• NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    auto manufacturers had violated Washington state’s privacy laws by using vehicles’ on-board infotainment systems to record and intercept customers’ private text messages and mobile phone call logs.

    But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard

    Privacy is a fundamental human right.

    Just not in Usa, as it seems. Here it is indeed the law that needs to be fixed.

    https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/is-privacy-a-human-right/

    • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, pretty much every government breaks its own rules, particularly when privacy is involved.

      We have the largest and most invasive world governments in the history of the world thanks to the overwhelming technology that allows such a thing. And even governments that pretend to follow the rules just get their buddies in another country to do their dirty work for them. “I can’t spy on you, but England can!”

      • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah and if the government is doing it you know other people have gotten their hands on it and are using it for gains.

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Isn’t this just a basic legal concept?

    “In order to claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which results in an injury”

    Basically the judge is saying the plaintiff didn’t establish the basic foundation of a tort case. He’s not saying this isn’t wrong, he’s saying they didn’t present the case in a way that proves it.

    It’s not enough to say “you shouldn’t be doing this”–even if that’s true.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      the question here is, on it’s face does an invasion of privacy constitute an injury? I’d argue that yes, it does. Privacy has inherent value, and that value is lost the moment that private data is exposed. That’s the injury that needs to be redressed, regardless of whether or how the exposed data is used after the exposure. There could be additional injury in how the data is used, and that would have to be adjudicated and compensated separately, but losing the assurance that my data can never be used against me because it is only know to me is absolutely an injury in and of itself.

      • TheHighRoad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        For privacy to have inherent value, it first must be an established, inherent right. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t talk about it to my knowledge. I’ve always inferred that our rights against unlawful search and seizure basically encapsulate the concept, but whatever.

        • brianorca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The rights in the fourth amendment are generally a limit on the government, not what a third party does when it has a TOS/contract with you allowing it to do things.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds like you’d make a better lawyer than whoever brought this case.

        I agree with you for whatever it’s worth.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure except under this logic there’s no injury to someone peering through your windows. After all they didn’t do anything else…

      • bastion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nice take.

        I myself am fine with the ruling, but only if we get a full-ownership deal on the car, and can legally completely gut and replace parts that do that. Also, the car should be sold with a warning label regarding these issues.

    • Jabaski@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Take a page from the conservative/GOP playbook and just find an activity judge who will wholesale accept your fabricated claim and provide a favorite judgement.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Disappointing result but this seems like something for the legislature to fix. Courts aren’t always the solution, sometimes you have to just fix the damn law.

    • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But that would mean the politicians would have to actually work instead of photo ops and promises!!!

    • krolden@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is supposed to be covered by the fourthamendment but that’s been meaningless for over 20 years now

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amendment 4 does not apply to the practices of a private company. That’s what privacy legislation is intended to protect against. Amendment 4 only applies to spying done by the State.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you actually literally believe that (in the context of law), or is that just rhetorical speech?

              • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Correct and it is not illegal. It is an invasion of privacy but the law doesn’t prohibit that. Amendment 4 covers the Government doing it without the permission of the person who controls the information. It refers to “can the Government bust in or sneak in to get info”, not “can the Government make clandestine deals to buy info for surveillance purposes”.

            • flipht@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s literally what’s happening.

              Texas used the same concept to empower private people to sue abortion providers and receivers under civil law since they couldn’t do it criminally.

              The country as a whole has done it for a long time with cellphone data, the five eyes alliance, etc.

              They have access to information they’re barred from getting directly themselves, and they get it from private companies. Spying by proxy.

            • okamiueru@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If the purpose of collecting the data by private companies is to somehow make money, do you think that sharing this data, or conclusions based on this data, somehow manages to exclude access of governmental agencies? I’ve never gotten the impression that CIA/NSA would ever willingly play nice.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is getting off-track again—

                Government agencies paying private companies for your information, or even just asking for it in exchange for something or nothing is legal. That’s because nothing was searched unreasonably (because consent was given by the controller of the information) nor was anything seized against the controller’s will.

                You are not in the picture. The information might be about you but you don’t control the information, the car company does. From a legal standpoint, you are irrelevant for the purposes of Amendment 4 protection.

                Amendment 4 protects the controller of the information from Government seizure but does not protect the subject of that information. Privacy laws are what are intended to protect the subjects of information. There is some overlap of course. For example, your computer has lots of information about you and what you did in the past. You would be both the subject of the information and the controller (since it’s stored on your computer).

                Please remember, I am describing what the law is, not what it should be.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you want to call it that, you can. The State spying by proxy (paying or asking companies for info) is legal and not prohibited by Amendment 4. Amendment 4 does not protect the subjects of information. It protects the controllers of information (which would be the car company).

