I haven't bought a car in 15 years so have no idea if original owner get to see a consent form or nag screen but:
- the fact a car is yours doesn't mean the person driving it is consenting as a car can be lent.
- manufacturers aren't notified of cars sales in the second hand market so aren't supposed to know if the owner change. How would the new owner be notified of the data collection?
The pernicious argument of adtech shills has been (for long time) that the pilfering of personal user data is the only way to support the web, news, social media etc. because... people will simply not pay for these services - hence they opt to become the product.
Enter the mutation of the car into a "digital platform" and the expansion of the data heist in a market and product where - last I checked - no car was ever given for free.
Lets face it. User data collection and monetisation is not a necessity, has never been. Its an opportunistic choice and a moral attitude that exploited dysfunctional legal and regulatory systems and an ignorant and aloof public.
Maybe that regression is indeed a new "normal". The issue is that normalizing those business models in one domain invariably expands and leaks them in all domains.
If personal data exploitation is the new gold rush how can you argue that x, y, or z industries are not entitled to a serving?
Why should your bank, or your pharmacy or any random business you interact with via a digitised service or product not be able to monetise your behavior with third parties?
Moral decay and generational greed have opened a Pandora's box that will keep on giving.
People who build those systems at those companies could have an "Are we the baddies?" moment.
But they can find solace in that -- given maybe 99% of us on HN work at companies that sell out our users' privacy to other companies -- at least they're in good (or not-so-good) company.
This is an odd ranking for "worst types of data collected."
Personally, I'd be FAR FAR FAR more upset about my driving data being sent to insurance companies that I am about my voice recognition data being used to improve the voice recognition. But they seem to rank voice recognition training data and I suppose autopilot training data as the worst offenders.
That's already possible with a pretty minimal sample (a few seconds). Not worth getting too twisted up about the potential for a data breach setting your voice free.
On some cars you can pull a fuse that goes to the cellular modem, like many Fords at least up to around ‘21-‘23.
On others you may need to physically remove the modem if the fuse is going to more components.
Not sure about GPS but yes, some cars lose features when you do this. Can’t believe automakers dropped remote start from the fob just to push people to pay for a monthly subscription.
On my 2023 Subaru, the "Telematics" device is a small box behind the dash on top of the radio. I simply unplugged the GPS and Cellular cables attached to this device. Of course, now I can't use the OnStar-like emergency button anymore to call for help in an accident.
I assume the cars with active telemetry have a SIM card of some description. You could remove it/disable it but you'd lose app access and remote control features. I know of people doing this in Toyotas.
On GM cars it's pretty easy to disconnect the OnStar antenna. I don't know what that does to the built-in GPS, but my answer is only buy a car with CarPlay.
Why do you need CarPlay or Android Auto? I'm using my car without any of them and it's perfectly fine. I get calls with Bluetooth and I can play music with Bluetooth too, both from a Samsung and an iPhone. I navigate by looking at my phone on a holder close to the wheel. The screen of the car is further to the right.
This is Australian website. No EU manufacturer is in top 10 selling of brands in AU. From quick search, the top EU brand is VW (11th) + there are a few premium brands (Mercedes, BMW etc) behind it.
> MG is a British-origin brand, but it is now owned by the Chinese automotive giant SAIC Motor Corporation. While the design and engineering retain a strong British influence, most manufacturing now occurs in China, blending British heritage and Chinese innovation.
Isuzu, Mitsubishi and Subaru according to the article. Although as someone else points out Subaru is substantially owned by Toyota and Toyota does collect so that will probably change soon.
If you want something that lasts a long time, buy something well-made to begin with. I’m driving a 20-year-old Mercedes. I expect at least another decade from it. It’s not even the oldest one I’ve owned.
Yes and no. The problem with older or old cars is that eventually spare parts become sparsely available or downright unavailable, and even getting the normal wear and tear serviced becomes a problem. I went through it with my previous car that I owned close to 20 years, and it became a headache.
It appears that legislation is the only way to restrain nefarious parties from inflicting the data collection upon us.
