- UPDATE - Car Companies are collecting data that is considered private
11 Sep 2023 17:02:46 UTC
Topic 230079
(moderation:
Hey there,
I know that this isn't really the right place for this particular posting, but I thought I would post it anyway. It deserves to be read.
I use Firefox almost exclusively, and I do belong to their email service where once in a while they send out something interesting.
Like this:
I lightly edited the email to something more readable here in a screenshot. Yes, I did sign the petition, and hope that many of you will too. Here's a little list of articles on privacy from Mozilla (owners of Firefox):
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/
George
Proud member of the Old Farts Association
GWGeorge007 wrote: Hey
)
This is one time I hope the US jumps on the EU bandwagon and does the "opt-in" regulation!!
mikey schrieb:This is one
)
Even more than "opt-in", they should be obliged to be transparent about what information is collected, where and for how long it is stored. On the other hand, there is a political desire to promote research into AI. This requires extensive, accessible training data. Data privacy and advances in AI are contradictory goals. A possible solution could be a reliable, transparent and verifiable anonymization or at least pseudonymization of personal information.
Scrooge McDuck wrote: mikey
)
I don't mind companies collecting my data as long as they don't get enough to track me as I go here there and everywhere like Meta, Google, MS and now apparently the car companies do right now. I understand that knowing that 10,000 people went to the shopping mall today is a good thing for the Mall and that only 1/4 of them went to the grocery store can be good for the other stores in the shopping center. BUT tracking ME as I go to the shopping center, grocery store, shoe store, clothing store etc etc is not needed as I do not reflect the masses of people doing anything and trying to sell me something based on my travels assumes that I am a highly spontaneous person and can be affected by a 'sale' that really isn't a sale at all.
mikey wrote: ..... and
)
I agree wholeheartedly. But who or what gives them the right to do so? I didn't ask them to do it. I don't want them to do it. So WHY are they doing it? And I don't believe the 'training for AI' story at all. I think this is a byproduct of something a bit more sinister than than that.
Proud member of the Old Farts Association
All data capturing activities
)
All data that captures people's activities, including car usage information, purchasing behavior, etc., is THE raw materials of the 21st century (for AI). Mikey described it perfectly. The personal information within must either be anonymized so that individuals may can be distinguished without inferring which real person that is or without recording links to other activities of the same individual, which easily becomes an identifying pattern. The regulatory authorities will always be years behind the developments of the tech giants. But these just want to make money. That's not sinister. It only becomes sinister when governments come up with the idea using this data collection to create surveillance systems like those described in "1984"... You have that already in Moscow, e.g. face recognition and logging of all people (not only of wanted terrorists) in subway stations. Or the Chinese social credit system. That's clearly "1984"-style surveillance (and oppression). Communist regimes of the past would have dreamed of todays technology. Back then limited personnel, storage capacity (tapes, paper), and money ruled out total surveillance.
Scrooge McDuck wrote: All
)
I agree with this, and I don't disagree with Mikey.
I'm not sure that governments, or "the regulatory authorities will be years behind the developments of the tech giants". The governments may actually be the instigators of the the AI boon. Even in America, the ability to use face recognition was seen at least 20+ years ago when it was publicly announced in a report of the (then) new 2500 megapixel cameras used to identify people in a crowd. Who knows what advancements have been made in the following years?
This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. While it is not unprecedented to expect governments to use facial recognition to surveil large groups of people for terrorists, what is unprecedented is the use of surveillance and AI to collect data anomalously from unwilling participants within places not normally seen before, like in your late model autos, just for the purpose of being more able to directly target you for sales marketing purposes. That was, and still is, the purpose of my original post.
Proud member of the Old Farts Association
Well I think there is
)
Well I think there is something to this George. About a year ago I bought a new Mitsubishi Outlander and was offered an app install that would 'enhance my relationship with the car dealer'. I asked what would it do and was told that it would remind me of when to service the car and do other stuff, but they were all quite vague about it so I didn't agree. I mean, I can remember to bring it in for service once per year all by myself. Now with what you have posted, it seems like a less innocent request.
I suppose I'll have to use another car for my gun/drug running activities .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Mike Hewson wrote: Well I
)
Careful Big Brother IS watching ;-) ;-) ;-)
Agreed. Although you're
)
Agreed. Although you're always fighting a losing battle as a lawmaker, I do appreciate the attempts of the EU to regulate the collection, processing, retention and sharing of user data. Especially the universal right of any citizen to see what data are collected about them, get a copy and attempts to create a "right to be forgotten". If I replace my (hypothetical) Toyota for a Benz, I think it's a good thing I can demand Toyota to forget about me.
In that respect there is a very interesting letter from the Chief of Staff from the American Automotive Policy Council to the EU where they try to curb those rights, claiming concerns regarding security and trade secrets.
Link to EU website, containing a copy of the letter
It is the default reflex of most companies, but the law allows companies to provide these requests to be complied with after the fact. And I don't see why a company should be harmed if they are required to divulge in what detail they collect when and where I've been. Mostly since they will all be doing it before long. And that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing: if I drive alone at night and run into a tree, it's nice if my car can call for help and tell where I am. But as stated by others before, it should be opt-in. And I fully support laws that prohibit a copy of this data being stored in a centralized location, processed for commercial gains without my knowledge and being sold on. It's been proven time and again that for profit operations can't be trusted to act conscionably.
Edit: corrected name of AAPC
E pluribus unum
Hi JINKEI! I couldn't
)
Hi JINKEI!
I couldn't agree more, especially with your scenario of "if I drive alone at night and run into a tree, it's nice if my car can call for help and tell where I am."
I also agree with "It's been proven time and again that for profit operations can't be trusted to act conscionably."
Good post!
Proud member of the Old Farts Association