Records reviewed by WIRED show law enforcement agencies are eager to take advantage of the data trails generated by a flood of new internet-connected vehicle features.
I’ve been saying it for years, starting with those idiotic voice activated “smart” speakers from Google or Amazon in people’s homes. Nobody pays attention to what’s happening behind the scenes, even when the press breaks a story about some unsavoury bullshit (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47893082) like “voice recordings are occasionally reviewed to improve speech recognition but the reaction to the Bloomberg article suggests many customers are unaware that humans may be listening.” That’s you, that’s you and your GF/wife talking about your work (possibly including restricted information), friends and family, politics, or about how you’re trying to work on getting your entire hand to fit inside of her. The thought that these same companies would design and furnish technology for vehicles without engaging in the same kind of stuff is absurd.
Too few people know, fewer care if you bother to tell them about it. They’d be aghast to know that what they had bought and installed in their living room/dining room/den/bedroom/bathroom is essentially a voluntary bug, yet telling them that the cops could subpoena the companies in question to excise the unit’s data and review everything they’ve been saying in the privacy of their vehicle over a relevant (or maybe not-so-relevant) period of time pursuant to an investigation usually will get you idiotic comments about how “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”
The content in question can at the very least affect their insurance, at worst be used as a honeypot by people seeking to exert influence via blackmail, or extort the person in question. The end-user risk is the same as that described concerning their use in households. Just think about all of the “uncomfortable conversations” or sex that you’ve had in your/someone else’s car over the decades - ask yourself if you’d want an open mic sitting there, which may or may not be later reviewed by persons unknown. This is the kind of information which may become available to cops, and worse yet, they don’t always need warrants. There’s been a pervasive culture of simply leaning into those unwilling to turn it over, in the kind of theme seen in recent years with doorbell cams. I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t pull the same routine with a vehicle’s computer data, whether or not it involves cameras/mics.
I’ve been saying it for years, starting with those idiotic voice activated “smart” speakers from Google or Amazon in people’s homes. Nobody pays attention to what’s happening behind the scenes, even when the press breaks a story about some unsavoury bullshit (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47893082) like “voice recordings are occasionally reviewed to improve speech recognition but the reaction to the Bloomberg article suggests many customers are unaware that humans may be listening.” That’s you, that’s you and your GF/wife talking about your work (possibly including restricted information), friends and family, politics, or about how you’re trying to work on getting your entire hand to fit inside of her. The thought that these same companies would design and furnish technology for vehicles without engaging in the same kind of stuff is absurd.
Too few people know, fewer care if you bother to tell them about it. They’d be aghast to know that what they had bought and installed in their living room/dining room/den/bedroom/bathroom is essentially a voluntary bug, yet telling them that the cops could subpoena the companies in question to excise the unit’s data and review everything they’ve been saying in the privacy of their vehicle over a relevant (or maybe not-so-relevant) period of time pursuant to an investigation usually will get you idiotic comments about how “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”
The content in question can at the very least affect their insurance, at worst be used as a honeypot by people seeking to exert influence via blackmail, or extort the person in question. The end-user risk is the same as that described concerning their use in households. Just think about all of the “uncomfortable conversations” or sex that you’ve had in your/someone else’s car over the decades - ask yourself if you’d want an open mic sitting there, which may or may not be later reviewed by persons unknown. This is the kind of information which may become available to cops, and worse yet, they don’t always need warrants. There’s been a pervasive culture of simply leaning into those unwilling to turn it over, in the kind of theme seen in recent years with doorbell cams. I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t pull the same routine with a vehicle’s computer data, whether or not it involves cameras/mics.