___
I got an email from OnStar the other day saying it contacted my bank and updated my card info because I had gotten an old card and hadn’t updated the info, I don’t pay for OnStar but the dealership MAKES you set it up even if you don’t use it.
How the fuck are they allowed to contact my bank and get information like that? Weirded my TF out to say the least.
They did that to me. I specifically gave them a card I knew was going to expire before the trial period was over and they got the new information anyway.
If I remember correctly, it’s a “feature” the credit card companies have so your subscriptions don’t lapse.
How is that fucking legal?
This is more based on authorization vs CC details. It’s much safer for a company than holding onto credit card numbers. Creating a subscriptions generates an authorization code which is good for the account, not just a specific card number. Revoking that authorization is a separate call to the bank rather than just having a credit card replaced.
That authorization shouldn’t be indefinite either though. After three years of no activity and a card expiring, OnStar was still able to make a charge to renew that trial subscription.
And looking around the web, there are a few stories from that 2016 time frame to indicate that it was a new-ish, or at least not well known, practice at the time.
Yeah and it’s very useful, looks like this place is just as bad with the kids as that other place.
The fuck are you talking about?
The fact people here don’t even understand how credit cards work is a pretty big sign my guy….
The fact that you think it’s reasonable for literally anyone but you to give out your credit card details is a pretty big sign my guy
Because banks don’t give out credit card details.
You created an authorization code which is independent from the credit card details. The authorization code doesn’t get revoked automatically when a card expires or a new card issued.
Jesus tap dancing christ. I understand the difference between CC + CCV + expiry date and an oauth token (or whatever protocol they’re using for identification and authentication). I’m saying that not expiring auth codes when new cards are issued is a security and privacy issue. Users should ideally be given a switch to opt in to behavior like that. It should not be the default.
Removed by mod
If I want to keep a subscription going I’ll give them the new CC information myself. Like a responsible adult. Hard disagree on the usefullness.
Not sure what point you’re even trying to make about children and Reddit.
Are we really pretending that unsourced imgur screen shots are valid references?
…no? But I guess you’re pretending it’s not? I’m sorry I screenshotted something from the internet that didn’t have the source attached? It must be completely fake then?
Like, what?
I’ll find the source for you if it helps you sleep at night that the veracity of an internet sourced image is from the internet talking about that thing.
Honestly? I just find it amusing how bent out of shape you’re getting over the fact that people don’t like auto renewing subscriptions.
It’s like you work for some scammy subscription service that makes it impossible to cancel or something.
deleted by creator
There are lots of situations you wouldn’t want your service to be cancelled, so it’s a useful feature is all we’re saying. People acting like it’s malice are hilarious and/or children.
And in those situations I will contact the vendor to give them updated information. I don’t find it useful when a free trial I haven’t thought about for three years suddenly charges me several hundred dollars.
Nobody ever said malice, but it’s a service that flies in the face of the whole concept of an expiration date.
Credit cards have actually been doing that for years. It’s a feature for recurring payments to reduce the amount of trouble users had when their CC number was compromised or it expired.
Yeah, it sucks too. A couple years ago I was trying to get out of a Sirius Satellite subscription I had opted into during the height of the rony 'rona.
Instead of sitting on the phone with CSRs for hours on end while they pass me around and offer me incentives to stay, I thought I’d be smart and report that my credit card was lost. (At the time you couldn’t disenroll online, that changed I happily found out a few months ago)
Joke was on me though. Sirius updated my new card info, and I was without a credit card for ~8 days.
deleted by creator
Authorizations are different from CC details.
You can call a bank and cancel an authorization without canceling a card.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I’m not sure when you purchased your vehicle, but when I purchased my vehicle Dec 2022 I had to do that OnStar setup crap as well and just denied giving them any information. They said I wouldn’t be able to get this or that but I didn’t care so they didn’t get that information. It took about 15 minutes with the person on the other side being a bit confused but just gave up when I said it the like 5th time.
Either way they don’t need that information at any time unless you want their free trials that are almost never worth it.
Yeah, I’d walk away from a sale before agreeing to that crap, even if they did make it mandatory.
Weirded my TF out to say the least.
Honestly that shouldn’t weird you out too much, that’s just a convenience feature. And yeah, I know, some people put quotes around the word convenience. But others actually just use the word as is, a convenience.
What should freak the hell out of you is when you and your significant other are in the car talking about buying a new pair of tennis shoes, and then that evening when you’re sitting at home YouTube shows you a commercial for tennis shoes, when you’ve never seen any ads for tennis shoes on YouTube before.
