I am a total ignoramus about law, but this sounds more like a legislative failure than a judicial one.
But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard that a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.
If we had comprehensive federal data privacy law, then we wouldn’t have to challenge these practices against wet-noodle state laws that weren’t actually designed for it, right?
Yeah, Federal law is pretty lax on any privacy protections. You would think that wiretapping laws would carry over into digital communications such as cellular usage, but I guess that doesn’t make much sense to the legal experts that run this country.
i hate it but It also is user choice, the car and phone ask what connectivity you want. Even adter pairing you can tell your device what to allow to BT interface. You agree to the tranafer unfortunately
yeah. I agree. the court is clearing telling people that if they want privacy they should hold the phone up to their ear or hold it with one hand in front of their face while responding to text messages. we are just the best country.
I know I’m arguing a completely different issue here than what the article/post is about, but if a call is so important that you can’t take it after your drive, then maybe the prudent thing would be to halt the car and take the call without sacrificing your own and others’ safety due to the loss in focus.
I mean personally I agree. I don’t like smart phones anyway due to privacy issues but have one for work. Realistically though society has to deal with what the average person is going to do and if the laws don’t support the best good (which in this case I would say keeping motor vehicle deaths and injuries to the most minimum possible). I mean if things were based on a personal level I would severly curtail the right to use a motor vehicle but oh boy most folks would not like that.
I actually didn’t realize there were settings for that, so I would imagine most people don’t, either. Thanks for bringing it up. I don’t want my car reading my text messages even if it’s not saving/selling them.
Most people just hit OK on the console when pairing, and the default is auto import messages, email and contacts. You can decline there, but then text reply via console can be limited, since it wont show incoming and previous. And yeah on phone side if you select it you can chose what BT mode to use when paired. But I doubt most people even check it.
Is the user aware that the data they synchronize to their car, a machine that they own, is sold by the car manufacturer to advertisers? Do they explicitly agree to the selling of their data, when selecting what connectivity they want?
Can you blame the user for making a choice, when they’re not told the consequences of that choice?
I don’t know, I haven’t purchase a new car. But on the other hand if thry aren’t privacy concious to start with then their phone is selling all their data anyway, so not sure why they are shocked by the car selling it too.
Maybe I’m too European to understand your point, but my phone selling my call and message history would be just as outrageous.
Lol. yep. USA and Canada have google and apple tracking everything (even apples No Track option was found to do nothing at all). And if it is not them it is your Internet Service Provider selling your DNS queries to ad companies. Obviously a tech savvy person will run a degoogled phone and use a private DNS or TOR etc. but 90% off people dont understand or don’t care
I’m going to assume this judge hasn’t been unduly influenced.
This looks like a classic case of following the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law. The law seems like it’s intended to punish harmful violations of privacy. No reasonable person can conclude that the sale of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people’s private data is entirely harmless, but that’s what this judge did.
US courts often take “reasonable” assumptions into account when making judgments or issuing sentences. Just because the plaintiffs couldn’t actually prove specific damage is no reason to assume it didn’t/won’t happen.
Isn’t that the big difference between civil law (most of Europe) and common law (UK, US)? The former follows the spirit of the written laws (even including comments by the lawmakers), while the latter follows the letter of the law.
I honestly don’t know. True or not, though, it’s an interesting idea!
I think it’s time that we move the letter of the law past the requirement to prove harm in cases of encroachment on personal agency. Such things are next to impossible to prove as harmful (especially within a limited time frame) yet the damage is irreparable and can potentially continue forever.
Yeah. What the hell were the plaintiffs supposed to do? How do you get proof of something like this? Break into an exec’s office? Hack an auto manufacturer’s network?
Oh, wait a sec. Evidence that’s acquired illegally generally isn’t admissible. So even those ridiculous plans wouldn’t work. I guess the best we can do is wait until the harm is done, and then hope there’s a sloppy enough paper trail to unequivocally prove exactly who did it.
Apparently, that’s MUCH better than using some common sense.
An auto manufacturer, who has no business snooping on your texts in the first place, should not have permission to keep copies of them. Ever. It’s an absurdly obvious question. The plaintiffs shouldn’t have to prove they’ve been harmed. The auto manufacturers should have to prove that their intentions benefit all customers, AND that those benefits outweigh the risks.
And no, advertising that’s specifically targeted at my perceived needs and interests doesn’t count as a “benefit”. Sorry not sorry.
In the EU, they would tar & feather the automakers for even thinking about such an idea.