The legislation has to codify the definition of the primary function of a consumable object (a car, a smart TV, a smart whatever), and any technology that does not directly assist the consumable object to fulfil its primary function, should be a strict and legally enforceable opt-in (or, better, banned) with the object manufacturer being legally held accountable for a failure to disclose the dodgy data collection or similar functions. Hefty fines, then more fines for failing to comply.
It is a windy road and a uphill journey ahead of us, and it will not be easy to counteract the misdeeds of the middle level management.
I don't know about Australia, but "authorized mechanic" doesn't seem to mean much (if anything) in the context of old cars in any of the lower 48 when it comes to general repair.
(Inspections? Sure. But inspections are by no means universally required.)
In some states there is additionally the personal benefit of older vehicles (usually 20+ years old) being exempt from annual emissions testing. This is probably a wash for society (harm from extra emissions - however much C02 emmissions you save by not purchasing a new car). Not having to pay $500 to replace a malfunctioning hard to reach sensor on a $1000 car is helpful if you don't have a lot of income though.
In some areas of the US, there's no statewide emissions testing (or inspections) to be exempt from to begin with.
For example: Ohio is broadly this way, with the exception of some counties near Cleveland that require emissions testing for vehicles that are between 4 and 25 years old.
To extend that example: For most of Ohio, anyone can hire anyone else to work on their their cars (or DIY) without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification."
> without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification."
Or "geniune parts" or "insurance" or "liability" or "loss of use" or "damages" or "employment-related injuries". Just sign this waiver; payment in cash only, up front...
What kind of bizarro-world are you living in where these things happen?
I just take my car to the [both "unauthorized" and "uncertified"] shop when that is necessary. My mechanic looks at it and either generates an estimate while I wait or he calls me later -- depending on how busy they are.
I then either agree to have him do the work, or I don't.
If I do, then: He gets it done, and then I pay the bill, and then I drive my car home.
The sweet spot has been 1996-2007 ish for a while.
OBD-II, electronic port fuel injection, decent crash structures and side airbags, often better suspension design, no DI carbon fouling, decent mileage. Cheap parts and nearly no remaining depreciation.
California is certainly cleaning out older cars with cash buyouts.. no question about it. Unsolicited offer via US Mail to the registered owner of a running car, offering cash to End-of-Life the vehicle.
If these "smart" cars take off in the way that "smart" tv's have, I may have to stick to buying second hand "dumb" cars, just like I only buy second hand "dumb" tv's for privacy reasons.
If? I thought they took off more than a decade ago and pretty much all cars made since the advent of 4G have been collecting and sharing your data with virtually everyone who will buy it.
In the article, there are a few car brands mentioned that are still not doing it.
So, if I was in the market for a car, I'd have to choose those brands. But if they also start collecting this type of data, it'll have to be used cars without those anti features.
How do brands handle the GPDR?
I haven't bought a car in 15 years so have no idea if original owner get to see a consent form or nag screen but:
- the fact a car is yours doesn't mean the person driving it is consenting as a car can be lent.
- manufacturers aren't notified of cars sales in the second hand market so aren't supposed to know if the owner change. How would the new owner be notified of the data collection?
The pernicious argument of adtech shills has been (for long time) that the pilfering of personal user data is the only way to support the web, news, social media etc. because... people will simply not pay for these services - hence they opt to become the product.
Enter the mutation of the car into a "digital platform" and the expansion of the data heist in a market and product where - last I checked - no car was ever given for free.
Lets face it. User data collection and monetisation is not a necessity, has never been. Its an opportunistic choice and a moral attitude that exploited dysfunctional legal and regulatory systems and an ignorant and aloof public.
Maybe that regression is indeed a new "normal". The issue is that normalizing those business models in one domain invariably expands and leaks them in all domains.
If personal data exploitation is the new gold rush how can you argue that x, y, or z industries are not entitled to a serving?
Why should your bank, or your pharmacy or any random business you interact with via a digitised service or product not be able to monetise your behavior with third parties?
Moral decay and generational greed have opened a Pandora's box that will keep on giving.