That sounds awfully convenient and OnStar saves lives, so…
The emergency features are free, they want you to pay for in-car wifi. You also cannot cancel online and have to cancel with a rep over the phone. The service itself is fine, but dealerships requiring you to sign up “even if you aren’t going to use it” isn’t .
Oh really?
One of the most expensive plans comes from OnStar, which charges $29.99 a month or $299.90 a year for its Safety & Security Plan after a free trial period. It’s the least expensive OnStar plan that includes automatic crash notification, which it calls Automatic Crash Response. OnStar says these subscription fees are necessary to pay for the resources used to operate the feature.
“Certain features and services, including Automatic Crash Response, require ongoing updates, network connectivity, staffed call centers, among other recurring costs to operate,” an OnStar spokesperson, Rita Kass-Shamoun, told CR.
Lucky for me I can’t afford a new car anyway. I’ll just keep driving my unconnected car.
No kidding, it’s ridiculous to think they expect us to fork over $25k for cars that will invade our privacy. I have a 23 year old car I’ll drive till it’s dead before that ever happens.
25k? Lol, I wish. Average new car sale price is 48k.
Lol I won’t throw $48k at the turds on the market these days.
My coworker just bought a car and was stoaked he only paid $3000 over sticker price.
Why and how do you have a Twitter check mark next to your name?
I think it’s their profile picture.
Edit: I just got Lemmy Premium.
haha!
Mostly for shits and giggles lol.
Its their profile photo.
Same here. Its a bit shabby and heavy on gas but I can fix most things on it myself… but at least I dont have this issue
Same, it’s getting up in years and probably needs a paint job and eventually I need to change the window tint.
I will drive my 2013 Honda Fit until the wheels fall off. I love it and with a $20 Bluetooth adapter, it has all the amenities I could need. I think it’s insane that people are driving around with a tablet that controls their heat and radio.
Honda Fits are amazing little cars. I only would want them to be able to be modernized to have some of the advanced safety features like Lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking like in the newer cars, but would require a redesign and additional sensors added to the windshield area.
I’m able to fit a double sided mattress box spring in it which is insane for a subcompact car. It’s a mini minivan.
I’m so glad I don’t have lane assist.
But yeah, I pass Honda minivans and think they’re fits.
I knew someone with a newer model (2019 I think?) Honda Fit with the emergency braking feature. It did absolutely nothing to prevent them from running into the back end of a pickup truck that swung out in front of them and slammed on the brakes. Literally it didn’t engage at all.
Also, the interior room on the Fit is terrible post-2013 due to some design changes. My 2010 Fit was a TARDIS - a 6’, 400lb guy could ride (or drive) it comfortably. That same guy riding in the 2019 model was cramped as a passenger. We didn’t try asking him to drive, after seeing how he fit as a passenger.
HondaLink came out in 2013/2014 so your car may have wireless services, but it’s probably for an older network that mostly doesn’t exist anymore. So your car may have at one point been collecting information, just not what newer vehicles are doing today.
I did use Onstar, but when my 2013 Volt went offline because of the 3g network sunset, I lost that functionality. Would have loved the ability to upgrade the cellular module in my car so I could have the security and safety features back, but one silver lining is disconnecting :) Of course, GM was going to quietly continue charging me for the same service after the connection died, but I canceled.
Tesla is only the second product we have ever reviewed to receive all of our privacy “dings.” (The first was an AI chatbot we reviewed earlier this year.) What set them apart was earning the “untrustworthy AI” ding. The brand’s AI-powered autopilot was reportedly involved in 17 deaths and 736 crashes and is currently the subject of multiple government investigations.
How utterly unsurprising. Also,
"Consent” is an illusion
Many people have lifestyles that require driving. So unlike a smart faucet or voice assistant, you don’t have the same freedom to opt out of the whole thing and not drive a car.This is the kicker, many people need cars for unrelated reasons and the fact that ALL car brands abuse our data means there is no alternative.
The first point is beyond stupid IMO when the bar is set at human. I’ve seen no reliable or consistent data that Teslas shitty autopilot is actually worse than a human. I’ve seen wild swings both ways.
The second point is, on point so to speak, and 100% should be addressed.
Missed the point on the first one. The focus was on how Tesla wasn’t leaking your privacy unnecessarily, not autopilot. Also autopilot doesn’t need to be perfect - if the miles per crashes is lower than a human then it is more safer whether you like it or not.
