Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Volkswagen Chairman: Cars Must Not Become 'Data Monsters'

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the this-calls-for-more-kraftwerk dept.

Privacy 89

Nerval's Lobster writes "While automakers from Tokyo to Detroit rush to sprinkle their respective vehicles with all sorts of sensors and screens, the chairman of Volkswagen Group has warned about the limits of data analytics for automobiles. 'The car must not become a data monster,' Martin Winterkorn told an audience at the CeBit trade show in Germany, according to Re/code. 'I clearly say yes to Big Data, yes to greater security and convenience, but no to paternalism and Big Brother.' At the same time, Winterkorn endorsed a closer relationship between tech companies such as IBM and the auto industry, and highlighted Volkswagen's experiments with autonomous driving—both of which will necessarily infuse automakers (and his company in particular) with more data-driven processes. The question is which policies from which entities will ultimately dictate how that data is used. Winterkorn isn't the first individual to voice concerns about how automakers (and their partners) store and analyze all that vehicle data. At this January's Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, a Ford executive drew considerable controversy by suggesting that Ford collects detailed information on how customers use its vehicles. 'We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing. By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone,' Jim Farley, Ford's global vice president of marketing and sales, told show attendees. Farley later attempted to clarify his statement to Business Insider, but that didn't stop a fierce debate over vehicle monitoring—and certainly hasn't stopped automakers and tech companies from collaborating over more ways to integrate data-centric features to vehicles."

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old cars look better and better. (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46457303)

Not only do you not have a computer overriding your throttle stomp, you avoid big brother with an old car.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457361)

What?! You mean you don't want to pay for your own audio studio piped straight to the NSA/FBI with wheels?

Coupled with cell phones, I feel bugged 24/7 now.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457369)

Rand Paul? Is that you buddy? You know, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (2)

David_Hart (1184661) | about 7 months ago | (#46458369)

Not only do you not have a computer overriding your throttle stomp, you avoid big brother with an old car.

While you may think that you would be invisible by owning an older car, I'm willing to bet that future gen self-driving vehicles will tattle on you. They will use various sensors to detect your old car on the road, identify it, and tell all of the other smart cars around you all about you. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if RFIDs aren't embedded in our license plates in the future. It would make it easier for cops to issue tickets (i.e. scan the license), could be used for tolls, etc.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46458501)

Not really worried about self driving vehicles. It's just not going to happen, sans strong AI and huge changes in liability law.

Still the next gen of cars will likely include license plate readers. There goes privacy regarding where we go. Ship sailed with cell phone GPS so BFD. At least the cops will learn some manners.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46459395)

No need for strong AI, a more insect (or bird) like instinctive response will be good enough (and has been accomplished).

The liability law is a much thougher problem and may never be cracked.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46459765)

Not the place for this. You are wrong.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#46461427)

Not the place for this. You are wrong.

Prove your claim. [youtube.com] I have only evidence against it.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 7 months ago | (#46463425)

Not really worried about self driving vehicles. It's just not going to happen, sans strong AI and huge changes in liability law.

Don't need strong AI. In fact, effective self-driving vehicles exist *now*, although they need a little more polish to become practical for general use. Liability is the big road block, but the pressure to implement this technology will be great enough that something will be done.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46464743)

Bullshit. Self driving vehicles today have professional drivers paying attention so they can take over when the computer says 'I'm confused'.

Look at the failure modes of the last DARPA self driving car challenge. Those are real self driving cars and aren't allowed anywhere near pedestrians.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46458645)

They will use various sensors to detect your old car on the road, identify it, and tell all of the other smart cars around you all about you.

Which, arguably, *could* be useful for, e.g., safer driving in bad weather.

job (-1, Offtopic)

Alisha Kris (3573343) | about 7 months ago | (#46458507)

my roomate's aunt got paid $18116 last month. she is making income on the laptop and bought a $333100 condo. All she did was get blessed and put in action the information made clear on this site >>> --------------zunojob.com

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

djbckr (673156) | about 7 months ago | (#46458675)

After owning a Prius(*), I specifically went looking for an old vehicle and found an old, 1988 Jeep Wrangler that I'm in the process of fixing up. You see, you can't fix up or work on a Prius, or most cars these days and I very much missed doing that. The Jeep is carbureted with no computers whatsoever and I'm loving it because I have control over what I want to do with it. This summer, I'm going to make a project out of replacing the dash and user controls with Arduino and Beaglebone controllers and displays. It's going to be so much fun I can hardly stand it. I'll probably put an after-market throttle body fuel injector on at some point to help with the fuel delivery at least.

