1y ago

US judge rules: if you can't prove damages, car-makers can continue to intercept and record customers' mobile phone activity.

therecord.media Court rules automakers can record and intercept owner text messages

A Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law, handing a big win to automakers Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors.

You're viewing a single thread.

119 comments

Disappointing result but this seems like something for the legislature to fix. Courts aren't always the solution, sometimes you have to just fix the damn law.
- But that would mean the politicians would have to actually work instead of photo ops and promises!!!!
- This is supposed to be covered by the fourthamendment but that's been meaningless for over 20 years now
  
  Amendment 4 does not apply to the practices of a private company. That's what privacy legislation is intended to protect against. Amendment 4 only applies to spying done by the State.
  
  The state is just spying via a proxy.
  
  Do you actually literally believe that (in the context of law), or is that just rhetorical speech?
  
  Dude the 3 letter agencies routinely buy data from these private companies
  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/fbi-finally-admits-to-buying-location-data-on-americans-horrifying-experts/
  
  Correct and it is not illegal. It is an invasion of privacy but the law doesn't prohibit that. Amendment 4 covers the Government doing it without the permission of the person who controls the information. It refers to "can the Government bust in or sneak in to get info", not "can the Government make clandestine deals to buy info for surveillance purposes".
  
  Maybe it's a loophole to help some friend's ailing company with federal money
  
  It's literally what's happening.
  Texas used the same concept to empower private people to sue abortion providers and receivers under civil law since they couldn't do it criminally.
  The country as a whole has done it for a long time with cellphone data, the five eyes alliance, etc.
  They have access to information they're barred from getting directly themselves, and they get it from private companies. Spying by proxy.
  
  If the purpose of collecting the data by private companies is to somehow make money, do you think that sharing this data, or conclusions based on this data, somehow manages to exclude access of governmental agencies? I've never gotten the impression that CIA/NSA would ever willingly play nice.
  
  This is getting off-track again—
  Government agencies paying private companies for your information, or even just asking for it in exchange for something or nothing is legal. That's because nothing was searched unreasonably (because consent was given by the controller of the information) nor was anything seized against the controller's will.
  You are not in the picture. The information might be about you but you don't control the information, the car company does. From a legal standpoint, you are irrelevant for the purposes of Amendment 4 protection.
  Amendment 4 protects the controller of the information from Government seizure but does not protect the subject of that information. Privacy laws are what are intended to protect the subjects of information. There is some overlap of course. For example, your computer has lots of information about you and what you did in the past. You would be both the subject of the information and the controller (since it's stored on your computer).
  Please remember, I am describing what the law is, not what it should be.
  
  What
  
  If you want to call it that, you can. The State spying by proxy (paying or asking companies for info) is legal and not prohibited by Amendment 4. Amendment 4 does not protect the subjects of information. It protects the controllers of information (which would be the car company).
  
  Just like with the first amendment, it doesn’t apply to private companies. The point is to prevent the government from passing tyrannical laws, it was never meant to district the activity of private citizens.
  
  Very true.
  Unfortunately corporations are becoming the government, without checks or constraints.
  
  The "unlawful search and seizure" amendment? Why would that apply here?
  
  Are you being serious? They release your data to the police if they ask
  
  The Fourth Amendment will affect police, but it won't restrict a random person who is given access to something from turning over whatever data they want to police.
  Say I hire a painter, and the painter is painting my house's interior, and sees a bloody knife in my house. He can report that to the police. But, remove the painter from the picture, and the police could not enter to look for such a thing absent a warrant.
  'course, the flip side of that is that if the police get a warrant, then they can enter whether I want them in the house or not, whereas the painter can only enter because I choose to let him in.
  
  That analogy is tired in the age of mass data collection without consent
  
  I'm just telling you that that's the way things legally are. You're arguing about how you feel that they should be.
  
  Not just police, any armed investigatory unit or state sponsored militia. The idea of a “police” force was pretty vague at the time, so the umbrella covers much more than it initially intended to.
  
  Which makes no difference in the provided example.
  
  I never said it did, just a relevant fun fact.
  
  Is my car a random person? I thought it was an object that I own.
  
  You're getting a bit off-track here. The scenario is this: the company that provides the software for your care collects data. This part is unconcerned with Amendment 4. Amendment 4 prohibits the State from collecting information and searching unreasonably. It does not prohibit the private company that provides the software from doing so. That is what privacy laws are intended to protect against, not Amendment 4.
  Amendment 4 also does not prevent the company that collected that data from providing it to the police upon request. Amendment 4 (and the rest of the US Constitution) applies only to the State. Private companies and private individuals are not bound by it.
  
  Youll own nothing and like it
  
  You’re willingly giving this data to the manufacturer, at which point they’re free to do with that data whatever they please, according to the terms of the agreement you sign, including giving that data to government authorities. The government isn’t unlawfully searching and seizing because they aren’t even forcing the manufacturer to give up the data, they are freely giving it as they are allowed.
  This isn’t to say I’m defending the privacy violations or the government, but it is the case that this situation isn’t protected by the constitution, we have to and should make a specific law for it.
  
  You are implying that any data gathered will be delivered to the government upon request (unsure if you are implying with or without a warrant). If you can show me from this article, or even this case, regarding this privacy case that that happened, then yes I agree with you and the fourth amendment applies.
  But this issue is between private entities which generally precludes amendments from being applicable. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the infotainment systems collected and stored personal data without consent and violated Washington's Privacy Act.
  
  I'm not implying anything
  An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. 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.

119 comments