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

Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

texasattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 366 posts

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#351

Post by Shocka1 »

steelframe wrote: post #149

When it came time for me to buy my most recent car I made a list of requirements. If I couldn't find a car that meet them I was resolved to not bother buying a car at all. The requirement at the top of the list was, "It doesn't spy on me." I ended up finding one that checked all the boxes once I removed its Data Communications Module (DCM) fuse.

Depending on the manufacturer, you won't want to take it to the dealer without factory resetting first. Infotainment connects via WiFi initiated by technicians and will upload all stored data if it's there. And that's of course if you aren't using integrated apps like Android Auto or other third party apps, which also takes the data. I was a software engineer on these systems at one time and it's one of the bullet points of why I left. It's an uphill battle.

The philosophy is that it's no longer the customer's car after they buy it and drive off the lot.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#352

Post by Shocka1 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #213

Ford tracks me and I'm happy about it. I even got a developer API key so I can write scripts that remotely lock and unlock my car doors, download my vehicle telemetry, etc. The "find-my-car" feature alone is worth it. As long as they don't sell my data (they don't) I'm all about it.

Is this satire?

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#353

Post by steelframe »

Shocka1 wrote: post #351
steelframe wrote: post #149

When it came time for me to buy my most recent car I made a list of requirements. If I couldn't find a car that meet them I was resolved to not bother buying a car at all. The requirement at the top of the list was, "It doesn't spy on me." I ended up finding one that checked all the boxes once I removed its Data Communications Module (DCM) fuse.

Depending on the manufacturer, you won't want to take it to the dealer without factory resetting first. Infotainment connects via WiFi initiated by technicians and will upload all stored data if it's there. And that's of course if you aren't using integrated apps like Android Auto or other third party apps, which also takes the data. I was a software engineer on these systems at one time and it's one of the bullet po…

Despite the fact that I have free oil changes with the dealership I still do my own oil changes for exactly this reason. Thanks for the reminder about the factory reset though, in case I need a warranty repair in the future.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#354

Post by rockskon »

ericmay wrote: post #345
rockskon wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

???? There is no reasonable alternative. Public transport is unreasinable for most people when you look at suburban and rural areas for the bulk of places people live and work given how spread out everything is.

How things are today can be changed… But you’re also missing the forest for the trees. There are easy wins in public transit that can reduce car usage but we refuse to fund them. Bike lanes and street cars in urban areas for example can reduce car usage (and reduce congestion for drivers) and allow us to do more with less. I’d prefer riding a bike a mile down the road to grab groceries (or just walking) but our infra…

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how little public transit makes sense as a replacement for cars in most suburban and rural areas.

As in - you are asking people to sacrifice a 15 minute drive home for a 1.5 hour public transit commute with home in many cases.

Their life and their time is worth more than enough to get a car at that point.

There is also no "walking to the train or bus stop" for most people because they live spread out enough that there is no conceivable way public transit could work as a replacement for cars.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#355

Post by mike50 »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #172
ensignavenger wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GM is nowhere near a monopoly in the automobile market, so that isn't an issue in this case.

Given the recent demonstrative pricing power the auto industry appears to be an oligopoly.

Aided by fuel "economy" regulations, obsolete tariffs and refusal to harmonize regulatory requirements with the EU.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#356

Post by withinboredom »

Draiken wrote: post #265
withinboredom wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the alternative? Let them go out of business and everyone learns a valuable lesson: "too big to fail" is a myth.

I agree with you, but this will never happen. You think anyone would like to be responsible for bankrupting GM? It's bad PR. All people will talk about is how many jobs will be lost. Here in Brazil we have a somewhat similar problem where the auto industry has been completely subsidized for over 70 years. Our factories are extremely inefficient and customers pay exorbitant amounts of money for a car. But if they remo…

Isn't GM responsible for GM? But yeah, it's a totally fucked situation.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#357

Post by ericmay »

rockskon wrote: post #354
ericmay wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How things are today can be changed… But you’re also missing the forest for the trees. There are easy wins in public transit that can reduce car usage but we refuse to fund them. Bike lanes and street cars in urban areas for example can reduce car usage (and reduce congestion for drivers) and allow us to do more with less. I’d prefer riding a bike a mile down the road to grab groceries (or just walking) but our infra…

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how little public transit makes sense as a replacement for cars in most suburban and rural areas. As in - you are asking people to sacrifice a 15 minute drive home for a 1.5 hour public transit commute with home in many cases. Their life and their time is worth more than enough to get a car at that point. There is also no "walking to the train or bus stop" for most people because th…

In Columbus our regional transit agency COTA built parking lots out in the suburbs.

