Modern cars are a privacy nightmare

[Mirrana]

Summary

Mozilla analysed 25 car companies for privacy and found that all of them are shit.

 

Quotes

Quote

They can collect personal information from how you interact with your car, the connected services you use in your car, the car’s app (which provides a gateway to information on your phone), and can gather even more information about you from third party sources like Sirius XM or Google Maps. It’s a mess. The ways that car companies collect and share your data are so vast and complicated that we wrote an entire piece on how that works. The gist is: they can collect super intimate information about you -- from your medical information, your genetic information, to your “sex life” (seriously), to how fast you drive, where you drive, and what songs you play in your car -- in huge quantities. They then use it to invent more data about you through “inferences” about things like your intelligence, abilities, and interests.

----
 

Believe us when we say this: Nissan's privacy policy is probably the most mind boggling creepy, scary, sad, messed up privacy policy we have ever read. And we here at *Privacy Not Included read a LOT of privacy policies. Please people, if you care even a little about privacy, please stay as far away from Nissan's cars, apps, and connected services as you possibly can.

Here's why: They come right out and say they can collect and share your sexual activity, health diagnosis data, and genetic information and other sensitive personal information for targeted marketing purposes. We absolutely aren't making that up. It says so in their Nissan USA privacy notice. And that's not all! They also say they can share and even sell "Inferences drawn from any Personal Data collected to create a profile about a consumer reflecting the consumer’s preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes" to others for targeted marketing purposes. Yes, Nissan says they can infer things like how smart you are, if you have a predisposition to drink, if you are acting depressed, and if you are any good at chess (we're guessing that's what they can infer..it could be even worse than that), and then they say they can make as much money off that very personal information as they can. Nissan, you suck.

 

My thoughts

Given LTT's focus on tech, I think this is a very interesting topic that can be covered on the WAN show.

 

Sources

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/nissan/

[Taf the Ghost]

Network Connection Deletes are going to be a very big deal going forward.

[TVwazhere]

6 minutes ago, Mirrana said:

Given LTT's focus on tech, I think this is a very interesting topic that can be covered on the WAN show.

They already did, as this article is at least a month old.

[jagdtigger]

51 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Network Connection Deletes are going to be a very big deal going forward.

And say goodby to the on-board entertainment, navigation, carplay, android auto, etc systems as well......

And all this just because the car couldnt talk to manufacturers central servers.......

[venomtail]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And say goodby to the on-board entertainment, navigation, carplay, android auto, etc systems as well......

And all this just because the car couldnt talk to manufacturers central servers.......

With all changes there will be the glaring issues on both sides. I love real time traffic data allowing me to avoid traffic jams and police stings. Waze knowing about my lack totally not lack of sex life seems like an irrelevant sacrifice but one non the less.

 

I know stories of some people thinking with mobile phones people being able to call you any time at any place was a massive invasion of privacy. I think to most people these days it seems like a logical win with no downsides.

[Obioban]

This is why I straight refuse to buy any car without carplay.

 

I don't want to pay monthly forever for a worse version of what I already have through carplay, and I don't want the car makers selling me.

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, venomtail said:

Waze knowing about my lack totally not lack of sex life seems like an irrelevant sacrifice but one non the less.

Irrelevant until it isnt..... They are slowly boiling the frog.

[8tg]

I refuse to involve myself with modern automotive tech. When I went to go look at cars I wanted something fairly mechanically simple for easier maintenance, and even the most basic of modern cars, a manual Nissan versa, has a backup camera, lane assist, and automatic pedestrian detection and braking.

It also has zero visibility, since the overall shape of the car and massively thick pillars make it this tiny enclosed box you can’t see shit out of.

 

So I bought a 30 year old compact station wagon instead. The most complex thing on it is maybe the fuel injection system, it has one airbag and the airbag doesn’t work, i can see everything out of it with almost no obstruction.

 

If you are concerned with the security of the electronics on modern cars, don’t buy a modern car, they’re all awful.

[wanderingfool2]

23 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Irrelevant until it isnt..... They are slowly boiling the frog.

I agree that things like sex life isn't something that should be tracked; I actually wonder how it tracks it...then again I also wonder if it was a boilerplate kind of one and if they really don't track that specific thing

 

Actually, while I don't think it should be sold to 3rd parties; I could see why they might add it if it was for private internal use at a company if they had cameras in the vehicle and were lets say training the attention triggers...if someone was doing a certain activity in the car it would be sent to the server.  Then again; I do feel selling the information does go too far.

 

With all this said, I think Mozilla has gotten their priorities a bit wrong in terms of how they rank things and what they are putting focus on.