People who build those systems at those companies could have an "Are we the baddies?" moment.
But they can find solace in that -- given maybe 99% of us on HN work at companies that sell out our users' privacy to other companies -- at least they're in good (or not-so-good) company.
Oh? I think that ship sailed with the FAANGs. Why would programmers have any more scrupkes than CEOs?
This is an odd ranking for "worst types of data collected."
Personally, I'd be FAR FAR FAR more upset about my driving data being sent to insurance companies that I am about my voice recognition data being used to improve the voice recognition. But they seem to rank voice recognition training data and I suppose autopilot training data as the worst offenders.
Car companies are sending data to insurance companies. Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40169341
Voice recognition might be abused to reconstruct your voice and have your recorded voice saying things you never said. Maybe.
That's already possible with a pretty minimal sample (a few seconds). Not worth getting too twisted up about the potential for a data breach setting your voice free.
https://research.myshell.ai/open-voice
This tech does open up the plausible defense to just deny anything said not face to face though.
I'd be careful assuming Subaru is clean or will stay that way. Toyota is on the naughty list and they have a significant ownership stake in Subaru.
Is there some "radio delete" that is possible on newer cars, kind of like the "never plug the smart TV into the internet" to avoid tracking?
Or does this break other things, like the built-in GPS and similar?
On some cars you can pull a fuse that goes to the cellular modem, like many Fords at least up to around ‘21-‘23.
On others you may need to physically remove the modem if the fuse is going to more components.
Not sure about GPS but yes, some cars lose features when you do this. Can’t believe automakers dropped remote start from the fob just to push people to pay for a monthly subscription.
On my 2023 Subaru, the "Telematics" device is a small box behind the dash on top of the radio. I simply unplugged the GPS and Cellular cables attached to this device. Of course, now I can't use the OnStar-like emergency button anymore to call for help in an accident.
I assume the cars with active telemetry have a SIM card of some description. You could remove it/disable it but you'd lose app access and remote control features. I know of people doing this in Toyotas.
Can’t remove an eSIM.
True. I suppose you could remove the antenna or sabotage it in some manner
On GM cars it's pretty easy to disconnect the OnStar antenna. I don't know what that does to the built-in GPS, but my answer is only buy a car with CarPlay.
Why do you need CarPlay or Android Auto? I'm using my car without any of them and it's perfectly fine. I get calls with Bluetooth and I can play music with Bluetooth too, both from a Samsung and an iPhone. I navigate by looking at my phone on a holder close to the wheel. The screen of the car is further to the right.
I'm going to do this soon to my GM truck.
There's a YouTube video that details the process for my exact model. Unfortunately, it's a fair bit of work.
Interestingly, no manufacturers from the EU are on that list.
This is Australian website. No EU manufacturer is in top 10 selling of brands in AU. From quick search, the top EU brand is VW (11th) + there are a few premium brands (Mercedes, BMW etc) behind it.
MG. I suppose you consider that Chinese, now? I wonder if the future of European carmakers is Chinese ownership.
Edit: I see you specified EU. Nevermind.
> MG. I suppose you consider that Chinese, now?
Yes. Not even „consider”.
> MG is a British-origin brand, but it is now owned by the Chinese automotive giant SAIC Motor Corporation. While the design and engineering retain a strong British influence, most manufacturing now occurs in China, blending British heritage and Chinese innovation.
https://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/who-makes-mg-cars#....
No mention of the surest counter-strategy: Drive a car that is just too old to have offending technology.
Or just choose one of the vendors that don't collect data? They did list three.
Which ones? I missed those in the article.
Isuzu, Mitsubishi and Subaru according to the article. Although as someone else points out Subaru is substantially owned by Toyota and Toyota does collect so that will probably change soon.
The article mentions that it is only not collecting in Australia. Do you know that those brands are not collecting information in other countries?
I have no knowledge, just replying to a post as to the content of the article.
Ahh, thanks. For anyone else curious, the data is in a table widget, not in the main article body.
Then read it again?
At some point you being to trade safety innovations for zero-tech.
I feel a lot safter (and you are) in a 2024 vehicle VS a 1980s vehicle.
