7 ms·

Last year Mozilla did a study on the privacy of modern cars. Every car they tested showed terrible privacy problems. Privacy Nightmare on Wheels: Every Car Bra

Last year Mozilla did a study on the privacy of modern cars. Every car they tested showed terrible privacy problems. Privacy Nightmare on Wheels: Every Car Brand Reviewed by Mozilla https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37443644 (edit I see I'm not the first to link this in this thread)

Forgeties79 2y ago
Whenever I talk about this issue with friends and family I bring up how that report revealed Nissan was gathering info on sexual activity in their cars and can sell it to third parties. That usually gets people to start listening.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Was Nissan actually collecting this data? All I can find is that the privacy policy retained the right to it (some lawyer probably though about what happens if they accidentally record you getting frisky, and put it in there preemptively), but no evidence if it actually happened.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    Does it matter? We can split hairs over whether or not they are actually doing the thing they give themselves the rights to do, but that feels unproductive and disingenuous.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Yes it matters. Or at least it matters whether the claims you make are true, and there is a difference between “had a right to” and “did”. Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to, and it’s splitting hairs whether he actually does or not.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        Ok, give me remote access to your computer. I’ll send a contract saying I can sell what I find, but I haven’t done it so it’s cool and it shouldn’t be cause for alarm.
        brookst 2y ago
        It’s for sure cause for alarm, but it is a different alarm than if you gad broken into my computer. I’m not a fan of the “they did something bad, so we might as well pretend they did something worse” line of argument. It strikes me as dishonest.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        In 2024 to assume a company is not exercising virtually all the rights you’ve given them when you agreed to their terms and services - especially when they stand to make a ton of money doing so - is wild to me. These companies do not get the benefit of the doubt. I do not need proof to assume they are selling us to the highest bidder when they explicitly outline it in their terms and services and have done it time and time again. Experience has shown us that more often than not they will. I also didn’t say Nissan stole or broke into anything. My example is appropriate.
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        Has Nissan sold this data time and again? Or are you again presenting an assumption as fact. I think assuming a company is selling your data is a completely fair one. But it’s also completely fair to ask that people don’t use language that implies factual knowledge to represent those assumptions. If only to make your argument better you might evaluate your comments and see how your language is weakening it.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        At some point you’re just coming off as either way too trusting or playing the steel man. We clearly don’t see eye to eye here. My skepticism of the car manufacturers - especially the ones listed in this very damning report which includes Nissan - is warranted whether you agree or not. Feel free to sign on the dotted line. I won’t be convinced to agree to that nonsense.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      Yes. It comes down to intention. The charitable read is that they are notifying you of the possibility that the car’s data collection may unintentionally include sexual activity. E.g. your car was recorded as having a rocking motion while parked. The other read is that they are intentionally collecting sexual activity data for nefarious purposes. The first is the lawyer drafting the release being overcautious. The second is a corporation being evil. I’m not in love with either, but the claim was that Nissan was actively collecting data about sexual activity, when there is no proof of that. The only thing there is proof of is that they put a notice in their terms of service.
      - Mordisquitos 2y ago