As an example, Mozilla seems like they want all car manufacturers  to only share the information with law enforcement when a warrant is presented.  That to me isn't practical, and I say that as someone who used to deal with police.  The "vague" language of saying, if there is a good faith and need for data I think is pretty much good enough.

 

The reason why a term like that is used, doesn't mean they give away information willy-nilly...it's used for cases like "xyz has been kidnapped", we need to track the car.  To get a warrant is burning precious minutes/hours that the victim might not have.  Yet if they had Mozilla's terms, they would require a full on warrant be sent to them.

 

I don't know about car companies, but at least when it came to the place I had worked we required; badge number, active case number, reason for the request from the official email, signature of officer receiving the information and even with that said we would only give them what was necessary.  If they asked lets say if we had any customers who matched a description we wouldn't give out that information to them without a warrant.

 

 

Actually, overall I think their assessment is fundamentally flawed.  It focuses on the wrong points.

 

I mean it's just stupid of Mozilla to place Tesla as number one, using "untrustworthy AI" which has nothing to do with privacy.  It's just purely an idiotic argument by Mozilla.  For supposedly hitting every single one of Mozilla's "dings"; the fact Tesla doesn't sell your data to 3rd parties apparently doesn't count for anything in Mozilla's eyes.  By the looks of it, they didn't even get their hands on a Tesla; as they state that they don't actually know what the consent pages look like.  They also say they are making assumption with what Tesla is doing with your data. 

[jagdtigger]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

cameras in the vehicle

[Helpful Tech Witch]

31 minutes ago, 8tg said:

and even the most basic of modern cars, a manual Nissan versa, has a backup camera,

i dont see the issue with this one specifically. Backup cameras are amazing, even in cars with good visibility.
I personally would put a aftermarket one in any car i get without one.

[8tg]

17 minutes ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

i dont see the issue with this one specifically. Backup cameras are amazing, even in cars with good visibility.
I personally would put a aftermarket one in any car i get without one.

It’s not the feature itself, it’s the idea that it’s been mandated to have one. Even the most basic of new cars have to have this kind of tech in them, and it is mainly to compensate for low visibility. 

[WildDagwood]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I agree that things like sex life isn't something that should be tracked; I actually wonder how it tracks it...then again I also wonder if it was a boilerplate kind of one and if they really don't track that specific thing

 

Actually, while I don't think it should be sold to 3rd parties; I could see why they might add it if it was for private internal use at a company if they had cameras in the vehicle and were lets say training the attention triggers...if someone was doing a certain activity in the car it would be sent to the server.  Then again; I do feel selling the information does go too far.

 

With all this said, I think Mozilla has gotten their priorities a bit wrong in terms of how they rank things and what they are putting focus on.

As an example, Mozilla seems like they want all car manufacturers  to only share the information with law enforcement when a warrant is presented.  That to me isn't practical, and I say that as someone who used to deal with police.  The "vague" language of saying, if there is a good faith and need for data I think is pretty much good enough.

 

The reason why a term like that is used, doesn't mean they give away information willy-nilly...it's used for cases like "xyz has been kidnapped", we need to track the car.  To get a warrant is burning precious minutes/hours that the victim might not have.  Yet if they had Mozilla's terms, they would require a full on warrant be sent to them.

 

I don't know about car companies, but at least when it came to the place I had worked we required; badge number, active case number, reason for the request from the official email, signature of officer receiving the information and even with that said we would only give them what was necessary.  If they asked lets say if we had any customers who matched a description we wouldn't give out that information to them without a warrant.

 

 

Actually, overall I think their assessment is fundamentally flawed.  It focuses on the wrong points.

 

I mean it's just stupid of Mozilla to place Tesla as number one, using "untrustworthy AI" which has nothing to do with privacy.  It's just purely an idiotic argument by Mozilla.  For supposedly hitting every single one of Mozilla's "dings"; the fact Tesla doesn't sell your data to 3rd parties apparently doesn't count for anything in Mozilla's eyes.  By the looks of it, they didn't even get their hands on a Tesla; as they state that they don't actually know what the consent pages look like.  They also say they are making assumption with what Tesla is doing with your data. 

There are a few issues (imo) with this mindset (bolded).

• Making vague language acceptable in law allows for it to be abused to no end, and if history has taught us anything, this would be no exception.
• You're sacrificing the freedoms and privacy of others based on a hypothetical possibility that can technically be assisted through other means.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

You can thank things like NHTSA and consumer reports for the likes of things like that.  For "autonomous driving" or even some of the subsets of it they are pretty much requiring them to track the users in that way.  It also have the benefit of being used for things like dog cam or sentry mode.

 

54 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

There are a few issues (imo) with this mindset (bolded).