Thank you for that link and Thank you to Mozilla for doing those tests. I always suspected something like this but it is good to have it tested and in writing.
My only gripe with the article is this:
All of the car brands on this list except for Tesla, Renault, and Dacia signed on to a list of Consumer Protection Principles from the US automotive industry group ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, INC.
Renault and Dacia aren’t available in the US, so there is really no need for them to sign those principles. Which makes Tesla the only one where this is relevant.
Wasn’t the next line that this agreement they all signed was just something they made up and don’t actually follow and no one enforces?
Are there really 0 Renaults in the US? Or I guess maybe just a few imported ones, but like they aren’t officially sold there?
Are any other French brands available? I know at least the Germans are.
I guess French cars are too “sensible” for the US market?
The only French automaker in the US is Bugatti, and it’s questionable how French they are.
I’m hoping the Stellantis merger leads to more French cars here. Peugeot, Renault, Alpine, Citroen, and DS all have cars I’d be interested in.
They’re sensible cars, do what they say on the tin and aren’t too expensive to buy and repair. Back in the days I wouldn’t buy them and preferred Japanese for reliability but I hear in more recent times they’ve become much more reliable as well.
I don’t know if there are zero Renault in the US but Mozilla themselves say that Renault aren’t sold in the US:
While Renault cars haven’t been sold in the US since 1992, their cars are big in Europe, South and Central America.
So it is kind of strange to hold it against them. On the other hand that doesn’t seem to be too important because nobody cares about what they signed or not.
It’s legitimately cool that buying a new car and having any self-respect whatsoever are mutually exclusive now.
Fuck cars.
lmao
Oh cool! So cars will be free now since the manufacturers are turning drivers into the product. Right? Right guys? Cars will be free?
They will be CaaS
Didn’t Tesla and others already try this (and will probably keep pushing it)?
Things like monthly subscriptions for various car features working like seat warmers.
You’re thinking of BMW for the heated seats: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscriptions-microtransactions-heated-seats-feature
And Toyota for being able to remote start your car with your keyfob. https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/12/22831105/toyota-subscription-remote-start-key-fob Which they later walked back when a lot of their customers pushed back on it: https://www.thedrive.com/tech/43636/toyota-reviewing-key-fob-remote-start-subscription-plan-after-massive-blowback
Tesla has some upgrades for a one time fee - like rear seat heaters and acceleration boost, and subscription ones - premium connectivity
That would be rentals
Or a lease
US needs to regulate how data is collected by all companies. This shit is just gross. Is this perhaps one of the reasons why right to repair is opposed so strongly across industries? In addition to selling overpriced manufacturer repair they don’t want us to cripple one of their revenue streams.
From what I understand, right to repair would give consumers and independent repair shops the ability to repair their items and grant them access to schematics/repair manuals, specialty tools, and parts.
In theory, this should make it easier to develop aftermarket parts. And for electronics and software, be able to develop drop in replacements, flash aftermarket hardware, and that function of the car should still work.
In this case car manufacturers don’t want people to rip out their embedded spyware and thus uncouple them from using their data collecting phone apps.
Currently aware of at least one report of a couple of car manufacturers backing some astroturfing groups to oppose right to repair [1]
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/News/80635/car-companies-are-astroturfing-right-to-repair
US needs to regulate how data is collected by all companies. This shit is just gross.
This would be lovely, and I agree with you, but unfortunately the people scraping every inch of all of our data are the exact same people drafting legislation that they then turn over to their purchased politicians to submit with no edits.
Something needs to be done, but it can’t be done in the system as is. We need a real overhaul, at least of electors if not the system itself, before anything is going to get better.
This is definitely an off-topic, but the problem with repairs is that no one really needs them and repair support is very expensive. People are used to simply change phones every two years and change cars every 3-4 years. This is a very different market from a few decades back.
When device turn-around is so fast, most devices won’t break until their “end-of-life” of 2-3-4 years. It is better to simply offer a buy back scheme and recycle components into new phones, cars, etc. This is what consumers want and this is what companies are doing. Basically companies are doing two things: production and recycling.
This is different from days long gone when people used to buy a radio and then use it for over a decade. The business model in such climate was: production and repair. Repair requires specialty tooling and spare components and you can earn money on them. But if majority of your customers never repair anything, investment into repair will be a huge waste.
So, companies don’t like Right To Repair because it’s expensive for them. If it’s expensive, there are only two solutions: increase the prices of goods (and no one likes that, not companies, not consumers) or stop recycling and force everyone to repair (which most consumers don’t want and is an additional stress for companies).