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like with the first amendment, it doesn’t apply to private companies. The point is to prevent the government from passing tyrannical laws, it was never meant to district the activity of private citizens.

      • xubu@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “unlawful search and seizure” amendment? Why would that apply here?

        • krolden@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you being serious? They release your data to the police if they ask

          • tal@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The Fourth Amendment will affect police, but it won’t restrict a random person who is given access to something from turning over whatever data they want to police.

            Say I hire a painter, and the painter is painting my house’s interior, and sees a bloody knife in my house. He can report that to the police. But, remove the painter from the picture, and the police could not enter to look for such a thing absent a warrant.

            'course, the flip side of that is that if the police get a warrant, then they can enter whether I want them in the house or not, whereas the painter can only enter because I choose to let him in.

            • krolden@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That analogy is tired in the age of mass data collection without consent

              • tal@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m just telling you that that’s the way things legally are. You’re arguing about how you feel that they should be.

            • gullible@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not just police, any armed investigatory unit or state sponsored militia. The idea of a “police” force was pretty vague at the time, so the umbrella covers much more than it initially intended to.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re getting a bit off-track here. The scenario is this: the company that provides the software for your care collects data. This part is unconcerned with Amendment 4. Amendment 4 prohibits the State from collecting information and searching unreasonably. It does not prohibit the private company that provides the software from doing so. That is what privacy laws are intended to protect against, not Amendment 4.

                Amendment 4 also does not prevent the company that collected that data from providing it to the police upon request. Amendment 4 (and the rest of the US Constitution) applies only to the State. Private companies and private individuals are not bound by it.

          • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re willingly giving this data to the manufacturer, at which point they’re free to do with that data whatever they please, according to the terms of the agreement you sign, including giving that data to government authorities. The government isn’t unlawfully searching and seizing because they aren’t even forcing the manufacturer to give up the data, they are freely giving it as they are allowed.

            This isn’t to say I’m defending the privacy violations or the government, but it is the case that this situation isn’t protected by the constitution, we have to and should make a specific law for it.

          • xubu@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are implying that any data gathered will be delivered to the government upon request (unsure if you are implying with or without a warrant). If you can show me from this article, or even this case, regarding this privacy case that that happened, then yes I agree with you and the fourth amendment applies.

            But this issue is between private entities which generally precludes amendments from being applicable. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the infotainment systems collected and stored personal data without consent and violated Washington’s Privacy Act.

            • krolden@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not implying anything

              An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.

  • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    America sucks. Seriously. I’m just waiting for another country to bring it to the USA, because it seems inevitable.

    People gotta stop putting faith into these ultimately crooked nations.

  • Rearsays@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean ok but the fact that your car is spying on you has to break a thousand big tech nda’s

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder how long until we get to jailbreak our cars just so those cock suckers can’t spy on us.

    • krolden@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Really considering taking out a loan just to fix an old car instead of buying new.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve got a 2007 Kia that I’m planning to drive until I can’t fix it anymore

      So far that’s proving to be a pretty easy given the cost and availability of parts

    • bestusername@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s the difference between never connecting your phone to a brand new high tech car and having no tech in an older car?

      • krolden@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        New car is still connected and is monitoring your driving habits, whether you wear a seatbelt or not, possibly recording your conversations, and even keeping track of your weight with the sensors in the seats.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And monitoring your location, don’t forget about that. You can tell a lot about a person just by seeing where they go every day.

      • Someology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my region, where public transport doesn’t exist much at all, if you don’t drive, you might not eat or work (the lucky few work remotely, but not all).

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          i’m sorry but are you commenting this for any reason other than to make yourself feel better about owning a car? i see people doing this all the time and i don’t get what other reason there would be to bring it up as the immediate response to comments about going car-free

          yes, obviously you can’t live without a car if you need the car to live! but millions and millions of people would actively enjoy life more without a car.

  • d00phy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Obvious next question: how’s the privacy policy on 3rd party stereo makers like Pioneer, Kenwood, Alpine, Jensen, etc.?

        • girthero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          unless you’re willing to sniff CANBUS codes one by one

          This would only be necessary for cars with climate control in the touchscreen right?

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or if you have other features you don’t want to downgrade. For example, my 2016 Mazda has errors, oil status, and a bunch of other system info accessed through the headunit.

            But I’m a little data-obsessed right now, so I acknowledge I might be the weirdo

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Got a link to a good project of that type? I’ve been thinking about this recently.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I haven’t done it myself, so I hesitate to recommend a specific project. But Carpi and OpenAuto are good places to start.