Always on headlights, side airbags, better impact ratings and engineering, etc.
Why the 1980s?
You don’t have to go back that far for less tech or tracking.
I love my '07. Juuuust old enough that smartphones had barely been invented, so nobody expected the car to be able to connect to the internet.
I want something that will last longer
What’s going to last longer than a mid-00s / early-10s Honda or Toyota?
If you want something that lasts a long time, buy something well-made to begin with. I’m driving a 20-year-old Mercedes. I expect at least another decade from it. It’s not even the oldest one I’ve owned.
Yes and no. The problem with older or old cars is that eventually spare parts become sparsely available or downright unavailable, and even getting the normal wear and tear serviced becomes a problem. I went through it with my previous car that I owned close to 20 years, and it became a headache.
It appears that legislation is the only way to restrain nefarious parties from inflicting the data collection upon us.
The legislation has to codify the definition of the primary function of a consumable object (a car, a smart TV, a smart whatever), and any technology that does not directly assist the consumable object to fulfil its primary function, should be a strict and legally enforceable opt-in (or, better, banned) with the object manufacturer being legally held accountable for a failure to disclose the dodgy data collection or similar functions. Hefty fines, then more fines for failing to comply.
It is a windy road and a uphill journey ahead of us, and it will not be easy to counteract the misdeeds of the middle level management.
I don't know about Australia, but "Cash for Clunkers" deprecated those and enabled faster iteration.
Good luck finding an authorised mechanic who can work without OBD-II or other computerized diagnostics.
I don't know about Australia, but "authorized mechanic" doesn't seem to mean much (if anything) in the context of old cars in any of the lower 48 when it comes to general repair.
(Inspections? Sure. But inspections are by no means universally required.)
In some states there is additionally the personal benefit of older vehicles (usually 20+ years old) being exempt from annual emissions testing. This is probably a wash for society (harm from extra emissions - however much C02 emmissions you save by not purchasing a new car). Not having to pay $500 to replace a malfunctioning hard to reach sensor on a $1000 car is helpful if you don't have a lot of income though.
In some areas of the US, there's no statewide emissions testing (or inspections) to be exempt from to begin with.
For example: Ohio is broadly this way, with the exception of some counties near Cleveland that require emissions testing for vehicles that are between 4 and 25 years old.
To extend that example: For most of Ohio, anyone can hire anyone else to work on their their cars (or DIY) without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification."
> without any practical third-party concern about things like "authorization" or "certification."
Or "geniune parts" or "insurance" or "liability" or "loss of use" or "damages" or "employment-related injuries". Just sign this waiver; payment in cash only, up front...
What kind of bizarro-world are you living in where these things happen?
I just take my car to the [both "unauthorized" and "uncertified"] shop when that is necessary. My mechanic looks at it and either generates an estimate while I wait or he calls me later -- depending on how busy they are.
I then either agree to have him do the work, or I don't.
If I do, then: He gets it done, and then I pay the bill, and then I drive my car home.
It's a very straight-forward kind of transaction.
The sweet spot has been 1996-2007 ish for a while.
OBD-II, electronic port fuel injection, decent crash structures and side airbags, often better suspension design, no DI carbon fouling, decent mileage. Cheap parts and nearly no remaining depreciation.
California is certainly cleaning out older cars with cash buyouts.. no question about it. Unsolicited offer via US Mail to the registered owner of a running car, offering cash to End-of-Life the vehicle.
When and in which city/county did that happen? I've never heard of BAR sending out unsolicited mail offers before. You always had to go to them.
If these "smart" cars take off in the way that "smart" tv's have, I may have to stick to buying second hand "dumb" cars, just like I only buy second hand "dumb" tv's for privacy reasons.
If? I thought they took off more than a decade ago and pretty much all cars made since the advent of 4G have been collecting and sharing your data with virtually everyone who will buy it.
In the article, there are a few car brands mentioned that are still not doing it.
So, if I was in the market for a car, I'd have to choose those brands. But if they also start collecting this type of data, it'll have to be used cars without those anti features.