6 ms·

With cars, networked computers are encroaching on privacy from two sides: the computers inside the car sharing sensor data and the computers outside the car sha

With cars, networked computers are encroaching on privacy from two sides: the computers inside the car sharing sensor data and the computers outside the car sharing camera data from known points on the road. Older cars may not have cellular data, and some new cars (e.g. the Slate electric car) may be specifically designed without cellular connections or with easily removable chips, but so much can still be inferred from omnipresent roadside surveillance. It's not enough even to have private cars. The solution must be legislation that limits all of: data collected by cars and cameras, data shared among third parties, and placement of cameras without informed, specific, continuing public consent. And every time flock-style cameras "could have" done some good, the surveillance state's cheerleaders will beat their drums and bleat their demands.

plagiarist 5mo ago
There was a HN user recently on a related post explaining to everyone that they don't need privacy because they personally aren't harmed and a murderer was caught by one of these cameras. It turns out protesters don't need privacy, either, because of various reasons. Same for women seeking adequate healthcare, I'm sure. Or LGBT people attempting to exist. Sorry, I am strawmanning a little. Actually, we'll simply have regulations on use. Regulation which will certainly be followed this time by a government with complete disregard for Constitutional rights. Certainly they will never be misused by the police currently stalking their ex-partners with existing surveillance systems despite existing stalking legislation. I wish the legislation you talked about existed already. I am dismayed by the overwhelming number of people that love being surveilled. Without them, we would have it already.
- Gigachad 5mo ago
  The end state is something like China, where petty street level crime is essentially solved. You can leave your bike unlocked because if anyone stole it the police would find them and return it since they can track the thief on a network of cameras. But like you say, many things which have been crimes were based on unethical laws. It's easy to two sides this issue, less crime would on a whole be a good thing but some level of committing crime and getting away with it is required for society to progress.
  - komali2 5mo ago
    > The end state is something like China, where petty street level crime is essentially solved. PRC netizens, and who knows what percentage of them are real but presumably more than 0, will defend this when I talk with them about it. How the surveillance makes them feel safe, how they wouldn't feel safe without it. Hm, maybe, I'd prefer the person looking over me while I slept to be someone I know, but I guess everyone knows brother Xi. Regardless, the implication seems to be that we need the requisite police state to go with it, when Taiwan and Japan both have basically total CCTV coverage as well, yet are liberal democracies. Both countries are also comparably safe to the PRC. So there certainly seems to be some middle ground. I don't know about Japan, but I've not heard of issues of private companies exploiting the CCTV for profiteering purposes, or like, cops using it to stalk people, or the government using it to engage in civic oppression (post constitutional reforms).
    - Gigachad 5mo ago
      I think we just need sensible levels of surveillance with proper safe guards. I'm quite happy with a network of CCTV that can track down the driver who just bulldosed and killed a kid on the their bike. I'm not ok with Amazon building their own network of spying doorbell cameras to sell adverts.
    - jesterson 5mo ago
      > Japan both have basically total CCTV coverage as well, Japan is nowhere near "total CCTV coverage"
  - thaumasiotes 5mo ago
    > The end state is something like China, where petty street level crime is essentially solved. Petty crime in China was also "essentially solved" before there were cameras anywhere. > You can leave your bike unlocked because if anyone stole it the police would find them and return it since they can track the thief on a network of cameras. Leaving my bike unlocked in Shanghai 10+ years ago, it was stolen about once every one or two months. That's better than the US, but it's not exactly economical. The modern solution is that you don't own a bike. You use the rental bikes instead. They're not as good as the bike you'd own, but if they get stolen it's not your problem. (And they have trackers installed, so it's not much of a problem for the rental company either.)
- sfRattan 5mo ago
  Sadly, often once some new degree of connection becomes possible, its absence is very quickly seen as unconscionable. But that instinct is corrosive to human flourishing and freedom in the long term. Once it's possible to monitor your children via networked phone or wristwatch and know at all times where they are, for example, if you do not spy on your own children then other parents who do will look at you askance, seeing you as neglectful. Some will call the authories to complain. Those same complainers will also wonder why so many children are no longer becoming effective, independent adults, with no introspection. The same philisophical problem emerges independent of surveillance with most, if not all, new technology. Once everyone is genetically engineering children, bringing children into the world naturally will set them up for failure and serfdom (a la Gattaca).
