A Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under state law, handing a big win to automakers Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors.

An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said

Is what the second top last paragraph says. Can someone explain in simple terms to me : why is the car downloading the data but not giving access to the owner of the car? What is the data being downloaded for?

The last paragraph says

Many car manufacturers are selling car owners’ data to advertisers as a revenue boosting tactic, according to earlier reporting by Recorded Future News. Automakers are exponentially increasing the number of sensors they place in their cars every year with little regulation of the practice.

But if you read the two paragraphs logically, it isn’t really saying berla is selling the data. It’s saying some of the car manufacturers are selling the data. So I’m at a loss.

  • andruid@lemmy.ml
    1·
    1 year ago

    There is a difference between the of power the state and larger corporations can exert to get “consent” to waive our rights, hence the need for unwaivable (or near unwaivable) rights.

    This idea of treating corporations the same as people is why when you accept EULAs it’s treated the same as if you agreed to agreeing to let a person you know to have the same info.