(*)Note that I didn't buy the Prius for the mileage - rather than I'm a computer geek and I thought it was cool. This Prius did not have the stuff they have now tracking your every move.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462547)

For sale: 1982 300SD. The only computer required for the car to operate is the one that runs the automatic transmission, and it's only required for some kickdowns, and the glow plug relay timer which you could replace with a switch if you had to since the system uses constant current glow plugs. If the electrical system fails completely during your journey, you will still be able to finish your journey. Since it runs on diesel you can even refuel without shutting off, it's not going to throw a code when you pull the filling cap since there is no PCM/ECU. Strongest stock OM617.951A I've ever seen. Rebuilt 951B turbo, deleted EGR, sunroof, good beige MB-TEX seats.

You could get a shitty one for $1500. This one will cost more, even though it needs paint.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46464763)

Euro Taxi? No thanks. I'm sure you can get way more then it's worth if you throw a biodiesel sticker on it. I know a shop in downtown sac that is making a fortune selling biodiesel cars and biodiesel to fools.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46464991)

These cars are appreciating because of their nature. I have a 1997 A8 that was originally over 70k and I paid under 3. It's worth about 6 or 7 (I have made numerous repairs already) and in five more years it'll be worth 3 or 4. But my Mercedes is actually gaining value. It is now a classic, it's literally the end of an era and the last of a generation, and I'm going to just sit on it (occasionally repairing or replacing something) until I can get my money back out.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46465803)

Good for you.

I paid $2500 for my '60 Saratoga. The last two sold (that I'm aware of) went for $20k and $45k. Mine is nicer.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46465995)

Yours is worth more, mine is a better car.

Still working on getting rid of it, because I want more amenities.

I have a truck for those crusty times. Or for fetching parts :p

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46466517)

We'll just have to disagree on that. Yours is a better commuter. Mine is a much better work of rolling art.

Re:Old cars look better and better. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46466915)

We'll just have to disagree on that. Yours is a better commuter. Mine is a much better work of rolling art.

I didn't say anything about art, I said car. As in, for driving around and doing stuff. Mine is safer (no fancy electronics, just all high strength steel unibody with crumple zones, but still full size) and at least as reliable, and gets better mileage, and is even better over uneven terrain and rough roads. As far as car value the W126 Mercedes is really pretty fantastic. But with that said, it wasn't enough car for me any more, so if someone makes me a decent offer (and I'm done hawking it, but I do like to get the word out and uh, it's free) then it's available. Or it will be after I fix a couple more leaks on the Audi.

Godwin Time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457315)

The Volkswagen was the car Hitler established. This cars as data monsters would make the feds and the crony carmakers WORSE THAN HITLER!

Re:Godwin Time! (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 7 months ago | (#46457519)

Well, but it was also a car Ferdinand Porsche designed.
So, if you've ever said, I wish I could buy a Porsche-- well, you can.

(the one I want is the Schwimmwagen, though!)

Re:Godwin Time! (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 7 months ago | (#46457637)

(the one I want is the Schwimmwagen, though!)

Wow, this is new for Slashdot! Most folks complain that they want a flying car . . . and here you are, and say that you would be happy with one that just swims!

Here you go . . . pick one out: http://www.vw166.com/ [vw166.com]

VW Flugwagen [Re:Godwin Time!] (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 7 months ago | (#46458021)

(the one I want is the Schwimmwagen, though!)

Wow, this is new for Slashdot! Most folks complain that they want a flying car

Wait, I want to change my order...

Re:VW Flugwagen [Re:Godwin Time!] (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#46461449)

Wait, I want to change my order...

Sure! Any color you like, so long as it's black-ops.

Re:Godwin Time! (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46457693)

(the one I want is the Schwimmwagen, though!)

Kubelwagen!

Old VW car names are so much fun to say.