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    An Apple airtag in your kid's shoes is common enough.
- rockskon 5mo ago
  In response to someone in another thread who argued against personal privacy, who said "Why do people feel they can behave in a way that can be blackmailed", I responded with the following: --- Yeah, how dare someone do or say anything that some random crazy asshole could use to threaten that person's personal or professional life or even put them in danger of physical harm. To hell with gay kids growing up in very traditional religious areas in much of the world. That person who made a racist joke on Discord when they were 13 years old? That should be able to ruin them when they're 30! Someone confiding to a friend over social media DMs that they're in an abusive relationship with someone violent? Well - she shouldn't be surprised when her partner beats her within an inch of her life when he finds out. If only she did what she was told, right? And let's not forget the cringiest or most sexual thing you've ever said online - make sure that your every utterance in private would pass scrutiny by your employer's HR department! Seriously...I don't understand people like you. What a small, listless, and unusually safe world you must live in. You may as well have asked why can't everyone think and act like you as well as live in your particular region of the world with the same friends, family, romantic, and professional opportunities that you've been provided throughout your life. ---
  - lukan 5mo ago
    "That person who made a racist joke on Discord when they were 13 years old? That should be able to ruin them when they're 30!" Or society could move on and accept that people progress. Also I am not aware of any instances where 30 year olds were punished for a racist joke they made with 13. The only instance I remotely know, is of a german politician, who made a deeply racist and neonazi pamphlet when he was 17 - and the result was some public outcry but nothing else. Still privacy is important, simply because those who do surveillance are not trustworthy either.
    - rockskon 5mo ago
      In the 2010's, there was an instance of a late-teens/early-20's girl targeted by a group of too-online people for a racist chat log made when she was around 12 or 13 years old. The people went after her dad's business too because of his association with her. Aside from getting her fired from her job, they also tried to destroy her dad's business. I get that less-than-10 years isn't a ton of time, but it also represented nearly half her life. People tend to grow up a lot in their teens even if it's still common for there to be some immaturity leftover in their early 20's
- haritha-j 5mo ago
  If it happened in the Land of Freedom, of course its going to happen everywhere. Legislation WILL be exploited, its just a question of when.
throwaway27448 5mo ago
> The solution must be legislation that limits all of: data collected by cars and cameras, data shared among third parties, and placement of cameras without informed, specific, continuing public consent. Americans will give away any and all material and immaterial rights to validate their illusion of comfort and security. This will not happen barring a complete audit/revamp of the state
- notarobot123 5mo ago
  Yet even those who aim to remake the state change their tune when they become the state.
  - close04 5mo ago
    Becoming the state means getting power. Very few people are strong enough to not be corrupted by this power, and to argue against themselves, or their function, or the powerful people around them having so much of this power or more of it. Normal people give it up because they are permanently under assault by misinformation, misdirection, lack of education, artificial threats, all meant to guide them towards a conclusion that was already predetermined for them.
  - throwaway27448 5mo ago
    It's true. We need an american lenin. Or at least a stalin.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
vegetablepotpie 5mo ago
Unfortunately the legislation that exists requires surveillance tech be installed on new vehicles. https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becomes-mandatory-in-new-cars-by-2027 https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becom...
- colin4k1024 5mo ago
  [flagged]
- ikari_pl 5mo ago
  I think the only problem may be how it's phrased. I don't mind technology checking if I'm alive and awake while operating a two tonne ballistic bullet in publicml. I do mind, however, if the data is not immediately discarded, once it does its real-time safety purpose.
- taneq 5mo ago
  That’s weird wording, it’s not live-streaming the DMS camera feed… is it?
  - Brybry 5mo ago
    There's no actual rule yet, they're still working on it. [1] tldr; Impairment detection methods are currently too inaccurate to use (both false positive and false negative). And then if anything is ever accurate enough they'll have to create testable standards that car manufacturers can easily implement. And NHTSA is concerned with security and privacy issues as well. They'll keep updating congress on progress once a year. My take is it's very possible the rule may never get made. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-to-Congress-Advanced-Impaired-Driving-Prevention-Technology.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-t...
- laughing_man 5mo ago
  Yep, which is why I'll never buy another car without an ashtray.
CGMthrowaway 5mo ago
