this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
346 points (98.1% liked)

Selfhosted

40329 readers
380 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago (3 children)

auto manufacturers had violated Washington state’s privacy laws by using vehicles’ on-board infotainment systems to record and intercept customers’ private text messages and mobile phone call logs.

But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard

Privacy is a fundamental human right.

Just not in Usa, as it seems. Here it is indeed the law that needs to be fixed.

https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/is-privacy-a-human-right/

[–] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, pretty much every government breaks its own rules, particularly when privacy is involved.

We have the largest and most invasive world governments in the history of the world thanks to the overwhelming technology that allows such a thing. And even governments that pretend to follow the rules just get their buddies in another country to do their dirty work for them. "I can't spy on you, but England can!"

[–] iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah and if the government is doing it you know other people have gotten their hands on it and are using it for gains.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Isn't this just a basic legal concept?

"In order to claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which results in an injury"

Basically the judge is saying the plaintiff didn't establish the basic foundation of a tort case. He's not saying this isn't wrong, he's saying they didn't present the case in a way that proves it.

It's not enough to say "you shouldn't be doing this"--even if that's true.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the question here is, on it's face does an invasion of privacy constitute an injury? I'd argue that yes, it does. Privacy has inherent value, and that value is lost the moment that private data is exposed. That's the injury that needs to be redressed, regardless of whether or how the exposed data is used after the exposure. There could be additional injury in how the data is used, and that would have to be adjudicated and compensated separately, but losing the assurance that my data can never be used against me because it is only know to me is absolutely an injury in and of itself.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean how did I get checks from Google and Facebook for violating privacy then?

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

The lawyers proved the case

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Disappointing result but this seems like something for the legislature to fix. Courts aren't always the solution, sometimes you have to just fix the damn law.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

But that would mean the politicians would have to actually work instead of photo ops and promises!!!!

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

America sucks. Seriously. I'm just waiting for another country to bring it to the USA, because it seems inevitable.

People gotta stop putting faith into these ultimately crooked nations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rearsays@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago

I mean ok but the fact that your car is spying on you has to break a thousand big tech nda’s

[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I wonder how long until we get to jailbreak our cars just so those cock suckers can’t spy on us.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] KingGordon@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (12 children)

This is why I keep my 2006 toyota in tip top shape. I will drive that car as long as I possibly can.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Really considering taking out a loan just to fix an old car instead of buying new.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've got a 2007 Kia that I'm planning to drive until I can't fix it anymore

So far that's proving to be a pretty easy given the cost and availability of parts

[–] MamboGator@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I've been having dreams lately where I'm driving around in my old 1987 thunderbird that I got in 2003 when I was in high school. It wasn't a great car and I was hoping my next vehicle could be electric, but maybe that's a sign I need to be going backwards.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

I'm taking my 2006 Avalon to 300k miles and beyond!

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] plz1@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of these companies needs to be beached to prove damages, I guess.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

So ask the judge why car companies want to track judges?

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Obvious next question: how’s the privacy policy on 3rd party stereo makers like Pioneer, Kenwood, Alpine, Jensen, etc.?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why risk it? Build your own with a raspberry pi and a touchscreen.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is what I want, but they make it very difficult to build something with parity unless you're willing to sniff CANBUS codes one by one

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rchive@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Got a link to a good project of that type? I've been thinking about this recently.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kryostar@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well.. fuck. More reason to not buy newer cars. At least you Americans are lucky. You can drive a dinosaur if it met with regulations. You technically don't have to buy new cars.. ever.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Setting aside questions of legality, it seems kind of like it wouldn't encourage someone to purchase their cars.

[–] seang96@spgrn.com 14 points 1 year ago

Not a problem! Jack used car prices up to new cars, prevent public infrastructure and provide benefits for cars, all car manufacturers have similar privacy policies. Combine all three and you have customers that need a car to live, might as well get a new one if decade old ones are the same price or have no stock, and suddenly there isn't much choice.

[–] rentar42@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

That only helps when there's viable alternatives. Since pretty much all auto manufacturers do something like this it's not really a distinguishing feature.

And even if it was: how much worse/more expensive would a car need to be for you to not pick it over one that reads your text messages. And then ask the same question not for "you", but for the average consumer. Then be sad ...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well I am still so happy that I decided specifically to get a newish car that doesn't have a touchscreen or any of this nonsense.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BlackPit@feddit.ch 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It can't be illegal because you agree to allow them when you purchase the new vehicle. It's all there in the T&C and PP, which no one ever reads. Don't like it? Don't buy new cars. I won't.

[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

So if I buy a used car they can’t do all that right?

Right?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TheScaryDoor@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago

Illegal terms in T&C are still illegal regardless of whether you agreed to them or not in the US.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait, how are CARS intercepting mobile activities?

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

When you connect to Bluetooth, it asks your phone to share call, contact and SMS information.

Think like the old horrible headunit text implementation, the ability to scan your contact list from the car, and see your recent calls.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Maeve@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Mozilla tested a bunch. Try a search on the platform and see.

[–] DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Through android auto and apple car play would be my guess, but i don't know.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] kaidelorenzo@lemmy.today 7 points 1 year ago

Just gotta get someone to hack their system. Then it'll be easy to prove damages

[–] bigmclargehuge@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yet another item on my list of why I'll never buy a modern car.

load more comments
view more: next ›