• cloud@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    https://www.nissanusa.com/privacy.html

    Sensitive personal information, including driver’s license number, national or state identification number, citizenship status, immigration status, race, national origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, sexual activity, precise geolocation, health diagnosis data, and genetic information.

    Please make this reach the front page because it’s beyond ridiculous

    • Styggen på ryggen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      At the very least… cant the US implement one of the basic rules from GDPR?

      In simple terms, what data can companies keep?

      Data need to have: OK

      Data nice to have: Not OK

      • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d much rather they implement the right to deletion. I know they will get their hands on a ton of data, regardless of how we write the clause. But at least let me delete that data when I want it gone.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US will absolutely not implement anything remotely like GDPR, because that would hurt the profits of a LOT of companies who happen to have a LOT of lobbyists on K street.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you don’t mind, please also highlight

      health diagnosis data

      genetic information

      Because omfg, think about those for a second, and how any data that leaves your control is subject to eventual collection by law enforcement, legal or not, and anyone else willing to pay for it (or steal it):

      For example, some bonehead rears your vehicle one day, but your health diagnosis data says you have a heart condition, or maybe just high blood pressure. These conditions can involve occasional lightheadedness, though you know yours is well controlled. You don’t even think about it anymore because you take care of yourself and all your regular tests are good. But suddenly, you’re in this minor accident, not even your fault, and it’s no longer a simple rearending because some asshole has brought your health history into it so that YOU and not he will be on the hook for monetary damages.

      (Triple if the bozo who hit you is some lame ass drunk rural county sheriff or elected official.)

      And “genetic information” is code for DNA. How they would collect your DNA from your car I don’t know, but do you REALLY want your genetic information associated with your vehicle and outside the confines of GINA* for the convenience of data sellers? I know I don’t. (GINA is also the law that binds companies like 23andMe from selling your genetic data.) But the whole point of trying to legislate personal control over your own genetic information is because of all the dystopian scenarios that can easily evolve from others having it without your consent.

      Yet now your car wants it too? Question this. Letting anyone have it by such means does a complete end run around any law meant to keep your personal genetic information private, and guts any rights you may have to your own privacy under the law, because you signed it away. Imagine the billions insurance companies could make, both health and auto, by refusing to pay for this or that because genetically it was a “pre-existing condition” or a “contributing factor” to you getting rearended by a drunk.

      I’ve never been so thrilled to drive an ancient beater in my life.

      *Note: GINA is weak already, but legislators are trying to weaken it further still: in 2018 a proposed change meant that “Employers would have been able to demand workers’ genetic test results if the bill were to have been enacted.”

  • BobbyTables@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you for that link and Thank you to Mozilla for doing those tests. I always suspected something like this but it is good to have it tested and in writing.

    My only gripe with the article is this:

    All of the car brands on this list except for Tesla, Renault, and Dacia signed on to a list of Consumer Protection Principles from the US automotive industry group ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, INC.

    Renault and Dacia aren’t available in the US, so there is really no need for them to sign those principles. Which makes Tesla the only one where this is relevant.

  • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So at what point do we just decide "Fuck companies, fuck revenue, fuck anybody who has, say, a million bucks to their name in cash and assets. No more money making unless you do it without screwing people. If you can’t, you fail. Good day. "

    Tax the every living fuck out of the rich, destroy data even being collectable or sellable at all in any form.

    Boom, 100,000% better world to live in immediately.

    Obviously pipe dream, but I think this is really the mindset to take if humans are gonna be around and have anything resembling happy lives in say, 100 years.

  • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guess I’m driving my 2010 Honda Accord and burns oil and leaks steering fluid a few more years.

    Should probably get the steering thing fixed.

    • money_loo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah! Fuck the environment when your car wants to track which apps you use on it!

      *Edit: Lol you guys would be hilarious if the climate situation wasn’t so dire.

      Is it better for the environment to drive an old car?

      In conclusion, buying a used car may avoid the carbon emissions of manufacturing a new one – but you should also bear in mind the lower fuel economy, higher exhaust emissions, and ongoing maintenance requirements.

      So no, it’s not always better to just drive a leaky piece of shit forever instead of upgrading. The car you’re buying has already been made, it’s carbon been produced, and now you’re generating less emissions with the newer more efficient vehicle. This is pretty simple stuff to keep in mind next time you want to act smug about smog.

      • valkyrie@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I bet you it’s more environmentally friendly to keep driving a car you already have as opposed to getting a new one even if it’s “cleaner.”

  • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I got an email from OnStar the other day saying it contacted my bank and updated my card info because I had gotten an old card and hadn’t updated the info, I don’t pay for OnStar but the dealership MAKES you set it up even if you don’t use it.

    How the fuck are they allowed to contact my bank and get information like that? Weirded my TF out to say the least.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They did that to me. I specifically gave them a card I knew was going to expire before the trial period was over and they got the new information anyway.

      If I remember correctly, it’s a “feature” the credit card companies have so your subscriptions don’t lapse.

  • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tesla is only the second product we have ever reviewed to receive all of our privacy “dings.” (The first was an AI chatbot we reviewed earlier this year.) What set them apart was earning the “untrustworthy AI” ding. The brand’s AI-powered autopilot was reportedly involved in 17 deaths and 736 crashes and is currently the subject of multiple government investigations.

    How utterly unsurprising. Also,

    "Consent” is an illusion
    Many people have lifestyles that require driving. So unlike a smart faucet or voice assistant, you don’t have the same freedom to opt out of the whole thing and not drive a car.

    This is the kicker, many people need cars for unrelated reasons and the fact that ALL car brands abuse our data means there is no alternative.