    • brianorca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Should be better since they usually don’t have an uplink capability. But be real careful of any model that has Internet for any reason.

  • kryostar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well… fuck. More reason to not buy newer cars. At least you Americans are lucky. You can drive a dinosaur if it met with regulations. You technically don’t have to buy new cars… ever.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Setting aside questions of legality, it seems kind of like it wouldn’t encourage someone to purchase their cars.

    • seang96@spgrn.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a problem! Jack used car prices up to new cars, prevent public infrastructure and provide benefits for cars, all car manufacturers have similar privacy policies. Combine all three and you have customers that need a car to live, might as well get a new one if decade old ones are the same price or have no stock, and suddenly there isn’t much choice.

    • rentar42@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That only helps when there’s viable alternatives. Since pretty much all auto manufacturers do something like this it’s not really a distinguishing feature.

      And even if it was: how much worse/more expensive would a car need to be for you to not pick it over one that reads your text messages. And then ask the same question not for “you”, but for the average consumer. Then be sad …

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah but the vast majority of car buyers won’t know about this or care. We’re all privacy advocates here but everyone and their mother is on Facebook or Instagram and is happily giving away all their information already anyway.

      We’re all up in arms about this here in this thread, located in a self-selecting micro-community of people centered around a shared interest in the control of our data. If you called your mother and told her about this would it stop her from buying a new car in the future?

  • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well I am still so happy that I decided specifically to get a newish car that doesn’t have a touchscreen or any of this nonsense.

  • BlackPit@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    It can’t be illegal because you agree to allow them when you purchase the new vehicle. It’s all there in the T&C and PP, which no one ever reads. Don’t like it? Don’t buy new cars. I won’t.

      • extant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same privacy policy authorizing them to harvest your data, but older cars have a more limited capability to collect data compared to newer cars filled with sensors, cameras, and phone integrations. Plus older cellular networks are defunct for older vehicles so they can’t just exfil it without you helping or bringing it in to physically access it.

        • Someology@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The issue is that this 20 year old car is not going to last forever or have replacement parts available forever. We need better privacy laws, because time and entropy will eventually force us all into this evil mess.

          • BlackPit@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed! What would be amazing though, is a manufacturer who could make a modern safe bare-bones vehicle that didn’t have the tech installed at all. If you want tech you could BYO.

            • njordomir@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, I drive so rarely I would honestly be happy with any crappy old stereo to save a few thousand bucks. I’m lucky my ~2015 car still has completely separate radio and functions (climate, errors, etc.)

              I would want to put in a good dashcam system though. Give me the bones; then let me DIY

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When you connect to Bluetooth, it asks your phone to share call, contact and SMS information.

      Think like the old horrible headunit text implementation, the ability to scan your contact list from the car, and see your recent calls.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you comment to Bluetooth, it asks your phone to share call, contact and SMS information.

        So they are intercepting your calls and messages with your permission? I don’t see the problem. If you don’t want them to do that, click “deny” when your phone asks if you want to share them with the car.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s more of an issue with what the car does with that data. Is it communicated to you in some way, or sent to headquarters to be added to your file for future sale?

          If it’s the former, no harm no foul. If it’s the latter, it needs to be burnt with fire.

        • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “I don’t understand, if you don’t want crushed orphans, just don’t toss them in the orphan crushing machine”

          Well maybe they shouldn’t have an orphan crushing machine in the first place.

      • kinttach@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no way Apple lets the automaker access app data from your phone. Apps on the phone can’t even see data from other apps on the phone.

        There are two ways I can think of for the infotainment to get the messages. The first is by OCR-ing the CarPlay screen, which is shady as hell. The second is a feature like this one where the car has Bluetooth notification integration.

        • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Regarding OCR theory, the screen never shows messages. It only will read them aloud because you’re driving and shouldn’t be reading your texts.

        • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Apple doesn’t allow it. Users do , when they agree to share whatever let’s the funny nightmare rectangle play trendy and pleasant sounds from car sound nozzles. While also an automated voice reads texts aloud in the name of hands-free, for all occupants (and some outside if the volume is up). And also it needs to contact info, to make calls for all the silly-fillies that want to use siri while driving. And shoot to reply to meemaw with a family photo siri needs to access your images.

          Meanwhile your new infotainment system is sending all this off like a $45,000 copier that it is, sending it off in packets when it gets wifi signals, because the kids needed in-car wifi for their Xbox on road trips.

        • phx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          One of the things it asks permission for when hooking up Bluetooth etc is “call history”, “contacts” or “text messages”

          I’d assume the system needs those to read it messages or call/redial. It wouldn’t need OCR to do other things with that data