You can write anything you want, but no that doesn’t make it a valid contract.

Seems very similar to me.

- collected by FB

- without even the pretense of consent

- sold to the highest bidder

An unsuspecting person (Alice) ends up with a shadow FB profile because someone (Bob) who actually created an account (therefore having an opportunity to read terms of service) decided to take a photo of Alice and send it to Facebook.

An unsuspecting person (Alice) ends up with Subaru having an audio recording of what they said because someone (Bob) who actually bought the car (therefore having an opportunity to read terms of service) decided to invite Alice into the car.

In both cases, the company receiving Alice's information would likely say that Alice should take issue with Bob's behavior, not the company's behavior, if they don't like the situation.

Whether it’s legal or not is menaingless given the power imbalance.

To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?

The Services may be made available or accessed in connection with third party services and content (including advertising) that Uber does not control.

https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?country=hong-kong&la...

What’s different here is that car manufacturers are claiming that, say, sitting in that Uber gives them the right to record your audio and sell it to advertisers. That’s illegal in many places such as the EU or states with two-party consent laws, and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent.

you accepted the tos, you've been informed, that's not unlawful if you gave your consent and the data is kept in the EU.

Moreover, the article is claiming that the manufacturer can "maybe even sell" the recordings but the official statement is that they are only collecting the data, not selling it (it would be stupid to claim otherwise).

The blog post specifically use the sentence and maybe even sell, because it is not stated anywhere.

> and it’s unlikely that courts would accept it elsewhere without some kind of informed consent.

meanwhile the advertisers already used your data, and there's nothing you could do about it.

Except not using Uber (that's why I never used one, even though cabs in my Country and especially in my city, are a big "mafia style" mob)

Are you seriously saying that everyone who gets in an Uber signs a form the driver gives them saying that the car manufacturer might resell all of their data?

No, I am saying that Uber can collect that data itself through the app.

I was replying to "To use an application from one of these providers, you explicitly have to agree to their terms and services: a contract between you and the company is established. How is that equivalent to taking an uber?"

It is equivalent because to use Uber you have to accept their license agreement.

Nobody ever explicitly said "resell" because it would be stupid.

It's allegedly proposed by the blog post, but it's not officially stated anywhere.

BTW as written in the part of the Uber TOS I've quoted, they explicitly says that the service can be provided by third parties "outside of their control" and you accept their terms of services by accepting the service provided on the Uber platform.

So yeah, you could be accepting to have your conversation recorder by the driver, or your orders being linked to your persona by the restaurant.

Third-Party Services and Content.

While many Third-Party Services are available in the Uber App, certain Third-Party Services or content are only accessible by exiting the Uber App (“Out-of-App Experiences”). Once you click on a link to access Out-of-App Experiences, you will be subject to the terms and conditions and privacy policy of that website, destination, or Out-of-App Experience provider, which are different from Uber’s

1. Certain rights cannot be easily waived depending where you live — this requires "informed consent". Informed consent means you laid out what you are collecting and for which purposes clearly and in easy language — and that I consented to that.

2. Implying consent through action ala "by entering these doorsteps you have signed away your firstborn child" doesn't work.

3. At least under the GDPR not consenting shall not lead to a worse service.

If I enter the car of some guy and his cars manual (available only as pdf download) says on page 234 that he automatically consents to this by using the car, the manufacturer did neither gain his, nor my informed consent.

This is illegal under the GDPR — a law that doesn't only apply to cookie banners and the internet, but to any form of data collection.

you might upset the status quo.

worse, you might succeed, proving all the naysayers to be both negative and wrong.

But you are right that this is illegal, because just sitting in a car is not a “specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes”, which mandatory for consent (GDPR article 4(11)). Neither it is “transparent” (GDPR article 6(1)a).