> With cars, networked computers are encroaching on privacy from two sides: the computers inside the car sharing sensor data and the computers outside the car sharing camera data from known points on the road. There are cameras inside the car as well.
nazgul17 5mo ago
A recent episode of the MindScape podcast seems very relevant here: Andrew Guthrie Ferguson on How Your Data Will Be Used Against You https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FOwAWkB0Bu00EpxmE97qB?si=VBRVbcAoQEeQWHyFHVZ5Pw https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FOwAWkB0Bu00EpxmE97qB?si=V...
Frieren 5mo ago
> The solution must be legislation that limits all of: data collected Let's finish the sentence there. Being spied by corporations 24/7 while we game, watch entertainment, drive, talk with friends, work... it's fucked up. We live in a hell of our own creation and only new legislation and regulations can get us out of here.
- verisimi 5mo ago
  Let's finish that thought too. You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want. It's a closed loop of crap, that goes in one direction only.
  - kakacik 5mo ago
    No worries, next generation won't even understand what we are blabbing about. Look at that cute cat video! Privacy what? Oh that puppy is rolling on his back!
    - bflesch 5mo ago
      Once your intergenerational wealth is offshore you can pick any of your nepo offspring and make them a hollywood star or unicorn startup CEO with a clean wikipedia page. Their wealth is also tied to national security jobs, because those make you immune in front of the law plus you have the benefit of constructing identities (and death certificates) out of thin air. For example very rich people in the US receive vanity SSNs. Ghislaine Maxwell has one that spells out "Leet Babe". It's like number plates to show off.
      - cogogo 5mo ago
        “Leet Babe” is not even the right number of letters. Doesn’t seem like “leet” would even be in her generation’s vocabulary. Are you trolling? Very rich get vanity numbers? Where is there evidence of that?
Terr_ 5mo ago
> It's not enough even to have private cars. The solution must be legislation Regarding the importance of legislation versus "just don't buy those", I think this piece [0] seems relevant. To summarize the argument: 1. Consumer choices are never enough to really change things. It's a false promise, one the people making the decisions are happy to let you believe. 2. If you do believe that "voting with your wallet" works, then when things inevitably fail to change it leads you to blame others for "not doing their part" and being insufficiently picky or not denying their own desires. 3. Ultimately this means: (A) No policy change; (B) You spend a lot of time denying yourself nice things; (C) It creates division between people who have the same goals; (D) Your experience is frustrating bickering and purity-tests. 4. Instead you should pursue real politics. While you can't do it alone with a computer, it offers: (A) Real results; (B) No self-sabotage when you truly need a product; (C) You gain allies; (D) You experience comradery and excitement. [0] https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/21/purity-culture/#stop-fucking-that-chicken https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/21/purity-culture/#stop-fuck...
- watwut 5mo ago
  The best argument against "voting with your wallet" I heard was following: billionaires have much bigger wallets. They will outvote the rest of us every single time voting with wallet is used as political strategy.
  - bluGill 5mo ago
    Well, billionaires do have bigger wallets. The common person as a collection has bigger wallets than the billionaires. Remember, too, that the billionaires are not a 100% alignment on everything.
    - watwut 5mo ago
      > The common person as a collection has bigger wallets than the billionaires. They don't. And remember, the billionaire has 100% alignment on everything with himself and that gives him huge power when voting with a valet. A collection of "common people" is a true collection of people with very different priorities and needs.
leonidasrup 5mo ago
There was a very nice presentation at CCC in 2024. "We know where your car is parked." https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-volksdaten-von-volkswagen https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-vo... Positional data about 800.000 E-cars from Volkswagen.
montroser 5mo ago
Slate is just some renderings though, right? Is there anything actually real about it more than just marketing?
- cogogo 5mo ago
  Happen to be on their email list. They are taking orders soon and announcing pricing on 6/24. Initial delivery expected toward the end of the year.
DanielHB 5mo ago
It is scary to think how cheap this tech is getting, so semi-expensive things like fridges and TVs will start to come with built-in mobile connections and be always online even if you don't connect them. With mesh networks it is even scarier, I wouldn't be surprised that at some point even if you don't connect a device like a smart lamp, it might still be sending data about its usage using your neighbors hub.
salemh 5mo ago
[dead]
m463 5mo ago
I think there are THREE sets of data collection: - data your car collects about you - roadside data collection by flock/etc - data collection by other vehicles. other vehicles act like roving flock cameras. I think fedex vehicles collect data for example. I also wonder about data your car collects that is not about you. Might not show up in the privacy policy.
ACV001 5mo ago
There is a lot of legislation missing in the world. Partially to blame is corruption (so called lobbying), greed and so.

