Re: [projectvrm] Fwd: [ PFIR ] Proposed California law requires site privacy polices not to exceed 8th grade language and 100 words

[Omer Tene < >]

For a good demonstration of vehicle-capture of information see this story:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/tesla-logs-nytimes/


and the initial blog post here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

On 2/15/13 10:45 AM, "T-Rob" 
<
 >
 wrote:

>Hi Alan,
>
>> Why should we have to read a privacy policy in the first place? If
>> we buy say, an automobile, we are not presented with a long and
>> detailed list of its various components, their quality and
>> functions, and asked if we agree or disagree with the choice of
>> component or how it is being used. Quite rightly, we expect the car
>> company to address all these issues in ways we can trust - and we
>> expect them to be taken to the cleaners if they fall down on
>> quality, safety and so on.
>
>I used to think that too.  Until I bought a Ford Fusion with Sync.
>Because 
>my opinion of auto sales was similar to that which you expressed below,
>it 
>never occurred to me to ask about the TOS or privacy policy.  But when
>you 
>buy the car they tell you "go home and create a Sync account" in order to
>use the voice activation and other Sync features.  When you actually go
>to 
>sign up, this is what you find:
>
>" If you opt not to provide us with personal information, you can still
>access our website, however you may be unable to create log in
>credentials, participate in certain promotions, receive product
>information, activate or use a service, or have a purchase order
>fulfilled."
>
>"Activate or use a service" in plain English means "the ability to use
>the 
>functionality for which you bought the car."  Among the other smart
>features, you are able to run a Vehicle Health Report on all systems of
>the car.  That of course provides a lot of info to Ford.  How do they use
>the VHR?  From their Privacy Policy:
>
>"When you run a Vehicle Health Report, Ford Motor Company may collect
>your 
>cell phone number (to process your report request) and diagnostic
>information about your vehicle. Certain versions or updates to Vehicle
>Health Report may also collect additional vehicle information. Ford may
>use the vehicle information it collects, as well as information regarding
>individual access to Vehicle Health Reports at syncmyride.com, for any
>purpose. If you do not want to disclose your cell phone number or vehicle
>information, do not run the feature or set up your Vehicle Health Report
>profile at syncmyride.com."
>
>So either you don't run the health reports or you do and Ford can collect
>all car data, from all car systems, including your phone book uploaded to
>the audio/nav system, and use it for *any* purpose.  Their policy on
>Personally Identifiable Data is similarly wide open  Among the ways they
>admit to use your data are:
>
>"Compile user data that is stored in our corporate database and may be
>used for marketing and other purposes."
>"Match personal data collected here with data about you that we collect
>offline."
>
>What the hell are "other purposes"?  Could they be any more vague?  And
>the bit about matching personal data translated in plain English to "key
>your cell number and account from the VHR to your demographic records" so
>that car data is not as uninterestingly anonymous as the previous
>paragraphs suggest.  They also reserve the right to send your data to any
>global location and note that it may reside in a jurisdiction that has
>different privacy levels than your own country.
>
>> The mere fact of introducing an 'agreement' between the buyer and
>> the car company on the quality/functionality of its components would
>> open up a huge temptation for the car company to blind the buyer
>> with science, cut corners, take advantage --- all now with the
>> defence 'but you agreed to it'. That's exactly what has happened
>> with so-called 'privacy'.
>
>Been there.  Done that.
>
>"By clicking "I Accept" below, you the user ("User") agree to be bound by
>these Terms and Conditions whether or not you have read them. If you do
>not agree to these Terms and Conditions, you will be unable to run or
>activate the SYNC Driver Features. You must be at least 18 years old, or
>the age of majority, as determined by the laws of your state of
>residency, 
>to accept these Terms and Conditions and assume the obligations set forth
>in these Terms and Conditions. Further, you agree to make all other
>drivers, passengers or guests of your car aware of these Terms and
>Conditions and subject to these Terms and Conditions. You are solely
>responsible for the use of the SYNC Driver Features for your vehicle,
>even 
>if you are not the one using the SYNC Driver Features and even if you
>claim later that another person's use was not authorized. "
>
>So if you come to Charlotte and I pick you up to go to lunch, I'm
>supposed 
>to read you the TOS before you get into the car.  And if I forget to read
>them to you and you later sue Ford for recording our conversation, I'm
>responsible because - you guessed it - 'but you agreed to it'.  Oh yeah,
>and they can change the TOS without notice and your continued use of the
>service after that point constitutes your agreement:
>
>"Ford may at its sole discretion, with or without notice, modify these
>Terms and Conditions at any time and such modifications will be effective
>immediately upon being posted on this website. Your continued use of the
>SYNC Driver Features will indicate your acceptance of these modified
>Terms 
>and Conditions of Use. If you do not agree to the Terms and Conditions or
>any modification of the Terms and Conditions, then you must immediately
>stop using the Vehicle Health Report and/or SYNC Services."
>
>You'd better hope Ford's web site isn't breached because *you* are
>responsible for their damages if someone else uses your account:
>
>"You are entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your
>account information, including your password, and for any and all
>activity 
>that occurs under your account. You agree to notify Ford immediately of
>any unauthorized use of your account or password, or any other breach of
>security. However, you may be held liable for losses incurred by Ford or
>your dealer due to someone else using your user name, password, cell
>phone 
>number or account."
>
>They go on to explain all the "vehicle travel information" is collected
>and may be shared with Sync services providers.  They don't tell you who
>those are in the TOS but they include at the least Microsoft, Gracenote,
>Garmin and Sirius/XM.  Next they explain that you bind anyone else you
>let 
>into the car to these terms.
>
>"Further, you agree to obtain the consent to the collection, logging,
>storage, and sharing of vehicle travel information and other call details
>for the purposes set forth above from any other person(s) to whom you
>provide access to and use of the Service via your cell phone. If you
>don't 
>consent or wish to disclose this information, do not activate or use SYNC
>Services."
>
>Now, if you thought all of that was horrifying you should sit down before
>reading the next part.  They reserve the right to record all sounds and
>conversations in the car.  These are called "Whole Call Recordings" or
>WCRs.
>
>"WCRs will include voice utterances and may include any other sounds in
>the vehicle, including the voices of the user and other vehicle
>occupants, 
>during the entire time the Service is connected."
>
>Of course, you bind your passengers by proxy to these terms as well:
>
>"By activating or using the Service, you expressly agree to the recording
>and sharing of your utterances and WCRs as set forth above for the
>purposes set forth above in these Terms and Conditions regardless of
>whether or not you have read them. Further, you agree to obtain the
>consent to record utterances and WCRs from all vehicle occupants and any
>person(s) to whom you provide access to and use of the Service via your
>cell phone. If you don't consent or wish to disclose this information, do
>not activate or use SYNC Services."
>
>They also reserve the right to revoke licenses to any electronic media
>that you store or play such as Garmin maps, Gracenote DB entries, songs,
>videos, etc. on behalf of content owners:
>
>"You therefore agree that MS and/or FORD MOTOR COMPANY may, in
>conjunction 
>with such license, also download revocation lists onto your DEVICE on
>behalf of Secure Content Owners."
>
>> As soon as we start arguing about whether the small print is
>> readable or not, we have already ceded the principle and the
>> argument to the data landgrab industry.
>
>Yeah, I found this out when I attempted to upgrade the maps and CD song
>title DB in the car.  Many Garmin units have free lifetime maps because
>it 
>sells the hardware.  But once you pay $30k for the hardware, they figure
>you'll pay $300 a pop for map updates.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
> wrote on 02/14/2013 04:00:10 AM:
>
>> From: 
>> 
 
