Sure, why not? The issue isn't about the data going there (it's not going there anyway), it's about who can tell where the data can go. That's the definition of ownership. Data generated by my car should be owned by me, I should be able to give them to the public if I so choose. But more importantly, I want to be able to easily access this data.
As others say, this is not extreme, it's common sense.
Tangential: what irks me about data ownership discussions is that they tend to divide people into three classes: the government, the business, and the unwashed masses, i.e. consumers. I'm a member of the fourth group - technically sophisticated enough to do better job with the data than your average businesses, but not interested in building products - just DYI one-off solutions for myself. There's plenty of people in this class, but it's always pushed aside as a "small minority".
Huh? How is users wanting to control the personal data they create (e.g. telemetrics) an “extreme” movement?
We still need strong regulations and gov agencies to enforce/protect, but I just don't see the point of claiming everything is your data blah blah.
the device created the data, they
played a role but I don't see why
that means they control it.
If the shutter fails to open to spec, would you want them to know about it and have data to improve it via a firmware update or next version of the product?
Please read my post, and really read it :). I am not saying all data is theirs, I am saying it depends on the type of data and I don't want to see no data being shared.
I don't want the applications to continually send the data to the vendor.
In your case, Canon will ask to look at your camera or ask for some log, you will give it to them by choice, they will look at it and find/fix the problem. There is no automatic implied approval just because I bought something from someone.
It is a hard line to draw, but I believe we can do it over the next 50 years as long as we don't draw a hard line that all data is mine.
Not without my explicit consent.
Look at it from the perspective the data is not anyone's to start. The data is something you played a role in creating but you do not own. Next, how do you decide who controls and gets access to which parts of the data and what are the reasons behind that?
Data that identifies you might own and keep private.
Data that can help the manufacturer improve the product/services they might get.
Data that can help society/gov they might get.
You are arguing that I should be, though. Whether or not I "own" the data is irrelevant to this point. If I don't have a choice about it being revealed, then I am being forced to reveal it.
> Data that identifies you might own and keep private.
Given that very powerful databases and data mining technologies are commonly employed, I think that this category covers the vast majority of all data that is created as a result of my actions or the actions of machines that I own.
The users and their personal behavior and usage metrics are obviously the valuable part of the data — not the device that logs and measures the data. Also, (though I’m sure there’s “semantic” nuance in this too), the users are the ones who pay to possess and maintain the data-creating device.
I do not think just because you are involved in creating data that means it is yours. When you give data to the census that isn't your data... when you click an ad and buy something that data isn't your data... I just don't get this notion that data is yours because you are involved in its creation. There is data about you that might be private or personal and should have protections, but the notion that data you have a role in creating is yours seems extreme.
“It’s a symbiotic relationship”
Sorry, you’ll have to do a bit better than that. Many of us are old enough to have owned and driven vehicles quite well with no automated telemetry. The same can’t be said for account-based online social networks, which have always required user data to fundamentally function.
The notion that it's OK for me to be forced to send such data to others seems extreme to me.
I do object to thinking it has precedent. This is a new situation that is going to get bigger with iot.
This issue is precisely why I won't be buying any IoT device that requires the use of a third-party server, which currently means any commercial IoT devices.
I don't know why you say this, though, when you are arguing that I should be.
> because you are somehow related to the data you get ownership.
In the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, I demand such ownership.
I don't see that data as anyway owned by you, you might have rights to aspects of it, but in no way can you demand ownership over something you don't own.
Because it is data about me that I'm generating personally, on my own personal equipment. That data is literally nobody else's business unless I choose to share it.
What you are saying is that users don't have a choice in the matter.
I think this choice will be removed within my lifetime.
The user owns the device. Full stop.
So let me re-frame our conversation. Let me re-root it to something that I will not budge on:
If I buy a device then I own the data on it. If I own a device then I own the data collected by it. If I own data, then I have every right to refuse to allow that data to be accessed by anyone other than myself.
If you want access to the data to be a precondition of my use of the device, then do not pretend you sold the device to me. At best you are providing a lease.
You are welcome to disagree with me :)
It's my device, therefore I have every right to control who it's going to talk to and what it's going to say.
> If the data plays a role in improving services or life for everyone let the data serve its role.
Then let the manufacturers make that case to me as part of getting my consent to collect the data.
And trying to maintain status quo is not extreme privacy movement, it's common sense.
there is section for "From or about your Tesla vehicle"
Its a bit weird to agree to this when buying your vehicle and complain about it later.
Its not like they are doing it behind your back like FB, they are telling you upfront what they are collecting. how can you possibly have a problem with that.