plagiarist 5mo ago

There was a HN user recently on a related post explaining to everyone that they don't need privacy because they personally aren't harmed and a murderer was caught by one of these cameras. It turns out protesters don't need privacy, either, because of various reasons. Same for women seeking adequate healthcare, I'm sure. Or LGBT people attempting to exist. Sorry, I am strawmanning a little. Actually, we'll simply have regulations on use. Regulation which will certainly be followed this time by a government with complete disregard for Constitutional rights. Certainly they will never be misused by the police currently stalking their ex-partners with existing surveillance systems despite existing stalking legislation. I wish the legislation you talked about existed already. I am dismayed by the overwhelming number of people that love being surveilled. Without them, we would have it already.

Gigachad 5mo ago
The end state is something like China, where petty street level crime is essentially solved. You can leave your bike unlocked because if anyone stole it the police would find them and return it since they can track the thief on a network of cameras. But like you say, many things which have been crimes were based on unethical laws. It's easy to two sides this issue, less crime would on a whole be a good thing but some level of committing crime and getting away with it is required for society to progress.
- komali2 5mo ago
  > The end state is something like China, where petty street level crime is essentially solved. PRC netizens, and who knows what percentage of them are real but presumably more than 0, will defend this when I talk with them about it. How the surveillance makes them feel safe, how they wouldn't feel safe without it. Hm, maybe, I'd prefer the person looking over me while I slept to be someone I know, but I guess everyone knows brother Xi. Regardless, the implication seems to be that we need the requisite police state to go with it, when Taiwan and Japan both have basically total CCTV coverage as well, yet are liberal democracies. Both countries are also comparably safe to the PRC. So there certainly seems to be some middle ground. I don't know about Japan, but I've not heard of issues of private companies exploiting the CCTV for profiteering purposes, or like, cops using it to stalk people, or the government using it to engage in civic oppression (post constitutional reforms).
  - Gigachad 5mo ago
    I think we just need sensible levels of surveillance with proper safe guards. I'm quite happy with a network of CCTV that can track down the driver who just bulldosed and killed a kid on the their bike. I'm not ok with Amazon building their own network of spying doorbell cameras to sell adverts.
  - jesterson 5mo ago
    > Japan both have basically total CCTV coverage as well, Japan is nowhere near "total CCTV coverage"
- thaumasiotes 5mo ago
  > The end state is something like China, where petty street level crime is essentially solved. Petty crime in China was also "essentially solved" before there were cameras anywhere. > You can leave your bike unlocked because if anyone stole it the police would find them and return it since they can track the thief on a network of cameras. Leaving my bike unlocked in Shanghai 10+ years ago, it was stolen about once every one or two months. That's better than the US, but it's not exactly economical. The modern solution is that you don't own a bike. You use the rental bikes instead. They're not as good as the bike you'd own, but if they get stolen it's not your problem. (And they have trackers installed, so it's not much of a problem for the rental company either.)
sfRattan 5mo ago
Sadly, often once some new degree of connection becomes possible, its absence is very quickly seen as unconscionable. But that instinct is corrosive to human flourishing and freedom in the long term. Once it's possible to monitor your children via networked phone or wristwatch and know at all times where they are, for example, if you do not spy on your own children then other parents who do will look at you askance, seeing you as neglectful. Some will call the authories to complain. Those same complainers will also wonder why so many children are no longer becoming effective, independent adults, with no introspection. The same philisophical problem emerges independent of surveillance with most, if not all, new technology. Once everyone is genetically engineering children, bringing children into the world naturally will set them up for failure and serfdom (a la Gattaca).
- fragmede 5mo ago
  An Apple airtag in your kid's shoes is common enough.
rockskon 5mo ago
In response to someone in another thread who argued against personal privacy, who said "Why do people feel they can behave in a way that can be blackmailed", I responded with the following: --- Yeah, how dare someone do or say anything that some random crazy asshole could use to threaten that person's personal or professional life or even put them in danger of physical harm. To hell with gay kids growing up in very traditional religious areas in much of the world. That person who made a racist joke on Discord when they were 13 years old? That should be able to ruin them when they're 30! Someone confiding to a friend over social media DMs that they're in an abusive relationship with someone violent? Well - she shouldn't be surprised when her partner beats her within an inch of her life when he finds out. If only she did what she was told, right? And let's not forget the cringiest or most sexual thing you've ever said online - make sure that your every utterance in private would pass scrutiny by your employer's HR department! Seriously...I don't understand people like you. What a small, listless, and unusually safe world you must live in. You may as well have asked why can't everyone think and act like you as well as live in your particular region of the world with the same friends, family, romantic, and professional opportunities that you've been provided throughout your life. ---
- lukan 5mo ago
  "That person who made a racist joke on Discord when they were 13 years old? That should be able to ruin them when they're 30!" Or society could move on and accept that people progress. Also I am not aware of any instances where 30 year olds were punished for a racist joke they made with 13. The only instance I remotely know, is of a german politician, who made a deeply racist and neonazi pamphlet when he was 17 - and the result was some public outcry but nothing else. Still privacy is important, simply because those who do surveillance are not trustworthy either.
  - rockskon 5mo ago
    In the 2010's, there was an instance of a late-teens/early-20's girl targeted by a group of too-online people for a racist chat log made when she was around 12 or 13 years old. The people went after her dad's business too because of his association with her. Aside from getting her fired from her job, they also tried to destroy her dad's business. I get that less-than-10 years isn't a ton of time, but it also represented nearly half her life. People tend to grow up a lot in their teens even if it's still common for there to be some immaturity leftover in their early 20's
haritha-j 5mo ago
If it happened in the Land of Freedom, of course its going to happen everywhere. Legislation WILL be exploited, its just a question of when.

