[solarmist]

I agree with him about the car talking to an external server. That is a disgusting grab by car manufacturers.

For me, I don't care about my car having a computer, but I don't want it to talk to services without my permission and building their own thing shows a disregard for that desire. I love CarPlay/android and not offering those two most popular options doubles down on that disregard for customer interests.

[Zetice]

Fully agree re: CarPlay/Android Auto support.

But the default of "privacy good at all cost" seems like massive overkill IMO.

If there's specific evidence that a car is doing something that will specifically cause you harm in some way via data sharing, that's one thing. If it's a vague, general distrust, that falls into the "luddite paranoia" category.

[JohnFen]

> If it's a vague, general distrust

There's nothing vague or general about it. We have years of examples of how such data gets used. You may be fine with that, and that's OK. I don't understand why you get so upset that others aren't fine with it, though. Why is this so emotional for you?

[Zetice]

Nothing emotional in what I write, just pointing out that you have precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.

It's not about what I'm fine with or not, it's about what you're posting on HN in advocacy of. You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific, because nothing specific to you exists.

You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.

[JohnFen]

> precisely zero examples of how shared data from your car has been used to harm you specifically.

That might be because I never made such an assertion.

> You claim "years of examples" but you have literally nothing specific

I'm specifically referring to years of data collection by companies without consent. Typically for marketing or other monetization purposes.

> You fear new technology because it is unfamiliar to you, and that is the very definition of luddite.

Another personal attack. You don't know me. Everyone who does would be laughing at how ridiculous this assertion is. I very strongly embrace new technology (and the tech we're talking about here isn't actually all that new) and I'm very familiar with it. I even develop some of it. My house, my car, and even what I carry with me is riddled with high tech stuff. I am the opposite of a luddite.

You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about me here. And it's odd that you do, because it would be so easy to talk to me about what I'm actually saying rather than building a straw man representing me in your mind so you can attack it.

[Zetice]

Once I see someone plucking individual phrases out of context and replying only to them, I tend to get pretty skeptical of their intent. When I see words like "straw man" and "personal attack", it validates that skepticism, doubly so when those concepts are poorly applied.

Your mental health will improve once you log off of this site for the day. I highly recommend it.

[solarmist]

No it's not that. It's that I believe they will be profit seeking with that data unless forced to be otherwise.

The last decade has worn out my optimism and tolerance about privacy concerns. If a company wants my trust, they have to proactively earn it by excessive transparency, at least GDPR level, on their part.

If they can do that, I’ll consider it; otherwise, no thank you.

[Zetice]

Why is profiting from data collection considered de jure bad? Why does collecting data cost your trust, and why does not collecting data earn your trust?