2) Still, thanks for pointing that out. Now, I'm even less inclined to buy a Tesla.
3) Wonder what happens in private sale of used Tesla, since the second owner never agreed to such terms, or did they? (Depends on when these terms are presented to them). Could lead to a class action, just saying...
4) Are we now at a place that in addition to the vague financial terms people will have to also comb through T&Cs before buying a car. If so, that is not a good heathy trend.
This is my thought exactly, and not just for Tesla.
The original purchaser agreed to the privacy policy, but if the original purchaser goes on to sell that vehicle in a private transaction, then the second purchaser did not agree to said privacy policy.
Also, since private sales are just that - private - how does the manufacturer know who the data is now about?
They'll know when you need to pay the bills for their spying network and because you are forced to go to them to get the car serviced.
A Tesla without Tesla dealerships is a brick. I'm super curious how much those used Teslas will be worth in 10 years time.
Also they can just check all that GPS data they're collecting.
Demonstrate that a person isn't required to agree to or sign privacy-waiving contracts in order to purchase (wholly own) a Tesla vehicle.
Demonstrate that the privacy-waiving contract isn't implied to be required.
If it's all in the service of public good, then sure I'm in. But if it is, why is it carefully designed such that at any moment the collectors can productize it? And if I'm a contributor to the data why don't _I_ get any rights to the output?
It's one thing to say, "I observed your public outputs and drew a conclusion and you have no business about that conclusion." I can get behind that, to some extent. But it's another entirely too weave the fabric of your data collection into every device I interact with and use it to monetize my life. It's an insult on top of injury to suggest that I'm not allowed to know about the collection you're using objects I own to execute upon.
Why do you think so little of your own agency?
Facebook already has this, and most people are sharing this in the public sphere. I understand the worry and damage that can be done, but I feel like we are moving from a 1950s model of hide it all and pretend you a perfect, to more of a this is who I am and let me live my life as long as it doesn't hurt others or society.
It’s great that you are in a situation where you believe you are able to publicize your sexual identity without detrimental consequences. But it is the height of arrogance to presume that everyone else must have the same life situation that you do.
This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN.
This is a textbook presumption — you insinuate that someone’s desire to not publicly transmit their sexual/politics must be irrational, and/or everyone (or even most people) is actually in a situation where they don’t have to fear that.
What is this “extreme privacy movement” that you speak of? Data-collecting tech companies are global titans, and the public’s status quo acceptance/complacency of this is a major reason for these companies’ success. And this is even the case in America, in which the 4th Amendment is a significant bar for government to clear for any kind of search and seizure, even though citizen compliance with authority is another type of “symbiotic” relationship.
I don't think I need to explain the extreme privacy view, it is alive and well in this community.
New technology is deanonymizing public space, invasions of privacy previously required great effort and expense, now they can be done trivially by accessing data on your phone, or now your car.
The ramifications of this haven't become clear to you because no-one important's decided to fuck your life over yet or you live as a conformist, but for many of the rest of us the potential downsides are glaringly obvious.
People are getting screwed by this right now in China and N.Korea. It is a real and present danger that may have ramifications for you or people you love in the future, and may even get them killed. McCarthyism was only 50 years ago, the Stasi 30, the Nazis 70. The Dutch inadvertently caused the deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Jews by having a religious question on their census before the Nazis took over.
It happened before, it will happen again, and just because you don't know high school history, or simply didn't learn the lesson of it, doesn't make us extreme.
It just makes you extremely naive.
I won’t even go into your absurd whining of the “extreme privacy movement” in the HN community, as if a huge part of HN’s audience aren’t daily optimists about the positive role and accomplishment of tech and data companies.
What world do you live in where fear is unreasonable? The world is not the happy place that you very clearly think it is.
I have personal friends and family who have very legitimate reasons to demand enforced privacy. People who've been abused by others; who've been abused by people who have made serious threats against livelihoods.
People whose opinions are different from those around them would be at significant risk to life, limb, and sanity if those opinions were to become known by others.
> I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society > This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN. *
You need to recognize that data is also hugely powerful in destroying it too. I think many on HN are able to and have recognized this.
> and we need strong regulations to protect both sides.
I agree; but I think the regulations and enforcement should absolutely err on the side of the user if there is ever a disagreement between the two.
I don't see any inability to recognize that. What I see is is a recognition that "data can be a powerful force for good" is not a valid argument for why people should be forced to reveal that data.
I think that any data that is generated as a result of my actions, or by machines that I own, is my data for all intents and purposes.
