Mozilla review of 25 car brands finds they're "a privacy nightmare"
All 25 car brands we researched earned our *Privacy Not Included warning label – making cars the worst category of products that we have ever reviewed
___
https://www.nissanusa.com/privacy.html
Sensitive personal information, including driver’s license number, national or state identification number, citizenship status, immigration status, race, national origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, sexual activity, precise geolocation, health diagnosis data, and genetic information.
Please make this reach the front page because it's beyond ridiculous
If you don't mind, please also highlight
health diagnosis data
genetic information
Because omfg, think about those for a second, and how any data that leaves your control is subject to eventual collection by law enforcement, legal or not, and anyone else willing to pay for it (or steal it):
For example, some bonehead rears your vehicle one day, but your health diagnosis data says you have a heart condition, or maybe just high blood pressure. These conditions can involve occasional lightheadedness, though you know yours is well controlled. You don't even think about it anymore because you take care of yourself and all your regular tests are good. But suddenly, you're in this minor accident, not even your fault, and it's no longer a simple rearending because some asshole has brought your health history into it so that YOU and not he will be on the hook for monetary damages.
(Triple if the bozo who hit you is some lame ass drunk rural county sheriff or elected official.)
And "genetic information" is code for DNA. How they would collect your DNA from your car I don't know, but do you REALLY want your genetic information associated with your vehicle and outside the confines of GINA* for the convenience of data sellers? I know I don't. (GINA is also the law that binds companies like 23andMe from selling your genetic data.) But the whole point of trying to legislate personal control over your own genetic information is because of all the dystopian scenarios that can easily evolve from others having it without your consent.
Yet now your car wants it too? Question this. Letting anyone have it by such means does a complete end run around any law meant to keep your personal genetic information private, and guts any rights you may have to your own privacy under the law, because you signed it away. Imagine the billions insurance companies could make, both health and auto, by refusing to pay for this or that because genetically it was a "pre-existing condition" or a "contributing factor" to you getting rearended by a drunk.
I've never been so thrilled to drive an ancient beater in my life.
*Note: GINA is weak already, but legislators are trying to weaken it further still: in 2018 a proposed change meant that "Employers would have been able to demand workers' genetic test results if the bill were to have been enacted."
I don't want to edit the post but consider as if it was done, thanks for the addition
How and where are they actually capturing that data exactly?
I don't know where you live, but it already illegal to hide any health data from road authorities in many countries like UK. If you get a lightheadedness from a know diagnosis and get into a crash, you will not only be prosecuted for the crash itself, but also for fraud that you're unfit to drive. Double criminal sentence, enjoy!
At the very least.. cant the US implement one of the basic rules from GDPR?
In simple terms, what data can companies keep?
Data need to have: OK
Data nice to have: Not OK
The US will absolutely not implement anything remotely like GDPR, because that would hurt the profits of a LOT of companies who happen to have a LOT of lobbyists on K street.
How do they even capture this stuff? Are you expected to write some essays before you can buy the car?
Meh, it's a CYA policy. They're not actively collecting that data, but if you mention something in those categories in an email, chat, phone call, etc to a Nissan employee, that data might be stored.
How would your car even know your sexual activity?
Per the article...
They can collect personal information from how you interact with your car, the connected services you use in your car, the car’s app (which provides a gateway to information on your phone), and can gather even more information about you from third party sources like Sirius XM or Google Maps.
In addition, my car uses text-to-speech to read texts to me and I can even reply to them with speech-to-text. Any data that passes from your phone through your car could easily be harvested. You should also assume that any data on your phone can be harvested by the car's app if you install it.
by you parking four hours infront of a known brothel or by you shagging someone on the backseat of your char, clearly. /some sarcasm in there
BuT tHeY nEeD tHaT sO tHeY kNoW hOw nOt tO dIsCrImInAtE aGaInSt yOu.
I don't see how the things you highlighted are worse than any of the rest of it.
