I did read the law. Did you? The actual eCall specs are not in there. They are in EN 16102:2011 which is not free, I don't have it, I won't pay for it, and probably you won't either.

But based on my experiece:

- GPS cold start requires 1-2 minutes to get a fix. That's too long in case of a crash. That means GPS is started at the same time as the car.

- A-GPS is better, but not sufficiently fast in case of a crash either.

- The cheapest way to implement an eCall module is to use a phone chip that includes both phone and GPS functions. I'm sure we can agree that all manufacturers will choose the cheapest. That means the telephony is started at the same time as GPS - when the car is started.

- Let's assume that telephony chip is separated. A phone boots in ... 30s? Too slow even if the eCall module doesn't include a full OS.

- A phone in airplane mode still takes 5-10 seconds to connect to the network and 3-5 seconds to dial. If you press the ecall button on your car, how fast does the call connect? If it's less than 5s, the ecall module was already registered on the network. If it's registered on the network, the car leaves a metadata trail on at least one of the local phone operators' servers. That metadata includes the time and the cell towers = full tracking data.

- GSM networks since the beginning mandate that the SIM card can execute commands received from the network. A SIM card is a full independent embedded processor. You should really watch the Defcon and BackHat presentations about SIM cards. Anyone that can send binary SMSs (and most operators are very ignorant/permissive) can track it, start calls, listen on the mic, etc.

What a bizarrely off-topic response!

Nothing you have written is anything to do with the eCall 112 system not being permitted to track you and share your personal data. Again, stop spreading FUD!

Because no company has ever broken the law before

What a ridiculous argument!

So what is the point in having laws then?

No doubt you believe any adtech request for personal data should be met by the subject promptly bending over and grabbing their ankles with both hands?

I am absolutely sure (even though I can't give a link as proof) that all telephony operators everywhere have to provide a backdoor for the "authorities" in order to obtain their licence. So, yes, a telecom provider will be bending over immediately, or risk losing their licence.

I also suspect that in many cases, the operator won't even be informed about the tracking because the gov agencies already have direct access to all the data.

What you are referring to is legal court ordered surveillance, which requires a warrant.

This is nothing whatsoever to do with allowing anybody who pays (such as adtech) a free reign over your private data to do what they like with!

Requires a warrant officialy.

Jesus wept!

So you think this is an excuse to let the adtech industry treat you like shit, invading your privacy and selling your private data unrestrained?

Seriously?

The shear lack of ethics and opposition to data protection law on here is unreal. One would almost think your salaries depend on opposing it!

Laws exist to keep the common man in check, and to punish government organizations and corporations _if_ they get caught. The original purpose is to keep voters meek and to stop them from overthrowing the politicians. Laws have very little to do with scaring corporations and nations.