Police records show that the car subscription feature increases your government surveillance risks.
It is clear from the documents that U.S. police realized that the control company had the ability to obtain vehicle location data and expressed concern that they might decide to kill certain features at any time.
In a letter sent to the Federal Trade Commission in April 2024, Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey, Democrats in Oregon and Massachusetts, respectively, pointed out that a range of automakers from Toyota, Nissan and Subaru were willing to announce the government to the government in response to court orders. At the same time, Volkswagen has its own arbitrary rules, limiting subpoenas to data worth less than 7 days. The senators noted that these policies are in stark contrast to previously public commitments previously proposed by some automakers to require a power of attorney or a court order before handing over the customer’s location data.
“There are big differences in automakers on important issues, namely whether they have ever told customers that they have been monitored,” the senator wrote. They said that at the time of the letter, only Tesla had a policy to inform customers of legal requirements. “Other auto companies will not tell customers about the need for data, even if they are allowed to do so.”
“We respect our customers’ privacy and seriously protect their personal information,” said T-Mobile spokesman Bennet Ladyman.
AT&T spokesman Jim Kimberly said: “As with all companies, the law requires us to provide information to law enforcement and other government entities by complying with court orders, subpoenas and other legal discovery requests. In all cases, we need to conduct searches based on government requirements to determine whether they are valid to determine all government requirements to determine all higher requirements. Searching, in addition to emergencies, we need possible cause search warrants or court orders.”
Verizon did not respond to a request for comment.
“Especially now, with the rapid erosion of American civil liberties, people should be very cautious in granting new surveillance rights to law enforcement,” said Ryan Shapiro, executive director of People’s Property, a government transparent nonprofit that obtained the CHP demonstration paper.
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst for the ACLU, noted that the police documents reviewed by Wired contain a large number of details about car surveillance that appear to be undisclosed, suggesting that companies and law enforcement are more open to open than their own customers.
“It’s an ongoing scandal, and this kind of surveillance is happening and no one realizes it, let alone allows it,” Stanley said. “If they do surveillance on the public, the public should know. They should have meaningful knowledge and give meaningful consent before activating any type of surveillance, which is obviously not the case.”