I understand that you disagree with that. That's entirely fair, and I'm not trying to change your thinking on this. What I'm trying to understand is on what basis you are deciding what is or is not my data.
Sure, I'll take a stab at that. Data is data, it doesn't belong to someone just because they played a role in creating it.
You don't care about the water company tracking your water usage or knowing how often you flush your toilet is my guess. Yet that is data you are creating. If you found out the water company was checking your dropping for drug usage and selling that to the government you might care. Or if they were selling it to employment screeners who didn't want to hire people with Crohn's disease that might be another.
I would argue the intent of data is what matters and this discussion is really about. I want to see data used for improving society and discussin how we draw those lines and who gets access.
I do care, actually. I consent to the water company tracking how much water I use over the billing period, because they need to do that to bill me. I do not consent to any data collection or use beyond that.
> I would argue the intent of data is what matters and this discussion is really about.
I haven't even gotten to the point where intent matters, personally. I'm still stuck on consent. This is the hard line for me. Tell me what you want to do with my data, and if I agree with that use (and trust that you aren't lying and won't change your mind in the future) then I'll give consent.
> I want to see data used for improving society
We agree on this, but I'm not willing to be "thrown to the wolves" to accomplish it.
I quite agree.
You would guess wrong.
Water utilization metrics are a good proxy for determining the number of residents at the billing address which I consider should be private information -- even to the apartment lessor. It can also be a good proxy for determining health habits: use of laundry or dishwashing machines consumes a very consistent and predictable amount and flow rate of water. Even taking a bath would be fairly consistent, and a shower only somewhat less so. Not only would the amount be consistent, but the flow rate can be a proxy too. Are you going to tell me that it would be better for society to see what I do with water in my own home? Are you going to tell me that that information is the water company's data because they're providing the water that I bought?
Think I'm crazy? Check this out. There are many states where marijuana is legal. Despite that, the government seeks electric company's utilization information to determine whether or not someone's "likely" growing illicit substances. [1] Think what you want; I think this is government overreach. Which is exactly your situation with the water company, except with electricity instead.
And, as it is, I get a bill at the end of every month which details exactly how much water I've been billed for. Water is water and the bill doesn't care what I used it for, or for how many different people, or even what I did with it (...except wastewater which also gets billed).
Data, on the other hand: I have no bill whatsoever to tell me what data was taken, nor at what time. As things are today: I don't have an opportunity to limit the amount or scope of data taken other than to prevent it from being collected in the first place. Simply having a phone connected to the internet means data is being taken.
At least with water I can turn off the faucet! At least with water if there's a leak I can complain to the water provider and get repairs done! At least with water if the leak causes damage elsewhere I can get an exact estimate of damage done and hire someone to repair it if it were my fault: or demand the water company to repair damages if it's their fault.
On the other hand: once data's leaked there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it from continually causing damage. Was your social security number leaked? FACT: it was, thanks to credit reporting agencies complete disregard for security. Do you think sufficient steps have been taken to rectify that and prevent it from happening again in the future?
In the future when your water company is able to determine that you have three people living in your home instead of two (because your mother in law decided to visit for a week) and then you get advertisements for new babies (your spouse just had a scarring miscarriage through no fault of her own -- which prompted your MIL to visit), or for roommates (surely if you had a roommate for a short time then you're open to having a roommate for a longer time?), or they let the leasing office know that someone is living there without paying rent (oh wow, you are allowed to have guests over, right?), or contact the police because you live near the border and they suspect you're harboring an illegal immigrant (hope your mother in law brought her identification papers with her...): I think when that moment comes maybe then you might wish you had some privacy.
[1] https://www.dispatch.com/article/20110228/NEWS/302289766
The next 50 years is going to be interesting as this debate evolves and we figure this out. I do not think it is going to end with this data is "mine" and only mine. I think it is going to end with here is this data, and here is how we divide it up to make the most use of it while providing x level of privacy. I could very well be wrong but that seems to be the bent of history when similar things emerge. First the fear, the hard reaction, then slow acceptance, and then an explosion of innovation.
Well yes, but until that time, and even during that time, I don't want that revealed. I have a friend who's working somewhere that would probably be entirely welcoming of his orientation, but he keeps it secret because it's his choice and he still has fears about what would happen if it's revealed.
It's naive to think that concentrating so much power over so many people in the hands of so few people can go any sort of well. What happens when the regulators, or the ones charged of overseeing them, want in on the fun? What if they're coerced, which suddenly is trivial to do?
Progress comes from individuals, as such, individuals should be empowered by great tools to make the most of their data. Wanting corporations to solve all the problems is another case of pushing off personal responsibility.
