Your Car Is Spying on You
But motorists are finding ways to sidestep Big Brother.

If you've searched online about buying a car, you know you're in for a wave of aggressive come-ons and sales pitches. But I found a way to make car sellers clam up: All you have to do is start asking questions about the increasingly intrusive "nanny" nature of automobiles.
"This is more of an industry question," a Ford representative told me. "You may wish to follow up with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation on this topic."
Like automakers, the Alliance, a trade group, ignored me. But I'm not alone in my concerns.
"Ah, the wind in your hair, the open road ahead, and not a care in the world….except all the trackers, cameras, microphones, and sensors capturing your every move," the Mozilla Foundation warned in a report published in September.
With today's computerized vehicles, "whenever you interact with your car you create a tiny record of what you just did," the report authors added. Because many are wirelessly connected to manufacturers, "usually all that information is collected and stored by the car company."
That report prompted Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.) to follow up with a letter urging that "cars should not—and cannot—become yet another venue where privacy takes a backseat."
That's nice, but it ignores the government's own role in turning vehicles into tools of control.
The massive infrastructure bill that became law in 2021 contained a mandate for technology that can "passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver" exceeds the legal limit. If it does, it is supposed to "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation."
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) thinks this is a swell idea and endorsed it in 2022.
We'll be required to pay for that nanny technology, of course, whether or not it works as advertised. My guess is that automated DUI sensors monitoring people of varying mass and metabolism will be slightly less reliable than the seat belt interlocks that were briefly mandatory in the 1970s. Those prevented ignition unless passengers buckled in.
"The result was that grandmas, grocery bags and guard dogs alike triggered the no-start unless the belts for the front seats they occupied were fastened first," Mike Davis, who generally approved of nanny mandates, wrote for The Detroit Bureau in 2009.
Memories of my father getting pointers on disabling the interlock came back to me as I shopped for a new pickup truck and found that most of them remain in near-constant contact with automakers. Through the cell network, they receive software updates and hand off data about drivers. That information is used internally, sold to third parties, and surrendered to government agencies.
"There are so many ways for the law enforcement to unlock the treasure trove of data that's collected by your car," the Mozilla report added. "In the United States, they can just ask for it (without a warrant) or hack into your car to get it."
Like many people, I don't want my vehicle tattling on me to the mothership. If you investigate ways to make sure your car reports only to you, you quickly find a subculture of DIY types hacking their purchases to keep Big Brother out of morning commutes.
"My GTI and my wife's new Toyota had the ability to collect data and transmit it over cellular or wifi," I found posted in one forum. "I disabled it in both cars by disconnecting the antenna connections at the telematics module, it leaves the car unable to communicate, as if it's out in the middle of nowhere."
Disabling snoopy tech is an at-your-own-risk venture. You should assume the warranty goes out the window.
Modifications to make vehicles less intrusive weren't what automakers and bureaucrats intended. But unintended consequences come with the territory. The national preference for SUVs and trucks over old-school sedans, for example, is largely a result of government fuel-efficiency standards that create weird incentives. Tweaking the regulations in 2010 made the problem worse. "Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards create a financial incentive for auto companies to make bigger vehicles that are allowed to meet lower targets," a University of Michigan study found in 2011.
The latest stroke of genius from the NTSB is to propose requiring technologies that "warn a driver when the vehicle exceeds the speed limit" and may even "electronically limit the speed of the vehicle to fully prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit."
Because why would a driver want the freedom to respond to specific driving conditions?
I predict more DIY modifications in the future—and more unanswered questions about what is being done to our vehicles.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I would like to see robust privacy protection. WRT telemetry data on my vehicle, I don't think I would have the same feeling if the data were anonymized, and OEMs, insurers, policy-makers then wanted to see what actual observed behavior is. Big Data can save lives.
It is the targeting of people for sanctions based on the telemetry data I have a huge problem with.
WRT telemetry data on my vehicle, I don’t think I would have the same feeling if the data were anonymized, and OEMs, insurers, policy-makers then wanted to see what actual observed behavior is. Big Data can save lives.
