3 ms·

> Most people would have probably driven around for years with a foreign GPS tracker. So basically everyone with a smartphone? I'm not sure if it's really wors

> Most people would have probably driven around for years with a foreign GPS tracker. So basically everyone with a smartphone? I'm not sure if it's really worse if the car has its own GPS and cell connectivity. How many people turn off their phone or leave it at home? And you can buy other people's location data, so...

gruez 2y ago
You can turn off your phone or go into airplane mode. Can you do that with your car? Even if most people don't use that option on a daily basis, doesn't mean it's fine.
- markdown 2y ago
  So you put it in airplane mode while in a car and then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? What's the point of that?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? Why would I need to disable it? If you're not using the built-in navigation (which probably costs money anyways) and are using carplay/android auto instead, you should be able to leave it in airplane mode indefinitely. What critical functionality would I be missing out on?
    - markdown 2y ago
      Well... for most people... everything. It sounds like you use a dumb phone. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously enough to use a dumb phone will be buying a dumb car.
    - chgs 2y ago
      OP isnt talking about putting the car in airplane mode, but the phone. The point is that you are already tracked via your phone (which is likely kit in airplane mode), so there’s not a massive gain to preventing car tracking.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >The point is that you are already tracked via your phone (which is likely kit in airplane mode), so there’s not a massive gain to preventing car tracking. That's like arguing "you're already plastering your face on social media, why are you hand wringing about corporations/governments building a facial recognition database?". The difference is that the former is consensual/optional, whereas the latter isn't. Moreover, just because most people aren't exercising their privacy rights, doesn't mean it's okay for those rights to be trampled on for everyone. Most people aren't activists or journalists who need free speech protections, but that doesn't mean we can trample on the first amendment. Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
karlgkk 2y ago
> So basically everyone with a smartphone Tbh considering the accuracy of modern triangulation technology... anyone with a cellphone, period.
wruza 2y ago
The difference is in intent. People dislike intended tracking by a third party, that’s it. You cellphone company, your google, your govt can have it. Others can not. Even when they can, people actively don’t want that. What’s wrong with it?

gruez 2y ago

You can turn off your phone or go into airplane mode. Can you do that with your car? Even if most people don't use that option on a daily basis, doesn't mean it's fine.

markdown 2y ago
So you put it in airplane mode while in a car and then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? What's the point of that?
- gruez 2y ago
  >then disable airplane mode when you get to your destination? Why would I need to disable it? If you're not using the built-in navigation (which probably costs money anyways) and are using carplay/android auto instead, you should be able to leave it in airplane mode indefinitely. What critical functionality would I be missing out on?
  - markdown 2y ago
    Well... for most people... everything. It sounds like you use a dumb phone. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously enough to use a dumb phone will be buying a dumb car.
  - chgs 2y ago
    OP isnt talking about putting the car in airplane mode, but the phone. The point is that you are already tracked via your phone (which is likely kit in airplane mode), so there’s not a massive gain to preventing car tracking.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The point is that you are already tracked via your phone (which is likely kit in airplane mode), so there’s not a massive gain to preventing car tracking. That's like arguing "you're already plastering your face on social media, why are you hand wringing about corporations/governments building a facial recognition database?". The difference is that the former is consensual/optional, whereas the latter isn't. Moreover, just because most people aren't exercising their privacy rights, doesn't mean it's okay for those rights to be trampled on for everyone. Most people aren't activists or journalists who need free speech protections, but that doesn't mean we can trample on the first amendment. Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

karlgkk 2y ago

> So basically everyone with a smartphone Tbh considering the accuracy of modern triangulation technology... anyone with a cellphone, period.

wruza 2y ago

The difference is in intent. People dislike intended tracking by a third party, that’s it. You cellphone company, your google, your govt can have it. Others can not. Even when they can, people actively don’t want that. What’s wrong with it?