Re:Godwin Time! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462613)

Well, but it was also a car Ferdinand Porsche designed.
So, if you've ever said, I wish I could buy a Porsche-- well, you can.

Conversely, if you've ever said "It's not a Beetle", $mdash; well, it is. Today it's even owned by VAG, so it's double extra-plus a squashed beetle.

Re:Godwin Time! (1)

mikael (484) | about 7 months ago | (#46457813)

The concept of the Internet of Things thrives on the fact that there will be literally "billions and billions" of embedded devices with internet connectivity, sensors, all sending back to servers, which then use Big Data processing methods to discover hidden information.

Knowing the traction on car wheels and vibration on suspension systems will allow councils to determine which segments of road need resurfacing.
Knowing the speed of cars will tell them which areas of freeways are starting to clog up (before they gridlock).
Knowing the usage pattern of roads allows them to adjust traffic lights accordingly.

Maybe traffic light systems could be made smarter by dynamically adjusting the timing due to motion on the roads.

Re:Godwin Time! (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46457909)

Your mistake is in believing that this sort of tech will be used to help the common man, rather than help screw him over with more fees, fines, and taxes.

Re:Godwin Time! (1)

mikael (484) | about 7 months ago | (#46458555)

It scares me too - I'd imagine local shop owners would just love to send junk mail out to every driver that passed their store. Not forgetting the privacy loss due to anything with a microphone, camera and wireless connection.

Re:Godwin Time! (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46464009)

I'll bet they love the Google auto-car = you can get away with a lot more intrusive in-vehicle advertising when there's no safety risk of distracting the driver.

I'm thinking like the Jaws ad from Back to the Future II, but right in the middle of the passenger compartment.

More Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457351)

More electronics will mean more expensive cars, and more repair and maintenance costs.

Re:More Expensive (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 7 months ago | (#46457677)

Whatever makes you think that? Many electronic components in cars reduce cost, weight, and fuel usage. Take for example variable electrical valve timing. That reduces the complexity of the engine, and replaces some complex mechanical parts with lighter, cheaper electrical ones. It increases fuel efficiency, and engine power, while reducing weight and cost.

Re:More Expensive (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46457847)

Whatever makes you think that? Many electronic components in cars reduce cost, weight, and fuel usage. Take for example variable electrical valve timing. That reduces the complexity of the engine, and replaces some complex mechanical parts with lighter, cheaper electrical ones.

Ah, no - VTEC or VVT actually increases curb weight, because instead of replacing mechanical components they actually supplement them with electronics (and, in some cases, more mechanical components - VTEC engines have an extra camshaft, for example). Now, Ferrari has an interesting way of doing things that does require less components, but as Ferrari is a niche-market supercar, their tech doesn't really fit into this discussion.

Regardless, you are right about such systems improving mileage and performance, despite the (usually negligible) weight gain.

That is, of course, assuming you don't have a source of some new VVT tech I'm not privy to?

Re:More Expensive (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462623)

(and, in some cases, more mechanical components - VTEC engines have an extra camshaft, for example).

No, no they don't. They have additional lobes on the cam, and the cam is shifted side to side. In spite of this apparently victorian arrangement, VTEC is as reliable as the sunrise. My latest car has VVT on a[n Audi] V8. It has a degreeing actuator attached to one cam on each head. That substantially increases the parts count, which doesn't stop at the actuators.

Re:More Expensive (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46463313)

(and, in some cases, more mechanical components - VTEC engines have an extra camshaft, for example).

No, no they don't. They have additional lobes on the cam, and the cam is shifted side to side. In spite of this apparently victorian arrangement, VTEC is as reliable as the sunrise.

Further reading supports this - apparently the good folks at HowStuffWorks.com did not research their material very well. My bad.

Re:More Expensive (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46459087)

Take a real world counterexample.

Toyota had a problem. All the accessories on the tailgate of their 4runners required a big old bundle of wires from the dash to the tailgate. That was heavy and expensive.

So, they add a micro-controller. Now all they need is one power and one data to the tailgate and power wires from the micro-controller to the accessories. As an added bonus the micro-controller is a frequent service item, so they make more money on parts, though they lose a little on warranty work.

Fortunately they had the sense not to run the brake lights off the micro-controller. Almost like they knew it was going to be under engineered to power a wiper motor in the real world.

