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
Is what the second top last paragraph says. Can someone explain in simple terms to me : why is the car downloading the data but not giving access to the owner of the car? What is the data being downloaded for?
The last paragraph says
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.
But if you read the two paragraphs logically, it isn’t really saying berla is selling the data. It’s saying some of the car manufacturers are selling the data. So I’m at a loss.
You must log in or register to comment.
In an example of the issues at stake, plaintiffs in one of the five cases filed suit against Honda in 2021, arguing that beginning in at least 2014 infotainment systems in the company’s vehicles began downloading and storing a copy of all text messages on smartphones when they were connected to the system.
Yes I read that but my question still stands.
Why is the car storing the data AND not giving access to the data to the owner of the car?
You’re getting tripped up with the words. It could be rephrased to “copying the data.”
The owner doesn’t have any way to access this copied information, but they do have the copy that is on their phone.
The reason the owner isn’t given access to the data is obvious. Because anyone with a brain would immediately delete it, but the car company wants to be able to use it
Because
This must be illegal in states where one or two party consent is required for wire tapping though, right?
State law is one thing, but to me it seems obvous that “his or her right to be secure in their papers” has been broken.
Edit: Unfortunately the founders formulated that as a limit on government, again not actually succeding in securing any rights.
We need to have an honest conversation and additional amendments as to limitations as to businesses incorporated with the State should have imposed on them. They are clearly apart of what anyone would call “the state” IMHO.
The usual solution outside the US is to not mention the state at all.
All you need is a right to privacy, not a list of those who are not allowed to peek
There is a difference between the of power the state and larger corporations can exert to get “consent” to waive our rights, hence the need for unwaivable (or near unwaivable) rights.
This idea of treating corporations the same as people is why when you accept EULAs it’s treated the same as if you agreed to agreeing to let a person you know to have the same info.
Everything’s a wiretap!