• Making vague language acceptable in law allows for it to be abused to no end, and if history has taught us anything, this would be no exception.
• You're sacrificing the freedoms and privacy of others based on a hypothetical possibility that can technically be assisted through other means.

It's not a law, it's a policy/contract. The request of data, doesn't mean the request would be complied with...just that a company such as Tesla would have the option to comply if the situation fits.

 

It's not some hypothetical either, there ARE case where it does happen.  While not 100% the same scenario, look at this https://futurism.com/the-byte/volkswagen-refused-track-car-kidnapped-child

Things happen, and if a policy is written in a way that they cannot help then it does have consequences.

[WildDagwood]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You can thank things like NHTSA and consumer reports for the likes of things like that.  For "autonomous driving" or even some of the subsets of it they are pretty much requiring them to track the users in that way.  It also have the benefit of being used for things like dog cam or sentry mode.

 

It's not a law, it's a policy/contract. The request of data, doesn't mean the request would be complied with...just that a company such as Tesla would have the option to comply if the situation fits.

 

It's not some hypothetical either, there ARE case where it does happen.  While not 100% the same scenario, look at this https://futurism.com/the-byte/volkswagen-refused-track-car-kidnapped-child

Things happen, and if a policy is written in a way that they cannot help then it does have consequences.

Yes, but vagueness allows it to be abused within the law (until ruled unconstitutional).

 

I'm not denying the scenario has never happened (or won't again), but just because it CAN and COULD happen doesn't mean we need to be giving up privacy and freedoms at large and using that as the basis for it. There are other ways to combat these situations and we can even be more proactive in identifying potential issues, rather than compromising on peoples privacy and freedoms.

[Taf the Ghost]

10 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

And say goodby to the on-board entertainment, navigation, carplay, android auto, etc systems as well......

And all this just because the car couldnt talk to manufacturers central servers.......

And it's not like the servers will ever go down... or go End of Life...

[williamcll]

I think the worse part that this wasn't mentioned is that these kinds of cars are more vulnerable to hacking because more hardware are connected.

[Mark Kaine]

thats of course concerning ig, not relevant to me tho, I'll always drive cars made before 2000 , because i like the analog feel, i dont need all that digital nonsense in my car, what i need is a CD player, manual transmission and NO TRACTION CONTROL tyvm ~

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

15 hours ago, venomtail said:

mobile phones people being able to call you any time at any place was a massive invasion of privacy.

well and it is. the difference being you can turn that off / silent... you cant do that with a car while out and about... 

[StDragon]

A car should be an accessory to a person and not the other way around. But I suppose in an age of people leasing or falling short on payment, the title holder (bank) wants to know if signer will make good on payment before getting so skittish as to drive back to the bank's car lot via full automation driving.

[Brooksie359]

On 10/4/2023 at 11:07 AM, 8tg said:

It’s not the feature itself, it’s the idea that it’s been mandated to have one. Even the most basic of new cars have to have this kind of tech in them, and it is mainly to compensate for low visibility. 

There are alot of things that you can't see even with good visibility that you can with a backup camera. The first that comes to mind being small children or dogs. 

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

There are alot of things that you can't see even with good visibility that you can with a backup camera. The first that comes to mind being small children or dogs. 

 

I think there is some overblown issues with cars.

 

Cars are not communicating with the internet, and are thus not vulnerable to issues unless you've choosen to put them on the internet (eg by plugging in your cell phone.)  Cars rarely, if ever, come with cell radios or wifi radios because those radios are often obsolete by the time the car is manufactured. The 2015 car my mom has, has WiFi, but it doesn't actually do anything when connected to WiFi. What the car really wants you to do is plug in your cell phone and then share the internet from it with the Wifi in the car so your kids can ... I dunno, not use their own data on their own phones.

 

Ideally, SatNav/GPS would just use it's own internal maps and pull down updated maps as-needed (which is what Nokia phones did back in 2009.) 

 

But privacy issues are always going to be a problem if the car is connected to the internet. So the logical answer to that is, don't put your car on the internet. Plug your cell phone in, never connect it to WiFi, never plug in those insurance telemetry modules (apparently these things actually break some cars, and also create back doors into the vehicle's security.)

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

I think there is some overblown issues with cars.

 

Cars are not communicating with the internet, and are thus not vulnerable to issues unless you've choosen to put them on the internet

That is patently false.  Cars are communicating with the internet and ARE vulnerable to some forms of attacks.

 

This is not something that is new either, this has been going on for at least a decade.  If your car supports OnStar then it has some form of connection (even if it's normally locked down in what it's used as).

 

Even things like the mandated eCall in the EU has effectively led to many vehicles being somewhat connected.

