• @NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    662 years 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/

    • Alien Nathan Edward
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 years 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
        32 years 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years 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.

    • @Jabaski@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years 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.

    • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

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

  • @NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    362 years 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.

    • krolden
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years 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
        152 years 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
                -52 years 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
              link
              fedilink
              32 years 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
              32 years 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
                -1
                edit-2
                2 years 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
                02 years 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years 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.

  • @iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26
    edit-2
    2 years 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.

  • @notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 years ago

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

  • @Rearsays@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 years ago

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

  • The Real King Gordon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    202 years ago

    This is why I keep my 2006 toyota in tip top shape. I will drive that car as long as I possibly can.

    • krolden
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

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

      • Someology
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years 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
          -52 years 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.

  • plz1
    link
    fedilink
    English
    162 years ago

    One of these companies needs to be beached to prove damages, I guess.

  • d00phy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    122 years ago

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

    • themeatbridge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      Why risk it? Build your own with a raspberry pi and a touchscreen.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        This is what I want, but they make it very difficult to build something with parity unless you’re willing to sniff CANBUS codes one by one

        • @girthero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years 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]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years 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
        42 years ago

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

        • themeatbridge
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 years 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
    92 years 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.

  • @Crackhappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    92 years 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.

    • Someology
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      What model did you buy? It is rare to see one these days that doesn’t have all this nonsense.

    • Maeve
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Mozilla tested a bunch. Try a search on the platform and see.

      • @kinttach@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years 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
          62 years 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.

        • @phx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years 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

        • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          2 years 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.