Thread

1. mahboi · 1790889739 · focus · HN ↗

     if an owner decides they are uncomfortable with the data sharing described within them, they are faced with (arguably) unfair choices:
     - 01 accept the agreements regardless of their concerns
     - 02 stop using their car's connected-vehicle features - which includes remote start, the app, and other very useful features
     - 03 stop using the vehicle entirely
   

   Easy, I take #2. Is that it? This whole time I thought the article was talking about telemetry the car sends regardless.

   1. technothrasher · 1790889964 · focus · HN ↗

      I have essentially gone with option 2 in my Audi A3. Every time I turn the car on, it puts up a dialog that warns me that I've made the terrible, terrible decision to not allow remote data and forces me to say, "no, do not turn it on for me now," before I can do anything else on the screen. Every, single, time.

      1. MrDrMcCoy · 1790916669 · focus · HN ↗

         You trust that they aren't sending data anyway?

         1. HPsquared · 1790936552 · focus · HN ↗

            Corporations don't usually expose themselves to lawsuits like that.

            1. voakbasda · 1790951784 · focus · HN ↗

               Well, that’s just patently false. Corporations make risk calculations, and they are perfectly willing to expose themselves to lawsuits when their calculus shows that it will be profitable for them to do so. This is why so many companies appear completely unphased when being fined millions of dollars; they can make billions of dollars in profit while the court cases drag on. Heck, I’m pretty sure that’s a central part of the business model for some SV startups (Uber, Airbnb, etc). Disruption, baby!

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.