        > The first is the lawyer drafting the release being overcautious. The second is a corporation being evil. How was the hypothetical overcautious lawyer able to independently come up with such a specific scenario, which would require intimate technical knowledge? I believe your are missing a third option, which is a synthesis of both. This is that the engineers reported that their sensor data could be used to collect sexual activity. However, in response to that, the corporation preferred to cover themselves legally rather than making any technical effort to address the risk on their customers' privacy. The lawyer is not being overcautious, but simply displaying the corporation's priorities. The corporation is not being evil, it is just being psychopathic.
        jncfhnb 2y ago
        Seems more likely that a lawyer simply made it up without engineering justification
        scripturial 2y ago
        It’s not the job of the lawyer to trust what the technical people are saying, it’s to protect the company. The lawyer will want to protect/cover anything even remotely plausible and/or has been seen to be a problem in similar situations.
        kasey_junk 2y ago
    - RobRivera 2y ago
      YES!!!!! there's plenty of REAL privacy matters to address than to invent demons and then undermine genuine issues with 'boy who cried wolf'!!!
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        NO!!!!! We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, and frankly I’m not going to wait to find out I got screwed. When it comes to privacy you have to be proactive, you can’t claw it back.
        potato3732842 2y ago
        >We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time Is the bubble gum bought with the unlimited resources known as "other people's money"? Political will is zero sum or close to it. It is wasteful to rile people up over hypotheticals when there is no shortage of non-hypotheticals that are just as odious which simply have not been publicized.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        To handwave this away as a simple hypothetical when this whole discussion is spurred by a thorough analysis by the Mozilla foundation showing this exact issue is, frankly, dishonest. I don’t really know how else to respond. We are having this debate because of a report with credible evidence and accusations. The burden is on you and Nissan et al to convince me to trust them with my biometrics and other info/activity (mostly needlessly) tracked by the car. This is a very strange hill to die on - in defense of car manufacturers against our privacy rights. Once I buy a car what I do with it is none of their damn business and they sure as hell shouldn’t be _selling_ that info.
        RobRivera 2y ago
        You don't syrike me as open minded awoo
  - consteval 2y ago
    IMO if the privacy policy allows it, you should always assume it is happening. The reason is with most of this stuff it’s impossible to verify. Even if you wanted to know what data is collected and how’s it’s used - you literally can’t. Even opting out is based on trust. I mean, it’s all done in software. Nothing is physically removed and most of the time the data is still transmitted. You’re just hoping they don’t use it.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      > IMO if the privacy policy allows it, you should always assume it is happening. Judging by the responses I’ve been getting this is apparently a controversial stance and we should all just give this stuff away to Nissan then wait to find out what happens.
_huayra_ 2y ago
FYI for anyone who owns a Subaru: you can opt out of 3rd-party data sharing here https://www.subaru.com/support/consumer-privacy.html https://www.subaru.com/support/consumer-privacy.html If you don't live in one of the states mentioned in the first paragraph, expect this to take a very long time. For me it took 6 months.
- malfist 2y ago
  You can also opt out of Ford too. They default enable sharing with third party for features, default disable for sharing with data brokers like LexisNexis. It requires you to put in your driver pin to enable that
  - 77pt77 2y ago
    Wait! Lexisnexis has access to the GPS information?
    - reaperman 2y ago
      Pretty sure anyone willing to pay for it has access.
- Intralexical 2y ago
  Uh… Can you also opt out of first party data sharing? Or is Subaru still going to be spying you while pinky swearing to at least not share it with anybody else?
  - MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
    The only way to opt out of that is with a power drill.
- foobarian 2y ago
  The only opting out I would trust would be to take a screwdriver to the cellular modem and disable it. Of course this would probably bubble up various exceptions so best way to do it may be to isolate the antenna, though that may not be 100% reliable.