Consumer attitudes should change for repairs to become a good option. It’s like people crying about lack of headphone jacks on the internet. Reality though? 99% of billions of people give ZERO SHIT. If people really wanted headphone jacks, they would stop buying new phones en masse and jacks would be back in days.
And it’s the same about privacy, micro-transactions, etc. No one is forcing you to play a game with micro-transactions, but most people do AND, most importantly, USE these micro-transactions. If they wouldn’t there would be no crap in the games.
What kind of fantasy land do you live in that people replace their phone every two years and car every 3 years? You might as well lease a car if you are replacing it that fast.
This might be anecdotally true in your circle but if it was true for the market at large then every manufacturer wouldn’t be forecasting major downturns in smartphone sales and the used car market wouldn’t be so far upside down as there would be a glut of supply from people selling their used car every 3 years.
I think your points about privacy features, micro transactions, and headphone jacks are valid but I think it’s a stretch to apply that to cellphones and cars and say that companies are against right to repair because of consumer attitudes. My observation is that the companies (ie John Deere) that have opposed right to repair are about protecting revenue streams from part sales and franchising/licensing fees and decreasing support costs from having to service products with non-genuine parts.
Man, how that koolaid taste to ya?
Not sure what you mean… Unless you’re telling me that you’re living under a rock.
Don’t you just love the digital age? -_-
yeah idk why all electrical appliances need to be smart, didn’t even want that in the first place
I have to be smart so that they can spy on you. Duh!
/s
And now LG wants to sell you a subscription on top of that 💀
I do love the digital age and modern tech, but I understand many of the privacy concerns.
I mean there are some things that just shouldn’t be adapted into the digital world. I wouldn’t say cars are one of them, but many features most likely aren’t even being used in said vehicle by the owner.
deleted by creator
I understand your point, but they could also just make it more privacy friendly to the consumer. We don’t want to feel like we’re being used against our will even if we “agreed” to the terms of service.
Capitalism working as expected. 25 flavors of the same bullshit
Exaclly how I feel. Can’t buy many things because all brands of it are broken by principle.
Guess I’m driving my 2010 Honda Accord and burns oil and leaks steering fluid a few more years.
Should probably get the steering thing fixed.
I believe that the 2012 Honda Accord V6 we had was near the height of automobiles.
Quit laughing.
It had excellent power - 270 HP. It was comfortable and reasonably fun to drive. It had modern safety features like air bags. It didn’t have any of the nanny driver crap that drives me nuts in the car that replaced it. It got decent mileage for a heavy V6 - on trips we’d see around 32 mpg, 25 mpg around town, day-to-day driving, in part because of the cylinder deactivation when cruising. Damn thing likely would have run forever if it hadn’t been wrecked - at 8 years old and 100,000 miles, we had zero plans to replace it. And at that point, aside from regular maintenance, I think we had replaced the driveshafts and one lug stud that had broken (which was likely the result of someone overtightening it at some point, not a failure at the manufacturer).
I never thought I’d say this about an Accord, but: Damn, I really miss that car. A lot.
Maybe a 2013 to get the better styling and improved infotainment system; the 2012 was not a looker, and it didn’t have things like music over Bluetooth, and the DVD-based nav system was dated when the car was new. But it ran and ran and ran, and I never had to worry about that car.
Since then, cars have become less powerful in a bid to offset inefficient SUVs and still meet CAFE, and they have those irritating driver nanny features with alarms blaring as the system misinterprets the situation and thinks you’re about to crash into something. God, I hate the car that replaced that Accord. And pretty much all cars have those damn “features” now, so even if I turn them off, I gotta pay for them and carry them around all the time.
That era was apparently the sweet spot where you could buy a modern, comfortable, powerful, efficient sedan and still have fun driving it.
My car is “dumb smart”, having some features like Bluetooth but nothing like Android Go or whatever other internet functionality in it. It’s like the end of the era of cars that have CD players and AUX ports, no Sirius, the only connectivity it really has is playing audio through my phone.
Toyota Corolla 2016, I’m very happy with it. I’m approaching 130k and I’m sure it’ll go over 300 if it’s well taken care of.
Yeah! Fuck the environment when your car wants to track which apps you use on it!
*Edit: Lol you guys would be hilarious if the climate situation wasn’t so dire.
Is it better for the environment to drive an old car?