Which is better then VW, I've seen the state of taillights of a new bug get out of synch. e.g. it looks like the right brake light is out, then it comes back after 3 or 4 brake presses. Apparently random on car start.

Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

pla (258480) | about 7 months ago | (#46457387)

We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing

No, you don't, because I unplugged the GPS antenna (since I don't actually have a nav system), leaving your hardwired spyware trapped uselessly deep inside in a big Faraday cage.

/ Not actually a Ford, but if you don't think the same applies to any new car, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457437)

GPS only receives and does not transmit... the real question is are they paying for a cell connection to upload the data back to ford? Or are they grabbing it during maintenance work on the vehicle?

The GPS Sats transmit time, and by using 3 to 4 source (3 required for GPS, 4 required for GPS with elevation), your unit comapres values and determines where you are.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46457493)

He has still thwarted this particular data collection exploit without losing any of the functionality he paid for. He just chose to disable the data source rather than attempting to interrupt the factory's data feed (which is actually the more desirable of two methods in this particular instance, I think).

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457537)

Not really, you are only stopping them from knowing WHERE you are, the onboard cpu is still logging how fast you are driving if you had your singla light on before or after you started turning the steering wheel, etc.

In all honesty it will require the next generation (the current generation is still a little bit too much in the old world ways) to make educated decisions and refuse to buy vehicles that track anything until the manufacturers change anything.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46457567)

In all honesty it will require the next generation (the current generation is still a little bit too much in the old world ways) to make educated decisions and refuse to buy vehicles that track anything until the manufacturers change anything.

That's not likely to happen.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46458991)

Yeah, but is it speeding? Oh, and was it out by the [insert clandestine destination here]?

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 7 months ago | (#46458993)

Or are they grabbing it during maintenance work on the vehicle?

Sounds like another reason to use an independent motor mechanic. I have been using one for a decade, he is cheaper and generally gets the job done with less hassle than I remember when going to a main dealer.

Also more convenient: I book him, he arrives, leaves is car at my house while he takes mine to be serviced - this is great since I often work from home I don't need to waste time driving to/from a main dealer.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | about 7 months ago | (#46457511)

uhmm..... My last car had OnStar. They could track the vehicle. OnStar has it's own cellular module. Even if you don't subscribe to the service if BB wants to track the vehicle they can. I drive a Wrangler now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46457621)

uhmm..... My last car had OnStar. They could track the vehicle. OnStar has it's own cellular module.

Yea, and in many cases it's approximately 1.5 bitches to remove. In my '09 Silverado, for example, the module is behind the gauge cluster, meaning that pretty much the entire dash has to be disassembled and the SRS system disabled, before you can even think about removing OnStar. Then there's the question of, "What other, non-OnStar systems require the connections in that module to operate?" Long story short, auto manufacturers have fucked customizers when it comes to electronic systems, by tying together shit that has no real reason to be tied together.

Except, oddly, the crash event recorder - it's right under the driver's seat, and can be disabled without so much as moving the seat forward.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 months ago | (#46458273)

Yea, and in many cases it's approximately 1.5 bitches to remove... Except, oddly, the crash event recorder - it's right under the driver's seat, and can be disabled without so much as moving the seat forward.

Maybe so that it can be easily removed (by the police or insurer) in the event of a crash?

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46462823)

Yea, and in many cases it's approximately 1.5 bitches to remove... Except, oddly, the crash event recorder - it's right under the driver's seat, and can be disabled without so much as moving the seat forward.

Maybe so that it can be easily removed (by the police or insurer) in the event of a crash?

I assumed they could tap into the OBD II port and download the info.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462571)

In my '09 Silverado, for example, the module is behind the gauge cluster, meaning that pretty much the entire dash has to be disassembled and the SRS system disabled, before you can even think about removing OnStar.

That's because you bought a Chevy. Extracting the cluster from a Ford doesn't even require pulling the steering wheel in most cases. [f150forum.com] (It's the first step in removing the dash, not the other way around.) Fords are designed by idiots, but Chevys are designed to fail. And when they do, Chevy thinks they are fucking European when it comes time to buy parts. They won't even sell you the $10 door handles for an Astro. They want to sell you complete mechanisms, totaling $1000 for the whole vehicle. That doesn't include a lock set.

