Court Rules Against Privacy in Data Collection Case

[Lunentucker]

https://therecord.media/class-action-lawsuit-cars-text-messages-privacy

Sponsored

 

[GeneralMaximus]

Wow. Sounds like someone’s been bought. That judge needs to be investigated.

“Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.

Many car manufacturers are selling car owners’ data to advertisers as a revenue boosting tactic, according to earlier reporting by Recorded Future News. Automakers are exponentially increasing the number of sensors they place in their cars every year with little regulation of the practice.”

 

[Lunentucker]

Wow. Sounds like someone’s been bought. That judge needs to be investigated.

“Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.

Many car manufacturers are selling car owners’ data to advertisers as a revenue boosting tactic, according to earlier reporting by Recorded Future News. Automakers are exponentially increasing the number of sensors they place in their cars every year with little regulation of the practice.”

The infamous 9th Circuit.

 

[whysoserious]

That's a poorly written article, IMO.

 

[Scott L]

That's a poorly written article, IMO.

Yeah a lot of unanswered questions here. Do automakers have access to all texts on your phone? Or just whatever you text while hooked up to the car? Does the state need a warrant? Or is your texts and calls just opened up for police whenever they ask? Like liberty safes. I can see a cop getting that info from a ex or current spouse or girl/boyfriend and wreaking havoc on their life. Honestly this is some creepy shit.

 

[Lunentucker]

That's a poorly written article, IMO.

The article contains a link to the ruling, which is very succinct.
Condensed version is that it was not disproven that automakers intercept and record your messages and conversations, but the plaintiffs failed to show that such activities caused them any harm. The harm, the court asserted, is a statutory requirement under the law.

 

[Maximus Gladius]

Where’s the harm?
“Judge, we’ve just subpoenaed your cell phone and we shall now read all your text messages out loud to the public gallery. You don’t have a problem with this, do you? Are you feeling harmed?”

 

[Lunentucker]

Where’s the harm?
“Judge, we’ve just subpoenaed your cell phone and we shall now read all your text messages out loud to the public gallery. You don’t have a problem with this, do you? Are you feeling harmed?”

I agree. It's the statute itself that is weak.
Where's the harm in your neighbor peeping in your windows at night?
Where's the harm in your cell provider keeping recordings of your phone calls?

The law needs to err on the side of protection, not on the side of damage.
I'm guessing lobbyists wrote the stupid thing and handed it to legislators.

 

[Scott L]

The article contains a link to the ruling, which is very succinct.
Condensed version is that it was not disproven that automakers intercept and record your messages and conversations, but the plaintiffs failed to show that such activities caused them any harm. The harm, the court asserted, is a statutory requirement under the law.
I read the article but did not read the ruling as most times they seem written in legalese which i'll admit just seems like gibberish to me. Perfect example being it was not disproven that automakers.okay my eyes just glazed over and I'm done. Bottom line if my vehicle is storing my conversations whether they be text or phone calls I'm not happy. To me that's a bit to much. That seems to be what the article is saying. If the journalist is just going for sensationalist bullcrap that wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[Scott L]

I agree. It's the statue itself that is weak.
Where's the harm in your neighbor peeping in your windows at night?
Where's the harm in your cell provider keeping recordings of your phone calls?

The law needs to err on the side of protection, not on the side of damage.
I'm guessing lobbyists wrote the stupid thing and handed it to legislators.

Exactly spot on. I don't understand people who say I don't care I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide. That's so asinine on so many levels it's laughable.

 

[whysoserious]

The article contains a link to the ruling, which is very succinct.
Condensed version is that it was not disproven that automakers intercept and record your messages and conversations, but the plaintiffs failed to show that such activities caused them any harm. The harm, the court asserted, is a statutory requirement under the law.

Yes. And it appears the 9th ruled correctly based upon the language in the WPA. However, "Court rules automakers can record and intercept owner text messages" is not what happened because that wasn't the issue before the appellate court. And, it wasn't "a" judge, it was a three-judge appellate panel. Also, "a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.", is not what the statute says. As you stated, it says, "injury", which is a different standard. And I am willing to bet, that all of the auto manufacturers have in their terms of service language that allows them to do exactly what they are currently doing with the data.

For a journalist who, "...is a reporter covering privacy, disinformation and cybersecurity policy...", she might need to put more effort into her work instead of knocking something out right before a deadline.

So, if those plaintiffs are upset enough to file a lawsuit because someone now has their "data", then they should have read the terms of service more closely before connecting their life (cellphone) to their car.

My rant of the day.

 

[Lunentucker]

There are numerous cases, courts and judges mentioned. I think it's easy to get lost in the shuffle, but the article was fine IMO.

 

[Teqsand]

Yes. And it appears the 9th ruled correctly based upon the language in the WPA. However, "Court rules automakers can record and intercept owner text messages" is not what happened because that wasn't the issue before the appellate court. And, it wasn't "a" judge, it was a three-judge appellate panel. Also, "a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.", is not what the statute says. As you stated, it says, "injury", which is a different standard. And I am willing to bet, that all of the auto manufacturers have in their terms of service language that allows them to do exactly what they are currently doing with the data.

For a journalist who, "...is a reporter covering privacy, disinformation and cybersecurity policy...", she might need to put more effort into her work instead of knocking something out right before a deadline.

So, if those plaintiffs are upset enough to file a lawsuit because someone now has their "data", then they should have read the terms of service more closely before connecting their life (cellphone) to their car.

My rant of the day.

Creates the atmosphere for injury that would not exist if they were not keeping the data..... how about we look at being proactive rather than reactive.....

 

[whysoserious]

Creates the atmosphere for injury that would not exist if they were not keeping the data..... how about we look at being proactive rather than reactive.....

It's that pesky "consent" thingy.

 

[TimC]

Check out T-Mobile’s TOS changes…
google “T-Mobile hate speech”

Sponsored