this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
126 points (97.0% liked)

Privacy

31935 readers
742 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said

Is what the second top last paragraph says. Can someone explain in simple terms to me : why is the car downloading the data but not giving access to the owner of the car? What is the data being downloaded for?

The last paragraph says

Many car manufacturers are selling car owners’ data to advertisers as a revenue boosting tactic, according to earlier reporting by Recorded Future News. Automakers are exponentially increasing the number of sensors they place in their cars every year with little regulation of the practice.

But if you read the two paragraphs logically, it isn't really saying berla is selling the data. It's saying some of the car manufacturers are selling the data. So I'm at a loss.

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pragmakist@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

State law is one thing, but to me it seems obvous that "his or her right to be secure in their papers" has been broken.

Edit: Unfortunately the founders formulated that as a limit on government, again not actually succeding in securing any rights.

[–] andruid@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need to have an honest conversation and additional amendments as to limitations as to businesses incorporated with the State should have imposed on them. They are clearly apart of what anyone would call "the state" IMHO.

[–] pragmakist@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The usual solution outside the US is to not mention the state at all.

All you need is a right to privacy, not a list of those who are not allowed to peek

[–] andruid@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

There is a difference between the of power the state and larger corporations can exert to get "consent" to waive our rights, hence the need for unwaivable (or near unwaivable) rights.

This idea of treating corporations the same as people is why when you accept EULAs it's treated the same as if you agreed to agreeing to let a person you know to have the same info.

[–] detalferous@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

This must be illegal in states where one or two party consent is required for wire tapping though, right?

[–] pensivepangolin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Everything’s a wiretap!