But.
We haven't actually achieved that state of grace yet, so in the meantime, in some times and places people actually can be in danger because of who they are. Perhaps you have seen the names Muhlaysia Booker or Jamal Kashoggi in the news recently.
Pick up a history book in the meantime.
I am not advocating for a total loss of privacy, merely that it is is a spectrum, and technology seems to be driving an acceleration of what is socially acceptable. And, that might be a good thing long term.
How do you change people's acceptance of things they are afraid of? You show them they don't need to be. You don't do that by hiding and pretending you are something else. You show them that you are x and y and still a good normal person. It can get you killed, it can lose your jobs, it can lose you friends, it can lose you your family. It is an incredible sacrifice that millions of people in the USA make every year. They do it for themselves, but also for all the other people that are x or y and who they want to see raised without all that bullshit.
I also don't believe you've thought through all the failure modes and misaligned incentives that happen over time.
Not wanting to live in a "1984" dystopia is not extreme by any means.
We are not in 1984, and that is fiction. I fully acknowledge I have not fully thought through every branch of the problem, but what I don't want to see is this idea that all data is at the hands of the person who played a role in creating it. Some data needs to go back to the company and society if it serves a solid purpose in helping improve either.
History is largely a story of those without power breaking free from those who do and take advantage. Also, an inability to learn from fiction is a disadvantage.
And, as I said, I am not convinced that all data you interact with is yours. I think data is data and it has attributes that should go other places whether you want it too or not.
History and fiction are great tools to explore ideas. So maybe just try exploring the idea that knowledge and advancement of society depends on a certain amount of data to float free. If we clamp down too hard it might paralyze advancement.
To be honest, while I care about privacy in general, am not concerned about every little datum myself. In a healthy reality companies and governments would give us lots of options and control, let us opt-in. But that never happens does it? They'd prefer you'd not even be aware it's happening. Only when shamed in the media does a company even attempt to provide the appearance of options.
Why do you think that is? Because they sell your information, that's why.
If it weren't that fact I wouldn't be so hardline on the subject. But, it's the reality we live in.
Wasn't trying to take away your rights, but rather the opposite. There's an old saying, "your rights end at the tip of my nose."
There is no physical dicta that mandates that just because something should happen, means that it must.
Pervasive data collection is not a need. It's a want, by every business out there because of the B2B revenue generating possibility.
It sounds like you would be ok with your car collecting data about you and sending it to the car company. That’s totally fine. I would not be ok with this, and that should be totally fine too! It is a personal preference. Why is it such a big deal to simply ask for consent from the user? Real consent— not the “by using this product you agree” joke we usually get.
Software asks the user all sorts of things when they onboard them. Why is asking for consent to collect data such a pain point for companies?
#2 - I am not saying "no privacy", I want smart privacy :). It is a spectrum, not a binary choice.
If that data is combined together so that the city knows traffic on road 1 is high and they need to invest in infrastructure there that is great. Or if the data from that trip is used to improve car safety or automated driving systems on that road, great!
Should that data be able to be pulled to let the place you work check the morality clause in your contract? Hell no.
I don't want cell phone companies selling my specific location, but I also don't want them to not get data from my phone to improve their services where there are drop outs or other issues.
I'd much rather that we whitelist the data we think is worth collecting and analyzing for product improvement, instead of trying to blacklist the things we prefer are kept private.
I think that def might be a better approach.
I am tired of the extreme movement that all data I have a role in creating is mine, and I should have full control of it. I am worried about the ramifications on society and our ability to improve products and the way society/civilization works. I think Europe has taken some good steps toward that goal, but like any first try, it also has some stupid parts. Time and debate will improve it.
I'd like to see us start crafting legislation that tries to find that middle ground between the data that should be private and the data that can be used to improve the product and society and thus make sure it is available.
I don't have a problem with it but we can agree that some people do, right?
On the other hand, if it's your car why don't you control it and the data it collects? Maybe if it was loaned, leased, or licensed I could see the seller retaining a right to data, but ownership has its privileges.
In the extreme case, let's say your local used car dealer surveils his sales after the fact and at some point offers not to publish details for a monthly fee?
I think we need better privacy regulation. And "better" doesn't necessarily mean more restrictive, although quit a few players will feel restricted. It makes sense to separate data for safety from data for advertising (e.g. GDPR provides a framework for this). "Public benefit" can be a nebulous grey area.
You are insane, we have so much less privacy nowadays than at any time in history.