>> To: 
>> 
 ,
>>  
>> 
 ,
>> Cc: 
>> 
 ,
>>  
>> 
 ,
>> 
 
>> Date: 02/14/2013 04:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Fwd: [ PFIR ] Proposed California law
>> requires site privacy polices not to exceed 8th grade language and 100
>words
>> 
>> I'm not sure I really understand this debate.
>> 
>> Why should we have to read a privacy policy in the first place? If
>> we buy say, an automobile, we are not presented with a long and
>> detailed list of its various components, their quality and
>> functions, and asked if we agree or disagree with the choice of
>> component or how it is being used. Quite rightly, we expect the car
>> company to address all these issues in ways we can trust - and we
>> expect them to be taken to the cleaners if they fall down on
>> quality, safety and so on.
>> 
>> The mere fact of introducing an 'agreement' between the buyer and
>> the car company on the quality/functionality of its components would
>> open up a huge temptation for the car company to blind the buyer
>> with science, cut corners, take advantage --- all now with the
>> defence 'but you agreed to it'. That's exactly what has happened
>> with so-called 'privacy'.
>> 
>> I do not see why I should have to read anything, tick anything to
>> agree to anything when I share my data with a company for commercial
>> purposes. I should 'just know' that I am only sharing data that is
>> 100% related to the task in hand, that any data I share will only be
>> used for the purposes of providing the service and facilitating the
>> transaction, that it will not be passed on to anyone else, and that
>> it will be kept by the seller only for as long as service provision
>> is necessary. 
>> 
>> I shouldn't have to read small print or tick boxes about this. It
>> should be the standard, default norm - just taken for granted - and
>> any company transgressing on this norm should be taken to the
>> cleaners (by regulators and public opinion), just as a car company
>> transgressing on quality and safety should be taken to the cleaners.
>> I blogged about this recently here.
>> 
>> As soon as we start arguing about whether the small print is
>> readable or not, we have already ceded the principle and the
>> argument to the data landgrab industry.
>> 
>> Alan M 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>