It's all bad.
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.
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.
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.
By design and commonly accepted on recurring payments. Not even remotely new or connected with OnStar.
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.
I wonder what happens if you only have a single card with no money on it.
That sounds awfully convenient and OnStar saves lives, so…
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.
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.
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.
It would be a long time until I get a car (because it's convenient to live without one anyway), so I'm afraid the older "dumb cars" could become harder to buy or maintain then. I wonder if there are modern ones that you can make fully "dumb".
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.
What about my 14 year old Renault Kagoo?
:-)
Selling your location to the GIGN, believe it or not
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?
Renault used to have a 46% stake in AMC back in the '80s but sold it to Chrysler and hasn't been back since.
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.
Oh cool! So cars will be free now since the manufacturers are turning drivers into the product. Right? Right guys? Cars will be free?
It's legitimately cool that buying a new car and having any self-respect whatsoever are mutually exclusive now.
Fuck cars.
lmao
we need a mozilla or a linux car tbh..that is feature upgradable..like adding extensions or apps
We need cars that aren't giant IoT boxes that keep phoning home. The vast majority of "smart" car systems shouldn't need an Internet connection to function. But yes, I agree with your sentiment.
Never gonna happen unless governments force them.
What WILL happen is that more and more non-critical features will become pay to play. You'll rent the air conditioner in your car.
Installing your own software will become (or likely already is) illegal since if you're u do that you could play without pay on the car that you paid for with your money.
Corporations must be limited I'm what they can do, NOW. No more data monitoring and selling. No more ads pushed. No more pay to play. No more limiting what you can do with the products that you buy and own
Then we can joke for two decades that this year will be the year the Linux car will be able to drive
We've had up until the last few years.
You just need an older car with a DIN profile radio. You can swap it out for whatever you want.
I should chuck in a box with homebrew firmware for the lulz.
as long as the ecu allows u to start ur car even when changing the radio or tinkering with the infotainement system i wouldn't mind..but i probably doubt it: car manufacturers will really tie critical car features to spying hardware so they could reach their end. yea, an older car is the best answer for this. also ecu firmwares and sensors and car parts needd to be open sourced somehow
yea man buy an old car and riddle it with fancy features: (TPMS):tire monitoring pressure system, Lidar for brake anticipation and also highway cruising, parking sensors and cameras back and front, dashcams front and back (even cameras at the door handles like a Tesla). Tbh i like it when an old car gets modded by third party with latest car features that way u really saving the environment from a ton of metal junk. A BMW or A Tesla are just filled to the brim with sensors, but also more parts mean more breaking parts so there should be a balance between refurbishing an old car and making it basically undriveable with breakdowns.
The Teslas are powered by Linux as far as I know.
Someone could probably make a good amount of money charging like $50 to stick a nail through the cellular chip of new cars to disable that phone home shit.
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.
So you're telling me that you pay tens of thousands and still pay with privacy
I want a free car with personalised ads!
there is a car that goes 10kmph every three days untill you watch a 30 second ad about an arthritis medication
With unfettered capitalism, we are always the product in some way.
It's the Microsoft business model taken to the extreme.
Don't you just love the digital age? -_-
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.
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.
i am holding on to my 2006 dumb hunk of metal..no spyware..also solid body instead of those new cars with body made of thin aluminium..or the alternative which would be an impotent electric smartphone on 4 wheels
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I mean, read the article and especially some of the individual reviews. GDPR is all over the place.
As a TL;DR cars made for the EU market score much better than US models, but the devil is in the details. If you've got some time at hand, it's a real eye-opener to go over their summary at the very least.
Hopefully, it will apply to anything with internet connectivity and your personal data.
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
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.
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.
Sometimes I'm glad I drive an old, barebones features car.
My cars best tech is the CD player lmao
Same, not exactly old but it's a 2016 Kia Rio in the minimal configuration. Can't say whether the electric window openers or the CD player would take the number one spot for highest technological advancement.
