Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States Government Privacy

Eight Automakers Grilled by US Lawmakers Over Sharing of Connected Car Data With Police (autoblog.com) 35

An anonymous reader shared this report from Automotive News: Automotive News recently reported that eight automakers sent vehicle location data to police without a court order or warrant. The eight companies told senators that they provide police with data when subpoenaed, getting a rise from several officials.

BMW, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota, and Volkswagen presented their responses to lawmakers. Senators Ron Wyden from Oregon and Ed Markey from Massachusetts penned a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, urging investigative action. "Automakers have not only kept consumers in the dark regarding their actual practices, but multiple companies misled consumers for over a decade by failing to honor the industry's own voluntary privacy principles," they wrote.

Ten years ago, all of those companies agreed to the Consumer Privacy Protection Principles, a voluntary code that said automakers would only provide data with a warrant or order issued by a court. Subpoenas, on the other hand, only require approval from law enforcement. Though it wasn't part of the eight automakers' response, General Motors has a class-action suit on its hands, claiming that it shared data with LexisNexis Risk Solutions, a company that provides insurers with information to set rates.

The article notes that the lawmakers praised Honda, Ford, GM, Tesla, and Stellantis for requiring warrants, "except in the case of emergencies or with customer consent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eight Automakers Grilled by US Lawmakers Over Sharing of Connected Car Data With Police

Comments Filter:
  • by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Saturday May 18, 2024 @04:03PM (#64481727)

    How does the government get around the Constitution? Hire a private company to violate it. Poof. Right back to the Inquisition.

    • by bobby ( 109046 )

      I know that's the typical interpretation. I'm no law expert, but the way I read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the govt. is charged with protecting our rights. Period. No matter who is trying to violate those rights.

      • You must be new here.

        • by bobby ( 109046 )

          Obviously not, but one can dream, right?

          On a more serious note, is there any way We the People could be heard again?

          • Oddly no major domestic automaker was questioned by the government....

            • by CaptQuark ( 2706165 ) on Sunday May 19, 2024 @12:03AM (#64482221)

              Nothing odd about it. The senators were concerned the offending automakers were providing data with just a subpoena rather than a warrant or court order as they agreed to require.

              The article notes that the lawmakers praised Honda, Ford, GM, Tesla, and Stellantis for requiring warrants, "except in the case of emergencies or with customer consent."

              GM has a class-action suit on its hands for data sharing, but that is a slightly different issue than the senators are looking into.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The Constitution only applies to the government. Nothing prevents a private company from doing searches and seizures, kicking people off their property, disarming tenants who are renting with them, no-sue/assume-guilty clauses.

        Private companies can do what they please, which is how it should be. This is why the SEC, EPA, and all that are going to wind up unconstitutional soon enough.

  • by Tokolosh ( 1256448 ) on Saturday May 18, 2024 @04:36PM (#64481763)

    As long as the courts accede to the third-party doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine) we are screwed.

    If you think the judicial arm of government and SCOTUS are there to protect your rights, please disabuse yourself of such childish notions. Why, just the other day the judges ruled the civil forfeiture is a-ok. And its not just the present SCOTUS, if goes back a very long time with both "liberal" and "conservative" courts.

    • If you think the judicial arm of government and SCOTUS are there to protect your rights, please disabuse yourself of such childish notions

      Perhaps if we had judges who knew what the Constitution was about, this wouldn't be an issue. This applies especially to those "originalists" who don't acknowledge the 9th Amendment exists.

    • I wish to add that the only way out is to use products not produced or provided by the US and its lapdogs. If you are American, you are safer with Tiktok and Huawei over Facebook and Cisco. Geely and Chery over GM and Chrysler.

      I wonder why the President just announced a 100% tariff on Chinese cars? (https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1250987721/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles)

      Please do not construe the above as an endorsement of China or other autocratic regimes - they are despicable.

      • by bobby ( 109046 )

        You are wise.

        For the record, I don't use any of the above mentioned websites, nor will I ever own a car that's 'net connected.

        If it's not obvious, the reason I read regarding the EV tariff was due to all-too-typical Chinese market and currency manipulation- Biden is hoping to prevent them from swamping out our EV manufacturers like they have almost everything else. They're in it for the very long-haul, which is why they are slowly but steadily winning.

      • I wonder why the President just announced a 100% tariff on Chinese cars? (https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1250987721/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles)

        Please do not construe the above as an endorsement of China or other autocratic regimes - they are despicable.

        To prop up the American auto industry. They have massive profit margins that must be protected through legislation. Sure they could make cheaper cars but why do that?

  • There's your answer right there. Unless mandated it means nothing.

  • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Saturday May 18, 2024 @07:12PM (#64481935) Homepage Journal

    This part raised red flags: "except in the case of emergencies or with customer consent." I'm not saying that's the wrong policy, so much as that it is so vague that it could be anywhere from a perfectly reasonable policy to an absolute privacy disaster or anything in between.

    Reasonable would be a car company allowing the customer to authorize a specific third-party site to access car data (e.g. TeslaFi).

    Unreasonable would be a "By using this navigation system, I consent to data sharing with [car company]'s partners" dialog with an "I agree" button that you have to tap before you can do anything with the car nav system.

    Both of those would at least ostensibly count as "customer consent".

    • See, the lawyers have you trained to think it is vague. It is not. It boils down to is it an 'emergency' or did you knowingly 'consent'. These have simple meanings and are easy to apply conditions even for a simple person.

      But the fucking Lawyers and Politicians come in and start trying to cloud and blur the definition of 'emergency' and 'consent'. We need to go back to simple terms for things like this with simple interpretations. Current law is all about 'precedent' BUT eventually the precedents add up
      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        See, the lawyers have you trained to think it is vague. It is not. It boils down to is it an 'emergency' or did you knowingly 'consent'. These have simple meanings and are easy to apply conditions even for a simple person.

        Not anything about that statement is simple. Is it shared only if the user consents every time the company sends that data, or is it enough to issue a blanket consent for all future sending to a specific site? If the former, you're going to break an awful lot of things that the user might want to do. If the latter, then tapping "I agree" to a data sharing agreement once (which the user probably forgot about years ago) is still consent.

        Sorry, but that phrasing absolutely is vague, and there's no way that

      • by noodler ( 724788 )

        If it's so simple, please precisely define the word 'emergency'.

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday May 18, 2024 @08:12PM (#64481991)

    Subpoenas, on the other hand, only require approval from law enforcement.

    Subpoenas are issued by courts, demanding that an individual appear before the court to provide evidence or testimony. Failure to comply may cause the court to issue a warrant. Which is an order to the police that they seize evidence or the person failing to comply.

    It's possible that some police department may be misrepresenting their request as a court demand in order to pressure someone into compliance. Subpoenas don't "only require approval from law enforcement". They require a court to issue one.

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      It sounds like you've never heard of blank subpoenas.

      And, you're claiming that all jurisdictions are the same. So, a single counter-example proves you wrong. The US Congress (not a court, and separate from the Judicial Branch) has the ability to issue subpoenas.
  • Am I being hopelessly naive to believe in the possibility of legislation which would give consumers the right to purchase a vehicle which had absolutely no ability to either transmit any telemetry data or receive software updates without a direct physical connection?

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...