You could have bought a Ford. There must be some reason the F-Series is the world's most popular vehicle. But you had to go buy a Chevy. Now you're paying for your decisions.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46462901)

Ahh, a Ford vs Chevy truck pissing match - haven't gotten into one of these in a solid decade!

You could have bought a Ford. There must be some reason the F-Series is the world's most popular vehicle.

For the same reason no-name brand Android tablets are the world's most popular mobile devices - they're cheap as hell.

And you get what you pay for :P

But you had to go buy a Chevy.

Yea, because I needed a truck for work, not so I can sit higher than everyone else and feel "safe." There's a reason Chevrolet's are the longest lasting trucks on the road - and it ain't because they're cheaply build, like with a Ford.

Take that, Blue Oval Boy!!!

OK, all fun and kidding aside, I did test drive a few F-150's when I was shopping around, but none of them fit my needs, wants, and price range. Nice interiors, I will say that.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46464561)

Or, you know.... pull the fuse.

Re:Google for: "disable telemetry $MAKE $MODEL" (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#46457651)

No, you don't, because I unplugged the GPS antenna (since I don't actually have a nav system), leaving your hardwired spyware trapped uselessly deep inside in a big Faraday cage.

Yeah, right. When electric cars become common there'll be a law to tax them per mile driven. This law will require you to transmit your location to big brother at all times.

(nb. It will also prevent terrorism and deny pedophiles the use of the roads, etc.)

You'll see I'm right, five or ten years from now...

must not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457459)

Thanks for trying to dictate your opinion on the world, asshat. I, for one, want my car to collect data, I just want it encrypted with a password only I know...

Re:must not? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46457515)

Not going to happen with proprietary hardware. You'll need opensource hardware for the job - otherwise I can guarantee the presence of (one or more) "escrow" technologies at government insistence.

So . . . whaddya suppose the odds are any auto manufacturer is going to base the vehicle's fundamental operations on an open source hardware/software stack?

Re:must not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457547)

I think Tesla is the only company I could see possibly doing that. But my chances of getting a Tesla are about as good as Ford using open-source hardware...

Big Data is Big Brother. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457477)

Big Data is Big Brother.

I call BS on Farley (1)

jayveekay (735967) | about 7 months ago | (#46457483)

"'We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing."

What a grandiose statement. Aside from the fact that their data is limited to the car, so they can't possibly know who is mugging someone in a dark alley (which is a law-breaking act), they can't possibly even know who is doing what illegal act within the car. For example:
1. How do they know who is driving the car?
2. How do they know what the state of a traffic signal is at the point in time the car enters an intersection?
3. How do they know that the car failed to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk or an intersection?

Oh, Farley is the VP of *marketing*? I understand now. An engineer wouldn't say anything so dumb.

Re:I call BS on Farley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457707)

It's not so far-fetched. Velocity + location + speed limit reference = crime detection. And that's going to be the most common crime committed in vehicles anyway.

Re:I call BS on Farley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46460549)

Speeding is a distant second to "unsafe lane change" or whatever the analogous traffic law is titled in your locality. Sure, I've seen plenty of people speeding. Far, far more people fail to signal completely when changing lanes, if they signal at all, and that includes the speed limit abiders. The law here requires engaging the signal for 100 yards before even attempting to change lanes, then "carefully and deliberately" performing the change, then leaving the signal on after completing the lane change for some distance (might also be 100 yards, but I forget). Nobody does that. Ever.

AIUI, GPS probably isn't accurate enough to discern the typical highway-speed unsafe lane change.

- T

Re:I call BS on Farley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46462287)

It's an astonishingly arrogant statement. This brilliant VP of marketing has ensured that I will never, ever consider buying a Ford, nor even renting one if possible. What a twat.

Re:I call BS on Farley (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462589)

It's an astonishingly arrogant statement. This brilliant VP of marketing has ensured that I will never, ever consider buying a Ford, nor even renting one if possible. What a twat.

Yes, yes you are a twat, and a stupid one at that. Ford has told you what all the other automakers simply are not telling you. And because they've told you, you don't want to buy a car from them? When the Fiesta and the Fusion are two of the best cars made? When the F-Series is the best truck made? Whatever.

Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457487)

That's why I drive a Jeep Wrangler. My excuse is I can't use a phone while I'm driving. Don't use a GPS or you are going to become stupid. Use a map! I am serious. Technology has made a lot of people dumb.

Re:Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457613)

Use a map! I am serious. Technology has made a lot of people dumb.

Yes, I shall certainly use a map, while driving on five lanes of near bumper to bumper traffic at 80mph. Perhaps to really make myself smart, I'll also text on my cellphone, eat fast food, and apply makeup (even though I'm male) at the same time as my map wrangling.

Seriously, though, your argument is invalid because it's asinine.

Re:Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457891)

Pfft, but can you also tie your shoes at the same time?

Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46460723)

No, it's not technology, just look at you!

"We know what you're doing?" (3, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | about 7 months ago | (#46457503)

Hey, Ford - you're committing a felony under the CFAA [wikipedia.org] . I use my car to go to the store and buy stuff, participating in Interstate Commerce. That make the car's computer a "protected computer" under the act. By accessing GPS info, you're "intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization... and thereby obtain[ing]... information from any protected computer."

That subjects you to "a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both," since it's being done for commercial advantage.

And no, even if you got some sort of explicit ToS waiver from the original purchaser of the car, that doesn't extend to any used car buyer.

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457559)

so try and sue our overpriced lawyers with unlimited money. bwahahaha.
-ford.

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457629)

...it's a crime. Are you thinking you have more lawyers and money than the government?

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46457635)

so try and sue our overpriced lawyers with unlimited money. bwahahaha.
-ford.

All capitalists fear the class action lawsuit.

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 7 months ago | (#46457577)

And no, even if you got some sort of explicit ToS waiver from the original purchaser of the car, that doesn't extend to any used car buyer.

Now they're going to update all the onboard systems to display an "accept ToS" screen on every start up.
Thanks msauve. You've made the world a slightly more aggravating place.

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46457875)

And no, even if you got some sort of explicit ToS waiver from the original purchaser of the car, that doesn't extend to any used car buyer.

Now they're going to update all the onboard systems to display an "accept ToS" screen on every start up.
Thanks msauve. You've made the world a slightly more aggravating place.

Don't worry, the first time a woman is kidnapped and raped to death because her car wouldn't start until she read and agreed to the ToS, shit'll change back.

Gonna suck for her, though.

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 7 months ago | (#46459015)

Silly rabbit... laws don't apply to corporations

Re:"We know what you're doing?" (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 7 months ago | (#46463673)

By this logic, you could make the same claim about Microsoft, every time its OS "phones home" for some reason while running on your computer. Somehow, I don't think that will fly.

It could easily be argued that this is the normal operation of the software that you purchased as part of your hardware purchase, and if you didn't want that you were quite capable of buying somebody else's product that didn't do that. It could also easily be argued that you are a mortal human being while Ford (like Microsoft) is comparatively an immortal being with unlimited resources, and thus they are quite capable of either buying enough lawyers to beat you in court, or if their case is particularly bad, just stalling in court until you either run out of money or die of old age.

So good luck with that. I'll be rooting for you.

Whip it into shape (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46457543)

Cars should not become "data monsters", distracting drivers...for the next 10 years or so until they become robot driver cars.

This whine is a brief interstice between the olden days and the rest of the future. "I don't like buggy whips 'cause it's mean to horses!", screams an irrelevant goofball in 1902.

Snip... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 7 months ago | (#46457595)

There may be a market out there for innovative use of side cutters on antenna wires.

Thufir, I see they've installed your Heart Plug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457653)

Don't be angry, everyone gets one here.

jr

You don't have to buy new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46457913)

Plenty of "dumb" cars in the used market at a lot less operating cost overall than the new cars.

Gold rush on classic cars coming? (1)

MXB2001 (3023413) | about 7 months ago | (#46458327)

Let 'em try to big brother a '67 Mustang. No stinking GPS or other technojunk.

Re:Gold rush on classic cars coming? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46459151)

Coming?

Here and done.

Gold rush on 5th gen Civics? Not yet.

CRXs are hard to find and not nearly as cheap as they used to be. Put a HF engine and 6 speed into a CRX! Woot!