Sadly my 34 year old car is off the road at the moment. I loved driving it because it was so simple. Basic on/off switches. No computers.
Why is Mozilla 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.
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?
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.
How does it collect information on sexual activity?
Cameras, microphones and sensors
I wondered about that too. Maybe it's stuff like "driver visits this address every Friday and Saturday night" but that hardly seems like solid data. Could just always listen to the installed mic intended for hands free calling and instead analyze for moans...
ctrl+f "volvo"
Not listed, so you know what that means! Great result via omission! Looks like my loved ones are all good then!
Same with Mazda!
I misread that as emissions at first and had a laugh
Could you technically not have penisary contact with her volvo?
Hardly seems surprising that Renault / Dacia is the least worst since it is a European car company that doesn't sell in the US. I should point out though that Dacia holds the record for the absolute worst NCAP safety ratings at this time and some Renault cars aren't far behind. So swings and roundabouts.
I assume that you're talking about the Dacia Spring which got 1 star (though the Renault Zoe got 0 stars recently and a few others did too in the past).
So whilst you're not wrong that these cars currently hold the lowest ratings of cars tested with the new post-2020 procedure, I'm sure a lot of older cars would fare far worse.
And it's fundamentally flawed to subject a tiny 970kg EV city car to the same tests as a 2-3 ton towering SUV. Besides the vastly different use cases, bigger and heavier vehicles will have an inherent advantage in most of the tests - hint none of them are adjusted for the weight of the vehicle.
I'm not saying this is somehow wrong, they're simulating crashing into an average car or a stationary immovable object, just we're automatically discounting small vehicles which have a genuinely valid reason to exist.
The new NCAP ratings only makes sense if we're saying affordable, small, light cars don't need to exist. Like everything automotive nowadays, it's designed to gently nudge us towards big lumbering swollen hatchbacks as the holy grail of the car industry.
So whilst you’re not wrong that these cars currently hold the lowest ratings of cars tested with the new post-2020 procedure, I’m sure a lot of older cars would fare far worse.
The NCAP test advances over time so of course an older car would rate worse. NCAP updates its testing regime to incorporate safety functionality as it becomes mainstream, e.g. automatic emergency braking.
But these cars were tested against their peers in 2021, not older cars. This is not city car vs SUV but city car vs city car. The Dacia Spring, Jogger, Sandero and Renaul Zoe were the worst cars in the City / Supermini category. In the same year, that Dacia / Renault were scraping 0, 1 or 2 stars, Fiat 500e and Hyundai i20 were scoring 4 stars. I'd add that all the city cars tested in 2022 were also 4 or 5 star rating. It's actually funny in a way that the revamped Zoe scored worse than the original model for impact protection because they actually removed safety equipment.
So basically it's about Renault cheaping out on safety, nothing else. It's not acceptable. Maybe the driver / occupant are fine with the extra risk of injury or death in a collision. Doesn't mean the pedestrian / cyclist they hit was so on board with the idea.
Not to mention that Dacia delayed the Sandero. Bad news.
Do humans listen to what we say in our cars? Can I scar someone for life by describing kinks I find on the internet or saying stuff like "babe, pull over...the mechanical pencil lead just broke off in my penis"
On a more serious note, perhaps I will cover the tracking camera in my car. Didn't want it, but it came with the stupid trim level of my car (makes sure you aren't falling asleep on the road/distracted.)
We could all start playing a game where we pretend to be people interested in shit we have zero interest in. Make the data they want to sell useless with tons of red herrings and false positives. Like led-embedded tennis racket grips, shower head louffas, Donald Trump branded TP, pokemon themed professional grade tooling, camera turrets coming out of the roofs of SUVs, or canned air except it's filled with CEO farts because consumers love sniffing them so much.