This is vastly overstated at a couple of levels. Even before Big Data it was readily known that there are levels at which manufacturers write off losses. That there are known errors that can and do cost more to fix than it would to just incur them. The imposition of big data, like vaccine mandates, just front loads the cost and drives up the threshold which, self-licking ice cream, forces regulators to legislatively lower it on the backend.
The vast, vast majority of accidents aren't fatal or even catastrophic to the vehicles involved. Anonymizing the data on those collisions doesn't benefit anyone the more anonymous you make it and certainly doesn't save any lives. Like a gun registry it winds up as just a pile of data that someone has to house that no one can do anything with, other that perpetually advertise what a utopia the world would be if you unleashed them to use it as they see fit, and would've been better off not getting collected in the first place.
Big data sells your data to the government as a means of getting around warrants. They are not interested in limiting that capability.
Coming to a doctor's office near you.
AI passive listening technology. A microphone picks up the conversation between you and the doctor and the AI writes the note.
Btw, not kidding. This is one of the new features being touted by my EHR vendor.
Even if the data in anonymized, if it contains GPS data and an ID that links the records together, it's very easy to de-anonymize it. Just filter the data by two or three known locations for a person (e.g., home and work) and bingo, you know their "anonymized" ID and you can track every place their vehicle went.
The same kind of thing can be done with the cellular data that operators and apps can collect.
Not enough people are voluntarily joining insurance companies schemes to monitor your driving for reduced rates so this was tucked in that pork bill. Every giant omnibus has garbage and bad garbage in it which is why any bill negotiated in secret and dropped on a Sunday for a Tuesday or Wednesday vote like the current give money to terrorists omnibus bill should be immediately rejected.
Stick to the classic muscle cars.
Sure, you have to pay more for gas at 15 MPG, wind the windows with a crank, and actually slide a little lever to make it hotter or colder inside, and find a mechanic that actually knows what a carburetor was, but no computers.
Plus there are a whole lot of fun.
Unless you have a modern cell phone in your pocket. That will collect a lot of the same information regardless of the car you're driving. They'll even collect some info when turned off.
You need a classic car (or bicycle) AND a signal-blocking sleeve to slip your phone into.
I put computerized fuel injection in my 1973 914. I hope that doesn't have spyware.
Did it come from China?
Analog this!
It's the next unholy alliance of business and government. Last century was all about commercial media merging with officials to create the information state. Now we have devices and services designed to track us, so the partners can both sell us more and keep an eye on us. What's next?
Same two choices as always; slavery or revolution.
Your Car Is Spying on You
But motorists are finding ways to sidestep Big Brother.
Spying on you in a way that makes congestion pricing zones "done right", or spying on you in that it's reporting your location when you procure sex workers from The Track?
Spying on you to sell the information to the highest bidder. That's what the business of spying is all about. A true spy cares nothing about congestion pricing or where you are when you procure sex workers. Somebody does though, and that's what makes the wheels of commerce turn.
Not even a highest bidder. If they sell, they sell to anyone who will pay for it. And the intel agencies will pay.
The latest stroke of genius from the NTSB is to propose requiring technologies that “warn a driver when the vehicle exceeds the speed limit” and may even “electronically limit the speed of the vehicle to fully prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit.”
Just like $15 Now! that was considered so insane as to not even really make a fuss about it from a libertarian standpoint, we shot right past that and landed at $20, and are now staring down the barrel of $75.
As for this specific topic, anyone remember how insane Ralph Nader was back in his day? We’ve now surpassed Ralph Nader’s vision and are now squarely in one that would probably make Nader blush.
But yeah, why do the Republicans keep fighting kulturwarrrhurrdurr and just agree to disagree and shove Gender Queer under your toddler’s nose.
"I predict more DIY modifications in the future—and more unanswered questions about what is being done to our vehicles."
They're not really 'our vehicles.' We don't own the software. It belongs to the manufacturers and as it's their property they should be able to do as they wish with it. That's the Libertarian stance. Car owners are free to buy vehicles which don't have the capacity to spy on them, or even walk if they're into that whole autonomy and independence thing.
"Car owners are free to buy vehicles which don’t have the capacity to spy on them" For now.
Dumbass thinks that if 1/100th of your car is involved with a licensing agreement it gives them more ownership than the purchaser. He thinks this is the libertarian way.
