Carmakers like VW are bringing back buttons because drivers loathe all the touch

[kalvado]

Does that mean you don't watch any of the television streaming service (either paid or free) at all either? There's plenty to derive from your viewing habits, time of viewing, and location based upon IP address.

Also, using a credit card or debit card? Location, time of day, where you shopped at.

So, because some things have tracking (sometimes impossible to provide the service without, like credit cards), we shouldn't keep the issue from getting worse?  There's also the matter of degree.  I can turn my phone off (mine even lets me remove the battery).  I can pay with a cash, or split charges between different cards.  Not driving my car is a bigger ask.

As I mentioned, I take steps to limit my exposure to this stuff.  I'm honestly surprised that so few people do and that even suggesting that privacy is a thing to value seems to be such an unpopular opinion.

<shrug>

My privacy expectations aren't all that high. I pretty much assume anytime I use my phone or drive my car something is tracking me. Again, I don't really know what harm that actually does to me.

Maybe you'd feel differently if you were a member of a social group whose very existence has become politicized.  Or of the government becomes paranoid again.

It also depends a lot on where you live. I imagine Nevada wouldn't give two fucks about anything I was up to if they got that kind of data on me, but if, say, Texas got it I would be worried. With Texas, there's also the "sue people doing things you don't like for $10,000" laws, and I would imagine a cell provider or car service doing business in Texas could be compelled to respond to a subpoena from a private attorney for that data.

A lot of employers may be eager to use data they are not entitled to. Requests to review social network accounts, including personal messages, during hiring do exist. Taking day off for an interview with competitor? Going to political event after work? These can easily lead to consequences...

Or perhaps your car data puts you in the parking garage of the office of a labor union you're talking to...or a government office you're whistleblowing at...

It should also be noted that whether or not someone is legally entitled to that data, they may well be able to just purchase it.

I don't know of any company that has a right to contact a company to gain access to private profiles or posts, and social media companies wouldn't give access to such.

Mark Zuckerberg leveraged Facebook user data to fight rivals and help friends, leaked documents show
April 16, 2019, 1:30 AM PDT / Updated April 18, 2019, 4:51 PM PDT
By Olivia Solon and Cyrus Farivar

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg oversaw plans to consolidate the social network's power and control competitors by treating its users' data as a bargaining chip, while publicly proclaiming to be protecting that data, according to about 4,000 pages of leaked company documents largely spanning 2011 to 2015 and obtained by NBC News.

The documents, which include emails, webchats, presentations, spreadsheets and meeting summaries, show how Zuckerberg, along with his board and management team, found ways to tap Facebook's trove of user data — including information about friends, relationships and photos — as leverage over companies it partnered with.

In some cases, Facebook would reward favored companies by giving them access to the data of its users. In other cases, it would deny user-data access to rival companies or apps.

For example, Facebook gave Amazon extended access to user data because it was spending money on Facebook advertising and partnering with the social network on the launch of its Fire smartphone. In another case, Facebook discussed cutting off access to user data for a messaging app that had grown too popular and was viewed as a competitor, according to the documents.

[...]

Facebook ultimately decided not to sell the data directly but rather to dole it out to app developers who were considered personal "friends" of Zuckerberg or who spent money on Facebook and shared their own valuable data, the documents show.

So say you work at a grocery store with an app. Upper management decides they want access to their employees' profiles, so they offer Facebook ad money and data from their app in exchange for their employees' data from Facebook. Facebook would absolutely entertain that deal.

People often freak out on a possibility of Chinese espionage from some equipment. thing is, that data is unlikely to cause any personal problems - unlike data with the friendly local business which is right here.

[SEWIGuy]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

[seicer]

The license plate readers are not designed to look for people taking "suspicious" routes. ALPR systems capture a image of the vehicle and license plate, and transform the plate image into alphanumeric characters using OCR that then compares the plate number to one or more "hot list" databases. Essentially, if you aren't already on a list through a local police bureau, state police, or through the FBI, you aren't going to be profiled.

[kalvado]

The license plate readers are not designed to look for people taking "suspicious" routes. ALPR systems capture a image of the vehicle and license plate, and transform the plate image into alphanumeric characters using OCR that then compares the plate number to one or more "hot list" databases. Essentially, if you aren't already on a list through a local police bureau, state police, or through the FBI, you aren't going to be profiled.