Merkel years ago: " ... to decide, who the cars data belongs to: the manufacturer or the provider"
Freely translated from memory (it was about the cell providers), but the point is; the user was never in consideration.
Oh good, a petition.
Wish I had the money to even be able to drive one of these nightmare cars in the first place. Yay for being poor I guess!
Well that was depressing.
Any idea around what model year this started to take off? I drive a 2000 so I'm not worried now, but thinking of upgrading to something slightly newer.
There are EV conversion kits available, so it is possible to turn an old car electric. They won't have the storage capacity of a natively electric car, but it is an option.
Depends on the OEM, but generally late-2010s is when it became more ubiquitous.
Any car with an infotainment system is probably a "risk," but especially '20s cars with features tied to apps are the real vulnerability here.
I have a 2012 VW Golf 6 and it's still ok. You can connect your phone via Bluetooth, but it acts more like a BT headset. It can show a contact list and caller ID, but that's as far as it goes. Maps can only be updated by buying a special SD card from VW. The car itself cannot connect to the Internet at all. It can read mp3 music from USB drives and SD cards. It also has a cd drive, and radio.
I'm quite happy with what it has. I know WV isn't very popular in the US, but it's common in Eastern Europe.
There are EV conversion kits available, so it is possible to turn an old car electric. They won't have the storage capacity of a natively electric car, but it is an option.
Unless it's a classic, don't. Just don't.
You'll be forever fixing and tweaking it and the integration usually sucks.
I have not read it yet, but do they have any countermeasures people can take?
My car is from last decade, but I was able to remove its OnStar equivalent phone/internet connection by unplugging a box. I just had to do a little research and find out that the cellular device was in a little box you can disconnect, and where that was located.
As far as I know that has it disconnected from any data-uploading ability. Not sure what data it might be gathering but it can't send it anywhere.
This. Yes. I need to do this to my 2022 Honda next.
Maybe a dumb question, but if all of the vehicle's bells and whistles are meticulously recording my every move... how do those data get back to the auto manufacturer anyhow? I read the article and the "how that works" link, and sure it mentioned phone connectivity, but if I don't connect my phone, then my car presumably has no way to communicate what it collects... or are there a bunch of extra radios that phone home (satellite, cellular...)?
Many (if not most) new cars have their own cellular service built in. They spin this as being able to hotspot to your vehicle if you pay for data or being able to remote lock/start your vehicle with their app. However, the vehicle manufacturer has their own plan allowing them to relay back telemetry data regardless of whether you buy a data package.
So at what point do we just decide "Fuck companies, fuck revenue, fuck anybody who has, say, a million bucks to their name in cash and assets. No more money making unless you do it without screwing people. If you can't, you fail. Good day. "
Tax the every living fuck out of the rich, destroy data even being collectable or sellable at all in any form.
Boom, 100,000% better world to live in immediately.
Obviously pipe dream, but I think this is really the mindset to take if humans are gonna be around and have anything resembling happy lives in say, 100 years.
Problem with taxing the rich is that they just go to other countries with their money. Not saying we shouldnt, just that its not simple.
@quackers @wheeldawg It becomes a race to the bottom then. Keep driving ultra rich tax rates down and you end at zero, or worse.
The frustrating thing is that there's no clear way to know exactly how much you're exposing yourself with this. Even the article (and related links) don't spell it out adequately (IMO).
For example, I just purchased a new(ish) 2022 Nissan. I don't have the Nissan app on my phone and I don't subscribe to any of their connectivity services. Is my data staying in the car or is it finding some conduit back to Nissan? Is connecting my phone to the console for music and maps opening me up to Nissan's data collection? Is using bluetooth for music and hand-free calls exposing my data? Is there any way to know the specific avenues for data collection that present a risk and how can they be mitigated?
According to their Nissan page, your car seems to not be phoning home if you haven't opted in. I don't know if that applies to data they gather when you bought the car, and if you bring it in for service.