throwaway27448 5mo ago

> The solution must be legislation that limits all of: data collected by cars and cameras, data shared among third parties, and placement of cameras without informed, specific, continuing public consent. Americans will give away any and all material and immaterial rights to validate their illusion of comfort and security. This will not happen barring a complete audit/revamp of the state

notarobot123 5mo ago
Yet even those who aim to remake the state change their tune when they become the state.
- close04 5mo ago
  Becoming the state means getting power. Very few people are strong enough to not be corrupted by this power, and to argue against themselves, or their function, or the powerful people around them having so much of this power or more of it. Normal people give it up because they are permanently under assault by misinformation, misdirection, lack of education, artificial threats, all meant to guide them towards a conclusion that was already predetermined for them.
- throwaway27448 5mo ago
  It's true. We need an american lenin. Or at least a stalin.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

vegetablepotpie 5mo ago

Unfortunately the legislation that exists requires surveillance tech be installed on new vehicles. https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becomes-mandatory-in-new-cars-by-2027 https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becom...

colin4k1024 5mo ago
[flagged]
ikari_pl 5mo ago
I think the only problem may be how it's phrased. I don't mind technology checking if I'm alive and awake while operating a two tonne ballistic bullet in publicml. I do mind, however, if the data is not immediately discarded, once it does its real-time safety purpose.
taneq 5mo ago
That’s weird wording, it’s not live-streaming the DMS camera feed… is it?
- Brybry 5mo ago
  There's no actual rule yet, they're still working on it. [1] tldr; Impairment detection methods are currently too inaccurate to use (both false positive and false negative). And then if anything is ever accurate enough they'll have to create testable standards that car manufacturers can easily implement. And NHTSA is concerned with security and privacy issues as well. They'll keep updating congress on progress once a year. My take is it's very possible the rule may never get made. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-to-Congress-Advanced-Impaired-Driving-Prevention-Technology.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-t...
laughing_man 5mo ago
Yep, which is why I'll never buy another car without an ashtray.

CGMthrowaway 5mo ago

> With cars, networked computers are encroaching on privacy from two sides: the computers inside the car sharing sensor data and the computers outside the car sharing camera data from known points on the road. There are cameras inside the car as well.

nazgul17 5mo ago

A recent episode of the MindScape podcast seems very relevant here: Andrew Guthrie Ferguson on How Your Data Will Be Used Against You https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FOwAWkB0Bu00EpxmE97qB?si=VBRVbcAoQEeQWHyFHVZ5Pw https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FOwAWkB0Bu00EpxmE97qB?si=V...

