[kenhwang]

Cars already have a black box like logging system that tracks literally everything the car does continuously in very fine detail. The exact speed and engine load, brake/throttle/steering input, detected tire slip, elevation changes, body roll/pitch/yaw. With that data alone, it's pretty trivial to construct a very exact route, and it's not difficult to figure out where that route fits on a map. Manufacturers already use this data to deny warranty claims.

Vehicles having GPS, compass, cell service, bluetooth, and WiFi just makes that tracking trivial. All that's currently missing is the internet connectivity to upload the data in real time instead of the data being pulled at maintenance. Many manufactures also do have background data upload over cell service, even if they don't expose internet features to the vehicle owner.

[taeric]

Right, I didn't mean to make that sound completely hypothetical. I am assuming their are not regulations on the retention policy of these, though. And, that I think I could support. I'd be fine with disallowing those from being connected to a transmitter. (Though, even there, I can see carve outs for 911 style data assistance. Physical safety may actually be improved with sharing some of this data.)

And, again, I also know it is pretty trivial to recreate exact routes from relatively low powered phones and watches. Because I do that on the regular for cycling and such. I haven't seen a ton of articles worried about the privacy nightmare of smart watches, though? (Mayhap I've just missed them?)

[kenhwang]

The difference is cars aren't comparable to phones anymore. They're already way more capable than phones with always on cameras with sonar and radar mapping in multiple directions, always on mics for voice commands, and even continuous driver face scanning.

Those are also things that are also usually logged, those are things most people probably don't want to be continuously uploaded and recklessly exposed.

[taeric]

Phones have always on mics for voice commands, as well? The camera sensors are probably new, but likely not as new as you think they are. For a fun example, consider this site: https://web.seattle.gov/Travelers/

And your phone is much more directly linked to you. And can probably track you through buildings quite easily. Worse, probably makes you trackable to anyone that wants to, for example, watch for your phone's bluetooth id to pass by.

To be clear, the cameras around the car, I think, is mostly a good thing to consider in more depth. Though, again, I'm not too clear on what makes these unique for being on the car. If someone was to stick a camera next to their mailbox, I'd expect they would also be limited in what they are allowed to do with the images they capture.

Again, though, if you are at all worried about your privacy of data collection, watches and phones are far more of a concern than your car.

Just to explore the idea some more, how much of what can be learned about you from the car, cannot be learned about you from looking at cell tower logs about where your phone has been? Heck, for most of us, looking at where you have scanned your credit card is already more than enough to construct when and where you traveled throughout the day. The wifi history of your phone is probably good enough, as well.

[kenhwang]

It's not just about you.

With phones and fixed cameras, people have to make a deliberate choice to point them at something of interest. If your neighbor decided to mount a camera that always looked into your bedroom window or yard, you probably won't be very happy about it, but you also know they had to deliberately do it and likely know the area they're monitoring.

Now with phone cameras, it's more likely than not that it's not looking at anything interesting most of the time, since it'd be lying flat on a surface or in a pocket/bag.

Car cameras are specifically designed to be very good at detecting people, since their primary purpose tends to be pedestrian avoidance. They also tend to not be obfuscated and have great vantage points. That makes them very likely to see something interesting, with very strong signal for how interesting it is. And the intention of the vehicle owner doesn't have to be aligned with the manufacturer.

Let's say you're a complete luddite with no power, phone, car, or internet of any kind. If I were, say Tesla and you were in a major metro areas, I could probably still construct a pretty through understanding of you or your home just from various Teslas driving or parked in your area. We can even go full facial or body recognition and figure out where you are from your appearances on their vehicles. How distinguishable are you from video+sonar+radar identification? How feasible is it to hide from sight from every car?

It's like how Facebook or Google can create a profile and understanding of what you do, without you ever touching any of its services, because it's practically impossible to use the internet without touching a service that'll feed information to them, or stopping everyone who knows something about you from disclosing that information to them.

[taeric]

I mean, sure? At the same time, google was sending camera equipped cars around for a while now. https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/google-reveals-how-many-mi...

And, really, if you want to know what someone's house is like on the interior, you can probably just look it up at the local planning office. Often for free. And this isn't even getting into the people that have vacuums that map out the place on a somewhat regular basis...

Look, I get it that this is yet another vector for information. I just can't bring myself to think it is a meaningfully worse one than any others. If you view it as "cars are another item on the nightmare that is modern privacy", I fully agree. Thinking they are somehow more capable of surveillance than basically every other one that has proliferated in recent years feels off.