Do you know that first hand, or you read about it somewhere?
I doubt about first hand knowledge, as "reader" describes only a front end of the system which can be combined with any backend processing.
And I won't underestimate capabilities of existing back ends. Even before covid people were saying it's almost impossible to get into NYC without getting identified. Not without going through things like traveling in the trunk and getting  out in closed private garage. With AI models being in full bloom, who knows what the system would call suspicious tomorrow...

[seicer]

It's pretty well-detailed. Federal DPPA also restricts access and prohibits releasing certain personal information from MVRs, alleviating some concerns some had raised. But conspiracy theorists will raise concerns with any type of tracking system regardless of how advanced or not they are.

The ALPR system uses off-the-shelf OCR technology to read the alphanumeric digits and compare them to a live database of plates flagged in one or more databases. There isn't anything suspicious or "AI" about that. ("AI" has sadly become a catchphrase for all things people don't understand and want to mislabel.)

[mgk920]

Eh, I still find data privacy concerns overblown, considering the level of harm that could really come from it to me, personally.

I find Bluetooth and the ability to make hands-free calls and the like invaluable while driving.

Yeah if a car company wants to collect my data, I have no idea what they are going to do with it, but more power to them. They will figure out I drive a lot, have a lot of pictures of my dogs on my phone, and have a weird obsession with buttery love songs from the 1970s.

Anyway I use Sirius XM and cycle through about fifteen or so different stations on any ride.

It's amazing how much you can figure out from such data.  Imagine figuring out someone has cancer based on which doctor's offices they drive to and when (or other, more political, medical things).

<shrug>

My privacy expectations aren't all that high. I pretty much assume anytime I use my phone or drive my car something is tracking me. Again, I don't really know what harm that actually does to me.

A decade or two ago, someone used cell phone company 'ping' (used by the cell phone system, every few minutes they send out signals to all of the phones to know where they are so they can receive incoming messages) records to show that he was at a Dodgers game and not in a Los Angeles city neighborhood when a murder that he was on trial for happened.

Mike

[seicer]

People are so concerned about being "tracked" by Google Maps that they turn off its location history feature, which is helpful if you review places or want to see places you've visited previously. But then they won't put their phone in airplane mode and aren't aware that, with proper warrants, they can be tracked through the onboard GPS module in their vehicle and/or phone. At the least, triangulation through cellular towers can provide a pretty good timeline of where someone has been.

But we know people don't turn on airplane mode all day long because they use their phones as intended. And people don't remove GPS modules from their cars (unless it's a Subaru with Starlink and you live in Massachusetts). And almost everyone here comments on forums and websites where their IP address is logged. Unless people wear tinfoil hats all day, the notion that they have privacy and anonymity on the Internet or on their phones is funny.

[kalvado]

People are so concerned about being "tracked" by Google Maps that they turn off its location history feature, which is helpful if you review places or want to see places you've visited previously. But then they won't put their phone in airplane mode and aren't aware that, with proper warrants, they can be tracked through the onboard GPS module in their vehicle and/or phone. At the least, triangulation through cellular towers can provide a pretty good timeline of where someone has been.

But we know people don't turn on airplane mode all day long because they use their phones as intended. And people don't remove GPS modules from their cars (unless it's a Subaru with Starlink and you live in Massachusetts). And almost everyone here comments on forums and websites where their IP address is logged. Unless people wear tinfoil hats all day, the notion that they have privacy and anonymity on the Internet or on their phones is funny.

That's why solutions for these questions should be in a legal and ethical domains, not brute force disabling things with companies happily deploying workarounds. 

[vdeane]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

Why wouldn't they?  I remember when Border Patrol was pulling over random cars on US 9 that were "suspicious" because they didn't use I-87 (granted, this was the part bypassing their checkpoint, but still).  I remember when vehicles at their checkpoints could expect to be potentially detained, given a fake hit from a drug dog, and have their cars torn apart.  All from an agency that is legally only allowed to ask if you're a US citizen and then let you go.  I even remember the NYS state police setting up a checkpoint on NY 74 and quizzing everyone on their travels.  And my roadgeeking trips tended to look a lot weirder than just taking the scenic route, especially when I was still clinching NY routes and would go up, down, on a loop, down a road and deadhead back, etc. multiple times in one trip.

[SEWIGuy]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

Why wouldn't they? 

Because it's completely inefficient.

[vdeane]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

Why wouldn't they? 

Because it's completely inefficient.

Not with AI it isn't.  It's not like you need a person physically watching everyone's travels to determine this.  And they basically already do this at the border.  Have a non-typical itinerary?  You're going to secondary.

[kkt]

Eh, I still find data privacy concerns overblown, considering the level of harm that could really come from it to me, personally.