In conclusion, buying a used car may avoid the carbon emissions of manufacturing a new one – but you should also bear in mind the lower fuel economy, higher exhaust emissions, and ongoing maintenance requirements.
So no, it’s not always better to just drive a leaky piece of shit forever instead of upgrading. The car you’re buying has already been made, it’s carbon been produced, and now you’re generating less emissions with the newer more efficient vehicle. This is pretty simple stuff to keep in mind next time you want to act smug about smog.
deleted by creator
Not to mention the best way to address an oil leak is to fix the fucking leak, not get a whole new car.
…not if it’s already environmentally unsound, gene yes.
Please, go back to school.
Did you even go to school in the first place?
Good point, I change my stance, let’s all burn oil and leak chemicals together to expedite this journey to its inevitable conclusion.
The car you’re buying has already been made, it’s carbon been produced, and now you’re generating less emissions with the newer more efficient vehicle
Actually, no. If millions of cars are sold it doesn’t mean that all of them immediately popped in existence, materials brought, wages paid and emissions produced. They do them in batches and scale production based on demand. One person not buying a car might not make a dent, but a thousand will. So, while the carbon emissions of that car you see at a dealer’s has already produced, by buying it you’re giving manufacturer the funds to produce the next one, effectively the same as if you’ve enabled the carbon emissions of that car in the first place.
Lol and the only reason “that car is already made” is because car companies can bank on people thinking like you are. If people like you didn’t exist they would pull back a bit on the production of new cars.
That’s not true at all but go off then.
Why would they continue making the same amount of cars if less people are buying cars? Go on then explain, this should be good.
I bet you it’s more environmentally friendly to keep driving a car you already have as opposed to getting a new one even if it’s “cleaner.”
Depends on how much cleaner and how much you drive.
I agree. I just meant generally.
See my edit, there is a cut-off point. And if your old car is already burning oil (a contributor to climate change) and leaking fluids (terrible for the ground water and environment) then you may have hit that point dawg.
You’re right it’s possible, but I’m still not sure if it outweighs the emissions to create a new car. Ideally we would have widely available public transit and we could do away with cars for the most part. That’s what we really need to solve climate change, not drive cleaner cars.
Por qué no los dos?
You gonna help the low income individuals buy a new car?
When was that ever posited?
The statement was from a person who was going to upgrade his bad for the environment car for a newer, and thus better for the environment car, but decided against it because he’d rather burn oil and contribute to the downfall of the planet than give over his information that he’s already sharing from his phone anyways.
Majority of emissions come from a handful of companies. Stop. Blaming. Individual. Citizens.
By buying a new car, the car companies continue to invest to build more new cars… Just because it is made now doesn’t mean a new one has to be made to take its place… SMH
Your inflammatory tone aside, I do understand the impact of my car environmentally, and I have the privilege of being able to take public transportation for a lot of my work and university trips. But unfortunately I do need to use my car sometimes.
I bet I’m still making less of a carbon footprint from my car than someone who drives a newer car everyday though.
I imagine my “tone” would be better if we weren’t already facing catastrophic global sea level rises, bigger and stronger and longer hurricanes, intense droughts and heatwaves that persist for weeks, wildfires six times the size of normal, global temperature increases, more tropical diseases moving north….but hey, I guess I should just be nicer to people that think it’s okay and would rather be a contributing factor to all that than be tracked by their car less than their phone!
And most of that comes from private jet usage or large corporate manufacturing. But yes, go off on some random university student on Lemmy because -checks notes- I drive an old car.
And most of that comes from private jet usage
Your source is bullshit. Transportation as a whole is only causing 14-15% of the overall global carbon dioxide emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas.
Oh shit, well if it’s only 20% we shouldn’t even think about it then! Blame-less Blame-less Blame-less! Woo!
Cool stat, I don’t live in the US. Sounds like Americans have more to answer for than I do in regards to car emissions. By your own (uncited) quote, taking every car off the road would still leave 80% of polluters operating. I wonder how many of those are related to some sort of corporate entity.
I already said that I take personal responsibility and take public transportation unless I absolutely cannot, but you don’t care because you just like being angry, so whatever. How much exactly are you doing to stop carbon emissions?
You know that meme where people say “eat the rich” and then target doctors and artists who charge $200 commissions instead of billionaires? That’s you rn.
I was hoping you’d mention globally!
Ouch. That didn’t work out so hot for ya did it?
Removed by mod
Privacy is very important to a lot of people. It doesn’t seem like it is to you, but to some of us it really is a reason why a new car is simply unacceptable to us.
