6 ms·

Don't forget that other manufacturers collect the same data, they just didn't have a collection of blunders that allowed access. No malicious intent this time,

by dirkt 2y ago

Don't forget that other manufacturers collect the same data, they just didn't have a collection of blunders that allowed access. No malicious intent this time, but it clearly highlights that companies need to learn to put policies in place to make double sure PII is actually protected to the degree the law already requires. We also need laws that force companies to make opting out of this kind of data collection much easier, or to make it opt-in in the first place.

f1shy 2y ago
> they just didn't have a collection of blunders that allowed access That is no little difference my friend!!!
bluGill 2y ago
More importantly also give people a way to check and use that date. Is my employee using the car personally (a violation of the laws allowing me to deduct the car)? did my employee really use the correct route? is my wife cheating on me? Did my kids really go to the library or were they racing across town? the above is all I can come up with. For many none of that applies and so the data can only be used against us.
croes 2y ago
> they just didn't have a collection of blunders that allowed access Correction: They just don't have a known collection of blunders that allow access. I bet if you look closely you’ll find more.
akimbostrawman 2y ago
>No malicious intent this time it must be 1984 because otherwise collecting centimeter precise location data of vehicles would definitely be malicious....
pas 2y ago
> ... need to learn to put policies in place to make double sure blablal is actually tralala. no. they already have too many policies. and this and that. adding one more is how we got there. (of course they have policies for making sure PII is kept safe.) no. this is a cultural issue.
numpad0 2y ago
I'm hallucinating, but IIUC, there is a philosophical loophole that makes tracking a car through factory installed means is a total wild west; because you don't know who owns or drives the car, but a car is sold to dealerships and resold to households to be used and maintained by anyone, you technically wouldn't know if it's driven by humans, just what you made seem to be doing something. Is that (still) correct?

by dirkt 2y ago

f1shy 2y ago

> they just didn't have a collection of blunders that allowed access That is no little difference my friend!!!

bluGill 2y ago

More importantly also give people a way to check and use that date. Is my employee using the car personally (a violation of the laws allowing me to deduct the car)? did my employee really use the correct route? is my wife cheating on me? Did my kids really go to the library or were they racing across town? the above is all I can come up with. For many none of that applies and so the data can only be used against us.

croes 2y ago

> they just didn't have a collection of blunders that allowed access Correction: They just don't have a known collection of blunders that allow access. I bet if you look closely you’ll find more.

akimbostrawman 2y ago

>No malicious intent this time it must be 1984 because otherwise collecting centimeter precise location data of vehicles would definitely be malicious....

pas 2y ago

> ... need to learn to put policies in place to make double sure blablal is actually tralala. no. they already have too many policies. and this and that. adding one more is how we got there. (of course they have policies for making sure PII is kept safe.) no. this is a cultural issue.

numpad0 2y ago

I'm hallucinating, but IIUC, there is a philosophical loophole that makes tracking a car through factory installed means is a total wild west; because you don't know who owns or drives the car, but a car is sold to dealerships and resold to households to be used and maintained by anyone, you technically wouldn't know if it's driven by humans, just what you made seem to be doing something. Is that (still) correct?