I find Bluetooth and the ability to make hands-free calls and the like invaluable while driving.

Yeah if a car company wants to collect my data, I have no idea what they are going to do with it, but more power to them. They will figure out I drive a lot, have a lot of pictures of my dogs on my phone, and have a weird obsession with buttery love songs from the 1970s.

Anyway I use Sirius XM and cycle through about fifteen or so different stations on any ride.

It's amazing how much you can figure out from such data.  Imagine figuring out someone has cancer based on which doctor's offices they drive to and when (or other, more political, medical things).

<shrug>

My privacy expectations aren't all that high. I pretty much assume anytime I use my phone or drive my car something is tracking me. Again, I don't really know what harm that actually does to me.

A decade or two ago, someone used cell phone company 'ping' (used by the cell phone system, every few minutes they send out signals to all of the phones to know where they are so they can receive incoming messages) records to show that he was at a Dodgers game and not in a Los Angeles city neighborhood when a murder that he was on trial for happened.

Mike

Great, now his phone has an airtight alibi.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

Why wouldn't they? 

Because it's completely inefficient.

Not with AI it isn't.  It's not like you need a person physically watching everyone's travels to determine this.  And they basically already do this at the border.  Have a non-typical itinerary?  You're going to secondary.

At the border, they've asked where I'm going, where I'm staying, for how long, and do I have tobacco or alcohol. I've never been asked for my route-by-route directions, or have they asked for my specific schedule. 

Maybe if you're going up for the day and you tell them you're clinching a route, well, yeah, that's unusual.  But this is also way different than driving and having a camera see you pass by.

[Scott5114]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

Why wouldn't they? 

Because it's completely inefficient.

Because the sheriff's office of Lunchbuckler County, population -56, is really concerned about efficiency, am I right?

[SEWIGuy]

I'm honestly surprised they never took the data from licence plate readers to pull over cars with "suspicious" routes (which would, I presume, include any roadgeek trip that is pure route clinching) for questioning.

Why would they do that? Its not as though law enforcement has a ton of time on its hands to pull over people for doing nothing but taking the scenic route somewhere.

Why wouldn't they? 

Because it's completely inefficient.

Because the sheriff's office of Lunchbuckler County, population -56, is really concerned about efficiency, am I right?

When that actually happens, let me know.

[vdeane]

At the border, they've asked where I'm going, where I'm staying, for how long, and do I have tobacco or alcohol. I've never been asked for my route-by-route directions, or have they asked for my specific schedule. 

Maybe if you're going up for the day and you tell them you're clinching a route, well, yeah, that's unusual.  But this is also way different than driving and having a camera see you pass by.

I actually have had them ask detailed itinerary questions (both during day trips while I was in college, incidentally) before (one of which even involved going to secondary screening heading in to Canada), although the third trip that year and the two since were more chill (aside from returning to the US from the Québec City meet in 2014; then they spent a few minutes grilling me on why I was working for the state instead of something more directly related to my degree).  But it's worth noting two things:
1. My "roadgeek day trips" don't fit the typical profile of travel (and, as such, I have never done one that involves crossing the border), as there is no destination involved in the traditional sense; I just leave my apartment, drive on a bunch of roads, and get back with no stops other than lunch/gas (and occasionally intermediate bathroom breaks as needed, though I try to avoid them).  Like I said, this isn't as simple as "taking the scenic route".  Since it seems an example is needed, here's an example of one (split into two parts, as Google didn't provide enough shaping points to do this all in one), minus the drive from my apartment to the beginning of the loop and back again - Part 1, Part 2.
2. You're acting like it's one camera.  It's not.  Many areas are covered with them.  Imagine if the Newport area was covered with them and the system was able to use the date/time stamps to piece together that whole itinerary and that it didn't have stops (aside from my lunch at Neon Marketplace in Portsmouth) and deemed it suspicious (if I wasn't a roadgeek, I would).

[ZLoth]

My two experiences of driving from the United States to Canada were as follows:

late September, 2013 - via Ferry from Port Angeles, WA to Victoria, BC. Was questioned as to if I was currently employed (yes), if I knew anyone in the area (no), where I was staying (Royal Scot Hotel), when I returning to the United States, when I was returning to work.

mid-September, 2016 - I was staying at a hotel in Coeur d'Alene, ID, and was taking a day trip up to Canada with the intention of visiting Kootenay Lake. There was a security incident near New York City a few days previous, so all of the border security was on heightened alert. My plan was to enter Canada via Eastport/Kingsgate, go to Creston, then the lake, then loop back around and re-enter the United States via Rykerts/Porthill. My car was searched by dogs, my computer and smart phone was reviewed, and they questioned why I didn't take the direct route to Creston. Of course, they asked where I was staying, if I was employed, etc.