If you didn't get the app and don't have any of their connectivity services, then there's no privacy issue for you. Nissan isn't going to pay to maintain millions upon millions of internet accounts just to connect data points on a random person driving their vehicle. They have no data frame on you to identify you, and if you never give it to them, they never will.
It's days like today where I'm glad Infiniti hasn't updated their shit since 2014.
Guess I'm happy my Toyota is the last model year that didn't have a connection to the app that's got privacy issues.
Thanks for linking this. Going to share it with some friends.
The more technology progresses in our ultracapitalist environment (and even some ultrasocialist ones like China), the more people are forced to become Luddite self-sustainable hermits in the middle of nowhere for their own good. It's not even to not buy a car - even something as simple as taking a bus or a train or even a pair of shoes is poised to become a privacy nightmare sooner or later.
There is nothing socialist about China.
Its flag is red
Public transit in my area already has cameras with facial recognition and tagging. It's not even a good public transit system, too.
I assume this can only be collected when connecting your phone plus the app to the vehicle? You lose a lot of functionality if you don’t, but at least it would keep your data private?
Most cars have a mobile antenna that connects to a cellular network to send/receive data, they can access it whenever they want but they want you to pay their overhead so they offer the phone app with the remote control options as incentive to cover their costs of collecting your data and as an added bonus to their profit.
Edit: It should be noted that the phone app also allows for even more information collection that they can sell for yet greater profit.
Many cars connect to the internet via cell, even if the owners didn't specifically pay for that, and many times it can't be disabled.
The phone helps get them more data, but they can gather plenty just from the car and its data connection.
The really fun question is - if you elect not to pay for the data plan for your car, will they still enable it anyways because they can make more money selling your information than it costs to maintain a cell contract for the vehicle?
The car can collect data and it can be downloaded when you go to a repair
My car's company isn't on the list, but I can't imagine they're any better. My car is a little older, though, so I don't think it has any way to phone home with any data...
Do new cars make you sign into your wifi with them or something? Or do they need a data connection? I suppose you could just not connect them, or even modify the hardware so it can't transmit. There's a joke here about putting your car into airplane mode, but I can't find it.
Is the article valid only in the US or in Europe as well?
That is why I am sticking to my Citroens and Peugeot.
Newsflash: you don't need to put your car on the internet.
There's other sources of data: when you apply for financing, when you go for a service, and more.
This is why if I ever own a car, it has to be an old gas runner with the engine/whatever else is needed replaced to make it an EV without all the non-optional spyware. Definitely not something from the past couple decades just to be a little more sure that there is a lower chance of any spyware being already present.
Is there any recent car that doesn’t have some sort of privacy settings?
The car I put the most miles on (at least during the summer) doesn't even have an ECU, so yeah you guys can have fun with all that high tech nonsense.
please just fix your browser
If you don’t have anything to hide then you don’t have anything to worry about!
They are making money off me without paying me for it
I agree with you but look at the dude's name, they probably are a troll. Regardless, watching the debate between ILikeBoobies and MrBusinessMan, the two sages has been thrilling.
I'd rather they just focused on making the browser better to be honest. Let the EFF or another org do this type of work
The people who researched this topic and wrote that article are most probably not the ones working on the browser. As any company, Mozilla has departments.
I know I used to develop for it. My point was directed at the funding . The web needs a strong alternative to chrome now more than ever. Neutering projects like servo does not help. Also most non technical people don't even know of Mozilla and anyone that does probably associates it with Firefox.
Anyway I'm downvoted for having a valid opinion. Whatever
Mozilla is a large umbrella foundation that includes the for-profit Mozilla Corporation. The Foundation has always done plenty of work outside of the browser. I do agree that their browser development is having a ton of issues (for example, the lack of development of key features needed for the Android browser to be competitive, like a tablet UI and the slow roll-out of add-ons), but I think those are a result of flawed decision-making in the Corporation which happened independently of anything that the Foundation might be up to.