Auto executive: 'We know everyone who breaks the law' thanks to the GPS in your car
Ford's Global VP/Marketing and Sales, Jim Farley, sent an ominous warning to American motorists during a panel discussion about data privacy.
Because of the GPS units installed in Ford vehicles, Ford knows when many of its drivers are speeding, and where they are while they're doing it.Farley was trying to describe how much data Ford has on its customers, and illustrate the fact that the company uses very little of it in order to avoid raising privacy concerns: "We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing. By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone," he told attendees. (Every auto manufacturer now provides GPS in new cars and you should assume they're SPYING on your driving habits)
Rather, he said, he imagined a day when the data might be used anonymously and in aggregate to help other marketers with traffic related problems. Suppose a stadium is holding an event; knowing how much traffic is making its way toward the arena might help the venue change its parking lot resources accordingly, he said.
His comments coincide with a warning from AAA, which this week urged companies to protect consumer data used in GPS systems.
“The data that today can be routinely collected by cars includes some of the most sensitive data that can be collected about a person, including information about their precise location and driving habits,” said Bob Darbelnet, president and CEO of AAA.
A Ford spokesperson later told Business Insider that in general, GPS units in Ford cars are not routinely pinging out their whereabouts as customers drive around. Rather, Ford cars have several on-board services such as "Sync Services Directions" (a navigation device that works with drivers' phones) and 911 Assist, which users have to switch on and opt into. And employers can use a service called "Crew Chief" to monitor their corporate car fleet. Data coming from those services is generally used only to improve services, a spokesperson says.
Farley attempted to retract his statement, saying "I absolutely left the wrong impression about how Ford operates. We do not track our customers in their cars without their approval or consent."
A government report found that major automakers are keeping information about where drivers have been, via data collected from onboard navigation systems. The Government Accountability Office said the automakers have differing policies about how much data they collect and how long they keep it.
Automakers collect location data in order to provide drivers with real-time traffic information, help find the nearest gas station or restaurant, and provide emergency roadside assistance and stolen vehicle tracking. But, the report found, “If companies retained data, they did not allow consumers to request that their data be deleted, which is a recommended practice.”
The report reviewed practices of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. It also looked at navigation system makers Garmin and TomTom and app developers Google Maps and Telenav.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140109/AUTO0102/301090127/1361/
Car companies collecting data through your car aren’t always telling you what it's being used for:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/08/govt-report-car-companies-collecting-data-through-your-car-arent-always-telling-you-what-its-being-used-for/
Car manufacturers store driving habits, location data for unknown amount of time:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/08/govt-report-car-companies-collecting-data-through-your-car-arent-always-telling-you-what-its-being-used-for/ GAO report December 2013: In-car location based services
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659509.pdf
Big Brother wants older cars destroyed so they can spy on you:
Article first appeared in EricPetersAutos:
“Vehicle to Vehicle” communications – V2V for short uses GPS (which almost all new cars already have) to enable Car A to communicate its location (as well as speed and direction) to Car B, so that (as an example) Car B would “know” that Car A is not stopping for that red light and thus Car B’s computer-controlled drivetrain would automatically slow/brake the vehicle to avoid a collision. (Many new/late-model cars come equipped with some form of “active” collision avoidance; that is, using radar or laser proximity sensors to detect objects in the vehicle’s path; using automated braking/steering, the vehicle acts to prevent an accident in the event the driver fails to act.)
V2V is the next technological Great Leap Forward – the critical element necessary to erect a nationwide grid of completely self-driving, autonomous cars.
And also broadcasting and recording cars. V2V-enabled cars could transmit and record every detail about your trip, such as how fast you’re driving at all times (not just a “snapshot”) as well as how rapidly you accelerate and how rapidly you brake, your direction – and whether you’re in motion or stationary – to a central database. Or to whomever happens to be listening in. The potential for abuse is staggering; the diminution of our already almost nonexistent private space a certainty.
