"Your driving privacy expires with your current car’s lifespan"

[usbtypesteve@infosec.exchange]

@IanHill defeated by electrical tape most likely

[faraiwe@mstdn.social]

@IanHill For the foreseeable future, the only cars worth buying will be the ones BEFORE this. And, IMO/IME the ones prior to late 00s.

Let's forget, for a moment, the ethics of mandatory spyware (both in software and hardware) in your car.

Every time you add a system, there are costs. Integration with other systems? Nearly double that cost. Integration with ALL critical systems? Ooph.

#cars #Surveillance #BigBrother #Enshittification

[faraiwe@mstdn.social]

@IanHill for the dumdums saying "hyuk hyuk, all you need to do is slap a piece of tape over the camera!!!"

...and then your car does not turn on. At all. "BigBroCam error, please take me to Stealership, for $thousands service!!" in your dash.

Brilliant.

[ianhill@infosec.exchange]

@faraiwe Coincidentally I am halfway through reading Cory Doctorow's "Enshittification".....

[huntingdon@mstdn.social]

@IanHill

The used car business will go like gangbusters.

[inspired@hachyderm.io]

@IanHill I have a family friend with a medical condition that causes slurred speech. She is regularly treated as if she is drunk. Surely some people have a similar situation with indicators that these systems monitor. Ok, don't buy a car newer than 2027, forever. What if she needs to rent one while on a trip?

[julianoe@mastodon.xyz]

@IanHill if saving lives was the real reason, there is a shit ton of corporate bullshit that would be forbidden and yet they are not. "Saving lives" as an excuse to implement surveillance tech in cars and vehicles is the equivalent of "fighting pedos" to implement dystopian surveillance on the internet. This dialectic is known and we should stop falling for that excuse brandished by people who want us harm.

[arisummerland@beige.party]

@IanHill this is unpleasant news! I've been thinking about getting a new EV truck. I guess I better pony up and get it this year?! (I guess I can email the manufacturer and ask them when they're going to comply with this rule). I don't drive that much; I'll drive my 2010 Honda until the wheels fall off. I would not want a car's AI telling me that I can't go run errands because I look tired. 🙄

[darcmoughty@infosec.exchange]

@IanHill the insult added to this injury is the almost complete lack of traffic enforcement out there. I'm seeing a pattern across the board on almost everything where technology is expected to handle things while people with authority have "bigger fish to fry", but those fish ain't getting fried, either.

[dave_cochran@infosec.exchange]

@IanHill @jerry "The federal government promises this surveillance saves 9,000-10,000 lives annually. "

The US population according to census.gov is some 342,000,000 people.

10,000/342,000,000 = 0.00002924

0.002924% is what they say this will save.

great.

[dave_cochran@infosec.exchange]

@IanHill @jerry but GOD FORBID we give kids vaccines

[davidm_yeg@mstdn.ca]

@IanHill

Ultimately we desperately need to just get everyone out of their cars altogether, but I certainly never predicted the route to that would be making cars both so unreliable and so snitchy that no one would want to own or use one anymore… 🤷‍♂️

[solitha@mastodon.social]

@dave_cochran It's Biden-era legislation. Back when vaccines were encouraged, too.

If the auto industry can't get this derailed under the Trump regime for capitalist reasons, it's because the regime wants that surveillance, not because of the lives it may save.

@IanHill @jerry

[dave_cochran@infosec.exchange]

@solitha @IanHill @jerry 1) Biden was a pansy who could have ACTUALLY encouraged vaccines instead of being entirely passive towards the antivax fuckheads. However,

2) It was meant as more of a catch-all than a specific gripe - the aforementioned fuckheads are a symptom of a greater problem. I could just as easily have swapped "gun control" or "epstein-class accountability" or "an EPA with actual teeth" in for "vaccinating kids".

[marsiposa@social.coop]

@IanHill have you seen any other source indicating that this is actually happening or what specific tech are they referring to? I followed the links in the article and they all lead to unrelated topics. For instance, the only link that leads to a government source is referring to automatic braking, not ai-driven monitoring.

It seems this discussion has been going on for a while, with forced interpretations being spread online every now and then. For instance, from 2022:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497

An article with links leading to unrelated topics makes me think it was AI written.

[maccruiskeen@social.linux.pizza]

@dave_cochran @IanHill @jerry The NHTSA says about 12K people are killed per year in alcohol-related accidents (and also ~600 from drowsy driving), so the claim is that this would save three quarters of those. That seems optimistic at best?

[thecampbell@mastodon.social]

@IanHill Thank God the current car is a near quarter century old Ford Explorer that does 2000 miles in a serious driving year...

[maccruiskeen@social.linux.pizza]

@USBTypeSTeve @IanHill It will report you as already dead.

[dukeduke@mastodon.social]

@IanHill One more good reason to continue driving my '13, until one of us cashes or crashes out.

[gimulnautti@mastodon.green]

@IanHill Oh no. My car always thinks I look tired and I should take a break, no matter how alert I am.

As usual, the confidence of the AI sector is much higher than the capabilities of the technology!