In both cases, I was using my passport card to enter Canada, was traveling off-season, and was a single person.

[kalvado]

2. You're acting like it's one camera.  It's not.  Many areas are covered with them. 

Saying was that anyone on Manhattan is always observed by at least 2 cameras when outside of a private residence. I really hope restrooms are treated all the later as well.
I suspect coverage only increases with storage capacity growth.

[seicer]

I disagree with the U.S. Border Patrol's claim that they have jurisdiction 100 miles into the interior from any land or maritime border, as that raises all sorts of legal claims still playing out in courts. Immigration officers only need "probable cause" to search your vehicle and only need "reasonable suspicion" to arrest you. Both violate the Constitution. This affects 200 million people, and the Border Patrol's jurisdiction almost entirely or entirely blankets some states. It doesn't entirely matter to the Border Patrol as they often extend their jurisdiction past the 100-mile limit, which two Circuit Courts have backed up. It's also dubious regarding legal authority - it was pushed through without any public input or debate.

[Scott5114]

Because the sheriff's office of Lunchbuckler County, population -56, is really concerned about efficiency, am I right?

When that actually happens, let me know.

When I was 19, I was pulled over in Blackfoot, Idaho for 42 in a 35 (I was going south on 91 and speeding up as the town was ending and I was about to pass the 45 sign). Given my age, out-of-state license plates, and location on US 91 instead of I-15, the cop assumed I was carrying weed. Another cop showed up and asked if they could search my car. I consented as it was clear I was going to get a speeding ticket otherwise. After 15 minutes of going through every nook and cranny in my car, they decided I had nothing, clearly felt bad about the whole thing, and let me off with a warning.

As of now, that's the only time I've ever been pulled over. I had a Talbot County cop ride my ass through the middle of nowhere in Georgia, clearly trying to egg me into breaking the 55 mph rural speed limit on US 80, but eventually he gave up and pulled into a gas station.

Plenty of other examples on the forum if you care to search. Jake Bear in particular had it happen to him a lot since he tended to take a lot of back roads during his wild roadgeeking days, but I don't remember whether he posted those stories here or to his blog. I also seem to remember an instance of someone getting pulled over in West Texas for being on US-180 with out of state plates, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

[vdeane]

Jake Bear in particular had it happen to him a lot since he tended to take a lot of back roads during his wild roadgeeking days, but I don't remember whether he posted those stories here or to his blog.

IIRC he also had a few rants about Border Patrol hanging out at California agricultural inspection stations.

[SEWIGuy]

Because the sheriff's office of Lunchbuckler County, population -56, is really concerned about efficiency, am I right?

When that actually happens, let me know.

When I was 19, I was pulled over in Blackfoot, Idaho for 42 in a 35 (I was going south on 91 and speeding up as the town was ending and I was about to pass the 45 sign). Given my age, out-of-state license plates, and location on US 91 instead of I-15, the cop assumed I was carrying weed. Another cop showed up and asked if they could search my car. I consented as it was clear I was going to get a speeding ticket otherwise. After 15 minutes of going through every nook and cranny in my car, they decided I had nothing, clearly felt bad about the whole thing, and let me off with a warning.

As of now, that's the only time I've ever been pulled over. I had a Talbot County cop ride my ass through the middle of nowhere in Georgia, clearly trying to egg me into breaking the 55 mph rural speed limit on US 80, but eventually he gave up and pulled into a gas station.

Plenty of other examples on the forum if you care to search. Jake Bear in particular had it happen to him a lot since he tended to take a lot of back roads during his wild roadgeeking days, but I don't remember whether he posted those stories here or to his blog. I also seem to remember an instance of someone getting pulled over in West Texas for being on US-180 with out of state plates, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

So...none with local law enforcement tracking your car's movements via GPS.

[Big John]

So...none with local law enforcement tracking your car's movements via GPS.

OnStar advertised that if your vehicle was stolen, they would send your GPS to law enforcement then stop the vehicle when police came.

[kalvado]

So...none with local law enforcement tracking your car's movements via GPS.

Primarily because that capability is fairly limited so far.
Couple of stories about gps device planted on a car, phone spoofing, ezpass off label use are there.

[mgk920]

Also cheating spouses/significant others.   

Mike