Of course, it will all be sold as a tremendous advance in (ta-dum) safety. The consequences of driver error will be greatly reduced. Lives will be saved.
Older cars do not have the technological wherewithal to “talk” to other cars, much less be part of an autonomous grid. Nor are they set up for continuous monitoring.
And control.
What will happen to them?
In this era of Submit & Obey, of the immutable and unchallengeable Safety Cult, I expect what will happen is that a few years after V2V becomes mandatory in new cars, there will be talk – followed by action – requiring that all cars be V2v enabled or be relegated to the museum.
Or the crusher.
It will be argued that cars without V2V are unsafe – because they are independent of the grid, controlled by their drivers, not by Big Brother.
It may not even be done formally, via a law or regulation. The insurance mafia could simply add a surcharge to the policies of cars without V2V. They do this already for policies issued – that is, forced upon us – for high-performance cars (and motorcycles) making them unaffordable for most drivers and riders under 35. The same justification could be used to shove pre-V2V vehicles into the proverbial dustbin of history.
Crazy talk? The insurance mafia has been aggressively pushing in-car monitoring of policyholders’ driving habits for several years now (see here). It is something made technologically cheap and easy to do via the data recorders and onboard diagnostics systems that virtually all new cars have already. The insurance mafia has not insisted – yet – that everyone’s car be monitored. In part because the concept of monitoring still bothers enough Americans to keep it at bay. But when the government mandates it, via V2V, the insurance mafia will have what it needs to force-feed monitoring by way of surcharges for those who resist by not buying a new car ready-made with V2V GPS transmitting/recording capability.
V2V is a surge – an escalation – against older cars still under the control of their owners, whose driving is not subject to real-time, 24-7 monitoring and pre-emption.
http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/01/07/car-doesnt-talk/
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/04/vehicle-to-vehicle-communication-can-prevent-crashes/index.htm
The next data privacy battle: Your car
Cars are becoming smarter than ever, with global positioning systems, Internet connections, data recorders and high-definition cameras. Drivers can barely make a left turn, put on their seatbelts or push 80 miles an hour without their actions somehow, somewhere being tracked or recorded. Two senators are trying to give car owners more say over some of that data. Senator John Hoeven, and Senator Amy Klobuchar will introduce a bill stipulating that car owners control the data collected on the device called the event data recorder. The recorder, commonly known as a black box, collects information like direction, speed and seatbelt use in a continuous loop. It is in nearly every car today, and in September, it is set to become mandatory. “We’ve got real privacy concerns on the part of the public,” Senator Hoeven said in a telephone interview. “People are very concerned about their personal privacy, especially as technology continues to advance,” he said, referring to revelations of spying by the National Security Agency. Fourteen states have already passed similar laws. The data collected by the black box has already been the center of litigation by law enforcement agencies and insurance companies seeking to use the information against car owners. The bill would limit what the data could be used for and would require a warrant to release the data without the owner’s consent. But even this legislation covers only part of what is a rapidly evolving technological landscape.At the International CES in Las Vegas this week, automakers and technology companies announced a stream of new products and services aimed at making cars more connected.
Google announced it had a partnership with G.M., Audi, Honda and Hyundai to bring its Android platform to vehicle infotainment systems by the end of this year. At the same time, G.M. said it would start an app shop, where drivers can use apps like Priceline.com to book a hotel room and CitySeeker, which provides information about attractions and restaurants near the vehicle. The days of a driver being alerted to a deal at a retailer as he drives nearby are rapidly approaching.Many consumers, though, are unaware of just how much personal information is collected and used, privacy advocates say. “Manufacturers do a poor job of informing consumers and explaining the privacy implications of new technology,” said Khaliah Barnes of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a consumer group based in Washington. “Often, that information is in the owner’s manual, and when’s the last time you thumbed through your owner’s manual?” “Consumers should decide what level of surveillance they want to be under,” Ms. Barnes said. “None of that should be on default. You should have to opt in.”http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/business/the-next-privacy-battle-may-be-waged-inside-your-car.html?ref=privacy&_r=1