Facts are facts. Manufacturers retain ownership of the software that's installed in your car. It's not all that different from when you buy an iphone, or windows machine. Perhaps one day someone will manufacture open source vehicles, where owners are free, even encouraged to monkey around with the embedded software. I wouldn't count on it though, for safety reasons. I've experienced enough troubles with my own computer sitting at home manipulating data files. The stakes are much higher when driving a heavy vehicle through crowded streets.
""Manufacturers retain ownership of the software that’s installed in your car. ""
Which doesn't make it any less our vehicle in terms of ownership.
I'm not worried about the vehicle spying on you. It's the software that does the spying. And you don't own it. You don't control it.
"' They’re not really ‘our vehicles.’ We don’t own the software. It belongs to the manufacturers and as it’s their property they should be able to do as they wish with it. That’s the Libertarian stance.""
Wrong.
I find it funny when people who are not libertarians think they define what libertarianism is.
The manufacturers own the software that does the spying, not the person driving the car. Libertarians believe in the sanctity of private property, hardware or software. You can't deny it.
Shows how little you understand about libertarianism.
The right to dispose of one's private property as one sees fit is central to Libertarianism. You still haven't denied it.
It would only be libertarian if it did not impose on other private property.
Just because you placed software in a car that I purchase does not make it your car.
"It would only be libertarian if it did not impose on other private property. "
Does the software impose on other's property? I'm not sure it does. I suppose the car's purchase agreement includes language that allows the software to send info gathered back to the its owners.
A lot of haters think being libertarian is about selfishness. I get to do what I want, whenever I want. That's not what it is about. But I've noticed liberals who have no clue like to put it in that box.
"A lot of haters think being libertarian is about selfishness."
It's about the rights of individual property owners. In this case the property is the software and the owners are those who own the software. It still allows for open source software where anyone is free to copy, change and distribute their own versions of the software as long as some credit is given, I believe. I don't think that's likely to gain much ground in cars because of the public safety issues.
My beef with Libertarianism is that it is soft on rent seeking - profiting on ownership without any other economic consideration. I used to admire it for their stance on freedom and the antiwar stance, which lately seems to have gone by the boards. An ideology that gives genocide a free pass? No thanks.
"Your Car Is Spying on You"
I thought I saw it peeking in my window last night!
Wait until you have a self driving car that will not only look in your window but will drive off to get the cops.
.
Nah. Autonomous vehicles will wait for you to get in 'em, then lock the doors and drive you to the nearest municipal jail in-take garage.
That's exactly what will happen.
If anyone thinks that this will become more intrusive give them a cupie doll. Were' going down the same road as the one post 9-11. Unless someone sues the car manufacturers about an option for a turn off switch of the information being fed back to the mother ship we will soon be getting speeding tickets for going 46 mph in a 45 mph zone. Don't think it can happen? Take a look at some of these speed traps and what they do when the city coffers run low. And that is just the beginning of Big Brother's intrusion into your life.....
Remember that day the people amended their LAW (US Constitution) over their National GOVERNMENT giving it authority to socialize the auto industry?
Yeah. Me neither...
F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
Congress and state legislatures should make all spying technology - optional.
And buyers should voluntarily opt-in instead of being tricked or forced into using this technology.
To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. Supreme Court still hasn’t adequately ruled on “3rd Party records” being obtained without a judicial warrant by government agencies and contractors - meeting 4th Amendment legal requirements.
All-electric auto manufacturers might want consider that many libertarians actually want to purchase EVs and hybrids, but choose to buy used cars instead due to the privacy concerns.
The civil liberties issue carries more weight than the environmental issues for many libertarian car buyers. These consumers will likely buy used autos for many years to come.
“And buyers should voluntarily opt-in instead of being tricked or forced into using this technology. ”
Voluntarily? If the data gathered has value, why not pay buyers who opt in? Why do you expect buyers to give something of value for nothing?
GenStupid, er I mean GenZ won't care.
I'm glad this is getting attention.
One thing, though. It wasn't DUI detection, but I was impressed at the drowsiness detection on a relative's car. I had just told my wife I was tired and thought we should switch drivers, and just as we pulled into a parking place there was a ding and a coffee cup icon lit up. IF they can make DUI detection work equally well ...
But if you're not doing anything wrong... Right? RIGHT?