Why should my data go someplace else so others can use it as the basis to build a case for further erosion of rights and perpetuation of economic business models biased in favor of centralization of control and decision making capability.
You: >Privacy is a spectrum. I am getting kinda tired how people think data some widget I made to exfiltrates about other people is "theirs".
Us: You wouldn't even be able to gather anything without me, and frankly, it's none of your damned business what I do. You want data collected? Go hire somebody to generate it for you.
Expected epiphany: Now maybe I should have to design telemetry collecting/sending devices to require an explicit, physical opt-in, by shipping the devices with the telemetry data collection physically turned off, and a statement about your data gathering program, tangible immediate benefits to the customer for opting in, legally binding language defining a strict procedure for my company to acquire informed consent when sharing said data with third parties, plus contingency plans detailing the destruction of, or end of life treatment of data on the event of merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other major business event, with concessions exposing the company to sufficient punitive damages in case of breach of contract, and a manual containing a procedure for physically enabling the data collection.
Epiphany instead achieved: but I am so tired of this extreme pricey movement.
Works both ways chief.
Industrialists/wannabe industrialists just prefer it when the sheep don't ask inconvenient questions like "hold up, how do you determine what you're eating for dinner?" or "We seem to be giving up quite a bit in return for what amounts to (thing that solves an already sufficiently solved physical problem, but now with computers, to exponentially increase the potential for new revenue extraction schemes through software and data collection), what are you putting on the line, or doing to ensure my privacy and confidentiality as a customer?".
Stop not thinking about anything more than first order consequences, using dark design patterns to get what you want anyway because no one checks the defaults or license agreements, and actually make a good run of proving you actually want to be above board with customers instead of scoring another quick buck off your position as the manufacturer and maybe reactionary forces won't be as extreme.
Not that hard, right? Just do the right thing.
What Tesla does in particular is extremely egregious: Even if you don't pay for Autopilot and hence can't use those sensors, Tesla still collects data using sensors you own on your car!
What do you mean by 'not allowed'. you have the option to not buy tsla if its such a concern to you. There are tons of ppl who are ok with giving out their data for free why shouldn't they be 'not allowed'.
Weird agrument, I don't like it so noone else should either.
This is a dangerous way of thinking. Transportation is a requirement for getting ahead in life. Signing away your rights to privacy should not ever be a requirement to obtain transportation.
Lets talk about this when this is actually a thing. Creating preemptive 'not allowed' laws would be throwing baby out of bathwater.
> you don’t need to see a doctor
Totally ridiculous strawman.
Article is not about cars that "have computers and data" its about connected cars that are sharing personal information ( how fast we drive, where we live, how many children we have — even financial information ) with manufacturer.
Do you know what % of cars in the market today are sending this information back to manufacturer ?
> What carmakers are doing with the collected data isn’t clear. We know they use it to improve car performance and safety. And we know they have the ability to sell it to third parties they might choose. Indeed, Ford’s chief executive, Jim Hackett, has spoken in detail about the company’s plans to monetize car data.
Author( and you ) are conflating all of it and calling it "data". I have no idea which cars companies are collecting data about my children. Do you?
Spinning this into "they are coming for your children" is totally disgusting.
Even the line you quoted is dishonest
> And we know they have the ability to sell it to third parties they might choose. Indeed, Ford’s chief executive, Jim Hackett, has spoken in detail about the company’s plans to monetize car data.
Here is the exact quote
"We know what people make. How do we know that? It's because they borrow money from us. And when you ask somebody what they make, we know where they work, you know. We know if they're married. We know how long they've lived in their house because these are all on the credit applications. We've never ever been challenged on how we use that. And that's the leverage we got here with the data."
This has nothing to do with data collected by cars. Yes loan applications data should be regulated for privacy but that irrelevant to topic under discussion. Loan application data is not "car data".
Also,Jim Hackett did not mention anything about selling data yet putting those to lines together and using the word 'Indeed' sounds like monetize here means ford plans to sell( info about your children) to third parties. Infact its already might be illegal to sell that data [1].
Why so dishonest?
Waiting until later will adversely affect many millions, potentially billions, of people.
We don't even know what % of ppl are actually opposed to sharing this data. I've not heard many tesla owners complaining about this.
Making false equivalences between this and your personal health information and spreading fear is so counterproductive.
Why not have that data go someplace it could do real good in informing better safety systems, better traffic management and so on.
Privacy is a spectrum, I am getting kinda tired how people think data about them is "theirs". In some cases maybe it should be, in other cases, it should not be. Now maybe you should have a right to see it, download it, and remove identifying markers but I am so tired of this extreme privacy movement.