Forgeties79 2y ago

Whenever I talk about this issue with friends and family I bring up how that report revealed Nissan was gathering info on sexual activity in their cars and can sell it to third parties. That usually gets people to start listening.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
Was Nissan actually collecting this data? All I can find is that the privacy policy retained the right to it (some lawyer probably though about what happens if they accidentally record you getting frisky, and put it in there preemptively), but no evidence if it actually happened.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  Does it matter? We can split hairs over whether or not they are actually doing the thing they give themselves the rights to do, but that feels unproductive and disingenuous.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Yes it matters. Or at least it matters whether the claims you make are true, and there is a difference between “had a right to” and “did”. Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to, and it’s splitting hairs whether he actually does or not.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      Ok, give me remote access to your computer. I’ll send a contract saying I can sell what I find, but I haven’t done it so it’s cool and it shouldn’t be cause for alarm.
      - brookst 2y ago
        It’s for sure cause for alarm, but it is a different alarm than if you gad broken into my computer. I’m not a fan of the “they did something bad, so we might as well pretend they did something worse” line of argument. It strikes me as dishonest.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        In 2024 to assume a company is not exercising virtually all the rights you’ve given them when you agreed to their terms and services - especially when they stand to make a ton of money doing so - is wild to me. These companies do not get the benefit of the doubt. I do not need proof to assume they are selling us to the highest bidder when they explicitly outline it in their terms and services and have done it time and time again. Experience has shown us that more often than not they will. I also didn’t say Nissan stole or broke into anything. My example is appropriate.
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        Has Nissan sold this data time and again? Or are you again presenting an assumption as fact. I think assuming a company is selling your data is a completely fair one. But it’s also completely fair to ask that people don’t use language that implies factual knowledge to represent those assumptions. If only to make your argument better you might evaluate your comments and see how your language is weakening it.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        At some point you’re just coming off as either way too trusting or playing the steel man. We clearly don’t see eye to eye here. My skepticism of the car manufacturers - especially the ones listed in this very damning report which includes Nissan - is warranted whether you agree or not. Feel free to sign on the dotted line. I won’t be convinced to agree to that nonsense.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Yes. It comes down to intention. The charitable read is that they are notifying you of the possibility that the car’s data collection may unintentionally include sexual activity. E.g. your car was recorded as having a rocking motion while parked. The other read is that they are intentionally collecting sexual activity data for nefarious purposes. The first is the lawyer drafting the release being overcautious. The second is a corporation being evil. I’m not in love with either, but the claim was that Nissan was actively collecting data about sexual activity, when there is no proof of that. The only thing there is proof of is that they put a notice in their terms of service.
    - Mordisquitos 2y ago
      > The first is the lawyer drafting the release being overcautious. The second is a corporation being evil. How was the hypothetical overcautious lawyer able to independently come up with such a specific scenario, which would require intimate technical knowledge? I believe your are missing a third option, which is a synthesis of both. This is that the engineers reported that their sensor data could be used to collect sexual activity. However, in response to that, the corporation preferred to cover themselves legally rather than making any technical effort to address the risk on their customers' privacy. The lawyer is not being overcautious, but simply displaying the corporation's priorities. The corporation is not being evil, it is just being psychopathic.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        Seems more likely that a lawyer simply made it up without engineering justification
        scripturial 2y ago
        It’s not the job of the lawyer to trust what the technical people are saying, it’s to protect the company. The lawyer will want to protect/cover anything even remotely plausible and/or has been seen to be a problem in similar situations.
      - kasey_junk 2y ago
  - RobRivera 2y ago
    YES!!!!! there's plenty of REAL privacy matters to address than to invent demons and then undermine genuine issues with 'boy who cried wolf'!!!
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      NO!!!!! We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, and frankly I’m not going to wait to find out I got screwed. When it comes to privacy you have to be proactive, you can’t claw it back.
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        >We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time Is the bubble gum bought with the unlimited resources known as "other people's money"? Political will is zero sum or close to it. It is wasteful to rile people up over hypotheticals when there is no shortage of non-hypotheticals that are just as odious which simply have not been publicized.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        To handwave this away as a simple hypothetical when this whole discussion is spurred by a thorough analysis by the Mozilla foundation showing this exact issue is, frankly, dishonest. I don’t really know how else to respond. We are having this debate because of a report with credible evidence and accusations. The burden is on you and Nissan et al to convince me to trust them with my biometrics and other info/activity (mostly needlessly) tracked by the car. This is a very strange hill to die on - in defense of car manufacturers against our privacy rights. Once I buy a car what I do with it is none of their damn business and they sure as hell shouldn’t be _selling_ that info.
        RobRivera 2y ago
        You don't syrike me as open minded awoo
- consteval 2y ago
  IMO if the privacy policy allows it, you should always assume it is happening. The reason is with most of this stuff it’s impossible to verify. Even if you wanted to know what data is collected and how’s it’s used - you literally can’t. Even opting out is based on trust. I mean, it’s all done in software. Nothing is physically removed and most of the time the data is still transmitted. You’re just hoping they don’t use it.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    > IMO if the privacy policy allows it, you should always assume it is happening. Judging by the responses I’ve been getting this is apparently a controversial stance and we should all just give this stuff away to Nissan then wait to find out what happens.

_huayra_ 2y ago

FYI for anyone who owns a Subaru: you can opt out of 3rd-party data sharing here https://www.subaru.com/support/consumer-privacy.html https://www.subaru.com/support/consumer-privacy.html If you don't live in one of the states mentioned in the first paragraph, expect this to take a very long time. For me it took 6 months.

malfist 2y ago
You can also opt out of Ford too. They default enable sharing with third party for features, default disable for sharing with data brokers like LexisNexis. It requires you to put in your driver pin to enable that
- 77pt77 2y ago
  Wait! Lexisnexis has access to the GPS information?
  - reaperman 2y ago
    Pretty sure anyone willing to pay for it has access.
Intralexical 2y ago
Uh… Can you also opt out of first party data sharing? Or is Subaru still going to be spying you while pinky swearing to at least not share it with anybody else?
- MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
  The only way to opt out of that is with a power drill.
foobarian 2y ago
The only opting out I would trust would be to take a screwdriver to the cellular modem and disable it. Of course this would probably bubble up various exceptions so best way to do it may be to isolate the antenna, though that may not be 100% reliable.