|
|
|
|
|
|
by olliej
958 days ago
|
|
|
No, it's saying that because none of the information is transmitted there isn't a privacy violation - the law requires that a privacy violation actually occur, not that it "could". e.g. that fact that there's a local call/message log on the car, and the car also has a mechanism for transmitting some data, does not mean that there's a privacy violation given that the car does not transmit the call/message log. That's the only reason this lawsuit got thrown out. It would be like saying "my phone receives messages, and stores those, and could transmit them to apple/google, therefore I should be able to sue them for the privacy violation they could do". |
|
|
As far as I can tell, the car itself doesn't have a mechanism for transmitting data. It just stores the data.
Transmitting only happens if/when someone gets some Berla "vehicle forensics" hardware and physically connects it to the car. The Berla equipment would do the transmitting.
From the complaint linked to by The Register[1]:
> 26. Third party Berla Corporation (“Berla”), based in Annapolis, Maryland, manufactures equipment (hardware and software) capable of extracting stored text messages from infotainment systems in Honda vehicles.
> 27. Berla also manufactures equipment capable of extracting stored call logs from infotainment systems in Honda vehicles.
> 28. Honda infotainment systems thereby transmit stored text messages and call logs to Berla.
And from Berla's web site[2]:
> An acquisition may require systems to be removed from a vehicle and disassembled or be performed in place in a vehicle. In either case, acquisition hardware must be attached to the vehicle or system to acquire data.
---
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/11/09/honda-infotainment-class-a...
[2] https://berla.co/ecosystem/