 

If you still don't believe me, https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

 

Ontop of this, as more and more cars are going towards EV there is more and more incentive to put in some form of cell data...the reasoning being is that it allows them to do OTA updates for "recalls" instead of spending the money on technicians to plug into the car to update the software.

 

The big issue here is that a large swath of legacy auto hasn't been very quick in terms of addressing software vulnerabilities (or it took them a long time before they even started offering bounties).

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Ideally, SatNav/GPS would just use it's own internal maps and pull down updated maps as-needed (which is what Nokia phones did back in 2009.) 

Then you instantly lose the overall metric of traffic flow.  While I do dislike a lot about Google Maps, there is something to be said about being able to see current traffic issues on the map and speed traps etc.

 

11 hours ago, StDragon said:

A car should be an accessory to a person and not the other way around. But I suppose in an age of people leasing or falling short on payment, the title holder (bank) wants to know if signer will make good on payment before getting so skittish as to drive back to the bank's car lot via full automation driving.

Overall I think it's about what you are giving up for the benefits.  Everyone likes talking about privacy as if it should be some absolute thing; but the way lots of people talk about it it's like they don't realize what you lose if everything actually worked like that (Google wouldn't exist for example).

 

For cars, you can lose things like traffic data, you lose things such as vehicle locating (if stolen), remote updates, remote fixes, for Tesla's you lose the ability to recover the cameras (if sentry mode wasn't being used) during a crash, etc.

 

I think what should be at issue is what the company does with your data, for example in Tesla they don't sell it but use it internally to try tweaking the vehicles to better match the market; they allow things like sentry mode, etc.

[Kisai]

30 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That is patently false.  Cars are communicating with the internet and ARE vulnerable to some forms of attacks.

 

This is not something that is new either, this has been going on for at least a decade.  If your car supports OnStar then it has some form of connection (even if it's normally locked down in what it's used as).

ngs like sentry mode, etc.

Look, dude, I've literately worked for wireless companies. Nobody that is an end user has ever activated a "car". Onstar's service used AT&T in the 2G era and that was still managed as an entirely separate thing paid for by Onstar, not the customer.

 

https://www.tesla.com/support/3g-cellular-network-retirement

Quote

AT&T has recently announced that it will discontinue its 3G cellular service by February 2022. Once AT&T’s 3G service is discontinued, Model S vehicles built before June 2015 without a 4G/LTE capable modem will not be able to enjoy the following features unless connected to Wi-Fi:

• Roadside assistance to unlock your vehicle remotely
• Certain mobile app capabilities, including Summon, cabin pre-conditioning, vehicle location, remote unlock, etc.
• Certain Infotainment features, including navigation, maps, live traffic updates, up-to-date Supercharger availability and outage information, online music streaming, and onboard map updates
• Over-the-air updates

In order to maintain cellular connectivity after AT&T discontinues its 3G network, your vehicle will need an LTE-capable modem. To purchase and have this modem installed by Tesla, simply schedule a service appointment through your Tesla mobile app. Select ‘Schedule Service’ > ‘Upgrades & Accessories’ > ‘LTE Upgrade.’ This LTE modem upgrade is available for $200 USD plus applicable taxes and includes installation.

The car manufacturer is not footing the bill for your car's data usage. YOU ARE, and people don't do this themselves. If you car needs an update, it's not going to download it while you are driving and apply it. Great way to kill the car by accident if it decides to flash the firmware while you are waiting at a red light.

 

Disable that modem in the Tesla, and your privacy issues go away until the dealership services it. 

 

You may find traffic updates useful, but you don't need them. All you need are the maps. You don't need SiriusXM or Spotify either, and if you're driving in BC, chances are you can't use Spotify outside of Vancouver anyway because all the carriers decided the highways don't need cell service.

[Taf the Ghost]

While it's a tad bit of CCCP paranoia, Tesla's are actually banned around military institutions (and other "sensitive locations") because of fears of using all of the attached cameras are surveillance gear.  Which is going to make those BYD EVs that are coming around quite a fun time. Just think of the concept of having your car banned & its title revoked because it's deemed a National Security risk? 

 

Most aren't yet comprehending the risks to all type of data that comes with cars being Cellphones with Wheels. The same issues that have already existed with privacy with just Google's activities are, with a car, augmented with GPS data and other trackable behavioral information. And given the general data security practices of most of the world, you can expect both your unfriendly hackers and all of the data gathering organizations will have all of it.  And that's before the servers for your specific model get turned off in the future.

 

I already know that late 90s and early 2000s super cars are having a lot of issues because the computers necessary to read their data outputs are getting old/failing/hard to find. (Depends on the company & model how much of an issue this is, at the moment.)  Given all of this taken together, I'm making a great business case for a firmware hacking business around cars.