracking locations and able to be used for conversation monitoring since the 90s.