Frieren 5mo ago

> The solution must be legislation that limits all of: data collected Let's finish the sentence there. Being spied by corporations 24/7 while we game, watch entertainment, drive, talk with friends, work... it's fucked up. We live in a hell of our own creation and only new legislation and regulations can get us out of here.

verisimi 5mo ago
Let's finish that thought too. You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want. It's a closed loop of crap, that goes in one direction only.
- kakacik 5mo ago
  No worries, next generation won't even understand what we are blabbing about. Look at that cute cat video! Privacy what? Oh that puppy is rolling on his back!
  - bflesch 5mo ago
    Once your intergenerational wealth is offshore you can pick any of your nepo offspring and make them a hollywood star or unicorn startup CEO with a clean wikipedia page. Their wealth is also tied to national security jobs, because those make you immune in front of the law plus you have the benefit of constructing identities (and death certificates) out of thin air. For example very rich people in the US receive vanity SSNs. Ghislaine Maxwell has one that spells out "Leet Babe". It's like number plates to show off.
    - cogogo 5mo ago
      “Leet Babe” is not even the right number of letters. Doesn’t seem like “leet” would even be in her generation’s vocabulary. Are you trolling? Very rich get vanity numbers? Where is there evidence of that?

Terr_ 5mo ago

> It's not enough even to have private cars. The solution must be legislation Regarding the importance of legislation versus "just don't buy those", I think this piece [0] seems relevant. To summarize the argument: 1. Consumer choices are never enough to really change things. It's a false promise, one the people making the decisions are happy to let you believe. 2. If you do believe that "voting with your wallet" works, then when things inevitably fail to change it leads you to blame others for "not doing their part" and being insufficiently picky or not denying their own desires. 3. Ultimately this means: (A) No policy change; (B) You spend a lot of time denying yourself nice things; (C) It creates division between people who have the same goals; (D) Your experience is frustrating bickering and purity-tests. 4. Instead you should pursue real politics. While you can't do it alone with a computer, it offers: (A) Real results; (B) No self-sabotage when you truly need a product; (C) You gain allies; (D) You experience comradery and excitement. [0] https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/21/purity-culture/#stop-fucking-that-chicken https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/21/purity-culture/#stop-fuck...

watwut 5mo ago
The best argument against "voting with your wallet" I heard was following: billionaires have much bigger wallets. They will outvote the rest of us every single time voting with wallet is used as political strategy.
- bluGill 5mo ago
  Well, billionaires do have bigger wallets. The common person as a collection has bigger wallets than the billionaires. Remember, too, that the billionaires are not a 100% alignment on everything.
  - watwut 5mo ago
    > The common person as a collection has bigger wallets than the billionaires. They don't. And remember, the billionaire has 100% alignment on everything with himself and that gives him huge power when voting with a valet. A collection of "common people" is a true collection of people with very different priorities and needs.

leonidasrup 5mo ago

There was a very nice presentation at CCC in 2024. "We know where your car is parked." https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-volksdaten-von-volkswagen https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-wir-wissen-wo-dein-auto-steht-vo... Positional data about 800.000 E-cars from Volkswagen.

montroser 5mo ago

Slate is just some renderings though, right? Is there anything actually real about it more than just marketing?

cogogo 5mo ago
Happen to be on their email list. They are taking orders soon and announcing pricing on 6/24. Initial delivery expected toward the end of the year.

DanielHB 5mo ago

It is scary to think how cheap this tech is getting, so semi-expensive things like fridges and TVs will start to come with built-in mobile connections and be always online even if you don't connect them. With mesh networks it is even scarier, I wouldn't be surprised that at some point even if you don't connect a device like a smart lamp, it might still be sending data about its usage using your neighbors hub.

salemh 5mo ago

[dead]

m463 5mo ago

I think there are THREE sets of data collection: - data your car collects about you - roadside data collection by flock/etc - data collection by other vehicles. other vehicles act like roving flock cameras. I think fedex vehicles collect data for example. I also wonder about data your car collects that is not about you. Might not show up in the privacy policy.

ACV001 5mo ago

There is a lot of legislation missing in the world. Partially to blame is corruption (so called lobbying), greed and so.