this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
495 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
86178 readers
4625 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i am suggesting that doing so would be profitable.
i don't believe this would be illegal.
Selling tracking data from your customers without disclosing it would absolutely be illegal.
You'd go to jail if you did that in Europe, likely face a huge fine in certain US states too.
They do disclose it, it's part of the paperwork when you purchase the vehicle.
https://support.toyota.com/s/article/Toyota-Insurance?language=en_US
Of course the dealers make it very easy to "opt-in" by accident.
The fact that it's out in the open, literally on the car manufacturer sites, but people still deny this behavior, is a grim omen.
nice, doing the research i didn't wanna do, thank you.
lol, you think the executives would go to jail? or the engineers?
guess what was illegal before the snowden leaks, guess what's legal now.
i don't want to suggest i know the specifics of the law, especially in countries i don't even live in, but to think it's an impossibility is pretty bewildering to me.
edit: also they disclose that shit, just in a very vague way to allow a wide interpretation of what was disclosed.
In EU this would be a massive GDPR breach and cost the company €20 million or 4% of the company's total worldwide annual turnover**
In Germany you face Up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine for transferring data to a third party you weren't authorized to share.
In France Collecting data by fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful means carries up to 5 years.
In California CCPA allows fines up to $7,500 per intentional violation (e.g per customer)
Firstly misleading disclosures are not valid under both GDPR & CCPA
GDPR - Consent must be "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous"
CPRA definies "dark patterns" as a user interface designed to subvert or impair user autonomy, decision-making, or choice and states outright: agreement obtained through use of dark patterns does not constitute consent.
Secondly do you have any evidence of said disclosures?
has anyone gone to jail through gdpr?
also, really cool stuff collecting all this info thank you.
but yeah, i don't see this conversation going any further, laws state one thing, reality is a-whole-nother. especially when the rich are involved.
i hope to God you are right about all this, i really do, I've just seen it enough times to know...
Not GDPR but the French & German laws which implement GDPR can result in jail time.
Networks aren't magic, if people are sending data from your car it's going to leave a trace, given nobody is showing any traces you might as well be claiming wizards are stalking you.
Urgh, come now. This is currently happening and yes it is likely a breach of EU laws, but it is happening now. Multiple auto companies have been caught doing it, its not a theoretical what if. Like many things if the government does not enforce (but instead gives a fine) then it does not matter what the law says.
You sound like those people saying murder can't happen since it is illegal, but they are just taking the piss.
You sound like one of their paranoid shut-ins that thinks crime rates are going up, even though every metric shows they are going down.
Data isn't magic, you don't collect data on everyone's cars without leaving a network footprint.
You sound like you are putting words in my mouth. You also sound like you have zero idea about current data collection practices to a shocking degree.
I'm not here to argue, but after a certain point it becomes a game of "hide the data stream". You'd be amazed at how clever you can be with this, and inspecting the logic of embedded firmware is difficult.
It often looks something like this (in algorithm or nowadays A.I. functionality):
This isn't theoretical, I've seen it before, software being sneaky like this. Resistant to observation because it can detect an artificial testing environment or network snooping tools. Difficult to prove misbehavior because the data is routed through multiple hops before being stored, and you can't easily inspect encrypted traffic. It might not even be the car manufacturer, it could be whoever is making the cameras. Basically, if it has a data connection and a recording feature, it's not secure.
What the other person is trying to convey is the common operating rule of most businesses nowadays. Breaking the law is worth it to them if the profits outweigh the consequences. For example if they only just increase profit by 4% per year, a low chance of a 4% fine after say 5 years is absolutely worth it. The only way to curb this is with completely ruinous fines, like "we will fine you 50% of each year this happened, dissolve your regional organisation, or ban you from doing business in the entire regulatory area (in this case the EU)" kind of consequences. Anything else can be optimised away.