Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 280 posts

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#181

Post by BobbyTables2 »

drnick1 wrote: post #139
jasonjayr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find the telematic's antenna, and put a 50ohm resistor across it. It can scream into it's own private void.

It seems like this is not enough: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/simpler-solution-for-dis... The most reliable way to permanently silence the cellular modem is to pull the relevant fuse. In the above case, this also disables the microphone, which I think is a positive. Unplugging the DCM entirely, however, seems to disable to right speaker, which is wired through the DCM for some reason.

Would be darkly hilarious if they were using the speaker or rear defroster as a cellular antenna.

(Yeah, technically horrible but I’m sure someone will find a way)

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#182

Post by hansvm »

wcunning wrote: post #142
bitparadox wrote: post #34

I posted a flavor of this comment on an article a few months ago, but it's relevant here: I have a seven year old Volkswagen, not financed. I'm security conscious and made sure to disable all the data collection I could find in the companion app before removing my account, turn off remote access services, dig through the infotainment to turn off what I could, etc. Last year I requested a Carfax on it, and one of the…

Lots of automotive OEMs want that specific kind of information for generic reasons (how many of what model made it to what mileage under what circumstances) that are entirely reasonable. Lots of them also want that info for warranty related reasons (you've hit the mileage limit and we won't do anything for you anymore). But, my state of Michigan is starting a program to evaluate replacing registration fees with milea…

I know you're not the culprit, but it's annoying to see crap like this (highly invasive tracking, ostensibly for slightly more efficient tax collection), when far cheaper, better efforts (like Rhode Island's attempt to add tolls for just semis -- 98-99% of their freeway maintenance costs) are killed before they have a chance to prove themselves.

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#183

Post by briHass »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #61
tomrod wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it was Strongtowns reporting a few months back that HOAs are generally being driven by developers, the only folks with (a) land to build in bulk; (b) capital, relationships, and experience to get fully through permitting in bulk; (c) building a substantial fraction of SFH.

Strongtowns is happy to follow the money and incentives on all sorts of other issues. Why do they just throw up their hands and say "it's the developers" on this issue? Developers don't do anything that costs money, like set up an HOA, without a reason. The developers create the HOA because you need your >1ac residential development to pass stormwater permitting. While you theoretically could make each individual .25…

Not just storm water, but also things like maintenance of 'common areas', roads, and snow removal. Many small municipalities are budget strapped and don't want to be responsible for plowing/surfacing the new little 1/8 of a mile culdesac the developer created to build their 'neighborhood'.

In carving up the 5 acres the developer purchased, the 30 houses they squeezed in left some remainder that wasn't buildable or odd shaped, so this now becomes a lame 'park' or some other space that requires maintenance.

I read all my local municipal meeting minutes, and at least around here, permitting and ordinances control all the environmental/nuisance stuff, so I can't really explain why HOAs go beyond the collective expenses into the draconian rules.

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#184

Post by zephen »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #156
zephen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you explain how the statement below makes sense? >The fuse stops it but the real issue is the owner is the only one without the record.

You have to read it in context with what it is referring to, and perhaps to know a little bit about the issue. In that respect, it's like a lot of conversations around here.

I read this as:

"Removing the fuse that provides power to the telematics module can stop data collection from a vehicle, but the real issue is that the putative owner is the only one who isn't instantly privy to all of the collected data."

In any case, the complaint above was obviously about AI usage, and there are a lot of good reasons to use AI for editing your words, starting with (for example) if you're not a native speaker.

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#185

Post by zephen »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #162
_carbyau_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I take your two sentence comment and remove one sentence it also is non-sensical. Stop removing context. >Your mileage went from VW->telematics vendor->broker->carfax, thats the chain it usually follows. The fuse stops it but the real... Prior commentary advised removing the fuse to stop the telemetry. This comment points out that the chain of information flow precludes the owner of the car.

>the real issue is the owner is the only one without the record I don't understand what "the record" is referring to here. The mileage is presumably still on the odometer of the car. So what is "the record" that the owner does not have and how is that causing the owner an issue?

Oh, sweet summer child.

You don't really think they added all that circuitry and a cell connection just to collect odometer information, do you?

> how is that causing the owner an issue?

Welp, it was a huge issue for a lot of owners when GM OnStar started sharing real-time driving data with insurance companies.

Supposedly they're stopping that, but a lot of the damage is done.

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#186

Post by bitparadox »

CommenterPerson wrote: post #159
andy99 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I first read this comment and thought is looked like AI and thought I’d give the benefit of the doubt. Then I saw this where there is no doubt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49687774 I thought, I wonder if it’s the same guy? Sure enough. Stop it.

He did acknowledge he posted something similar elsewhere a few months ago. I found his comment useful.

andy99 isn't replying to my post here

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#188

Post by artisinal »

heaney-555 wrote: post #99
otterley wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t it happen with them?

Tesla charges a $10/month subscription for its connected features, with relatively high uptake because its software is actually great (unlike the dogshit UX of most cars), so it doesn't need to sell data. Plus it just isn't how Tesla operates.

Since when is Tesla software great? Every time I get into a Tesla I have to spend five minutes to pair my iPhone over Bluetooth like it’s 2010. I then have to place my phone on the wireless charging pad and enjoy navigation on the small screen of my phone since it doesn’t support CarPlay. I have to make a playlist of my music before the trip since I can’t control my music safely.

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#189

Post by CableNinja »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #181
drnick1 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like this is not enough: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/simpler-solution-for-dis... The most reliable way to permanently silence the cellular modem is to pull the relevant fuse. In the above case, this also disables the microphone, which I think is a positive. Unplugging the DCM entirely, however, seems to disable to right speaker, which is wired through the DCM for some reason.

Would be darkly hilarious if they were using the speaker or rear defroster as a cellular antenna. (Yeah, technically horrible but I’m sure someone will find a way)

Funny enough i was just recently thinking about how most defrosters would probably make a great antenna with minor modifications

Re: Data collected by cars and sold to third parties

#190

Post by CableNinja »

sagarm wrote: post #169
octoberfranklin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't protect you from the insurance agencies; they demand a DL ID# and a VIN. And you are required by law to purchase from them. And they're stautorily exempted from a whole boatload of privacy laws, like HIPAA.

In California you can post a surety bond in lieu of insurance. I'm sure the same applies in other states with governance that is not captured by corporate interests.

Can you elaborate on this some? Afaik insurance is the only thing they would accept. I think insurance is generally a nasty scam so anything to get away from it would be pretty neat
Post reply on HN