There is no reason they couldn’t make newer vehicles that are eco friendly without the data collection. Just because you are willing to trade your privacy for marginal emissions gains doesn’t mean everyone is.
And I say marginal, because many older vehicles could easily be maintained at a much lower cost than a new vehicle is. And an older vehicle, well maintained, can easily get very close or better than modern vehicles emissions, excluding EVs.
It isn’t the age of the car that’s the issue so much as maintenance and size. Sedans and coupes are far more ecological than trucks and SUVs.
Anger isn’t going to fix anything. We need to come together and not be divided further.
It’s going to take both of those things combined to overcome the natural instinct for human apathy. People overwhelmingly don’t give a fuck until something affects them.
A new car lasts for about 6 years, needs upkeep like an old car, and has little if any resale value. You then buy a new car, using more materials many that are plastic and cannot be recycled. Even a electric car is not green, the batteries alone are a mess, not really recyclable and made of non-renewable resources. New cars are not meant to be re-used and repaired they are disposable like everything else in our society. What we should have as an environmental goal should be a dynamic public transportation, right to repair, and end our disposable ways.
deleted by creator
I drive 25 years old car. It was pretty expensive when it was new so it has all the features I care about. I will not buy a new car until I’m forced to. Also the option to just turn on seats heating without having to pay monthly is quite a bonus.
Absolutely. My 2006 car is in the shop right now getting fixed and will ultimately end up costing me around $3.5k. They were a bit surprised I told them to fix it, but I don’t WANT a new car. I like my car, it has all the features I want, is a manual, doesn’t connect to the internet, and most importantly, has physical buttons and dials to control everything! Overall it’s in great condition as well.
I love my car, and like you will be keeping it until it becomes prohibitively expensive to repair vs buy something else, or I can no longer get parts. Hopefully by then something will be done about the privacy and touchscreen situations.
I love my car, and like you will be keeping it until it becomes prohibitively expensive to repair vs buy something else, or I can no longer get parts.
I fully intend to keep my old cars going even past that point.
Does this apply to European cars as well? Do we need to start filing GDPR complaints against car manufacturers?
Hopefully, it will apply to anything with internet connectivity and your personal data.
Mazda wasn’t on the list, so I was curious: https://www.mazdausa.com/site/privacy-connectedservices
At least they won’t sell your data without permission, for what it’s worth these days.
Permission is probably mandatory to use your car.
By operating the car, you hereby grant us permission to perform the services outlined herein.
*847 pages of legalese.
There’s also a number you can call to have them stop doing it, supposedly.
My favorite: It collects the GPS coordinates of where you turned off the car and transmits that information. Every time you shut off the engine. We didn’t get the nav feature in our 2020 Mazda 3, but the hardware is still there so it can do this (and so buyers can pay $300 for the SD card that makes it work, which we didn’t).
But at least most of the information they collect is about the car, not the people, unlike some of the other brands.
I wonder if they detect me cursing at the car when it does something stupid, like swerving back toward obstacles I was trying to avoid. (That “feature” got turned off. I don’t need that shit in my life.)
Unfortunately convincing my wife we should buy an older car that doesn’t have all this shit is going to be a huge mountain to climb. Sigh. I hate new cars.
I’m over here in my wife’s Hyundai smoking weed, having unprotected sex and drinking hard liquor. I can’t wait for my targeted ads. Served to me on my prison issued JPay translucent tablet. Thank god for technology.
Omg black mirror
Why is Mozilla consumer reports
They keep it pretty narrow, their focus has always been very heavy in privacy. They don’t report on anything else really, just the privacy aspect.
Somebody had to take up the mantle since Consumer Reports cannot be trusted anymore
What happened with consumer reports?
Best way to sell a browser and software services built on privacy is to do a lot of consumer reports emphasizing the value of privacy.
This is what bothers me about Mozilla. They position themselves in the privacy space, but thus far their efforts there have not been shown in their actual browser, and only in what I would call clever “green washing” or “privacy washing”. That is why things like Mullvad browser have a market, because the people who actually care about privacy and have spent time to look at what Firefox actually provides in that respect, are not particularly impressed with their “privacy” stance being realized in their product. While I applaud Mozilla for putting this article out there, as it is beneficial to raise awareness about this issue, I wish they would put as much effort into the actual privacy of Firefox as they do in their marketing around it.
Because when you’re big enough to have a recognizable brand name, it nearly unequivocally means you have to sell out to those who can fund you. Consumer Reports dropped off decades ago.