They call it park and ride. [1]

People who live in more remote areas or even not far away in the suburbs will park their car at the parking lot and hop on the bus as it heads toward areas like downtown where a lot of jobs are or to other large employment centers. Sometimes people just meet up at these locations and carpool too so you don’t have to take the bus.

They don’t have to stress about traffic, or pay for parking (parking lots are economic outflows so this is a nice side effect), and they can work or read or do any number of more productive and interesting things instead of pay attention and drive.

This is just one example where without even making any drastic changes we can reduce reliance on cars and leverage existing infrastructure better than we are today.

As cities like Columbus and other small/medium size cities modify zoning to allow for more dense development in urban corridors instead of additional vehicles on the road, turning your 15 minute commute into 45 minutes - 1 hour, we can reduce the impact of population increase on our highways and we can do so at much lower cost in all aspects with better transit (bikes, trams, bus, sidewalks).

Socializing auto-only infrastructure is not smart and it’s way too expensive not just in terms of taxpayer dollars but also in the mandatory costs of car ownership: insurance, loans with interest, data harvesting that you won’t have a say in, gas, wars to secure gas supplies, kids dying in car crashes instead of living good lives, new windshield wipers, oil changes, etc. - these are all costs we can reduce for more people. [2]

For those living in rural areas nothing really changes (frankly not much changes for suburban areas either). They’re already on the gubmint dole and receiving large road maintenance subsidies that their tax base can’t support. They’re more than welcome to spend an hour driving and paying for parking but that’s not an excuses to not build sidewalks and other basic necessities where most of us live.

[1] https://cota.com/static/2cfd967c94034d9508e7b4f8eb01fa3d/cot...

[2] https://htaindex.cnt.org/total-driving-costs/

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#358

Post by JadeNB »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #330
JadeNB wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's the problem. Crimes are profitable. Which is why we need the law to make crimes not profitable, or at least to attach enough personal risk to dissuade decision makers. It's how we got US corporations to stop dispensing bribes in foreign countries, to which exactly the same logic applies.

So here's the problem. There are some crimes that have a relatively low probability of detection. It doesn't even have to be that low; say it's 40%. Then there are people with nothing to lose. Some mid-level manager who isn't very good at it, isn't making his numbers. If he plays by the rules, he's about to get canned and lose his house and his wife. If he cheats and gets caught, there's a 40% chance he goes to jail,…

> Then there are people with nothing to lose. Some mid-level manager who isn't very good at it, isn't making his numbers. If he plays by the rules, he's about to get canned and lose his house and his wife. If he cheats and gets caught, there's a 40% chance he goes to jail, but a 60% chance he not only makes a lot of money but gets promoted to the head of the company because his numbers are so good. There are going to be too many people willing to take the risk in that case. It's going to happen a lot of the time.

But exactly the same argument applies to paying bribes to foreign officials, and yet the FCPA at least cut that down. I'm not naïve enough to believe that it eliminated it, but surely it's made a difference.

> To fix this you need to attach a penalty to someone who both has something to lose and is in a position to detect the crime. But the someone with something to lose are the owners and when they're diffuse passive investors they're not in a position to detect the crime.

You clarified later you meant the stock owners, but there are also executives of the company. Somewhere up the chain of command will be someone who's reluctant to have their name attached publicly to the behavior, and the possibility of legal hazard will encourage them to regulate their reports appropriately. This is definitely a place not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#359

Post by rockskon »

ericmay wrote: post #357
rockskon wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how little public transit makes sense as a replacement for cars in most suburban and rural areas. As in - you are asking people to sacrifice a 15 minute drive home for a 1.5 hour public transit commute with home in many cases. Their life and their time is worth more than enough to get a car at that point. There is also no "walking to the train or bus stop" for most people because th…

In Columbus our regional transit agency COTA built parking lots out in the suburbs. They call it park and ride. [1] People who live in more remote areas or even not far away in the suburbs will park their car at the parking lot and hop on the bus as it heads toward areas like downtown where a lot of jobs are or to other large employment centers. Sometimes people just meet up at these locations and carpool too so you…

Yeah - that doesn't get rid of or replace cars. It reduces how much time they're on the road.

Re: Texas sues GM for unlaw­ful­ly collecting and selling dri­vers' pri­vate data [pdf]

#360

Post by ericmay »

rockskon wrote: post #359
ericmay wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Columbus our regional transit agency COTA built parking lots out in the suburbs. They call it park and ride. [1] People who live in more remote areas or even not far away in the suburbs will park their car at the parking lot and hop on the bus as it heads toward areas like downtown where a lot of jobs are or to other large employment centers. Sometimes people just meet up at these locations and carpool too so you…

Yeah - that doesn't get rid of or replace cars. It reduces how much time they're on the road.

From a transit perspective that’s basically the same thing.
Post reply on HN