3 ms·

I'm really happy to see this level of detail and research. So many privacy-related articles either wholly lack in technical skill, or hysterically cannot differ

I'm really happy to see this level of detail and research. So many privacy-related articles either wholly lack in technical skill, or hysterically cannot differentiate between different levels of privacy concerns and risks. People commonly point to Mozilla's research regarding vehicle's privacy policies. (https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-...) But that research only states what the car company's lawyers felt they must include in their privacy policies. These policies imply (and I'm sure, correctly imply) that your conversations will be recorded when you're in the vehicle. But, they never drill down into the real technical details. For instance ..... are car companies recording you the whole time and streaming ALL of your audio from ALL of your driving? Are they just recording you at a random samples? Are they ONLY recording you when you're issuing voice commands, and the lawyers are simply hedging their bets regarding what sort of data _might_ come through accidentally during those instances? Once they record you, where is the data stored, and for how long? Is it sent to 3rd parties, etc? Which of these systems can be disabled, and via what means? Does disabling these systems disable any other functionality of the vehicle, or void its warranty? Lastly, does your insurance shoot up if you have a car without one of these systems? etc ... The list of questions could go almost indefinitely, and presumably, would vary strongly across manufacturers. So much of the privacy news out there is nothing but scary and often not very substantiated worst case scenarios. Without the details and means to improve privacy, all these stories can do is spread cynicism. I'm really glad to see this level of discourse for the author.

jjeaff 2y ago
I'll answer the, "Does disabling it void your warranty?" question. The answer is almost always "no". Unless the modification you make to something actually directly or indirectly caused damage to it, companies in the US cannot "void the warranty".
- lesuorac 2y ago
  I'm sure the company will argue the warranty is voided akin to how trucks have "not liable for damage from rocks" or w/e (they are). IIRC, this is under the Magnuson-Moss act but I didn't find it when skimming wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
- shakna 2y ago
  This is usually side-stepped by being a violation of Terms of Service, which is a much lower legal hurdle. The warranty is intact, but the device is bricked, because it can't bypass any of the authentication that is required to do... Pretty much everything.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
Those aren't questions that have fixed answers. The data available is pretty far beyond what I'm personally comfortable with though. One OEM I'm familiar with had such a policy. My org determined that we needed a statistical reference to compare against within a certain area. Some calls were made to the right people and shortly after we had a (mildly) anonymized map of high precision tracks for every vehicle of that brand within the area over some period.
- everdrive 2y ago
  That’s pretty interesting. What was the purpose of the statistical sample? What did your company want to know precisely?
  - jon9544hn 2y ago
    I’m assuming insurance or commercial trucking? Or both?
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> Lastly, does your insurance shoot up if you have a car without one of these systems? This question I can answer with a reasonable degree of certainty; no, it does not. Insurance companies increase rates for automobile coverage for many reasons, real or illusionary. But "does your insurance shoot up" strictly for not having a recording device in a vehicle is not one of them. Do some insurance companies charge less when provided access to policy owner driving patterns which the companies infer reduce their risk? Sure. But that is a different question.
- sfink 2y ago
  > Do some insurance companies charge less when provided access to policy owner driving patterns which the companies infer reduce their risk? Sure. > But that is a different question. In what way? A discount for allowing surveillance is identical to an extra charge for disallowing it. They're identical, unless the "base" rate is set externally somehow. $5 for lemonade, $3 off if you skip the lemon == $2 for sugar water, $3 extra to add lemon.
  - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
    >> Do some insurance companies charge less when provided access to policy owner driving patterns which the companies infer reduce their risk? Sure. >> But that is a different question. > In what way? A discount for allowing surveillance is identical to an extra charge for disallowing it. In this case, the discount is "opt-in." > $5 for lemonade, $3 off if you skip the lemon == $2 for sugar water, $3 extra to add lemon. I believe a better analogy is: The drink costs $5. If you don't want lemon in it, we'll knock off $3. Those are your options.
    - sfink 2y ago
      That "better" analogy is a restatement of "$5 for lemonade, $3 off if you skip the lemon." > In this case, the discount is "opt-in." The base price is not a force of nature. $5 with the option to opt-in to a $3 discount sounds great, until you realize that just a month ago the price was $2 by default. They raised the default by $3, but allowed you to opt-out of that increase. Whether you label that "opt-in" [to the discount] or "opt-out" [from the increase], you end up in exactly the same place.

jjeaff 2y ago

I'll answer the, "Does disabling it void your warranty?" question. The answer is almost always "no". Unless the modification you make to something actually directly or indirectly caused damage to it, companies in the US cannot "void the warranty".

lesuorac 2y ago
I'm sure the company will argue the warranty is voided akin to how trucks have "not liable for damage from rocks" or w/e (they are). IIRC, this is under the Magnuson-Moss act but I didn't find it when skimming wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
shakna 2y ago
This is usually side-stepped by being a violation of Terms of Service, which is a much lower legal hurdle. The warranty is intact, but the device is bricked, because it can't bypass any of the authentication that is required to do... Pretty much everything.

AlotOfReading 2y ago

Those aren't questions that have fixed answers. The data available is pretty far beyond what I'm personally comfortable with though. One OEM I'm familiar with had such a policy. My org determined that we needed a statistical reference to compare against within a certain area. Some calls were made to the right people and shortly after we had a (mildly) anonymized map of high precision tracks for every vehicle of that brand within the area over some period.

everdrive 2y ago
That’s pretty interesting. What was the purpose of the statistical sample? What did your company want to know precisely?
- jon9544hn 2y ago
  I’m assuming insurance or commercial trucking? Or both?

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

> Lastly, does your insurance shoot up if you have a car without one of these systems? This question I can answer with a reasonable degree of certainty; no, it does not. Insurance companies increase rates for automobile coverage for many reasons, real or illusionary. But "does your insurance shoot up" strictly for not having a recording device in a vehicle is not one of them. Do some insurance companies charge less when provided access to policy owner driving patterns which the companies infer reduce their risk? Sure. But that is a different question.

sfink 2y ago
> Do some insurance companies charge less when provided access to policy owner driving patterns which the companies infer reduce their risk? Sure. > But that is a different question. In what way? A discount for allowing surveillance is identical to an extra charge for disallowing it. They're identical, unless the "base" rate is set externally somehow. $5 for lemonade, $3 off if you skip the lemon == $2 for sugar water, $3 extra to add lemon.
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  >> Do some insurance companies charge less when provided access to policy owner driving patterns which the companies infer reduce their risk? Sure. >> But that is a different question. > In what way? A discount for allowing surveillance is identical to an extra charge for disallowing it. In this case, the discount is "opt-in." > $5 for lemonade, $3 off if you skip the lemon == $2 for sugar water, $3 extra to add lemon. I believe a better analogy is: The drink costs $5. If you don't want lemon in it, we'll knock off $3. Those are your options.
  - sfink 2y ago
    That "better" analogy is a restatement of "$5 for lemonade, $3 off if you skip the lemon." > In this case, the discount is "opt-in." The base price is not a force of nature. $5 with the option to opt-in to a $3 discount sounds great, until you realize that just a month ago the price was $2 by default. They raised the default by $3, but allowed you to opt-out of that increase. Whether you label that "opt-in" [to the discount] or "opt-out" [from the increase], you end up in exactly the same place.