Re:Gold rush on classic cars coming? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462631)

CRXs are hard to find and not nearly as cheap as they used to be.

But they are exactly as much of a deathtrap as they used to be. The CRX is one of the least-safe cars around, especially on the American road where it has to try to coexist with land yachts and land barges.

Put a HF engine and 6 speed into a CRX! Woot!

Once you get done bringing it up to vaguely modern levels of safety, which can only feasibly be done by installing a roll cage, you won't want it any more. At least, not on the street.

Re:Gold rush on classic cars coming? (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 7 months ago | (#46464129)

"But they are exactly as much of a deathtrap as they used to be. The CRX is one of the least-safe cars around, especially on the American road where it has to try to coexist with land yachts and land barges."

You think only SUV's and trucks are to blame for small, flimsy car deaths? Just about every modern vehicle is much more heavy and sturdy than the older flimsy Japanese cars. I had a friend who died in a crash in 2007 when some dick going upwards of 80 MPH ( on a side street with a 30MPH limit) in a late model Toyota hit him in the rear corner when he failed to cut around him. He was driving a 1989 Nissan Sentra which was pretty much tin foil with wheels. His car veered off the road, the front corner hit a pole which whipped the drivers side into a tree next to the pole. He died on impact while his girlfriend barely survived. She was in a wheelchair for about a year. The fucked up part? The car belonging to the kid who hit him was also totalled but he and his girlfriend walked away. The modern safety features of the Toyota saved them. The cops had told my friends parents that if he were in a more modern vehicle, he would have most likely survived. I even told him to get rid of that "flimsy death trap" not more than a month or two before. But he loved that car too much to part with it.

Re:Gold rush on classic cars coming? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46464633)

At the end of the day it's all about mass. Wouldn't be much better off in a new Fit, much less a Smart.

My 1960 Saratoga (model) was banned from demolition derby for being made of plate metal (almost) not sheet. It sucks to drive due to the 4 wheel drum brakes and 6k lbs weight. Turns heads better then a Ferrari. Another reason not to drive it is that people are so busy trying to figure out what it is, they forget to avoid it.

Re:Gold rush on classic cars coming? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46468765)

After much reflection, and even making some other posts in this discussion, I figured out what the insightful comment would look like — thanks to your subject.

The real winners in the gold rush, with few exceptions, were not prospectors. They were shopkeepers who sold equipment to prospectors, and saloon owners who ran gambling establishments.

Have you priced restoration parts recently? Yowza.

Seems I will be buying cars like I buy my laptops (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 7 months ago | (#46458981)

I don't buy new laptops anymore, they have all turned to shit. Keyboards that are lousy for the one job they need to do, touchpads that are worse, boot systems that lock you out, mandatory online account association, malignant operating systems... thank Torvalds performance vs. necessity peaked years ago. I can just keep buying used machines made before this computing cancer spread to the bones.

Same goes for cars. Boneheaded infotainment systems, I-can't-let-you-do-that-Dave electronic nannies, idiotic maintenance restrictions, needless complexities... fortunately, old cars run just fine. They look better, too.

Re:Seems I will be buying cars like I buy my lapto (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46462603)

fortunately, old cars run just fine. They look better, too.

If you're chasing performance, you want a new car. The new cars don't just have better performance, they also have better handling. For reliability and ride comfort, it is nigh-impossible to beat my 1982 (any 1981-1985, really) 300SD. It really depends on what you're after.

OK to a point (1)

JasoninKS (1783390) | about 7 months ago | (#46459767)

I'm fine with my car storing data up to a point. It shouldn't be accessible to anyone short of some "black box" data in the event of an accident. Beyond that, what would anyone truly need the data for?

Not with my wallet, and not in my driveway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46460477)

I won't drive a car which can spy on me while I drive. Not today, not next year,
not ever.

By the way, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Ford for warning me
about his products. I was considering a Ford, but not any more.

wow Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46460707)

Jee what a shocker Gm only started putting Gps's in cars in 1994 it was called the motorola oncore.

You can't not supply the info to anyone (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 7 months ago | (#46461685)

That's not an option for US companies. If you can collect the data, the government can collect the data from you. If the NSA asks for the data, you hand it over... unless you are prepared to out Lavabit style.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?