Not buying these products is a false affordance. Your friends have them, your spouse carries one every time you go out together, your children clamor for them at Christmas. If I have to keep my lawn well maintained or face a fine, there's no good reason that people should be exempt from laws that regulate behavior that has a greater impact to society than tall weeds.
>there's no good reason that people should be exempt from laws that regulate behavior that has a greater impact to society than tall weeds.
Let's re-criminalize marijuana and get alcohol and junk food onto the Schedule I list then. While we're at it, banish low-brow entertainment from the airwaves and pulp fiction from the shelves/Kindle store. Use the full power of the legal system to avenge society's loss of your productivity when you slack off in school or at work. All these behaviors impose a far greater cost on society than an unmowed lawn.
Have you considered that it's actually HOAs which are an egregious affront to individual liberty?
It's not an HOA. It's actually part of the city's code, so it's an actual minor criminal offense we're talking about. But that's not important right now. All of us are required to abide by laws, sometimes over things we consider trivial, like the speed limit. Why should a "person" with far more resources than any individual not be held accountable for their actions?
That's what I did, but it may not be much longer until...
> Couldn't you just, you know, not purchase those products or services?
...means buying a beater that barely runs, because they stopped making cars that aren't "connected."
Or maybe you did buy a connected product, and were really careful to make sure it did nothing you didn't want it to do at the time of purchase...
...but then two years later the manufacturer pushes and update that adds 24/7 tracking and mandatory banner ads. What do you suggest doing in that case? Return your car to the dealer for a refund? Take a time machine back to tell your old self to "not purchase those products or services?"
In short, market thinking is not the solution to all problems, because markets can be broken in innumerable ways. And even if the brokenness can be worked around, people usually lack the expertise or time-bandwidth to do it.
> but then two years later the manufacturer pushes and update that adds 24/7 tracking and mandatory banner ads. What do you suggest doing in that case? Return your car to the dealer for a refund?
I expect, well more hope, someone to try exactly that. Then for some interesting case law to develop.
I sure hope everyone isn't just going to roll over and accept this shit.
Judge: “Well, you signed this contract two years ago, which specifically states that you consent to OTA updates of any kind.”
Done. The judicial system is not always the place to fight these things, especially when you have existing case law working against you. It’s important to remember that we have a legislature whose job is to, ostensibly, make laws. Congress could quite easily make a law that no car company can advertise at you in your vehicle, but I’m having a hard time fathoming such sensible legislation with this current administration.
But my larger point stands: the courts will be of no use here, and rightfully so, because we already have a branch of government that is supposed to deal with this: the legislature. Not “roll[ing] over and accept[ing] this shit” will involve voting, unfortunately.
Hmm, perhaps it's a UK/EU difference to the US. Judges here are perfectly happy to strike clauses in contracts or terms they think unreasonable or at variance to law or custom. Agreed to or not.
Whether it comes down to UK/EU sale of Goods Act, or contract law I could not say.
Is it as clear cut as that? Such a thing would probably be some kind of EULA, and I think those have more limits on the kinds of terms they can include.
I would take it back to the dealer. If they can't remedy it demand a full refund. If they do not give a full refund sue them, but please get a good lawyer. We want good court precedents. Heck you might be able to get the EFF to represent you or something similar.
What choice do you have once every single provider is doing this? Seriously are we supposed to build our own car? Businesses only care about profits, so if one manufacturer sees other manufacturers doing this and making money, they will follow suit, until all cars are just another data mining machine.
What possible motivation would a car manufacturer have not to do this? It's all about $$$